House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
My thoughts today are with all those whose lives have been changed forever and the families who have lost loved ones through the contaminated blood scandal. I have very close friends who lost brothers and cousins nearly 40 years ago. Nothing can undo the suffering they have endured, and this Government are totally committed to recognising that profound hurt and injustice. Eligible claimants will receive the compensation they are due. We will continue working across Government to ensure that justice is delivered and compensation reaches the victims as quickly as possible.
Clive Efford
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I am sure the whole House echoes his sentiments. There is concern among claimants, particularly those claiming for the estates of those who have passed on, because under Government regulations, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is required to claw back overpayments. These are people who have been traumatised over many years, and those errors—Government errors, not errors on the part on the claimants—are causing distress and forcing people to relive their experiences. Can we ensure that Government and Treasury rules and regulations do not require IBCA to reclaim overpayments in this way?
John Healey
My hon. Friend has been a campaigner in this House for almost the whole time he and I have been here—we were elected together in 1997—and he raises an important point. If overpayments happen, it is the responsibility of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to deal with them, and the IBCA appears to be reviewing a small number of cases. The Treasury has agreed that the authority can continue paying compensation under the scheme while it conducts those reviews. I have asked the authority to keep us updated on those reviews, and I will certainly do the same for my hon. Friend.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the question that the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) has asked, some people and their families face delays in getting their money. For some families in Northern Ireland, the years catch up with them, their health catches up with them and they pass away, so I want to ensure that in the lifetime they have in this world—the short time that some of them have left—the moneys they are due actually get there. What has been done to ensure that those who are still waiting for compensation get it as a matter of urgency?
John Healey
The IBCA is following the inquiry’s recommendations about priority payments. It is prioritising claims from individuals who are sadly nearing the end of their lives, followed by those in older age groups. In the past two years, over £2.3 billion in compensation has been paid out to people who are either infected or affected, and I say to the hon. Gentleman—who has also been a long-term campaigner on this issue—that the Treasury is playing its part. We are making sure that those payments can be made through the annually managed expenditure, so there is no constraint on the payments that can be made under Treasury rules.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the family protection plan issue, which I know affects hundreds of his constituents and many other people. As he knows, we have engaged with the FCA on the impact of its withdrawal. I want to see this matter resolved in a satisfactory way, and I look forward to engaging with him further to that end.
Frank McNally
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her response and her work on this matter. The most vulnerable families paid FPP funeral cover for 25 years because it was all they could afford, and data shows that since its withdrawal, only 3% of policyholders have been able to secure alternative cover and at least 61 people have died without funeral protection. Despite numerous industry forum meetings to explore redress, no solutions have been agreed, even for the oldest and most vulnerable. Will my right hon. and learned Friend meet me, MPs with affected constituents and the independent coalition of credit unions as a matter of urgency, so that we can try to identify any possible next steps?
Lucy Rigby
I will. As I said, I want to see this matter resolved in a satisfactory way, not least due to the ongoing harm that my hon. Friend describes.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
My Budget last week took action to help people worried about the pressure of winter bills. A £100 household energy payment will be made directly to people’s bank accounts in 20 million households. We have the VAT cut from electricity bills, the 5p cut to fuel duty extended through the winter to July and standing charges removed entirely from gas bills next year. This action gives people a bit of breathing space with the cost of living pressures, and I am asking banks to pay a bit more to fund this help for households this winter.
Claire Young
The Treasury is cutting £1 billion from the warm homes fund, including a smaller than planned pot for the boiler upgrade scheme. Combined with tax rises on heat pumps, these cuts risk creating a boom-and-bust cycle for installers and leaving more households exposed to the volatility of the oil and gas market. Can the Chancellor explain how cutting support for clean heating is consistent with the Government’s own mission for a clean energy transition?
John Healey
Our priority is to give people who are facing a winter of worry with rising energy bills just a bit of relief. That is why the priority is the £100 paid directly into people’s bank accounts, which will go to 20 million households. That is four in five households in England, and it will reach nine out of 10 of the poorest third of families. It is timely, it is targeted and it is fair. It is a choice that this Government have made in the Labour Budget that I delivered last week.
Mr Forster
Yesterday, Trussell and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation wrote to the Prime Minister criticising the Government for freezing local housing allowance, saying that it will not help people with the cost of living and will critically undermine plans to end rough sleeping. Does the Chancellor agree with those national charities and Citizens Advice in my Woking constituency that rent support must be tied to actual rent levels?
John Healey
Rent allowance and how we best support the increase in the building of council and social housing were also part of my Budget announcements. They were not just about having a bit of breathing space and relief from the pressures that people immediately face, but action to start the long-term fix to our housing, including help for first-time buyers who do not have the backing of mum and dad and help to get council and social housing built in this country.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The measures in the Budget to help with the cost of living through cuts in energy bills were welcome. The Chancellor also said that he would adopt one of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s recommendations not to add further policy costs to bills, but can I encourage him to look at one of our other recommendations, which is to move policy costs from electricity to gas? That would help people take up electric heat and batteries, which will enable them to take advantage of the tariffs that are available now.
John Healey
The action I took in the Budget last week was on top of help that the Government have given this year to help across the board with energy costs. It included some of the measures that my hon. Friend’s Committee has urged us to look at. Going into this Budget, I was conscious of the pressures and the worry that people have about rising energy bills, which are driven by the Iran war. My priority was therefore the steps we have taken: extending the 5p cut to fuel duty, extending the VAT cut on electricity bills, and removing the standing charge from gas bills for next year. Above all, we will see the direct payment of £100 into the bank accounts of 20 million households in January, which will help at that point of maximum pressure as people face those winter bills.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
The Treasury Committee has done an enormous amount of work not only on the household bills situation, but also on the impact on graduates who still have significant debts. Can the Chancellor promise that when things do improve, he will look again at this burning issue for so many of our constituents?
John Healey
I will indeed. We will keep an eye on that, and no doubt we will return to it. However, I say to my hon. Friend, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), that the Budget provides for immediate action to help with the cost of living pressures and give people a bit of breathing space over the winter, but also for action to make deep reforms to our energy system that will bring prices down for business and for households in the long term. That means an end to the standing charges on gas bills, an end to Government policy costs simply loaded on to consumer bills through levies, and an end to buying and building new generation that does not bring cheaper as well as cleaner energy and cannot be connected to the grid. This is a Budget with immediate action to deal with the cost of living pressures, and action for the long-term changes that are necessary to bring British energy bills down in line with those in Europe.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
At the weekend the Chancellor said that the Budget would provide breathing space for families and working people, so will he tell the House today whether he agrees with his Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who thinks that employers are not working people?
John Healey
Of course they are. That is why, in the Budget, I protected income that is earned. I protected income that is earned through dividends which are reinvested in business. I promised a “breathing space” Budget, and that is what I have delivered: help with the cost of living pressures and help with the cost of business pressures, with 70,000 high street businesses taken out of business rates altogether to lift our local areas, including the right hon. Lady’s constituency. Just as I am asking banks to assist with the cost of this help for households through the winter, I am asking gambling operators, big online sellers and vape shops to pay a bit more to help our high streets, and I hope the right hon. Lady will back that.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
With too many Derby residents dreading their bills as the nights draw in, I welcome the news that 93% of the households in our city will be given £100 of breathing space in their energy bills this winter, but whether it is the weekly shop or filling the car, budgets are being stretched from every direction. What other steps can the Chancellor take to give families who are struggling to make ends meet the extra breathing space that they need?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the 93% of families in Derby who will have this £100 payment paid directly into their accounts at the beginning of the winter. Let me also point out to him that the VAT cut on electricity bills from the first week of this Government is extended through the winter and the spring to July, just as the 5p cut in fuel duty is extended through the winter, through the spring and to July. We are also taking standing charges off gas bills next year to help relieve the pressure that people face and the worry over energy bills.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Office for Budget Responsibility said last week that higher taxes were weighing on living standards, with the tax burden heading for a record high. The Budget was a missed opportunity for the Chancellor to cut the cost of living by cutting taxes, but instead his answer was to cut the price of gherkins. The Chancellor promised “breathing space” nine times in his speech; does he really think that 6p a day in savings amounts to breathing space for hard-working families?
John Healey
There will be a council tax cut in the new year. A VAT cut in electricity bills will be extended. A 5p cut in fuel duty will be extended through next winter and into July.
This is also a Budget that has rejected broad-based tax rises. This is a Government and a Budget making sure that we close the loopholes and target the measures we are taking at those who can pay, and pay what they owe. All those policies in the Budget are fully funded, because underpinning all is the fiscal discipline that is needed to rebuild confidence in this country, and confidence in our ability to manage our finances that were so badly damaged by the Truss mini-Budget in 2022.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Government’s use of the outdated council tax system to roll out their energy support package has led to an absurd situation whereby between 800,000 and 1.4 million people on low incomes will miss out on the £100, while a wealthy couple who have retired early and have downsized are set to benefit. There is absolutely no excuse for this. The Government could have followed our plan to use existing DWP and HMRC data to roll out a targeted essential energy guarantee, getting the most help to those who need it most, so why on earth did they not do so?
John Healey
The hon. Lady disappoints me. Nine out of 10 of the poorest households will benefit from the £100 direct payment. Four out of five households in total—20 million—will benefit from this. She will have seen in the Budget that, for those who do struggle, I have also put an extra £100 million into the special fund that local authorities have to administer. They can make payments in hardship cases for those under extreme pressure, and I encourage her to point people to that.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
My hon. Friends are entirely right to focus on the need for more apprenticeship opportunities for young people. Reversing the 40% decline in youth apprenticeships since 2016 is a top priority. That is why the Government are investing £3.3 billion in apprenticeships, and why the Chancellor has announced the expansion of local apprenticeship services to all mayors.
Will Stone
In Swindon, Honda trained up about 170 apprentices over the years, giving young people real access to good, high-skilled, well-paid jobs. When Honda left, so did those opportunities. Will the Minister outline what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the DWP to ensure that Swindon gets better access to apprenticeships for young people in the future?
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; it is absolutely the right question. We all know that there are so many young people in our communities who would benefit from the clear transition from education into the world of work that an apprenticeship provides. We are supporting employers to provide that bridge, with a new £2,000 grant for small and medium-sized enterprises recruiting apprentices aged 16 to 24. That is in addition to the fully funded training costs for eligible young apprentices at all businesses.
Kirith Entwistle
Every year on A-level results day, I hold a youth drop-in event at Market Place in Bolton town centre to connect young people with the skills, opportunities and training that I benefited from myself. Every year, young people tell me that they would benefit from more apprenticeships. What further action is the Chancellor taking to work with employers, colleges and training providers to expand apprenticeship places and ensure that young people in constituencies like mine can access the skills and training needed for successful careers?
Torsten Bell
Let me congratulate my hon. Friend on her important work, and on what sounds like a feature of the calendar in her constituency. All parts of society have a role to play in tackling the challenges we face when it comes to young people’s participation in the world of work. When it comes to apprenticeships, we have already reformed the levy to make sure that there is £1 billion extra over this spending review period, which will provide 50,000 more young apprenticeships. I note that over half of the apprenticeship starts in her constituency involve young people, but we need to make sure there are many more in the years ahead.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Construction is a key sector for apprenticeships, yet the 1.5 million target for homes has been dropped. In London, the city we are in, the Government are meeting just 5% of their target. [Interruption.] It is 5%. There are no apprenticeships coming through, and we see Landsec, Taylor Wimpey and other companies in London pulling back even further. When will the Government recognise that stamp duty is standing in the way of getting those apprenticeships going, getting those houses built and getting this economy growing once again?
Torsten Bell
Let me start on a point of agreement: I think that all of us in the House value the role of the construction sector and want to see more houses built. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have introduced new foundation apprenticeships in the construction sector to get more young people into that route. In London, we do need to see more building. That is why we have announced a new package of reforms with the Mayor of London to make sure that we get the building rates up, but Conservative Members cannot stand in this House and say that they support house building, and then oppose every planning permission that comes forward for building in their constituencies. That is not what this Government will do. Those houses will be built.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
For a young person in a South Cotswolds village, the barrier to an apprenticeship is often just getting there. Buses are rare or non-existent, and the cost of running a car is out of reach on an apprentice’s pay. Will the Chancellor work with the Transport Secretary to cap bus fares at £1 and to fund more rural bus routes?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we want to see apprenticeships for young people in every part of the country, including in rural constituencies. That is why the Government have put in place the £2 bus fare in England, but we are obviously conscious that not everybody will be able to get a bus to their place of work, which is why the Chancellor has extended the freeze to fuel duty right the way through to next summer.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Last year, we provided the Scottish Government with a record spending review settlement, and last week at the Budget, we gave the Scottish Government a further £600 million through Barnett consequentials. We also announced £18 million for a UK advanced chip design academy led by Edinburgh University, £6 million to support the expansion of Glasgow’s Scottish event campus and £10 million of co-funding, with the Scottish Government, for two defence technical excellence colleges.
Patricia Ferguson
I thank the Minister for that answer. I very much welcome the extra investment coming to my home city of Glasgow, and I am sure Glasgow will make good use of it. Overall, I welcome the record funding that this Labour Government have delivered for Scotland. Does the Minister agree that the SNP Government should now drop the gimmicks, end the excuses and prioritise making Scotland’s public services fit for the future?
Emma Reynolds
I agree with my hon. Friend. As she says, at the Budget we gave the Scottish Government an additional £600 million through Barnett consequentials on top of a record spending review settlement. Now we need the SNP Government to act to improve public services in Scotland with that money.
Chris Kane
Small and medium-sized family businesses in the retail sector create jobs on our high streets and keep money circulating locally. In my constituency, these businesses include Pembertons sewing machines, the Radio Music Store in Bannockburn, Michael More the butcher in Cambusbarron and countless others. I welcome the Chancellor’s Budget support for high streets in England, including the two-year, real-terms business rates freeze. Does the Minister agree that Scottish businesses deserve the same, that the SNP should match this freeze in its Scottish Budget and that failure to do so would mean thousands of Scottish businesses missing out on much-needed relief?
Emma Reynolds
As my hon. Friend says, the Chancellor last week froze business rates in real terms for high street businesses, and has taken 70,000 small businesses on the high street in England out of paying business rates altogether. We have given the devolved Government in Scotland the Barnett consequentials for that, and I urge them to follow our lead.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Economic growth in the north-east of Scotland and our green transition rely on the carbon capture and storage project at Peterhead. Would the Minister make clear what assessment the UK Government have made of whether it will still go ahead, given their massive cuts to the project?
Emma Reynolds
I reassure the hon. Lady that we continue to support the Acorn project. The initial grant funding that this Government are providing until the end of 2026 remains in place, and we are exploring delivery through private investment and Government loans or equity investments in the future.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Can the Minister clarify the extent to which the data centre covenant announced in the Budget will apply in Scotland? She will be aware that there are some very significant applications in Scotland, not least in my own constituency, and that clarity is very important.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and suggest I write to him to set that out in more detail.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The Government are bringing down borrowing, helping to bear down on inflation to support households and businesses. Last year, borrowing fell by 0.7% of GDP to its lowest level in six years, and borrowing is forecast to fall across the forecast period to 1.8% of GDP by 2031-32.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Does the Minister understand just how devastating the effects of his Government’s spending, taxing and borrowing policies are for my constituents in Romford? Does he recall that the last time we had a Prime Minister who understood that we need low taxes, a smaller state and lower borrowing was in 1990? Then the national debt was 21% of GDP; now it is heading for 100%. Will he please reduce the size of the state, cut taxes for hard-working people and start to live within our means?
Torsten Bell
This Government are bringing down borrowing. That is why the IMF has said that the UK saw the biggest reduction in the G20’s deficit levels this year. It has said that the UK stands out for having a borrowing reduction plan, with borrowing falling every year across this forecast.
The hon. Member was of course a member of a Government who saw debt levels go through the roof over the past 14 years. This is a Government getting on with reducing our borrowing so that we can bring debt down in the longer term. The only numbers that Reform Members talk about is how many millions of pounds their boss can take from crypto-billionaires around the world. We will deal with the public finances. Stop taking money from the crypto-billionaires!
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Borrowing is high and I welcome some of the measures in the Budget, but we need to look at how every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent. Will the Minister reassure me that he and in particular his colleague, the Chief Secretary of to the Treasury, will be holding every spending Department tightly to account in the spending review, not just for future spending but for managing existing projects, so that every tax pound is spent as wisely as possible?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is, as always, right. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has heard every word she has said. There will be a spending review next year. It is important that we debate not just the levels of that spending, but how we ensure every single pound is spent well, whether on defence, health, education or anything else.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
That was a shockingly complacent response by the Government Minister. The latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast shows that this Labour Government will borrow nearly a quarter of a trillion pounds more in just two years, this year and next year, costing every household an extra £476 a year in additional debt interest. Does the Chancellor accept not only that was this Budget a lost opportunity to bring borrowing under control, but that Labour’s addiction to borrowing is bleeding the British people dry?
Torsten Bell
Our record is reducing borrowing. The hon. Member’s record is being a Minister under Liz Truss. What is the Leader of the Opposition’s big idea now? It is appointing the Liz Truss fanboy and coming back to the Liz Truss playbook, promising over £30 billion of unfunded tax cuts. The Conservative party is offering lettuce-wilting levels of fiscal incontinence.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
At the Budget, the Government announced that they intend to expand to refinery products the CBAM—the carbon border adjustment mechanism—subject to the consultation launched on Budget day.
Henry Tufnell
I welcome the Government’s announcement in last week’s Budget of the intention to expand the scope of the CBAM to include refinery products. That is critical to preventing carbon leakage by ensuring that British refineries are on a level playing field when compared with imported refined products. It will protect thousands of jobs in Pembrokeshire and strengthen our energy national security. Will the Minister set out a clear timetable for implementation? What assurances will he provide on protecting the competitiveness of the export sector for refineries in this country?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend has been a strong representative of the workers at the Pembroke refinery. He has been campaigning on this issue for a long time and I thank him for his continued engagement. His constituents should know that he definitely has their back. The Government have launched a consultation and are seeking views from a range of stakeholders on the practical, technical and economic considerations of any potential expansion. This is, as my hon. Friend will know, a complex area and it is important that we take the time to get the detail right.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Critical to the competitiveness of the refinery sector is the taxation of the companies. I know we have just had the Budget, but will the Treasury keep in mind for forthcoming fiscal events that essential element to competitiveness in the sector?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for his question. The Government have been considering a replacement for the energy profits levy. From 2030, or sooner if prices fall below the relevant thresholds, the new and improved design of the tax for the long term, the oil and gas revenue levy, will be coming into force.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Oil is the lifeblood of the refinery sector, but the Government missed an opportunity to back this foundational industry both upstream and downstream. The Rosebank oilfield is already priced into the OBR’s assumptions. If that does not get the go-ahead, it will be back to the drawing board, Chancellor—won’t it? Is the fiscal headroom not already thin and will it not disappear even more if Rosebank does not get the go-ahead? The reality is that this Budget is built on sand.
Dan Tomlinson
It was the Opposition who fluffed it when it came to approving Rosebank and Jackdaw. They could not make sure that they signed the right paperwork at the right time. We had to clean up their mess in that and a whole range of other areas.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
At the Budget, we announced a two-year real-terms freeze to business rates bills for all retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England; cut bills by an extra 20% for pubs and all but the largest live music venues; and removed 70,000 smaller properties from business rates altogether. Taken together, these measures show how the Government are backing our high streets: all retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England are seeing their business rates frozen in real terms, reduced, or cut to zero.
Jas Athwal
My constituents and I welcome the Budget measures to support small businesses in Ilford South, including the business rates freeze for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which will benefit more than a thousand businesses across my constituency. Will the Chancellor outline what further fiscal steps the Government are taking to support high street businesses, such as those in my constituency, to encourage investment and ensure that our town centres remain vibrant, thriving places for generations to come?
James Murray
I am very glad to hear that more than a thousand retail, hospitality and leisure properties in Redbridge may benefit from a real-terms freeze in their business rates bills, giving them real breathing space over the next two years. We are also helping high street businesses through our new high streets strategy, which was published at the Budget, providing £210 million to transform derelict buildings into the new anchors of our high streets across the country.
Dan Aldridge
The changes to business rates announced in last week’s Budget will provide some much-needed breathing space for many businesses in Weston-super-Mare, Worle and the villages. However, thriving high streets and coastal communities such as mine depend on businesses being able to take on new staff, particularly local young people. At a roundtable I held with small businesses last week, the cost and difficulty of employing young people were raised repeatedly as a major concern. What more can the Treasury do to ease those financial pressures, and will the Minister provide more information about the new high streets strategy and how the Treasury will ensure that vision is matched with funding?
James Murray
The Government want to support businesses in Weston-super-Mare and across the country to take on young people in particular, which is why our youth jobs grant offers businesses £3,000 for every young person they hire aged 18 to 24 who has been on universal credit and looking for work for six months. Businesses also benefit from targeted employer national insurance contribution reliefs for young people, meaning that employers pay no employer NICs on earnings up to just over £50,000 for employees up to the age of 21 and for apprentices under 25—a saving of nearly £7,000 per eligible employee per year.
Matt Turmaine
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I welcome last week’s Budget and its efforts to create breathing space for people and businesses—[Interruption.] It does indeed. Watford has a popular high street. I have met local business owners post Budget, and they are keen to see the Government cut red tape and stimulate growth. Will my right hon. Friend outline some of the specific measures the Government are taking to help our high streets?
James Murray
As my hon. Friend points out, the Government are working to reduce red tape for businesses in Watford and right across the country by making progress towards our target of cutting the annual admin burden of regulation for businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament. As I have mentioned, we published our high streets strategy at the Budget, which is backed by £210 million of new funding that will bring vacant and derelict properties back into use, support the growth of co-ops and mutuals and help more communities to take ownership of valued local assets.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I recently received an email from a publican in my constituency, who said:
“I cannot find people willing to work minimum wage because they earn more on benefits, I cannot give my experienced staff a pay rise because minimum wage increases eat into my budget, and often people will turn up for interviews only to demonstrate that they are ‘looking for work’ at the Jobcentre before bunking off on their first day.”
Can the Minister explain why he has used the Budget to compound the problems of an unaffordable minimum wage and an out-of-control welfare system?
James Murray
It is important that people get paid for the work that they do in a fair way. It is also important that we support our pubs, which are much loved in communities across the country. That is why one of the first announcements that the Prime Minister made when he came into office in July was an extra 20% cut in business rates bills for pubs and live music venues. That was confirmed at the Budget and will be implemented from next year. It will help pubs across our country to thrive, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
While the Budget provides some welcome support for high streets, so many businesses in Tiverton and Minehead tell me that excessive costs, regulation and red tape remain a drag on growth. Does the Minister agree that lasting economic growth will require not just short-term support but fundamental reform of business rates and tax administration so that businesses can invest, expand and create jobs with confidence?
James Murray
I agree with some of the principles behind the hon. Lady’s comments. In addition to the breathing space that the Budget delivered, we are beginning work to help businesses and the economy to grow in the long run. She mentioned the importance of us cutting red tape and bureaucracy. Indeed, as I mentioned just a moment ago, we are cutting the regulatory admin burden on businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament, which is critical to taking some of the pressures off businesses to allow them to invest, grow and succeed in their local communities.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
At my business club in my constituency last week—before the Budget—businesses on the high street, including ones that will be well known to the Minister, told me about their concerns. They have not been assuaged by this Budget. What will the Government do to reduce the tax burdens on the hospitality and tourism industry, and when will that happen?
James Murray
April 2027, as we announced at the Budget. As I set out in my earlier responses, to help businesses on high streets across the country we are making sure that all retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England get a real-terms two-year freeze in their business rates bills or see them reduced or cut to zero.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I have been sitting here listening to the Minister give some sort of victory lap on business rates. It is like the Government have broken the high street’s leg, given it a crutch and are now asking for a thank you. The British Retail Consortium called the Chancellor’s business rates package a “smoke and mirrors announcement”. I call it a missed opportunity to fix their cut in business rates relief from 75% to 40%. Why does he not just back the Conservatives’ plan to abolish business rates for 250,000 businesses on high streets across our country?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman talks about missed opportunities. When the Conservatives were in government they missed the opportunity for 14 years to support high streets properly. This Government are giving real support to businesses on high streets across the country from April next year, starting with the 20% saving for pubs that the Prime Minister announced in July. Added to that, we are taking 70,000 small RHL businesses out of paying business rates altogether and giving a real-terms two-year freeze to all other RHL businesses in England. That is real help for businesses, helping them to succeed.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
The last Labour Government introduced child trust funds with the intention that every child in the country could access a financial asset as they entered adulthood. Almost 3 million young people have already accessed their funds, currently containing an average of £2,600 each. Today, we are announcing that we are making fund access simpler for those who lack mental capacity, meaning that tens of thousands more young people will benefit from their funds. I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) in particular; I know they both care deeply about this issue.
Bambos Charalambous
I congratulate the Minister on her announcement, which will enable over 120,000 young people who lack capacity to access their child trust funds. That will make a huge difference to them. As she is aware, there are an estimated 800,000 unclaimed child trust funds, worth approximately £1.3 billion. What steps is she taking to enable those young people, who often are unaware of the existence of those funds, to access them? Will she work with the Share Foundation to find a long-term solution?
Lucy Rigby
I will. I thank my hon. Friend again for the work he has done in this area. We are working with the Share Foundation as well as other industry partners. We have also set up a child trust fund taskforce to improve tracing and to customise communication and engagement, all with the aim of putting more young people in touch with their child trust funds.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
This is fantastic news—so many people have campaigned for it over so many years. I thank my colleague Baroness Kramer in the Lords, who helped by tabling an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill that has brought us to this point. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to my constituent Andrew Turner, who was one of the first parents to discover this issue when his child Mikey reached the age of 18 six years ago and has campaigned tirelessly on it? He has done a fantastic job. Would she like to congratulate him?
Lucy Rigby
I would, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I congratulate Mr Turner and indeed the hon. Member on all their work.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
This change on children’s trust funds is a huge win for the campaigners who have fought for six years to see it. I know that it means a huge deal to my constituents Paula and Andy Gilbert and their son James. What is the timescale for when these families will be able to access their money?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work she has done in this area, including with Mr Turner. I will table an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Second Reading of which is next week, which will enable the Ministry of Justice to make regulations to put the change into action.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
As a YMCA parliamentary patron, I visited the YMCA’s home in Glastonbury, which works alongside Street Foyer to support young people, including care leavers. Many care leavers had child trust funds opened by the state but have no parent or guardian to tell them that the money exists. They need it the most. What is the Minister doing to ensure that every care leaver receives the savings that are rightfully theirs?
Lucy Rigby
We are looking at that issue via the child trust fund taskforce. I am more than happy to communicate further with the hon. Member on it.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Our 10-year advanced manufacturing sector plan backs jobs, investment and growth, and we have committed up to £4.3 billion to the advanced manufacturing sector to 2030.
Amanda Martin
Although Portsmouth is on the south coast, its legacy of deindustrialisation and privatisation brings us challenges familiar to many cities and towns across the north. Reindustrialisation must be national and not confined to the north.
The loss of shipbuilding under the Tories devastated Pompey, but we are resilient and proud, and—despite huge losses—have retained a world-class defence cluster in advanced manufacturing and hugely skilled jobs in companies such as Accuracy International, Harwin, Griffon Marine and Airbus. To enable real reindustrialisation across the whole country, will the Minister commit to a national reindustrialisation strategy that protects advanced manufacturing, backs innovation and drives growth?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of reindustrialisation. Too many places were harmed by the deindustrialisation that accelerated in the 1980s. The need for more good jobs in more parts of England matters in the south, as well as in the north; it matters in our towns, as well as in our urban centres; and, of course, it matters in Portsmouth too. My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for her community, and I look forward to working with her to build on Portsmouth’s proud industrial and maritime strengths.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ethics and sustainability in fashion, I ask why our military and NHS uniforms are made overseas in countries like China, when factories in my constituency are ready, and can stimulate the local economy and provide jobs. Will the Minister use public procurement to bring advanced textile manufacturing back to Britain and will he meet me to discuss how?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member raises an important issue. It also touches on the broader topic that this Government are focusing on relentlessly: through reforms to procurement, backing British business and ensuring that more of the goods and services that the British Government buy are built and made here in the UK.
Topical Questions
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
Three weeks ago, I attended the International Monetary Fund annual meeting. The IMF said that Britain now “stands out” among G7 nations for our fiscal credibility. Last week, my Budget continued that progress. It was a Budget built on fiscal discipline—I meet our fiscal rules and bring borrowing down in every year of the forecast period—and it means that the UK is set to reduce the deficit by more than any other G7 country by 2029. This Budget was a clear political choice: to give Britain breathing space today and fresh hope for the future. As our new Treasury analysis shows, our overall winter support will benefit those with the lowest incomes most. This is how Britain will help British families in the midst of the Iran war—a war that the Conservative party wanted to jump straight into. This support is funded by a fair and time-limited tax on banks, which the Conservatives oppose. This is our choice. This is our Budget. This is a Budget for working people.
Graeme Downie
The Chancellor is very well aware of the threat to our economy of Russian cyber and physical attacks, but the UK public are not. My recent report, “The Putin Tax”, found that it was already costing the economy in excess of £2.5 billion a year and each taxpayer more than £100 a year. With families facing rising bills, I am sure that people would much rather spend that money themselves than give it to a dictator like Vladimir Putin. Will the Chancellor help to fulfil the Prime Minister’s recent commitment to me by gathering and publishing the data on the cost of Russian attacks so the public know how much Putin is costing their family?
John Healey
I thank my hon. Friend for his important work. We know that Putin’s aggression is imposing real costs both on Ukraine and here at home. That is why we provided an extra £10 billion of new economic and military support for Ukraine in the Budget, alongside new investment to bolster Britain’s cyber-defences. We will continue to stand up to Russian aggression and to strengthen Britain’s security in order to ensure that Putin does not succeed in undermining us here, in this country.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Last week, the Chancellor had his chance to get debt under control. Instead, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that it will rise—every single year. It is another missed opportunity. The national debt is now the equivalent of £100,000 for every household. It is why we recently had the highest borrowing costs for 30 years. As a result of the Chancellor’s policies, the Bank of England is expected to raise interest rates this week. Will he now admit that it is his failure to get a grip on borrowing that will be causing rates to rise?
John Healey
The Budget confirms that borrowing will fall every year during the next period. Debt will start falling from 2028-29. The hon. Gentleman is right that we inherited a debt mountain. We inherited that as part of the consequence of the disastrous mini-Budget that he was part of in the Treasury team. It crashed the economy and it collapsed confidence in Britain’s fiscal strength. We are fixing his failures. The chief investment strategist for L&G said this week that our Budget makes the UK
“the adult in the room when it comes to fiscal discipline.”
The Conservatives have learned nothing. Their latest policies represent over £30 billion in unfunded tax cuts, with the wealthiest benefiting most. With Labour, we have got support for families; under the Tories, it is a return to the—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are rerunning the Budget—other people need to get in. Come on, folks, let’s help each other.
Andrew Griffith
It is very clear that the Chancellor does not know how to get a grip on borrowing, so let me tell him. The Conservatives have laid out plans to cut over £70 billion of spending, and he is very welcome to copy them. The Prime Minister is thousands of miles away talking about wasting taxpayers’ money on reparations and debt forgiveness. This Government are happy to apologise for things that happened centuries ago but take no accountability of their actions today. Does the Chancellor agree that not a penny of taxpayers’ money should be used on reparations?
John Healey
The Prime Minister has said that he is open to discussions about an apology for Britain’s role in the slave trade. He has also said that reparations are not the right approach. Considering a formal apology does not mean accepting that British people today should be held liable for the past, which they played no part in. The hon. Gentleman asks this question to distract from the Budget, but the questions that people are asking are these. Why does he not back the Budget action we have taken to give Britain a bit of breathing space? Why does he not back the action we are taking to fund that help this winter?
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Can I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on her election as Chair of the Justice Committee? As she rightly says, we inherited a prison system at breaking point after 14 years of Tory mismanagement. At the spending review, we significantly increased the funding for the Ministry of Justice, with an additional £550 million for probation, £450 million for courts and £7 billion for prison places. We have already delivered 3,000 new places through the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era. I will continue to work with the Justice Secretary on the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Prime Minister and his Cabinet rightly point to Brexit as a major reason for the UK’s doom loop of low economic growth, and in two and a half weeks’ time, the Government will have an opportunity to do something about it. Rather than just discussing a timid UK-EU youth mobility scheme that should have been agreed months ago, will they start negotiations for a new growth and defence partnership as the only surefire way to put money back in people’s pockets and make the UK stronger, safer and more prosperous?
John Healey
We have “been there, done that” on defence. At the EU summit later this month, we are faced with the chance to add billions to our economy and help with prices, with a new deal on food, drinks and farming. It is a chance to reinforce the collaboration on illegal immigration that will help to tackle the small boat smuggling gangs, and it is a recognition that the Brexit deal done by the Conservatives has just not been good for Britain. The Conservative party is opposing all the steps we are taking to improve Britain’s business trading, while we look for practical benefits to make it better.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I totally agree with my hon. Friend that GDP per capita is what matters. It has grown by 2% so far since the election. It was revised up at the Budget after falling in the last Parliament. My hon. Friend is also right to raise the need for Government to look closely at the design of our tax and benefit system. We announced at the Budget the removal of the carer’s allowance cliff-edge, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will keep further simplification and reform options under review.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
As the hon. Member knows, we have a commitment already to 350 banking hubs. We are working with industry to deliver those 350 hubs over the course of this Parliament. We also have the access to banking review being done by Richard Lloyd. The end result will be more banking hubs across the country.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
John Healey
I know my hon. Friend welcomes the step I took at the Budget that guarantees that every penny of the pension fund surplus will now go in full to miners. I know the job is not done; I will go on to ensure the full transfer of the guarantors fund. I want a way to resolve this in weeks, not months. That work is under way. It will be done jointly by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Treasury. I will ensure that my hon. Friend and other Members across this House from mining communities like mine are fully updated on that work.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Dan Tomlinson
As I said at the Dispatch Box just a few minutes ago, it was the previous Government that totally fluffed up this decision, and these revenues were in the forecast since 2019. If the Conservatives are looking for a political party that is not able to take the right decisions to protect the future of our oil and gas industry, they should look in the mirror—it is them.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
I am glad that our business rates changes will benefit businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as part of our measures to take 70,000 small retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England out of paying business rates altogether, as well as a 20% cut for pubs and the real-terms freeze for all RHL businesses across the country.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
This morning at the Treasury Committee, I was taken aback by how ferocious Helen Miller from the Institute for Fiscal Studies was in decrying the Government’s founders’ relief. She suggested that it could lead to cliff-edges and contrived business redefinitions. Could one of the Ministers explain how founders’ relief will encourage investment and innovation, because there is enormous scepticism out there among the community of entrepreneurs that it will have a positive effect?
James Murray
I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman because entrepreneurs who I have spoken to welcome the founders’ relief that we introduced at the Budget last year to back some of the founders—some of those behind our fastest-growing businesses, creating wealth, jobs and opportunity in our country.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
My hon. Friend is right: nobody in our country should be relying on emergency food parcels. The Trussell Trust figures have shown falls over the last two years—for the first time since it has produced the data—but there is much more to do. I am happy to meet him.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), and the Chancellor have both inadvertently misled the House by saying that Government borrowing is coming down. It is not: in the Budget, borrowing for this year will be almost £20 billion higher than at the March OBR forecast; and for the lifetime of the Budget book, it will be £65 billion higher.
Torsten Bell
I know that the hon. Member is excitable at best, but borrowing figures in the OBR’s forecasts are falling every single year as a share of GDP, and they will fall because of the decisions made by this Labour Government, who are getting borrowing down and rescuing our public services.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
James Murray
We want to support our brilliant local businesses to succeed, and I hope that the Rockwood, Craftyard, Darlington’s and Kuzzu will benefit from some of our Budget measures, since all retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England will see their business rates frozen in real terms for two years, reduced or cut to zero.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
New financial modelling on the Government’s proposals for an asylum camp at MOD Bicester site A, which affects many of my villages, shows that the per night, per person cost is two-and-a-half times that of the equivalent hotels. If it is cost control the Chancellor is after, surely he will tell the Home Secretary not to proceed with that plan.
Emma Reynolds
We were left a terrible legacy by the Conservative party, and we have cut £1 billion from asylum costs during the time we have been in power.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
One way to achieve growth in postcode PA1 is to revitalise our high street, and the best way to do that is to back the redevelopment of the Paisley centre, which lies at the heart of it. This is a shovel-ready project that received planning permission nearly four years ago and has the potential to bring 330 jobs to our community. The previous Chancellor promised me she would help. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to see how we can get this project moving?
James Murray
I or a colleague of mine would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that much-needed investment in her constituency. More widely, we would urge the Scottish Government to replicate in Scotland the business rates changes that we have announced for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Last week’s Budget papers assume that significant tax revenues will be generated by new drilling at the Rosebank oil field. Although I understand it is common practice to rely on these sorts of projections, are the Government not worried that this signals that they have already made a decision on Rosebank and are prioritising short-term gains over protecting us all from the medium and long-term catastrophic economic damage associated with climate breakdown and burning new oil and gas?
Dan Tomlinson
I have already answered similar questions on this topic. This revenue has been in the forecast since 2019, and the decision is a quasi-judicial one for the Environment Secretary.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I welcome the Budget’s council tax rebate, which will provide much-needed relief to over 50,000 households in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, but hardship remains. The Trussell Trust reports that local food banks distributed over 10,000 emergency food parcels last year—up almost 50% on pre-pandemic levels. Does the Minister agree that more ambitious action is needed, and will he ensure that the Government’s response to the Milburn and Timms reviews does not further restrict social security support, leaving people unable to afford the essentials, and instead advances Labour’s commitment to end the need for emergency food?
Torsten Bell
I absolutely agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes about reliance on emergency food parcels. In his constituency, over 90% of properties fall into council tax bands A to D, which means that residents will receive £100 directly in their bank accounts come January, in the coldest part of the year, but he is right to say that we must go further. That is why we will see 29 million households benefiting from the extended cut to VAT on electricity and 35 million motorists benefiting through extending the freeze in fuel duty. On the social security question he raises, that is also why we have ensured we are changing the support that goes to families with children, so that this Parliament sees the biggest fall in child poverty of any Parliament on record.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Government have said that they wish to join the EU’s internal energy market, which will involve a payment to the EU for the privilege. When will the Government say how much that policy will cost British taxpayers?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman will know that an EU summit is coming up on 20 November, and we are still negotiating with the EU. We are putting right the botched Brexit that we inherited from the Conservative party, which put frictions at our border and increased costs for farmers, family businesses and others.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
While the Government look to boost economic growth in Cumbria, businesses in the county are frustrated at losing staff to Sellafield and the wider nuclear sector, not just engineers and project managers, but business administrators, trades people, nurses and teachers. Will the Secretary of State consider a review of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s social impact duties under the Energy Act 2004, and its impact on the growth and diversity of the wider Cumbria economy?
Dan Tomlinson
Nuclear and Sellafield are an important part of Cumbria’s economy, and the NDA’s social impact work is vital. I agree that all parties must continue to work together to grow and diversify Cumbria’s economy, and the Government have provided good growth funding to the new Cumbria strategic authority to do just that.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Around 5,000 people in my constituency work in the hospitality sector, which is a vital part of the Welsh economy. While hospitality businesses across much of the European Union benefit from reduced VAT rates, our pubs, hotels and restaurants are stuck paying 20%. Why did the Chancellor decide not to prioritise that sector in last week’s Budget?
James Murray
I question whether the hon. Lady was listening to the Budget if she thinks we were not prioritising hospitality, given that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses received real help on their business rates in England. I would urge the Welsh Government to follow suit.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The green innovation corridor in my constituency has investment zone status and £27 million in capital funding, with £7 million earmarked to prepare sites for development. What further Treasury support, including access to finance and targeted tax incentives, will the Government provide to attract private investors and deliver more skilled jobs in Wolverhampton North East?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend is a relentless champion for her constituency. The Government are devolving powers and funding to the west midlands combined authority to support investment, and the National Wealth Fund is partnering with it to develop many projects, which I am sure will benefit her constituency.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Economic growth and investment in my constituency has greatly benefited following the creation of freeports and the associated tax benefits that come with that. Can Ministers give an assurance that any reset with our European partners will protect existing tax benefits?
Torsten Bell
One thing that has been less focused on in the Budget is that according to business investment figures across the country, we are seeing the highest level of business investment for a decade. Whole-economy investment is now at its highest levels since 1990. I recognise the point the hon. Gentleman raises, and freeports around the country want to know about that. Although the issues he raises are not on the agenda set out for the European summit, I am sure a Minister will be happy to meet him.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I warmly welcome last week’s announcement that business rates relief will be extended to thousands more cafes and restaurants, alongside further support for pubs. However, businesses such as the Village Green Cafe in Eyam face many of the same pressures as pubs, without benefiting from the additional targeted relief. Will the Chancellor consider what further support can be offered to those vital employers and community hubs to ensure that they are not placed at a competitive disadvantage?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the Village Green Cafe, which I know will be valuable to the local community in Eyam. In addition to the business rates support that we have spoken about, the new Hope on the High Street strategy sets out the Government’s plan to revive our high streets. It includes taking a “high streets first” approach that will bring more public services and civic activity into town centres, driving footfall to support those local businesses.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Treasury Committee’s recent report on student loan repayments said that the Government have a “moral obligation” to reverse their decision to freeze the threshold at which student loans are repaid. Will the Chancellor set out his timeline for when he will end the repayment threshold freeze?
Emma Reynolds
I remind the hon. Lady of her party’s role in trebling tuition fees when it was in coalition with the Conservatives. We have helped this year by capping interest rates at 6% for plan 2 and 3 loans, and from the academic year 2028-29, we will reintroduce targeted maintenance grants to support students from low-income households.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I am sure that the Chancellor is always open to new ways to save money. New modelling suggests that universal access to fracture liaison and prevention services could save £606 million over five years, with the investment paying for itself within two years. Will the Chancellor encourage the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that its promise of universal access to fracture liaison services by 2030 is backed by a funded delivery plan?
Emma Reynolds
I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant health Minister. More broadly, the Chancellor announced last week that in the spending review next year, we will set out a new preventative departmental expenditure limit spending category to get ahead of problems before they get more expensive, because we recognise that preventing problems before they arise is a good use of taxpayers’ money.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Restore Britain)
We spend hundreds of billions of pounds on debt interest, migrant accommodation, foreign aid, public sector fraud, benefits for foreigners and, let us not forget, the healthy indolent. We are leaving a record tax burden and a shameful £3 trillion of national debt to our children and our grandchildren. Let me say this in a way that even Members on the Labour Front Bench understand: we are bankrupt. My question to the Chancellor is this: is bankrupting Britain a consequence of Government policy, or is it now the actual objective?
Torsten Bell
Let me say two things to the hon. Member. First, it is absolutely right that the public finances be put on a sustainable basis, and that is what this Government are doing. We are bringing down borrowing every single year, and were praised by the International Monetary Fund for standing out from other G7 economies. Secondly, it is moral bankruptcy that Labour Members worry about when we see the behaviour of the hon. Member, who is whipping up division up and down this country, rather than bringing it together, saving our public services, and investing for the future.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that diversifying Cumbria’s economy is key to our economic growth. Will he therefore support efforts to realise the potential of RAF Spadeadam as a future hub for rocket testing and innovation?
Dan Tomlinson
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that matter in more detail.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The community amateur sports clubs scheme supports thousands of not-for-profit sports clubs across the country, including Highwoods golf club in Bexhill, in my constituency, but the threshold for participation has not been lifted since 2015. I have had the pleasure of sparring with the Paymaster General on both “Question Time” and “Any Questions?”. Will he make it a hat trick and agree to meet me to discuss this?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman has just made it a hat trick by asking a question today, but I am happy to pick that matter up with him outside the Chamber.
Poundland
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade if he will make a statement on the situation at Poundland and potential actions to protect jobs.
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I declare my interest as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
I am deeply concerned about the uncertainty surrounding Poundland’s future, and the impact that could have on its thousands of staff and their families, who are at the forefront of my mind, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Poundland is not currently in administration and the business continues to trade, but this is a worrying time for employees, suppliers and communities. We are establishing the facts, keeping in close contact with those involved and monitoring developments closely.
The Secretary of State and I continue to engage closely on this issue. We have met and are in ongoing contact with the trade union USDAW, which I know is extremely concerned about the jobs and livelihoods of its members, and I thank it for its work and engagement. We will be meeting Barry Williams, the managing director of Poundland, this week. Earlier this week, officials met Gordon Brothers, and the Secretary of State is due to meet it to continue to press our concerns and establish the facts. However, there are ongoing commercial negotiations concerning this private business, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to influence the outcome or comment on the merits of individual bids.
The owners should act in the best interests of their loyal UK staff and stores. We want the best possible outcome for Poundland’s workforce and the future of the business. The 12,000 staff and many thousands of suppliers are at the forefront of our minds, and we want to see an outcome that protects as many jobs as possible and keeps as much of the business trading as possible. The Government stand ready to ensure that affected employees can access the appropriate support, should it be needed.
The Prime Minister has set out his aspiration to bring good growth to every postcode, including by making high streets a new symbol of Britain’s renaissance. Last week, the Government published our high streets strategy, which goes further and sets out the principles for high street success, practical support for businesses with the business rates system and more policies to support vibrancy and footfall. That includes establishing a “high streets first” principle to ensure that public estate locations drive footfall and opportunities to co-locate public services.
The fundamentals for doing business in the UK are strong. Our economic strategy to deliver growth is investment across the public and private sectors and in every postcode. Our industrial strategy, trade strategy, small business strategy and plan to make work pay address long-standing barriers to growth. Retail is vital to employment and the economy, and we recognise that the sector has been through a significant period of change. We want all types of retail to thrive, now and in the future, so we are working closely with businesses to understand what they need to succeed and grow. The Minister for Employment and I are providing a briefing for Members of Parliament in this House this afternoon on the support available to employees who may be impacted.
I want to emphasise that in the event that a retail company enters administration, my officials will work, where appropriate, with the administrators, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Insolvency Service and local partners to ensure that appropriate support is available to affected employees. We stand ready to support them if they need to move into new employment. However, our priority is always protecting jobs, and the Secretary of State and I will continue to engage with the company to secure the best possible outcome.
Gareth Snell
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for the tone and content of her answer.
At the heart of this matter are the 11,000 people whose jobs, through no fault of their own, hang in the balance, and who do not know whether they will have a job at all this side of Christmas. Those jobs are not concentrated in a big factory, but dispersed across this country in towns such as Hanley in Stoke-on-Trent and in your constituency of Chorley, Mr Speaker, as well as in the supply chains and distributors in Makerfield and Harlow, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) talked about. This company has survived because the workers turned it around.
We are in the situation that we are in today because choices have been made by Gordon Brothers. It has rejected solvent bids and is seeking to push a company into administration for its own personal profit. Fundamentally, its interest does not appear to be the 11,000 constituents we all represent, who take home money to look after their kids, put food on the table and live the life that they deserve. I am very glad that the Minister continues with meetings, but the management of Poundland is not the problem; it is Gordon Brothers.
If we get to a point where administration takes place and 11,000 jobs and supply chain jobs are put at risk, what levers can the Minister use to save as many jobs as she can? What pressure can this House, through her, put on the owners to accept one of the solvent bids in order to protect jobs? What can this House do to send a message to Gordon Brothers that its predatory capitalism when it comes to this company will not be tolerated? We in this country will always stand with people before profit.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his reflections and comments on behalf of his constituents and the many employees across the country. It is deeply concerning to see the uncertainty about Poundland’s future. That is why the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have been keeping a close eye on this extremely worrying situation for staff, their families and communities up and down the country. We have been demanding to know what is happening, and demanding that Gordon Brothers explain why it has not accepted any offer to keep the company going.
We continue to establish the facts. Last night, officials met Gordon Brothers as part of our ongoing engagement. The Secretary of State will meet it later this week, and I am meeting Poundland tomorrow. It is absolutely legitimate for this Government to ask the business if it is doing everything that it can to protect employees and suppliers up and down the country.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
For thousands of Poundland workers, the question today is simple: “Will I still have a job?” Behind every store facing uncertainty are workers—real people with bills to pay and families to support. As a west midlands MP, this issue hits close to home—the headquarters are in the region. For thousands of shoppers who rely on this store to make their money stretch further as the cost of living worsens, the question is also simple: will they still have a local, affordable place to shop as Christmas approaches?
Workers and customers deserve clear answers about what happens next. Why was a proposed management-backed rescue bid rejected? Can an agreement still be reached? If individual stores are sold, will their employees keep their jobs? When will communities learn whether their local branch has a future?
The current economic landscape is hostile to British business. Given the stifling red tape, skyrocketing energy bills and surging employment costs, another well-known British brand being in trouble feels less like a surprise and more like an inevitability. Rather than admitting that their own vindictive policies have driven the cost of doing business to an unsustainable breaking point, the Government are instead locked in a desperate squabble with Reform over who can intervene the most to engineer a state-sponsored rescue. The reality is clear: increased political interference is a failed strategy that offers nothing but false promises to workers and consumers alike. True security cannot be micromanaged into existence by Whitehall.
If the Government genuinely want to revive our economy, they must start dismantling the barriers to growth that they have put in place since taking office. Running a business should be an ambitious pursuit, not a high-stakes gamble against state-induced risks. That is why, rather than looking to interfere in yet another business dispute, the Government should focus on slashing the unnecessary red tape that is suffocating businesses; lower business rates, which hinder high street growth; reduce the cost of employment and make it rewarding to invest in people; deliver the lower energy prices that businesses across the nation are calling for; and get tough on the wave of shoplifting plaguing our high streets. Rather than looking to stifle businesses’ every move, we must protect workers’ livelihoods by allowing businesses to get on with driving economic growth and employing people.
Kate Dearden
I must say that I am quite disappointed by the tone of the shadow Minister. Vindictive economic policies and a squabble with Reform—is that his answer to the 12,000 people and the thousands of suppliers across the country whose jobs are at risk in the run-up to Christmas?
The hon. Gentleman says that the Government should stop interfering with another business, but that is exactly not what we are doing; he would know that if he had listened to my statement. We are not interfering with the auction. There are ongoing commercial negotiations about this private business, and we do not want to impede or influence that process or comment on individual bids, as I said. It is legitimate for the Government to ask a business whether it is doing everything that it can to protect employers and suppliers, in order to get clarity about its plans and a clear understanding of the situation. Business owners have a responsibility to their employees—in this case, 12,000 of them across the country. It is right for us to put pressure on the company. Ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights.
We are clear as a Government about our expectations; we are taking a responsible approach, not a “sit by and do nothing” approach. What would be the point of politicians and Government if we took that approach?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Some 30,000 jobs are at stake in Poundland and its supply chain. Internal documents that we saw at the weekend show that the business’s sales, margins and profitability are ahead of target. Is the Minister absolutely convinced that Poundland’s directors are fulfilling their fiduciary duty and acting in the best interests of Poundland, or are they acting in the interests of a faceless American investment firm? If the loan of up to £60 million that was raised and imposed on Poundland is the barrier, will she take steps to ensure that we are doing everything we can to restructure it, so that it is not a barrier to saving Poundland’s business?
Kate Dearden
I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks and for his close engagement on this issue over the past couple of days. We know how concerning this situation is for employees across the country. As he knows, we are still working behind the scenes, and Poundland, Gordon Brothers and the Secretary of State will be engaging this week, because we still hope that we can secure a good outcome from the process. That is why we are in close contact with the company and receiving regular updates on many of the points that my right hon. Friend has alluded to. We will of course keep him as updated as we can; I cannot go into all the details at the Dispatch Box today, but I hope he is reassured about our concerns, and that we will remain engaged with Gordon Brothers and the company going forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The news about Poundland will be deeply worrying for its 12,000 staff members and their families, for the 30,000 staff overall when we include the supply chain—as the Chair of the Select Committee has said—and for the communities in which its stores are located. As Poundland’s founder, Steve Smith, has said:
“Once these jobs are lost, they are lost”.
For many families, Poundland is one of the few affordable options left. People are already struggling with an unsustainably high cost of living, and they now face losing somewhere that they rely on to make their money go further.
The fall of Poundland raises bigger questions about our high streets. Its troubles show how much pressure both shoppers and high street businesses are under. The Prime Minister has set out his ambition to revive the high street, but the collapse of one of the UK’s most well-known and affordable retailers highlights the extent to which our high streets are struggling. The business rates system puts our high street shops at an unfair disadvantage compared with online retail giants, and the national insurance hike imposed by this Government is unfair and counterproductive. With unemployment levels already alarmingly high, will the Minister now listen to the Liberal Democrats’ calls to properly overhaul the broken business rates system and scrap the unfair jobs tax—at the very least, for part-time workers?
Kate Dearden
The UK retail market is rated one of the most advanced e-commerce markets in the world; that has to be celebrated, and we do so. Physical retail remains a key part of the high street, and a thriving high street will need a strong retail offering. We are clear that we want all types of retail to thrive, now and in the future. The hon. Member heard our announcements last week—our commitment to our high streets strategy and our announcements on business rates reform—which will support many businesses in her constituency and all across the country. We are committed to work with the sector as closely as we can, so that it can grow and succeed. In the particular case of Poundland employees, I hope the hon. Member has heard about our concerns and engagement and how closely we are working with them.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I am standing here on behalf of the workers in Tipton centre and on Union Street in Wednesbury, all of whom provide a vital service to my constituency. If it emerges that a viable bid to keep Poundland intact was blocked, putting 12,000 jobs at risk, what specific powers will the Secretary of State use to hold Gordon Brothers to account? Will the Minister now establish an urgent review of whether our corporate governance and insolvency frameworks give sufficient protection against asset stripping and short-term financial engineering at the cost of jobs and our high streets?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for standing up for her constituents and the importance of Poundland to her local high streets and those across the country. It is absolutely legitimate for the Government to be asking the business to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers, which is why we are seeking clarity on its plans and a clear understanding of the situation. Officials have met Gordon Brothers this week, as the Secretary of State will do, and I will meet Poundland tomorrow. As my hon. Friend rightly mentions, it has a responsibility to its employees—12,000 of them, and thousands more among its suppliers. We will keep putting pressure on the company. Ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Today the Tory party has shamefully said that it does not give two hoots about 12,000 workers, including dozens in my constituency. What is going on here is that the management of Poundland are very concerned that the owners of Poundland are looking to abuse the insolvency process to maximise their financial returns, not giving two hoots about 12,000 workers. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that Gordon Brothers will not act as a rogue owner by abusing the insolvency process?
Kate Dearden
As the hon. Member knows, the appointment of an administrator is a matter governed by the statutory insolvency process; it is not a decision for Government. However, I hope that he has heard my remarks today about our engagement with Gordon Brothers and Poundland for the sake of those 12,000 employees up and down the country and the many more employed by its suppliers. We want to do everything we can, and to make it clear that jobs are our absolute priority in this situation. They are so important for our high streets up and down the country, which is why this Government have taken the responsible action we have taken so far, and we will continue to do so.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
I, too, am a member of USDAW the union. My constituents want to work for Poundland, and they have helped it turn a profit at Midland Road in Walsall. Can the Minister ensure that USDAW is at the table in any negotiation? It has struck deals with Ikea and John Lewis, and its knowledge is valuable.
Kate Dearden
I pay tribute to USDAW for its work, and for its engagement with members and the Government; I know how concerned it is about its members’ jobs and livelihoods. We have engaged with it closely throughout this process, and we will continue to do so. USDAW will join me in my meeting with Poundland tomorrow.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The great majority of the more than 300 online reviews of the Poundland store in Totton in New Forest East give it a five-star or four-star rating. I think the most concerning part of the question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) was his concentration—rightly—on the apparent rejection of viable, solvent bids. If ever there were a case of potential asset stripping, this would appear to be it, and if the Government cannot intervene, surely trade unions and their legal advisers have a positive role to play?
Kate Dearden
I am thrilled to hear the right hon. Member talk about the important role of trade unions—something I talk about constantly at the Dispatch Box, so it is quite refreshing to hear it repeated back to me. Of course, I cannot speak about what exactly USDAW’s legal advice is or what it is doing, but as the right hon. Member will have heard me say, we are meeting both USDAW and the business. Obviously, USDAW is standing up for its members, who are really concerned about their livelihoods in the run-up to Christmas. I thank it for that, and for its continued engagement.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
We have three Poundland stores across Paisley and Renfrewshire South—one in Paisley itself, one in Linwood and one in Johnstone—and I have been contacted by many Poundland employees who are concerned about the current situation. One of them is Dawn. She has worked for Poundland for 21 years and has been a loyal and hard worker. She is now 64 years old and is very concerned that if she loses her job now, so close to retirement, she will be in a very vulnerable position and unable to get another job before retirement. What assurances can the Minister provide to employees in such circumstances?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerning case of her constituent, and those of others she represents. She is right to raise those cases today. We are seeking clarity on the business’s plans and a clear understanding of the situation. The Department has met Gordon Brothers this week; the Secretary of State will do so, and I will also meet Poundland this week. Business owners have a responsibility to their employees—to my hon. Friend’s constituents in this case, and to thousands of others across the country. I know how concerned they will be, and we share those concerns.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The news that Poundland has filed a notice of intention to enter administration will cause deep concern to the many thousands of employees whose jobs are in jeopardy and the millions of customers who rely on its low prices. With almost 50 stores in Scotland, including the Poundland in my city of Dundee, my thoughts are with the many families who are now worried about jobs and livelihoods at the worst possible time, the run-up to Christmas. Given that discount retailers would normally be expected to perform strongly during a cost of living crisis, does the Minister recognise that Poundland’s potential administration is yet another damning failure of this UK Government to improve consumer confidence and the health of UK high streets, and to alleviate the financial pressures facing low-income households?
Kate Dearden
Business investment grew by 4.8% in the first half of this year, productivity has grown for six consecutive quarters, GDP grew for the first half of 2026, the Office for Budget Responsibility has upgraded its 2026 growth forecast, and whole-economy investment has increased by 6.9% since the start of this Parliament. Let us not go into the back and forth of what our economy is doing; we have a good base for businesses to grow and start up here in our country, and we are proud of it. It is those Poundland employees—the thousands in Scotland who the hon. Member has referred to and the others across the country—who are our priority, and that is what we are working on this week, engaging with the company in a responsible way, as we would all expect a Government to do. We want to protect those jobs and livelihoods.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). What we have here is an American private equity firm that is able to buy a going concern that is present on many of our high streets; to put its desire for profit above the interests of its workers, as well as the 18,000 workers in the supply chain; and to make a mockery of the Government’s plans for our high streets. If there is a viable bid on the table and we do not have the power to ensure that it is prioritised, why do we not have that power?
Kate Dearden
I am proud of our plans for high streets and the announcements the Chancellor made in the Budget last week for businesses across the country. As a Minister, I am proud to work with our retail companies and sectors all across the country to support them to grow and thrive. As I have mentioned, we are committed to asking the company to do everything it can to protect employees and the thousands of suppliers across the country. That is why we are seeking clarity on the situation and the company’s plans. My hon. Friend will have heard me discuss the meetings we are having this week and reiterate that businesses have a responsibility to their employees. It is right for us to put pressure on the company, because we have a responsibility to do so, and ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Poundland is headquartered in Walsall and, as one of the borough’s MPs, I am concerned about the impact this situation is having not just on employees, but on business confidence and our communities. I fear that it is symptomatic of some of the Government’s failed policy choices, but for today I want to focus on the employees. What exactly are the Government doing? When the Minister talks about “appropriate support” for employees, what exactly does she mean?
Kate Dearden
Mayor Richard Parker is ready to stand up support and resource for those in the region who might be impacted. We are working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, as we always would in such situations, to ensure that we can support employees with training and future job prospects. My priority at the moment is the conversations we are having with Gordon Brothers, Poundland and USDAW. We know how extremely worrying the situation is for staff, families and communities. That is why we are rightly taking the responsible approach to engage with them and to protect jobs.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
Constituents in Birmingham Erdington appreciated having Poundland—we had three Poundland stores, but two have closed in the past year. What assessment has the Department made of the private equity acquisition model, whereby a £30 million shareholder loan is prioritised over a solvent sale?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend will have heard me say that we are demanding to know what is happening. In particular, we want Gordon Brothers to explain why it has not accepted any offer to keep the company going and how it will be acting in the best interests of Poundland’s loyal UK staff and stores. We continue to establish the facts. Last night, officials met Gordon Brothers as part of the ongoing engagement, which includes my engagement this week with Poundland and the Secretary of State’s engagement with Gordon Brothers. There are ongoing commercial negotiations about a private business, and we do not want to impede or influence that process. I hope she has heard my concerns and our priorities for how this Government respond.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I have not been contacted by any constituents who work for Poundland, because the store in Haywards Heath closed in February. Roll forward to November, and that large unit—an anchor unit for the whole high street—is still lying empty. What is the Government’s plan to reform business rates in order to support these large units that prop up the rest of our high streets?
Kate Dearden
I am sure that the hon. Member welcomed the Chancellor’s announcements on business rates last week, which included introducing a two-year real-terms freeze for all retail, hospitality and leisure properties to help with increased inflation. We are also removing 70,000 extra properties from business rates, meaning that half of all RHL properties will pay no business rates at all. High streets are the beating heart of our communities and are so important for local people and jobs. We are committed to tackling their decline with our high streets strategy and so many other initiatives in partnership with the sector. We want to back our high streets, back the jobs and back the businesses that support them.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
On behalf of the staff who work at the Poundland stores in Cannock town centre and the Linkway retail park, I find this news particularly shocking, particularly given that the company recently announced a return to like-for-like sales growth and thanked staff for their “amazing efforts”. Does the Minister agree that, in the light of efforts to rescue Poundland being rebuffed, Gordon Brothers needs to get around the table with USDAW, managers and creditors to save this iconic staple of our high streets?
Kate Dearden
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of jobs and the uncertainty that lots of the employees are working through with the union. I pay tribute to them for all their work. We are committed to engaging with all stakeholders as much as we can, and we are making our priorities clear. We want the company to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers. We are seeking clarity on its plans and a clear understanding of the situation.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Poundland in Bridgwater closed in July. While the Minister is right to prioritise protecting jobs, will she accept that having introduced a £25 billion jobs tax, having added 350 pages of regulation in their unemployment Act and having delivered above-inflation rises to the minimum wage, it is her Government who are responsible for creating a hostile economic environment for British retail?
Kate Dearden
I am sad but not surprised to hear that response from Opposition Members. Their answer to a situation that is really worrying for 12,000 employees and so many more in the supply chain is to roll back rights for working people. That is not our answer. We are getting round the table and trying to protect jobs, as a responsible Government rightly should.
Mary Creagh (Coventry East) (Lab)
Poundland is a proud west midlands business and its three stores in Coventry provide fantastic products at reasonable prices to my constituents. Its workers have been writing to me with concerns over their futures. Poundland’s 12,000 workers will be contributing tens of millions of pounds in tax and national insurance to the Exchequer each year. Is there not a case for this activist Government to stand behind any management buy-out, or buy-in from any bidder, and ensure that these workers continue to play their part in retail on our high streets, in the way that the Government have done through the nationalisation of British Steel and through the loan facility offered to Jaguar Land Rover last year?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is right to raise the impact of the cost of living, particularly on those who rely on shops like Poundland. She is also right to bring the direct feedback, worries and concerns she has heard from her constituents to the Chamber today—I thank her for raising that directly with me. We want to hear that the business is doing everything it can to protect her constituents and employees and suppliers all across the country, so we are seeking clarity on its plans so that we can understand the situation. The process is still under way. It is an evolving situation, and we are continuing to engage this week. I hope she is reassured by our commitment to do that. We want to understand the situation, and we are making clear that the business has a responsibility to its thousands of employees and to her constituents.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
The Poundland in Denton expanded in 2022 and now employs 55 staff, several of whom have got in touch with me in the last few days and all of whom now find their livelihoods at risk as we begin the run-up to Christmas. I give credit to the union USDAW for its work on this issue. Does the Minister agree that this scandal exposes a serious problem? Our economy is vulnerable to private equity vultures, who sweep in and prey on our high street brands by loading them with debt and trying to ditch them for a profit.
Kate Dearden
The reports about Poundland’s future are deeply concerning, which is why the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have been keeping a close eye on what is happening. This is an extremely worrying situation for the hon. Member’s constituents and for staff across the country, their families and communities. We have been demanding to know what is happening and how the company will act in the best interests of its loyal staff and workforce. We will continue to establish the facts this week and in the future, and we will make our priority clear, which is to protect jobs.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Like the Minister and Members across this House, my first priority is the staff of Poundland, including in the Hartlepool store at Middleton Grange shopping centre. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Gordon Brothers. Let us be clear that this organisation has form on this issue. Does the Minister not think it is time that we prevent these predatory capitalist vultures from making their profits off our people’s backs?
Kate Dearden
Keeping the business trading and protecting jobs are the key things, as my hon. Friend rightly says. We are therefore continuing to watch the situation closely, and the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have made that clear. The company needs to account for why it has not accepted an offer to keep the company going and explain how it is acting in the best interests of the workforce. We will continue to have those conversations, and that engagement is important for us as a Department and for the Government.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
This is a hugely uncertain time for workers at Poundland in Yate, and I am sure that I am not alone among MPs in finding the DWP one of the hardest Departments to get answers out of. I am concerned about the practical support that the local jobcentre will be able to offer Poundland workers who lose their jobs. Can the Minister assure me that jobcentres will support those people?
Kate Dearden
The Department for Work and Pensions stands ready to support anyone affected by this announcement with our rapid response service offer. The service is designed to give support and advice to employers and their employees when they are faced with redundancy. The Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), will be having a meeting with all Members, including me, later this afternoon, and the hon. Lady may wish to come and put further questions to me or to my hon. Friend from the DWP.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Among the 12,000 Poundland workers whose jobs are now at risk are those based at Low Petergate in York. In the light of Gordon Brothers’ egregious conduct, will the Minister look into the role of private equity companies in the retail sector? In the past two weeks Modella Capital has closed TG Jones in our high street, and we see this behaviour repeatedly from such companies. Will my hon. Friend consider regulations that we could debate in the House to ensure that we protect the retail sector?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her reflections on what she feels needs to change in the future. At this stage, the key priority is keeping the business trading and protecting jobs, and she will have noted our commitment to engagement. We do not want to impede or influence ongoing negotiations around a private business, as the process is live and constantly moving. I hope my hon. Friend will be reassured about my engagement and that of the Secretary of State with the business and the union representatives this week, and we will continue to watch the situation closely, but protecting jobs is the absolute priority of this Government.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Employees in the Poundland stores in Carrickfergus and Larne in my constituency are now facing a bleak economic future, all because of what appears to be asset stripping of the stores and Poundland by Gordon Brothers. However, there is an alternative. Sales are up, profits are up, and there are viable investors wishing to take over the stores. Specifically, what pressure is the Minister putting on Gordon Brothers to do the right thing? Will she assure us that she will not hide behind the excuse that this is a commercial decision which the Government cannot do anything about?
Kate Dearden
I hope that the right hon. Member is reassured about the work and commitment that we are undertaking as a Department, whether we are engaging with USDAW, with Poundland or with Gordon Brothers. Business owners have a responsibility to their employees—12,000 of them, in this case—and to many thousands of suppliers across the country. That is why it is right that we put pressure on the company. Ownership brings responsibilities as well as rights, and it is therefore legitimate for us to ask it whether it is doing everything that it possibly can to protect its employees and suppliers up and down the country.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for asking the urgent question and for putting very relevant questions to the Minister. Everyone at work at the three Poundland stores in my constituency today will be worried that they will not be in a job tomorrow. It is good that the Minister is talking about how she can help people into jobs if Poundland shuts, and it is good that she is putting pressure on Gordon Brothers, but is she actively considering what proactive measures she can take to intervene and stop closures from happening if that pressure ultimately fails?
Kate Dearden
This is obviously a very concerning time for many employees in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in constituencies across the country, and they are at the forefront of our minds. That is why we are asking the business to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers, and why we need to keep understanding the clarity of its plans and to have a clear understanding of the situation. The meetings we are having this week are important in enabling us to assess that, and to ensure that the company observes its responsibility to its employees. As I have said, there are 12,000 of them—a significant number—and we want to protect them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her responses to all the questions that have been asked so far. The potential collapse of Poundland places more than 12,000 hard-working staff at risk across the United Kingdom, including the high streets in Northern Ireland and my constituency of Strangford. Independent estimates suggest that up to 30,000 jobs could ultimately be lost once the wider supply chain and high street neighbours are taken into account. What specific discussions is the Minister having with Administrations and local enterprise agencies across the United Kingdom to guarantee that workers in Northern Ireland are not left behind in any restructuring, and to ensure that these vital retail jobs are protected?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for asking that question, on behalf of his constituents, about the impact on his local high street. I hope he is reassured about our commitment to putting pressure on the business to ensure that it understands its responsibility to its employees in his constituency and others that are represented here today. It is right for us to do that, because we too have a responsibility and we take responsibility, as well as rights, extremely seriously, as the ownership should. The hon. Member will know of our meetings this week, and our continued engagement will make that very clear.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
High streets such as Dudley’s face pressures from online shopping and rising costs. Too many units have stood empty for years, weakening footfall and confidence, and the potential loss of Poundland and 15 jobs in my constituency could blow another hole in the high street. However, this is not just about my 15 employees; a ripple effect of the potential closure could cause problems in the supply chain as well. Has the Minister assessed the full impact of the closures across Poundland, across the country and across the supply chain in order to hold Gordon Brothers to account?
Kate Dearden
I share my hon. Friend’s concern for her constituents and those across the country. This is a very worrying time for them. We are therefore taking a responsible approach, engaging with Poundland, Gordon Brothers and USDAW to ensure that jobs are protected as much as they possibly can be, to understand the situation and demand to know what is happening so we can make that assessment, and to ensure that the company is acting in the best interests of its loyal UK staff and workforce. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those reflections today.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
The current situation is not the Government’s fault, and it is certainly not the fault of the excellent employees at Poundland. It is the fault of the worst type of greedy capitalism. A number of my constituents have contacted me about the situation, and what they want to know from the Government is what robust response they are giving the owners. My constituents want to be assured that no stone will be left unturned, and they want to know what options the Government can pursue.
Kate Dearden
What is key is ensuring that the business continues to trade, and that we protect those vital jobs up and down the country, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is why we are watching the situation so closely. As I have said, Gordon Brothers must account for why it has have not accepted an offer to keep the company going, and explain how they are acting in its best interests. Those 12,000 staff are at the forefront of our minds. It is a really worrying time, in the run-up to Christmas, and we will be doing everything we can in our conversations to make our position clear. We have to protect those jobs for the future, and we want to see the business continue to trade in order to do so.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Poundland store in Dartford forms an important part of the shopping offer at the Priory Centre, as well as the wider town centre. It employs local people, who will be desperately worried about their future in terms of their jobs and the continued survival of Poundland itself. Is it not clear that the Government cannot look on while a solvent company goes under, as the Opposition parties appear to be recommending that we do?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are not just sitting back. I ask again, what would be the role of politicians and this Government if we were to do that? We are taking our responsibility seriously, and it is legitimate for us to ask the business to do everything it can to protect employees and suppliers. We are seeking clarity on its plans and trying to gain a clear understanding of the situation, which is exactly what a responsible Government should do in these circumstances.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Let me first declare an interest as a proud member of USDAW.
I share the support for valued Poundland workers across the country at this time of great uncertainty for them, including those in the Emersons Green branch in my constituency. Local people work hard, day in day out, for this profitable company, and deserve so much better than the worry of possible job losses that are no fault of their own, but the result of inaction on the part of the owners. What reassurance can the Minister give me, and those valued local workers, that the Government are doing all they can now, and will review regulations and processes to establish whether poor owner behaviour can be further protected against in future?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House. She is absolutely right, and I share her concerns for her constituents and for the thousands of families and employees across the country who are really worried about the future of their jobs. We have been standing ready to take action to support workers and reassure families wherever we can. We want the best possible outcome for the workforce and the future of the business. That is why we are working hard behind the scenes to protect jobs, and we will continue our engagement this week. It is a real priority for us, and I want to work closely with the business and the unions.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
My fair-minded constituents are rightly appalled at the news that the jobs of our local shop workers in Poundland are being put at risk by exploitative owners who appear intent on asset stripping, rather than preserving a store that has been returned to profitability thanks to the staff’s hard work, and which has viable offers on the table. How can we make sure that, as a Government, we are using all the levers at our disposal to force the American owners to do right by the stores? What lessons do the Government think we might need to learn to ensure that we can do a better job of protecting our high street assets in the future?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise concerns on behalf of his constituents and those across the country who are really concerned about the future of their employment. We have been seeking to clarify the business plans and get a clear understanding of the situation, because it is absolutely legitimate for a Government to ask a business to do everything it can to protect its employees and suppliers. Of course, this is an evolving situation, and we will continue to engage with Poundland, Gordon Brothers and USDAW this week, to make sure that we can have the best possible outcome for the workforce and the future of the business.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I called at the Poundland store in the Sovereign Shopping Centre a few days ago to check in on the team, speak to the manager and find out how they are doing. Unsurprisingly, they are living with extreme uncertainty. Will the Minister speak directly to the employees of Poundland in Bournemouth and let them know exactly what this Government are doing to support them and save their jobs? After all, they just want to earn a good wage, put food on the table and be able to afford presents under the Christmas tree.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very concerning situation on behalf of his constituents in Bournemouth, and I acknowledge that hundreds of jobs are at stake. I hope he takes some reassurance from my remarks at the Dispatch Box, because this Government intend to do absolutely everything we can to ensure that the business is doing everything it can to protect his constituents’ jobs and thousands of suppliers’ jobs across the country. We want the best possible outcome for the workforce and the future of the business, which is why we are working with the company and the union to protect those jobs.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her answers, and my thoughts are with all the staff at the Alloa store. What is happening with Poundland is the latest example of private equity being allowed to do as it pleases—the type of behaviour that, frankly, has destroyed our high streets. Both the UK and Scottish Governments need to act to stop private equity raiding our towns and then upping sticks when it has decided that there is nothing else to extract. Will the Government take decisive action, and take steps such as curbing profit shifting and tax abuse by private equity?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise business owners’ responsibilities to their employees. In this case, there are 12,000 of them across the country, including many in his constituency, as well as suppliers. That is why it is right that this Government are putting pressure on the company. It has responsibilities to their employees, who also have rights, and that is why we are asking the owners to do everything they can to protect employees and suppliers. I will continue our engagements this week, because it is a real priority for us.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
I, too, declare my proud membership of USDAW. Poundland workers in Merthyr Tydfil, like elsewhere, are deeply concerned about their futures. The workforce have given absolutely everything to the company to make it profitable. Can the Minister give further reassurance about what more the Government can do to ensure that Gordon Brothers does absolutely everything at its disposal to support the workforce, and to treat them with fairness and respect?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the hard work of the workforce and their dedication to their jobs and the business. In our engagements with the company, we have been very clear about its responsibility to its employees and the need to protect jobs, because this is a really concerning situation for so many across the country. We will continue to work with USDAW and discuss its members’ concerns, particularly at this difficult time in the run-up to Christmas. We are a responsible Government who will do everything we can to speak to the union and the business. We know how vital the jobs at Poundland and other high street shops are, including for his constituents. I thank him for raising this issue.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for asking the urgent question. Harlow is home not only to two Poundland stores but to a distribution centre that employs hundreds of people. Does the Minister share my concern that the owners are not acting in the best interest of Poundland employees in Harlow, particularly by rejecting legitimate bids for the business? Will she join me in sending heartfelt messages to Frederick, Jody, Donald, Katarzyna and Jordan—who have personally written to me—as well as other employees at Poundland in Harlow? Is there anything the Minister can do—I declare an interest as a proud member of USDAW—to engage with USDAW and ensure that it is at the table for discussions with the owners?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for rightly raising the concerns of his constituents who work at the Poundland stores and the distribution centre in Harlow. I absolutely share those concerns, which is why we are taking a responsible approach by engaging with Gordon Brothers, Poundland and the recognised union, USDAW, which is concerned about the impact on its members and their livelihoods. I will be meeting representatives of Poundland tomorrow, and USDAW will be part of those conversations. It is really important that we reiterate the importance of these jobs, and that we make sure the business can succeed in the future and protect as many jobs as possible.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Last week, workers in Lichfield woke up, put on their uniforms, went to work and were told that their jobs were under threat—not because the company is not viable or profitable, but because the company’s owner, Gordon Brothers, is choosing not to do the right thing. It is choosing to put jobs at threat for its own selfish interests. I know the Minister and USDAW are working really hard on this, but can she give the House a reassurance that everything will be done to make sure that Gordon Brothers steps up, does the right thing and backs its workers? It is the workers who have turned the business around, not the owner, and it is time that Gordon Brothers recognised that and backed those workers.
Kate Dearden
We absolutely back the workforce and thank them for their hard work and dedication to the business. That is why we have been engaging with the company and the union this week, and why we are encouraging the owners to act in the best interests of their loyal UK staff and stores. The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have been keeping a close eye on what is an extremely worrying situation for the staff, their families and our wider community. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and hope that he is assured about our commitment, engagement and work on this issue this week. We will keep him as updated as we can.
Gareth Snell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should have put on record my membership of USDAW at the beginning of the urgent question, and I apologise to the House for inadvertently failing to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for putting that on the record.
Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat)
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce compulsory labelling of halal and kosher meat and products containing halal and kosher meat; and for connected purposes.
I am reintroducing this Bill following the considerable support it received when it was previously brought to the House, as the concerns about lack of consumer choice, animal welfare and transparency have not gone away. I therefore hope the House forgives me for repeating much of what I said last time, as the arguments for the Bill have not changed and remain compelling.
This Bill does not seek to ban halal or kosher meat; it seeks to introduce clear compulsory labelling so that consumers know exactly what they are purchasing. Every consumer has a right to make an informed choice, yet that choice is currently undermined by the lack of clear information, leaving consumers unaware that the meat they are purchasing and consuming may be halal or kosher.
Currently, labelling arrangements are voluntary and inconsistent. The Bill would address that gap by introducing clear and compulsory labelling, giving consumers the information they need to make the choices that reflect their beliefs, values and dietary requirements. Some people particularly want to buy halal or kosher meat; other people particularly want to avoid buying it. This Bill will benefit both those groups.
To produce halal and kosher meat, an animal’s throat is cut at the point of slaughter. In the case of halal meat, the animal is often stunned before it is killed, although it may not be. Under the shechita method used to produce kosher meat, there is no pre-stunning. For many consumers, whether an animal was stunned before slaughter is an important animal welfare consideration, and what began as a limited religious exemption has become an increasingly significant part of the meat market.
The Government’s own figures show that, of the approximately 1 billion animals processed in England and Wales in 2024, an estimated 215 million were slaughtered to produce halal meat. On those numbers, what was meant to be an exemption—an exception—is certainly not one. Government guidance is clear that meat resulting from non-stunned slaughter must be intended for consumption by Jews or Muslims, but production is clearly going way beyond that. Alarmingly, the United Kingdom now exports halal meat overseas. Between 2018 and 2019, there was an almost 700% increase in sheepmeat exported to the United Arab Emirates.
Consumers are increasingly interested in how meat is produced, and those concerned about animal welfare want to know whether an animal has been stunned before slaughter. Equally, some people wish to know whether meat has been prepared according to a particular religious rite. None of these positions is unreasonable. The important point is that consumers should have the information they need to make an informed choice.
The legislation regulating animal slaughter is currently set out in the assimilated EU regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, together with the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015. Under those provisions, animals must generally be stunned before slaughter, although exemptions exist for slaughter carried out in accordance with specific religious observance. However, while the law provides an exemption for stunning requirements, it does not require meat produced under those exemptions to be labelled. As a result, consumers are often left without information that they would regard as highly relevant to their purchasing decisions.
The Government have previously stated that consumers should be able to make an informed choice about the food they buy, yet informed choice is possible only when relevant information is available. In the absence of mandatory labelling, consumers are frequently unaware whether the meat they have purchased had been produced under a religious exemption, or whether the animal was stunned before slaughter. That cannot be described as meaningful consumer choice.
The lack of compulsory labelling has helped create what is in effect a two-tier system in the industry. Some slaughterhouses comply with the general requirement to stun animals before slaughter, while others operate under the religious exemption. Currently, some of the UK’s largest retailers, including Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Marks & Spencer and Asda, sell halal or kosher meat without informing consumers. Takeaway outlets such as Domino’s, Pizza Hut and KFC serve it without consumers being made aware. Non-stunned meat is also served in schools by 17 local councils, the majority of which are not Islamic faith schools, meaning that parents and pupils may have had no idea what children were eating. It is also being served in UK hospitals, where patients do not know what they are eating.
In late 2024, the Labour Government published their animal welfare strategy, which claimed to set out a comprehensive agenda for improving animal welfare. It addressed issues such as boiling of live lobsters, carbon dioxide stunning of pigs and the treatment of farmed fish, yet despite spanning more than 12,500 words, the strategy made no reference to the slaughter of animals without prior stunning and contained no proposal for clearer labelling of halal and kosher meat. If animal welfare is a genuine priority for this Government, that cannot be overlooked, and without that a strategy presented as a landmark contribution to animal welfare is certainly not one.
Public support for greater transparency is overwhelming. “Food and You 2”, a biannual official statistical survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency, found that the most common spontaneously expressed food concern in 2024 was “food production method”. In August 2022, almost 99% of respondents to the Government’s call for evidence on labelling for animal welfare said that a method of slaughter labelling should be introduced. In research from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, 92% of halal consumers stated that clear halal certification is important.
Is it not time that we updated our regulations, and demanded that our meat was clearly and fully labelled? Surely that is what consumer choice is all about. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of animal lovers in the UK expect the House of Commons to support this Bill, which will improve animal welfare and provide choice. I urge all Members of the House to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Esther McVey, Sir Roger Gale, Alberto Costa, Dame Karen Bradley, Sir Edward Leigh, Graham Stringer, Rupert Lowe, Sammy Wilson, Jim Allister, Lee Anderson and Sarah Pochin present the Bill.
Esther McVey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 171).
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 337 / Noes: 180 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 420 / Noes: 105 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 348 / Noes: 176 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 414 / Noes: 106 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 324 / Noes: 88 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 181 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
It is a pleasure to open the final day of the Budget debate. As we begin, let us pause and remember what is really essential to the debate today. Where are we as a country and what do we really need to talk about in this debate? I would put it like this. In the last year, gas prices have tripled, oil prices are up by over 60% and our borrowing costs—alongside those of all the major economies—have risen; and yet, business investment is rising, our economic growth has accelerated and the IMF has singled out the UK for praise for our deficit reduction plan. That is testament to the extraordinary resilience of the British people, British businesses and the British economy.
We know from reading the official documentation that there is no doubt but that ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Iran have driven up costs here and around the world. However, despite these significant economic headwinds, when the Chancellor came here last week, he delivered a substantial cost of living package to help the British people and long-term reforms to strengthen growth, and he commanded market confidence while he did so in a way that eluded the previous Conservative Government. There is not a shred of complacency on this side of the House, but the package he announced built on the success we have already achieved, with year-on-year growth—again, above 2%; an economy growing per head—not just through higher immigration, but because living standards are increasing; and wages rising faster than prices. It is clear, as we stand here today, that we can say the economy is stronger today than when this Government came to power.
But we know things are still tough. That is why the Budget unveiled much-needed breathing space for families, businesses and working people. Beyond that breathing space, we are beginning and proceeding with the big changes needed to put our country on a better course: reindustrialising Britain, driving good growth in every postcode, and strengthening our national security. The Budget shows entrepreneurs, inventors and investors that the UK is the best place to start and grow a business, with this Government using our industrial strategy and wider policy platform to back them every step of the way. We cannot insulate people from every pressure or meet every ask in one go, but we can provide the targeted support that is necessary where it can make the biggest practical difference.
That is why, to help our high streets and small and medium-sized enterprises, the Budget contains a £1 billion business rates package. In England, shops, restaurants and cafés of all sizes will get a two-year real-terms freeze. Around 70,000 more small retail, hospitality and leisure properties will be taken out of business rates altogether. To ensure that our high streets are vibrant into the future, the Budget also commits us to upgrading 600 post office branches in this financial year. That will help them to provide more accessible, welcoming spaces, simpler transactions and a speedier service for customers. That also includes the essential banking services upon which so many of our high street businesses and SMEs depend.
The House will know that all these reforms form part of a much broader package being implemented by the Government to support the 5.7 million SMEs in this country that are the beating heart of our economy and the backbone of our communities. With our small business plan, we are bringing down costs and using the levers of Government to back British business. In particular, we are cracking down on the scourge of late payments that shuts down the equivalent of 38 firms a day and costs the economy almost £11 billion a year. Our Commercial Payments Bill will give us the strongest laws to tackle late payments in the whole of the G7, with the Bill’s Second Reading set to take place this month; I hope it will command cross-party support.
We are also reducing the regulatory burden on our small and medium-sized businesses. Indeed, when the Prime Minister, Lord Leong and I met business owners at No. 10 North last month, we proudly accepted 14 recommendations from the small business taskforce, which has been working in partnership with the Government to reduce the bureaucracy holding British firms back. We are now making it simpler for smaller firms to bid for public contracts. We are streamlining Office for National Statistics business surveys to reduce form-filling. At the same time, we are making it easier for businesses to find support on gov.uk and helping them to report disproportionate regulations. We are delivering, too, on our “tell us once” ambition, as part of which we are pausing the Companies House profit and loss filing requirement for April 2028. I thank the Federation of Small Businesses for all its work on this agenda and in particular for its support on that decision.
Where there is an opportunity to save businesses time and money, we will seek to do that. As proof positive of that agenda, the Budget included savings of over £600 million per year on regulatory administration, with streamlined company reporting requirements and reduced reporting burdens for asset managers. A simpler home buying and selling process will also save businesses over £100 million a year.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I have to ask, was the right hon. Member listening to a different Budget from the one that I heard? I do not recognise anything he has said there. On burdens and costs imposed by regulations on business, the OBR said that the employment Bill—the unemployment Bill—will actually add to the cost of business, completely contrary to what he has just said.
Jonathan Reynolds
I do not want to say that the hon. Gentleman should listen a bit harder to the Chancellor when is giving a Budget, but he went into detail on that. I will expand on what the better regulation taskforce will mean.
Specifically on the employment rights agenda, we know that the Conservatives do not like it—that is not a secret—but I would simply say to the hon. Member that we have a manifesto commitment to address in particular insecurity in the workplace, including the 1 million people on zero-hours contracts. Let Conservative colleagues not forget that the premise of that particular measure is that where a person works a regular number of hours, they will receive, if they wish to, a contract for those hours—not additional costs. Additional costs are not present when someone get a contract that reflects what they are already working.
The rest of the agenda may not be popular with the Conservative party, but it is certainly popular with the country. And because of that agenda—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives did not stick to their own manifesto commitments, but we will stick to ours. Because of that agenda, of course want to reduce burdens in other places; it is an entirely noble agenda and one that reflects the interests of British business. The hon. Member may be aware—the Chancellor did speak about this in the statement—that there is an aspiration to reduce business burdens by 25% over the course of this Parliament. That will be delivered through the new Better Regulation Executive. It brings together the power of the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and my Department to move us towards a more streamlined and proportionate regulatory system—one that spurs growth, investment and innovation across the country.
I also warmly welcome the Chancellor increasing access to finance for ambitious founders and entrepreneurs. In the Budget, he introduced a new founders relief to encourage a new wave of wealth creation. Founders and early investors will benefit from a 10% capital gains tax rate on up to £10 million of lifetime gains. Dom Hallas from Startup Coalition said:
“The chancellor has delivered the boldest action backing startups and scaleups of any government in years.”
Meanwhile, the trading allowance for people starting new ventures is being tripled from £1,000 to £3,000, and £700 million is going towards home-grown innovation, strengthening Britain’s sovereignty and ensuring that tomorrow’s technologies are developed and adopted right here in the UK.
On top of all that, the Budget gives the British Business Bank £1.4 billion of additional commercial equity capacity, allowing it to back specialist venture capital funds in strategic sectors and larger growth funds capable of writing the cheques needed to keep the UK’s fastest-growing companies scaling here. The package is expected to leverage around £4.2 billion of private capital and create 14,500 additional jobs. That builds on the landmark investments the bank has already made, backing businesses across the UK: from Optima Partners, the Edinburgh-based AI consultancy, to Pharos Marine, the Norfolk manufacturer of navigation aids for offshore wind farms and ports, to Oxford Space Systems, whose satellite antennas were launched into orbit earlier this year.
Our industrial strategy is also making a difference. It is an essential part of our ambition to reindustrialise Britain and back our own sovereign capabilities. It is delivering on industrial energy costs, reversing what we inherited from the previous Government, with the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world. We are slashing electricity bills by 25% for over 10,000 British manufacturers through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. We are cutting electricity costs for those businesses by up to £40 per MWh, bringing their costs closer into line with competitors across Europe, with eligible businesses also receiving a one-off additional payment in 2027 to cover the support that they would have been received if BICS had been in place from April this year, correcting years of Conservative failure.
We are channelling investment into the eight high growth-driving sectors of our economy, including life sciences and advanced manufacturing. The Budget confirmed over £1 billion of new life sciences investment, from Kindeva, Vertex and Convatec, backed by almost £70 million of Government funding. It gave the green light to a partnership that I am particularly proud of: a partnership with Rolls-Royce to develop its next generation of turbine engine technology here in Britain. This is the single biggest reindustrialisation opportunity that the UK has before it.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I very much welcome the investment in Rolls-Royce; many of my constituents work there. What impact will the investment have on opportunities for young people in Derbyshire Dales?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. The £2.5 billion investment will support thousands of jobs in the midlands, Bristol and across our country. The significance is that it is not just another public-private investment in an exciting area of the future. It is a genuine opportunity for a leading British firm to break into an incredibly lucrative market, which is currently dominated by two main players, where we could be significant in the future.
Last week, I visited the Rolls-Royce site in Derby with the Prime Minister and Chancellor to discuss this very issue: British industry, British talent and British jobs. Everyone in the House will be aware of how outstanding Rolls-Royce is on apprenticeships and opportunities for the next generation. It is excited about what the future holds for the UK, and the Government will work hand in hand with it to make its growth ambitions a reality.
We are backing British business not just through our industrial strategy, but by ensuring that we remain an outward and open-looking economy and that we stay true to the principles on which the modern British economy was built. We intend to reindustrialise our country, but we will not use punitive trade measures and tariffs to do so. In many cases, tariffs hinder businesses and hurt consumers far more than they help them. They are ultimately paid by our own people.
That is why the Government are using the Budget to suspend tariffs on more than 100 essentials, which will support farmers who import fertilisers and households who use heating oil; by lowering costs on products like baked beans, chocolate, marmalade and fruit, it will also support people with their supermarket shop. Government cannot reduce all the pressures on the family shop overnight, but we can use all the levers at our disposal to bring prices down, and that is exactly what we are doing.
While other nations turn inward, restricting trade with the rest of the world, we stand as a proudly internationalist country and global hub for trade and investment that is ready to deepen our partnerships with new friends and old allies—not least the European Union, which remains our largest trading market. That is the message we will be taking into the UK-EU summit later this month.
Our ambition is clear. We want to continue simplifying trade. We want to conclude negotiations on our sanitary and phytosanitary and emissions trading deals, which could add up to £9 billion a year to the UK economy and would be a huge win for small business.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile what he has said about trade with the desire to reindustrialise, manufacture more in order to make more of what we consume. In an uncertain world, national economic resilience is more important than ever, and yet we run a huge trade deficit, which has grown year on year. Our dependence is on many countries who are not friends and could pull the plug on Britain at will.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree with the sentiment put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, on one of the most substantive issues that the House must grapple with. There is no inconsistency in being proud of the services-led nature of the UK economy while recognising the essential contribution of advanced manufacturing. There are sectors of the UK economy that could gain from the current phase of innovation in artificial intelligence in goods; for instance, robotics could reduce our wage differential with low-wage economies and return industrial functions to the UK.
The basis of British industry will, however, always be export led—that is key in the automative or aerospace sector. I do not see a tension between strengthening our resilience and our domestic industrial capacity and being an outward-facing, internationalist country to the rest of the world. I believe the two things must go together.
I give the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) a specific example: our critical minerals strategy. We cannot reduce our dependence on other countries entirely, but we can reduce the degree of exposure to individual markets and use the levers of Government, through investing in tungsten or lithium mining in the south-west of England, looking at how the refining process works, and working with allies. It is a balance between the two things. I recognise absolutely the substance of the right hon. Gentleman’s question and its importance to this debate.
On the UK-EU summit, in addition to the premise of the deal we seek to strike, we want to make progress on electric vehicle rules of origin, steel tariffs and economic security, recognising that in many cases we share similar challenges. We face those challenges together, and we can overcome them together. To that end, the Prime Minister will say more later this year about options for our long-term relationship with the EU—one that strengthens our collective security and our collective prosperity.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Secretary of State makes an important point about our relationship with the EU. He will be aware that Bracknell is home to lots of companies that work in cloud technologies. Is he alive to concerns around the EU’s proposed cloud and AI development Act, and will he ensure that we address those concerns robustly as part of our negotiations in the summit and thereafter? We do need to get that right.
Jonathan Reynolds
The agenda known in shorthand as “Made in Europe”, which affects the CADA and the Industrial Accelerator Act—it runs through as many as 50 different pieces of EU legislative files—is a top priority not just for me and Ministers in my Department, but for the whole Government. It cannot be the case that we must seek a bespoke solution for each separate area. We need something that provides business with certainty going forward. We need to recognise—in a way that the previous Government did not, frankly—that whatever our relationship to the EU, what the EU does will affect us. That is the nature of integrated supply chains and a key market on your doorstep.
I am confident that the approach that the Prime Minister has led from the front—I credit him with this—has given us the space to provide the answers for that agenda. It is a far more productive approach than the kind of adversarial relationship we saw towards the European Union from the previous Government. The bottom line is that it gets results for people in this area.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
You are giving them everything they want.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am tempted to respond to that, but I will proceed with my speech; as ever, we are all waiting to hear from those on the shadow Front Bench. Actually, I will bite—go on. [Laughter.] When it concerns something of such fundamental importance to British industry as access to the single market, when it is and always will be our major trading market, gaining access for British businesses and businesses based in the UK and ensuring that British workers will not lose their jobs is not giving the other side everything that they want—it is delivering for Britain in a way that the Opposition never quite managed.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I negotiated directly with Maroš Šefčovič, the lead negotiator for the European Union. We had a very good working relationship and got a lot done. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that standing at the Dispatch Box and setting out the UK’s desired end position gives a huge advantage to the EU negotiating team, who are trying not to damage the UK but to get the best possible deal for the EU? Publicly setting out the desired end state from the UK’s position makes the right hon. Gentleman’s job in future negotiations harder, which is why we get rolled over by the excellent EU negotiators every time his Government go across to Brussels.
Jonathan Reynolds
Colleagues, it is great to receive some advice from the Conservative party on negotiating with Europe, is it not? I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. First, the premise of the UK-EU summit—[Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should just listen to the point. The premise of the UK-EU summit—agreement on SPS, food and agricultural trade, on emissions trading and on electricity systems working with each other—is all already in the public domain. We agreed the memorandum on that last year. This is about the implementation of that deal. On whether we would like the single market to operate rules that completely shut out British industry and British supply chains, it is no secret that we do not fancy that very much and are seeking a solution to it.
I will turn back to the deal, which the right hon. Gentleman says he is very proud of. As he will know, you left us a few things—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That is the second time the Secretary of State has said “you”. I did not leave anything, Secretary of State.
Jonathan Reynolds
I would never suggest that you negotiated the deal with the European Union, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can see why you would want to distance yourself from that, as we all would.
Let us move on. The British people should know that we will always seek to make things a little easier where we can. We will transform our country for the long term, but we will also act now to provide support for people in the short term. That is what the Budget was all about. That is why 2.3 million workers will benefit from increases to the national minimum wage. Thanks to these changes, a full-time worker on the national living wage will see their earnings rise by £910 a year before tax. This is a balanced approach which recognises market conditions. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Low Pay Commission for its expert advice and support on these measures.
I am also pleased that this Government committed in the Budget to expanding parental pay. We are making the system fairer so that more parents can spend time with their family after the birth or adoption of their children. From April 2029, self-employed fathers, partners and adopters in Great Britain will be able to access a parental allowance. Those only recently employed, those who have been made redundant and those who have an irregular pattern of employment will also qualify for some degree of financial support. All in all, over 150,000 people in Great Britain per year will benefit from the reforms. Thanks to the changes we are making, things will be easier for them and for working parents everywhere.
As the Chancellor said last week, this is a downpayment that will begin to address some of the issues around working men and paternity provision as we prepare the final outcome of our review of the full parental leave system next year.
I would also like to acknowledge that many in this country are quietly, conscientiously providing care for a loved one, whether that be a child, parent, grandparent, sibling, friend or neighbour. About 5.8 million people in the UK provide unpaid care for a family member or friend. In the Budget, this Government are moving to support them. We are replacing the current carer’s allowance earnings cliff-edge rules with an earnings taper. That measure alone will benefit 50,000 unpaid carers—a real injustice being righted.
We are also reviewing employment rights for unpaid carers to help those balancing their caring responsibilities with work, because it is not easy to help a relative out of bed, get them dressed, take them to the doctor or hospital appointments and cook them meals while holding down a job and working 35 or 40-hour weeks. This review, which will look at unpaid leave, the right to return, paid carers’ leave and paid leave for parents of seriously ill children, will conclude in early 2027. I can assure the House that we will act on its findings.
This is what we mean by fresh hope, good growth and support for those who need it. In our first 100 days, this Government have shown that we will do all we can to give people and businesses the breathing space that they need. This Budget has shown that commitment, too, with real, tangible measures to help—with business rates cut, tariffs reduced, energy bills slashed, living costs lowered and the minimum wage increased.
We are doing all of that while keeping Government borrowing falling faster than any other G7 economy. We are doing it while getting employment up this year, higher than previously forecast in March and while ensuring that business investment relative to the size of the economy remains at its highest level for a decade and whole-economy investment higher than at any other time since 1990.
For all these reasons, people should have hope—fresh hope—for what the future holds for them, our economy and our country. They should know that we are resilient, that we should be optimistic for the future and that the best days of this nation lie ahead. That is why I proudly commend this Budget to the House.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The Government gave today’s Budget debate a theme: “Fresh hope for the future”. The debate will be closed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who this weekend let slip,
“I don’t think employers are working people”.
I recommend that she does not deliver her message of fresh hope to the salon owners, café owners, shop owners, services firms, gym owners, pub landlords, builders, dentists and restauranteurs in her constituency of Wycombe, for she may never get served again. These are the people who are not only providing for themselves but taking risks to build businesses that employ and serve others. Everything that they do is fuelled by the hope that their relentless hard work will one day create something bigger than themselves—a better life for their families and employees. But they feel hopeless right now. Many are questioning whether they can make the numbers work. Tax, regulation and energy costs have all relentlessly climbed. But if businesses put their prices up again to cover those costs, they risk driving their customers away. That is the reality they face as working people.
They are filling shifts themselves because they can no longer afford the staff. They work harder simply to stand still. They are wondering whether they can continue to justify the sacrifice to their families. But if they pack up, it is a problem for us all, because it is their taxes that are helping to keep this show on the road.
When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “I don’t think employers are working people”, it was one of those Labour truths—the sort of truth that Labour Chief Secretaries have such form in letting slip out. “I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards—and good luck!”—the handover note of another Chief Secretary after Labour’s last chance in power in 2010. But who left the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) with no money when he wrote that fateful note? It was one of his predecessors as Chief Secretary—a man who during his second tilt at the Labour leadership was forced to apologise for his own failure to get public spending under control before a brutal financial crisis hit. That Chief Secretary is now the Prime Minister, and his first Budget suggests that he has not learned his own lesson.
“Employers are not working people,” “There is no money,” “We failed to control public spending before a crisis, sorry”—three Labour admissions, three different moments in our recent political history that tell us an awful lot about the way that this party governs. They are a neat summary, too, of this Budget, for there is precious little in it for working people. Labour has no money to fund the basics of defence, and it is failing to get public spending under control. No wonder that despite all the briefings about a Budget for bloody-minded entrepreneurs, it undershoots at almost every opportunity.
Take business rates. I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to exempt 70,000 businesses from rates altogether, but Conservative plans would take a quarter of a million firms out of paying rates. On the minimum wage, it is right that the Chancellor has not levelled it up for younger workers, but Conservative plans would halve employer national insurance for under-25s. Labour offers employers the temporary bung of the youth guarantee, but that scheme is necessary only because this Government have made it so much more expensive and risky to take people on.
If entrepreneurs look under the bonnet of the new founders’ relief, they will discover something hopelessly complex that is likely to benefit very few. This is no return of entrepreneurs’ relief, and it comes as this Government halve the limit on business asset disposal relief. Last year 61,000 people claimed that relief, and only a few hundred are thought likely to benefit from founders’ relief. Labour’s entrepreneurship adviser, Alexandra Depledge, has left her role after mere months, saying that the Government treat entrepreneurship and innovation as “a sideshow”.
What about sole traders and freelancers, such as personal trainers, electricians and creatives—the people who do not have an army of accountants? The reward for their hard work is having to report their earnings to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs more frequently so that they can be squeezed for more tax, while there is no such vigilance on checking the eligibility of benefits claimants. Has the Chancellor ever had to deal with the realities of cash flow—of a few good months followed by a fallow period?
Meanwhile, by taxing banks the Chancellor risks making them less internationally competitive while driving up the cost of borrowing for businesses across the economy. Shifting energy costs from green levies to general taxation does nothing to tackle the underlying drivers of our staggeringly uncompetitive energy prices. The Chancellor slipped out another Labour truth last week when he said that the Energy Secretary opposed Jackdaw. I expect that she is opposing Rosebank, too. We can forget reindustrialisation.
Consider British food producers. It is all well and good to take a few pence off imported gherkins—we support cheaper goods—but at the same time Labour should help domestic producers compete. They are hamstrung by higher taxes, higher energy bills and rising wage costs.
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Lady knows that her party left us with the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world. Is she saying that she opposes taking policy costs off bills and putting them into taxation? I think she said that, but that would obviously result in higher bills than we have now.
Julia Lopez
Our cheap power plan would lower bills across the board. The right hon. Gentleman’s plan is to just shift costs from green levies to general taxation.
Perhaps the most damning thing about this Budget is what it does not attempt to do. After seeing off Keir Starmer, this new Prime Minister wants to press the reset button and pretend that this first 100 days is a fresh start, but Labour owns the last two years and the last two Budgets. If the Prime Minister will not reverse their measures, the consequences of the decisions that have already been taken are his to own as well.
The national insurance rise has been devastating. Chef Tommy Banks said,
“Over the 20 years I’ve been in the industry, this is without doubt the hardest time it’s ever been to operate…I’m seeing restaurant owners saying, ‘We’re closing tomorrow. We’re going to make everybody redundant.’”
He says employer national insurance has increased his business costs by 162% and that, with a couple of hundred staff, that can mean half a million pounds.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 has not even begun to have its full effect, yet I spoke to a small business last week that is already having to shell out £8,000 to prepare for its implementation. Another is being quoted £200,000 in legal fees to fight a tribunal. Another is winding down its disability employment activities; it used to give opportunities to people with cognitive impairments who needed extra support, but it will no longer take the risk. Since 2024, 170,000 jobs have been lost, and by the OBR’s reckoning another 215,000 jobs are to go by the decade’s end. Does this Budget do anything to stop that slow-motion car crash?
There is no review of the farm and family business taxes, which are crushing our food producers and entrepreneurs at a time when the nation needs the food security they provide. I recently spoke to a business that has been in the same family since the 1850s. The owners cannot risk losing it on death, so they are trying to offload it early, at the expense of investment in the business itself. That will not generate growth. Last week, another private school closure, in Leweston, left parents and children in limbo because Labour refuses to review its envy-driven tax on independent schools.
The pressures on these businesses are flowing out into the wider economy, which is why everything is costing people more. It costs more to go out for a meal, have your hair done, take a few days away with the kids or buy the weekly shop. The Prime Minister now owns Keir Starmer’s choices.
The most damning part of the Budget was the difference between the Prime Minister’s homely “breathing space” rhetoric and the hard reality that real household disposable income is falling this year and is lower in every year of the forecast—nearly £1,500 lower than forecast under the last Conservative Government. What is everyone getting in return for all the extra tax? Better public services? No. The Government are spending £124 billion a year on debt interest alone. That is up £14 billion since March, and is more than we spend on defence, policing and prisons combined. Are we at least building up a buffer to make ourselves more resilient? No. The Chancellor has cut fiscal headroom to just £15 billion, the equivalent of barely 3.5 days of public spending. The Government are even kicking defence spending into the long grass.
Businesses are paying more tax, families are getting poorer, public services are not improving and the Government are leaving the country dangerously exposed to the next economic shock. There are only two sustainable ways out of that: grow or cut spending. On both, the Government are found wanting. Last week, Ministers went full Vicky Pollard when asked whether they would grip the welfare budget this Parliament: yes, said the Chancellor, and no, said the Treasury and No. 10. The Prime Minister said, “As soon as possible.” No, eventually concluded the Chancellor—yeah, but no, but yeah, but no. The Chancellor’s leader is making a fool of him.
What about growth? The Prime Minister’s big idea is to reopen the debate about rejoining the EU. That is a debate that the Business Secretary does not want to have: he says that it creates uncertainty for business, which companies explicitly do not want. [Interruption.] He is now trying to nuance his way out of it, but we know what he said. It is also a debate about free movement that the Home Secretary does not want. It is a debate that will tie us to the slow-growth lane, and we will pay for the privilege. Why do we have to pay the fees of EU students to access “Made in Europe” when our participation is in the EU’s interests and the matter has not yet been settled in the EU Parliament? The Prime Minister is weakening our hand to build a left-wing coalition that will keep him in power.
If growth is the goal, why does the Prime Minister not pull the levers that the Government already have by bringing down energy costs, making it easier to employ people, cutting tax and getting more people off welfare? Because those decisions require real courage and a willingness to test the mandate that the Prime Minister fears he lacks among those on his own Benches and in the wider country.
“Employers are not working people.” “There is no money.” “We failed to get public spending under control before crisis hit.” Those three Labour truths run through this Budget, which has been overseen by a Prime Minister who is more interested in the perception of being on people’s side than in the reality, and is offering a debate about a future he may not control rather than taking tough decisions that he could own today if only he were to find the courage.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I welcome the Budget and its focus on giving families a bit of breathing space during this difficult period. Many people in my constituency welcome the £100 household energy payment this winter alongside the reforms to carer’s allowance and support for working families. As Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I will focus my remarks on devolution, local government, our high streets, rough sleeping and housing delivery.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to devolution and the publication of the fiscal devolution road map. However, we need greater clarity on how the proposals will work in practice. As powers are devolved, accountability, scrutiny and local capacity must keep pace. Devolution should not simply be about moving decision making out of Whitehall; it must deliver better outcomes for the communities it is intended to serve. The Committee will continue to scrutinise these reforms and how they are implemented on the ground.
I also welcome the measures to support and revitalise our high streets, including expanded business rates relief and support for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. High streets are more than economic activity; they are the heart of community life, providing places where people meet, work and access services. That is particularly relevant to the Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into revitalising our high streets and town centres. We look forward to examining whether the Budget measures are delivering the long-term regeneration and economic resilience that our communities need.
The Budget must also be judged on whether it addresses the long-term pressures facing local government. Councils continue to face significant pressures, including special educational needs and disabilities and rising demand for children’s services, adult social care and housing support. Previous Committee work has repeatedly highlighted concerns about the sustainability of local government finance and the growing gap between what councils are expected to deliver and the resources available to them. A sustainable funding settlement remains essential if councils are to plan for the long term, invest in prevention and deliver high-quality services for residents. Across local government, housing and devolution, the common challenge is delivery. Communities need to see the commitments translated into tangible improvements in their daily lives.
I strongly welcome the significant investment to tackle rough sleeping and help people off our streets—I had the opportunity to attend the rough sleeping summit—but if we are serious about ending rough sleeping we must address its causes as well as its consequences. That means looking again at issues repeatedly highlighted by the Committee, including homelessness prevention, the five-week wait for universal credit and the continued freeze in the local housing allowance.
Ahead of the Budget, I urged Ministers to reconsider the local housing allowance freeze. I am disappointed that it remains in place. Charities have warned that it could push hundreds of thousands more people into poverty or deeper hardship. If ending rough sleeping is truly a national priority, we must ensure that housing support keeps pace with the reality of rents and the pressures facing low-income households. The Budget rightly invests in support services, but lasting progress will require action on the structural factors that push people into homelessness in the first place.
Finally, I welcome the additional investment in social and affordable housing, including the £1.5 billion top-up, which is expected to support 10,000 additional homes. However, it is still vital to consider whether these measures alone translate into homes being built at the pace and scale needed. The OBR has warned that housing delivery is likely to be slower than previously forecast, highlighting the challenges that remain. The question is not whether we have the ambition but whether we can remove the barriers that prevent homes from being built at the scale required. The Committee will continue to scrutinise what further action is needed to meet the Government’s house-building ambitions and more generally to ensure that more affordable homes are delivered.
Overall, there is much in the Budget to welcome, from support with energy bills to investment in social housing and a renewed commitment to devolution. The Budget sets out an ambitious agenda, but that ambition must be met with delivery. My Committee will scrutinise how the commitments are implemented and whether they are delivering real change for the people and communities we represent.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, I must tell the House that I am going to put a five-minute time limit on Back Benchers’ contributions immediately after she has spoken.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
What we needed was a growth Budget, because only by growing the economy can we cut people’s taxes and bills. We Liberal Democrats have repeated our calls for a new growth and defence partnership with Europe, because growth through such a partnership would enable us, in time, to raise the income tax threshold to £15,000. If we can grow the economy, we can put more money in people’s pockets.
The Government’s cost of living package was too timid and not well targeted. The OBR is clear that living standards are not set to improve. I am deeply disappointed that the Government’s energy proposal is linked to the outdated council tax system. That means that between 800,000 and 1.4 million of the most vulnerable people on low incomes will not benefit from the £100 payment, while wealthier people who may have retired early and downsized will. That could have been avoided.
We have called several times on the Government to use existing data held by the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC to roll out an essential energy guarantee to slash the cost of the first chunk of essential energy, benefiting everybody, and giving extra support to those who are most in need, such as the disabled. That is the most progressive way of supporting people with the cost of energy bills, it is the most targeted way of doing it, and it is within the Government’s reach.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Lady is aware that winter is fast upon us, which is why the Government had to design a scheme that can be delivered quickly. Will she also recognise the £100 million of additional support being given to local authorities to target exactly those households to which she has referred, so we can ensure that every household that is struggling financially this winter is given a little bit of support?
Daisy Cooper
The Government already have the data through DWP, which it uses to roll out the warm home discount. That data is already there, the system exists with energy providers and it would have operated just as quickly. HMRC has the data on child benefit; equally, it could have been rolled out just as quickly. Yes, I recognise that some money has been given to local authorities to roll this out, but that process will not act as quickly as the system that the Government wanted to roll out in January. It would have been done through the energy providers far more quickly than the additional support. It would have been a more targeted, faster and more progressive way of rolling out help. We have been calling for it for six months; it is unfortunate that the Government have not listened.
On business, we welcome support for small businesses, and raising the small business threshold will support a number of businesses. However, that is still tinkering around the edges rather than delivering the fundamental reform of business rates that this Government promised in their manifesto. If we are serious about breathing new life into our high streets, we have to reform the outdated, broken business rates system. In my constituency of St Albans, the rateable values are so high that only eight pubs are set to benefit from the support, and that comes in the face of a whole raft of measures in the last two anti-growth Budgets. The chair of my local Save St Albans Pubs campaign has sent me this:
“The budget does nothing to help or support most of the pubs in St Albans. Still no business rate reform. Alcohol duties up. No cuts in VAT. No cuts in the horrific employers national insurance jobs tax and a huge increase in wages”.
That means one thing: it will put up the price of a pint.
Founders’ relief has been described variously by people as “bonkers”, “dreadful” and “a pointless lottery”. It will benefit, at most, 600 people and will undermine productivity and growth. That is not exactly the ringing endorsement that I believe the Government were after. I encourage them to look at that relief again.
As for the BAD—business asset disposal—relief, the clue is in the title, and the Government’s measures do not close the loopholes. On property taxes, we need to see real reform of all the outdated property taxes—council tax, stamp duty and business rates—but the Government’s so-called mansion tax is not the way to do it. All the funding will go to Whitehall; it will not go to local councils. That is from a Government who say they want devolution at a time when they are ripping money out of local authorities.
The OBR says that there is a 20% chance of appeals. Just five weeks ago, I stood right here and challenged Ministers to contact the Valuation Office Agency because it had issued the wrong valuation to two of my small businesses. I dread to think what will happen to the many people who will want to sell their house and move to other parts of the country to support family members, but who cannot because they are stuck in an 18-month appeal process with the VOA. It is not clear that the Government even have a definition of a “working farm” when it comes to the operation of the so-called mansion tax. It looks to me that it could be family farm tax 2.0—I urge the Government to look closely at that—and for what? For £400 million in three years’ time. This will not sort out the cost of living crisis that we are facing right now.
I am pleased that the Government have shifted on bank taxes. We Liberal Democrats have long called for taxes on the big banks that have made eye-watering profits. To those on the Conservative Benches who say that they are worried about the competitiveness of our financial services, let me tell them this. Under their botched Brexit deal, they have hammered the financial services, which have been hit by a loss of jobs and a loss of business. If anybody is serious about protecting our world-class financial services, they should support our calls to join the single market and to move the liability for online fraud from banks to the big tech companies. If we could do that, we could grow our world-beating financial services market and still increase the taxes further so that they can contribute to tackling the cost of living crisis.
Finally, let me just say that there is a role for optimism; there is a role for talking about real hope. I hope that we can project to the rest of the world the fact that we believe in the future of UK plc. If we are going to talk about fresh hope, however, it must be matched with meaningful action. I am afraid to say that this Budget did not deliver the meaningful change that the country expects and deserves.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
I welcome this Budget, and I congratulate the Chancellor on bringing it forward at a time of considerable economic uncertainty. There is much in it that deserves support and colleagues have spoken well over the past few days in that regard. I will use my contribution to make a broader argument, one that concentrates on the interaction between business and trade and prosperity for the country.
The biggest economic challenge facing this country is the fact that we have become accustomed to an economy that does not grow quickly enough, does not invest enough, does not produce enough and does not deliver rising living standards for enough of our people. Worse than that, we have constructed an economic system that has learned to accommodate failure.
Thanks to the long, dark years of Tory rule, this country has, in effect, institutionalised stagnation. For much of the past 80 years, people in this country could have reasonably expected to have been better off than their parents. Productivity increased, wages rose and living standards improved. However, since 2010 that has changed. The relationship has broken down, real earnings have barely grown by historical standards, productivity growth has been desperately weak and the prospect of building a better life has become increasingly remote for too many people. We need to change that.
First, we need to be clear about what we mean by “growth”. Our overriding economic objective should be sustained growth in GDP per capita, driven by higher productivity and accompanied by rising real wages and improving living standards. We should judge our success not just by what happens in some sectors such as financial services, or any other, but by what happens in places such as my Southport constituency, Swindon, Wigan, Bristol or Birkenhead.
Secondly, we need to rebuild our productive capacity in this country. For decades we have promoted consumption while allowing production to decline. We have become dependent on importing the things we need, exposed to volatile international energy markets and willing to see promising British innovations commercialised elsewhere. We need to change that, too. We should be ambitious about advanced manufacturing, clean energy, life sciences, digital technology—all those industries of the future.
I would like to see us set ourselves a national mission to create 1 million additional jobs in production over the next decade. That requires an industrial strategy with some proper oomph behind it. That proper oomph should be patient capital, affordable industrial energy, skills provision designed around the needs of employers and public procurement that supports domestic productive capacity. It also requires a closer and more practical economic relationship with our European neighbours. The isolationist turn that this country has taken over the past decade needs to come to an end, and not just for the benefit of our country; it has harmed our trading partners and has benefited only those countries that want us to fail.
We also need to reform the way we govern the economy itself. I strongly support fiscal responsibility, I believe in independent economic scrutiny, and I have no desire whatsoever to return to the economic recklessness that did such damage in 2022. We should also recognise that fiscal responsibility should be a means to an end, rather than the end itself. The purpose of sound public finances must be to enable a prosperous, productive and resilient population, but that is not what we have ended up with.
Too much of our economic policy making is currently dominated by what happens over a relatively short period. Investment that costs money today but only delivers in 20 or 30 years’ time can appear less attractive, so we have become trapped in a vicious circle: weak growth reduces tax revenues; weak tax revenues constrain investment; insufficient investment weakens productivity; and weak productivity leads to weak growth. We need to break that circle, and the way to do that is to look at how our fiscal and monetary policies are implemented. I would encourage Ministers to review those policies to ensure that the future of this country is prosperous.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The theme of this year’s autumn Budget was said to be one of hope. It raised our hopes akin to the title of a “Star Wars” film, yet for many of my constituents in Epping Forest, and indeed for families and businesses across the country, that hope has been sorely dashed. I have huge respect for the Chancellor, who is a deeply honourable man. He resigned as Defence Secretary, calling for 3% of GDP on defence spending by 2030, but sadly, even his hopes for this clear commitment and plan have been dashed by this Government.
In Epping Forest we are fortunate to have fantastic local businesses, restaurants, cafés and pubs, yet many are struggling to stay afloat under this Labour Government. It is deeply regrettable that this Budget did not take up the sensible proposals from the Conservatives on scrapping the family farm tax and family business tax in full, abolishing inheritance tax on family homes and scrapping business rates for 250,000 businesses nationwide.
One thing my constituents in Epping Forest will have noted was the Chancellor’s talk of a British data centre covenant. Many of my constituents are rightly concerned about the implications and environmental impacts of AI data centres, including the proposal in Loughton, with major concerns about their huge water and energy usage. Also, a speculative and completely inappropriate proposal is being worked up for a data centre near Chigwell that will threaten our precious green belt. Many of my constituents have reached out to me, alarmed by the Chigwell proposal and by the fact that it comes in the context of a Labour Government who have outrageously taken away large planning decisions from Epping Forest district council and who are arbitrarily and spuriously moving to reclassify green belt as grey belt in order to achieve their development targets.
We have seen this, too, with inappropriate large-scale housing developments being proposed on green belt in Theydon Bois and around Epping, and with solar developments on farmland between Thornwood and Epping Upland. I urge the Labour Government to do the right thing, listen to my Epping Forest constituents, leave our green belt alone and pull the plug on these damaging top-down policies and inappropriate developments.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I cannot resist this opportunity to say that I wholeheartedly agree with what my hon. Friend is saying about green belt protection. The Government have an opportunity to stop this reckless, top-down approach and to be serious about brownfield-first funding. Does he agree that they should put the money into brownfield first, to protect and save our special, precious green spaces?
Dr Hudson
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. She is a proud champion for her area and for standing up for the green belt and putting pressure on the Government to do the right thing and go for brownfield first and leave our green belt alone.
The Prime Minister is a good man, and I really welcomed his stated ambition to work cross-party to address the long-standing challenges in social care, drawing on his own family’s sad experience. I agree wholeheartedly with him that no one should be forced to sell their home to fund essential care, but that hope, too, was dashed when it became clear that he is prejudging the Casey report and that his plans will not cover residential care costs—the very reason that people have to sell their homes. By failing to address this core issue, the Government have missed the very point they are trying to confront.
Turning from care to health, I know that many of my constituents will be dismayed to learn that our local hospitals, Whipps Cross and the Princess Alexandra, will still be waiting until at least 2032 for any rebuild. This is despite Labour’s promise during the 2024 general election that both hospitals would be rebuilt.
The Government have spent much time talking of devolution and powers, but my constituents need them to start by working with the powers that already exist, including those relating to their relationship with the Mayor of London. For far too long, the Central line, which my constituents rely on, has been plagued by unacceptable delays, overcrowding, unbearable heat in the summer months, ear-scraping rail noise levels and ugly graffiti akin to something out of Gotham City. The newly refurbished trains that have been promised are arriving extremely slowly, and the services on the Epping line and the Chigwell branch remain unacceptable.
In Waltham Abbey, over 3,000 of my constituents signed the “Bring back red buses to Waltham Abbey” campaign petition urging the reversal of Transport for London’s cuts to local bus services in the area. This situation has been made worse recently by bus services ending early on weekdays, when there are already no tube or train services serving our Waltham Abbey area. The Government cannot sit on the sidelines and spectate; they have to be a player and push both TfL and Essex county council to step up. This was a Budget of missed opportunities. If the Government are serious about hope, I ask them please to give us some hope and actually do something about these vital issues.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
“Fresh hope for the future” must mean something that people can recognise in their own lives: a young person finding a skilled job close to home, a patient getting a diagnosis sooner, someone waiting for an operation finally getting treatment and getting back to their life. That is how people will judge us, so I welcome this Budget’s determination to give families breathing space now while building a stronger economy for tomorrow. I want to focus on one opportunity that can help us achieve both: backing life sciences so that Britain can build a future here. That involves developing new treatments, manufacturing them in Britain and getting them to NHS patients faster, because a healthier country is a stronger country. The industries that help us live healthier lives can also create the jobs, investment and prosperity that our communities need.
I began working as a care assistant at 16. I became a social worker, working in child protection, and served as cabinet member for public health and protection. Those experiences taught me that public services are judged at the moment someone needs them. Can they get help? Are they listened to? Does someone take responsibility? As a Health Minister, I brought that same test to innovation. A scientific breakthrough is an extraordinary achievement. Approval matters, but success is a patient receiving treatment. Our ambition should be clear: discover here, make it here and deliver it here.
This Budget gives us something substantial to build on. I welcome the £100 million investment in robotic surgery, supporting the ambition to increase procedures from 70,000 a year today to 500,000 by 2035. For a patient, that could mean a less invasive operation, a shorter stay in hospital and getting home to their family sooner. I also welcome the life sciences investment in Manchester, Oxford and Loughborough, together worth more than £1 billion, supported by almost £70 million in Government grants. These investments should give businesses the confidence to build in Britain and patients the confidence that progress will reach them.
The next task is to make that partnership work across the country, and to connect investment with improvements that people can feel. Birmingham’s life sciences district shows what is possible when we bring our strengths together. The University of Birmingham, the Queen Elizabeth hospital and Birmingham Health Partners connect world-class research with frontline care, and our health innovation campus and precision health technologies accelerator help businesses turn discoveries into treatments. We should back this district as an engine of national growth, attracting investment, expanding manufacturing and opening routes into skilled jobs for local people. This is an enormous opportunity for our city to know that there could be a place for young people in my city as a laboratory technician, an engineer, a clinical researcher, a manufacturing apprentice or a specialist working with health data. Representatives of the University of Birmingham are here today in Parliament launching the Birmingham health and life sciences quarter.
As the Government develop their 10-year plan and prepare for the next spending review, three things should guide us. First, we must make the adoption of proven innovation a core NHS responsibility, because businesses and innovators need a clear route from successful evaluation to everyday use, with named responsibility, funding and a timetable. For a small British business, a successful NHS trial should open the door. It should not have to go begging every single trust to procure its product. We should measure success through patient outcomes, and the same discipline should apply to AI. I therefore welcome the Budget’s review of NHS productivity and AI. Its purpose should be practical: better care, less avoidable administration and more time with patients.
Secondly, we need to connect life sciences investment to British manufacturing and local opportunity. Thirdly, we must make prevention and earlier diagnosis central to our ambition, because the greatest gain is often the illness avoided.
This is a serious economic opportunity. Better health can help people remain in work, support families and reduce pressure on public services. Successful British businesses can bring investment, exports and skilled employment. The Prime Minister has opened a conversation about the country we want to become. My answer is a Britain confident enough to back its scientists, ambitious enough to build new industries, and determined enough to put their achievements into the hands of the people who need them; a Britain where a discovery becomes a treatment and an investment becomes a skilled job, and where a young person can see a future in the place they call home. That is what fresh hope for the future must mean.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Budget debate is an opportunity to consider both the national and the local impact of what has been announced. It is clear that this is a centralising Budget and a tax-and-spend Budget. It does not even raise the tax necessary to cover the spending commitments that are being made. When we look at the impact across the economy, what is clear is the importance of routes out of poverty and the opportunity to find a job, which is good for people’s wellbeing and their mental, physical and financial health.
There has been a surge in unemployment under this Labour Government. It is the worst graduate jobs market since records began. Those in my party—who will have been proud of the fact that, on average, 800 new jobs were created every day that our Government were in office, and that youth unemployment was halved by the time we left office—will look at the long-term impact, particularly on younger people and their life chances as a consequence. There is nothing whatsoever in this Budget to address that, except more tax and spend.
On productivity, I represent a constituency that has lower than London average incomes but high prosperity and employment. Yet this Budget does nothing to address the cliff edges in the tax system, the loss of child benefit for high-rate taxpayers, the loss of access to tax-free childcare, the impact of rising pension contributions and the withdrawal of personal allowances, which, particularly among the most productive public sector professionals, is having a huge impact not just on their incomes but on their ability to contribute to the service improvements that we all need to see.
We all want our housing market to be an engine of opportunity and growth, but all the measures introduced by this Government are making it harder to move, to rent and to build houses. Two thirds of London’s boroughs—in one of the most economically vibrant cities in the world—report net zero additional new homes from the start of this year. At the same time, local authorities, such as the excellent Conservative council that serves some of my constituents in Harrow, have put in a £300 million bid for shovel-ready housing projects to the Greater London Authority, funded by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but have received an allocation of precisely zero towards the delivery of any of those new homes that are ready to go. It is small wonder that the Secretary of State has been clear that this Government will not meet even their own housing targets.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), who is no longer in her place, made reference to rough sleeping. I am glad that the Government are making that a priority, because they certainly need to do so. St Mungo’s has reported a 27% rise in street homelessness since this Government took office—something which is on them and which they must own. It is right that they need to clear up their own mess.
That description applies to the measures announced on business rates as well. Having promised hospitality and retail a new, permanently lower regime of business rates, the Government imposed massive increases, which have driven business and employment off our high streets. It is good that the Government are beginning to recognise the negative impact on our high streets that their policies have had; they should at least have the humility to recognise that it is the consequence of their own decisions. There is nobody else to blame in respect of that.
There are many headlines for the clear implications that this Budget will have. The increase in the benefits bill under this Government is bigger than the entire defence budget at a time when this country faces an incredibly uncertain world. The verdict of savers and investors of both the domestic and international markets is clear, because borrowing costs for 30-year and 10-year gilts have hit record highs. In no period in recent history has there been so little confidence in the ability of a Government to manage the finances of the country effectively. This Government talk about the impact in every postcode, but in my constituency, people from HA4 to UB9 are left with unbuilt granted planning permissions in their green belt, deteriorating and reduced public services, and a Government who are taking away the opportunities for people to make life better for themselves and their families.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
Without a doubt, the greatest concern for most of my constituents is the cost of living, in particular the cost of energy. The biggest factors driving up the costs are the Ukraine war and, of course, President Trump’s ill-conceived and, frankly, stupid decision to go to war with Iran. It is just not credible to claim that in the current financial climate this Government could put right in just over two years 14 years of Tory mismanagement of the economy and the impact of those two wars. It is also worrying that we have a generation of young people who feel they will be worse off than their parents. Clearly, it is shocking that we have a million young people not in education, employment or training.
I welcome many of the measures introduced by the Chancellor in the Budget, in particular the breathing space scheme whereby households in bands A to D will get a £100 payment directly into their bank account this winter to help deal with rising energy bills. It is good that the Budget supports households with the rising cost of energy bills by extending the temporary 0% rate of VAT on electricity until 2027 and capping new levies on energy bills at 0% until 2030. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, so I welcome the fact that we are taking more businesses out of paying business rates by increasing small business rates relief thresholds for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties.
Likewise, I support removing eligibility for vape shops and adult gaming centres, to help our high streets to become vibrant places once more, supporting independent businesses and creating town centres where people want to live. I initiated a new town centre plan for Widnes with Halton borough council to help regenerate our town centre as the money becomes available, so I am pleased that the Government have allocated £1.24 million to renovate derelict buildings. When added to the £1.5 million Widnes Pride in Place town centre impact fund allocated last year, that can help kick-start some of the improvements we want to see in Widnes town centre, and I look forward to working with Halton council on that. I am also pleased that Knowsley council has been allocated £1.55 million, and I look forward to discussions with the council on how that will be used.
Derek Twigg
I will not, given the time.
I look forward to hearing more from the Chancellor about the fiscal devolution road map, reforming the long-term funding model for regional and local government. It has the potential over time to make a real difference to the economic performance of many of our cities and towns outside London.
We have had the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war. It is also true that we face the biggest threat since the cold war. I am pleased that the Chancellor has announced that he is fully funding the defence investment plan and has a target date of 3% of GDP by 2030, but I think we need to see the plan for reaching that target sooner rather than later. It remains my view that threats are escalating, and we need to be spending 3% before the end of this Parliament. The previous Tory Government hollowed out and grossly underfunded our armed forces, leaving them in a truly shocking state, with the smallest Army since the Napoleonic wars, every single recruitment target missed and an equipment programme that was in disarray—over budget,behind schedule or both. Now they have the cheek to try to erase their woeful record on defence. This Government are working hard to make sure that our armed forces are ready forwar, but there is more to do.
I want to turn briefly to the zero emission vehicle mandate. I declare an interest, as chair of the all-party motoring group, and I have both Jaguar Land Rover and Ford plants in my constituency. The consultation on the ZEV mandate review closed on 23 October 2026. Both Ford and JLR want Ministers to publish their response and clarify the mandate’s direction ahead of the 2027 compliance year. Early clarity will help manufacturers to plan, sustain investment and support an ambitious, deliverable transition. Ford tells me that it is committed to a truly electrified future, but the transition must reflect customer need, charging infrastructure and vehicle users’ needs. There are specific challenges for vans.
We have big challenges ahead in bringing down debt and the cost of welfare. It will take some tough decisions and challenging work, but it has to be done, and we must have a credible long-term plan. We cannot just pick an arbitrary figure out of the air to save on welfare; we need a proper, thought-out strategy that is informed by the Milburn and Timms reviews. Finally, productivity remains a real challenge in the economy. We need to deal with the lack of capital investment to make sure we have sustained growth in our economy.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As the MP who represents the furthest away constituency in the British mainland, the words “growth in every postcode” interest me hugely. In preparing for my contribution today, I thought perhaps I would talk about the lack of affordable housing or efforts to promote employment opportunities for the young, but I did something last week that made me think.
As some colleagues know, my wife is disabled. That is not what I am on my feet to talk about—she is a brave lady, she puts up with it, and it is all great. I thought it would be kind to order her a fireside chair. I found one online at a very good price, reduced, called a jubilee fireside chair, in the colour mineral. It was virtually the first one that came up when I googled “fireside chair for the disabled”, so I clicked on it. There it was, and I thought, “Yes, we’ll have that.” The website said that there was free delivery—great!—and yet, when I came to look more closely at the amount of money, £50 had been added on because of my postcode. I went back to the page, and in very small print, under “Free delivery”, it says, “Perhaps not everywhere”. I can afford that, but lots of people out there cannot afford an extra 50 quid when they want to buy something for somebody they love.
In preparing yesterday, I remembered what happened last week, and I thought, “Right, let’s have a little look at the various postcodes.” I worked my way down Scotland. First, I looked at Orkney: delivery costs £50. I looked at Wick: £50. I went down and down and got as far as Perth: £50. So I went east to St Andrews: free delivery. I thought I would then look at Land’s End, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George): there is a £50 charge for delivery. Then there was a little bit of good news. I looked at the Western Isles, represented by my very good friend the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton). In Stornoway, delivery is free. In Castlebay in Barra, down the bottom of the Outer Hebrides, they can get their fireside chair for the disabled in mineral colour—whatever mineral is; I think it is green—delivered for free. I do not begrudge the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar; jolly good luck to him. Out of devilment, I then put in EH99 1SP, the postcode for the Scottish Parliament, and guess what? John Swinney gets it delivered free.
My point is that we have these extra charges that we have to pay in the remotest parts of the UK, and it has been going on for years. I spoke in a debate about this issue back in December 2017, when I was first elected to this place, and yet we still have the problem today. It is an iniquitous and completely unfair extra tax on people who really cannot afford to pay it, and it is not in the spirit of fairness one little bit. I have had a good reception from Ministers in the previous Government, but at the end of the day, it was fine words, or, as we say in the highlands, tea and sympathy.
I do not expect an instant answer from the Government on this. There are so many demands for things that should be put right, but I would respectfully add these iniquitous extra charges to the list. I would be very, very happy on behalf of all the people who pay these extra charges to sit down with a relevant Minister, outline the problem in detail and help to think of how we can sort it out.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am so pleased he is back on his feet. He is making a really important point about a potential blind spot for the Government in terms of rurality. Policy Exchange produced an excellent report recently about the effect of rurality on access to healthcare in England. Does he agree that if we design services around the hardest to reach, that helps the most unequal parts of society everywhere?
Jamie Stone
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
I am not going to string this out any longer. I think I have made my point, which is that if we want growth in every postcode, including some of the remotest parts of the UK, we should tackle this issue of some people having to pay extra charges simply because of where they live, which has a knock-on effect on everything else they buy or do. I rest my case.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
This Budget contains much that people across Tooting, Balham and Earlsfield will truly welcome. In the months beforehand, people in our communities gave me clear criteria for a Budget—one that recognises the poly-crisis we are in by giving them breathing space in the cost of living crisis and easing the burdens of the cost of business too. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has delivered that and more.
Local people have told me that they welcome the £100 household energy payment and the business rates package, which means that retail, hospitality and leisure properties in Tooting will see their business rates either frozen in real terms, reduced or cut to zero. That is over 70,000 additional high street businesses taken out of business rates altogether. This Budget rightly recognises that high streets are the heartbeat of our local communities and the foundation of our collective identity, as I have seen locally with our bustling town centres.
The Prime Minister has made good growth in every postcode the north star of his Government. He is talking about postcodes across our capital—not just SW1 but E13; not just N1 but SW17. We have a vibrant array of neighbourhoods, each with its distinctive history, character, community and unique personality. Despite everything its opponents throw at us online, that is what makes London the best city in the world. People from all around the world, from the US to Russia, are trying to divide our communities and break our cohesiveness—the thing that makes us proud to be British—and we will never, ever let them achieve that.
But we know that there is more to do, particularly on London’s failing housing market. That is why the Government are rightly taking action through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and their commitment to work with our mayor and councils to deliver more council homes. As temperatures drop, the immediate priority must be to truly end rough sleeping. When people see their fellow citizens sleeping rough, it offends their sense of a fair society. When I am doing my shifts in St George’s hospital and I see people who are homeless coming through our doors, it breaks my heart—it breaks the heart of every nurse, doctor, receptionist and healthcare worker who has to look after them. We have the most incredible homelessness inclusion team at St George’s, but it is a scourge on modern British society that people are sleeping rough. It is a public health emergency and a moral catastrophe. Tweaking will never be enough, and the Prime Minister and Chancellor’s commitment to double spending on ending rough sleeping to almost £900 million is a signal of this Government’s values of compassion, dignity and decency.
That is the difference a Labour Government make. Every day, the country and our capital are turning around the trajectory of industrial decline and putting fresh hope in every heart.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
Two years ago when I was shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I labelled the then new Labour Government’s first Budget as the most “anti-business” Budget this country had ever had, and I said that the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), would go down in history as the “destroyer of jobs”. Some 225,000 job losses later, I am sad to say that I was right. I take no joy in saying that, because it is my constituents, and those across the country, who have paid the price. When Labour Members increased national insurance on jobs, they knew that it would increase unemployment. When they increased business rates, they knew that it would increase unemployment. When they introduced the farcically named employment Bill, they knew that it would increase unemployment. This country has paid a high price for Labour dogma.
Two years on, with a new Chancellor and a new Prime Minister, Labour Members had a golden opportunity to turn things around. But they have not. This Budget has not backed Britain, and it has not backed British business. Despite all the noise and all the promises of hope—the precise theme of today’s debate—there is very little to be positive, never mind hopeful, about in the Budget. It is just more debt, more taxes, and more unemployment. Vital decisions on welfare and defence spending have been kicked into the long grass. Dithering comes at a cost.
The Chancellor included the phrase “breathing space” in the title of this Budget and he mentioned it 13 times during his speech. That meant breathing space for the Government, not for my constituents. And speaking of my constituents, the Chancellor also said that the Budget would unlock growth “in every postcode”. Really? Not in WR9, WR11 or WR12—not in Worcestershire. There were loads of new promises, with lots of new spending and powers for cities and mayoral authorities, but sadly—as always—rural communities like mine in Worcestershire were ignored yet again. Labour could not make its disdain for rural communities any clearer.
What I found particularly grating were the constant references in the Budget statement to the supposed generosity of this Labour Government. Well, it is very easy to be generous with other people’s money. There were comments by the Chancellor about the “difficult decisions” that the Government are making. What a load of nonsense! Putting up taxes—dipping into other people’s pockets—is not a difficult decision. That is the easiest and lazy thing for any Government to do. The difficult thing is restraining spending and cutting taxes. When oh when is this Government going to recognise that there is no such thing as Government money? It is taxpayers’ money, and Government Members need to show the same level of respect for taxpayers’ hard-earned cash as they do when making spending decisions within their own household budget. They cannot even bother to tackle the out-of-control welfare spending, which will rise by another £19 billion this year to £353 billion—a sum almost identical to that raised by all income tax. The situation is farcical.
Defence spending has been kicked into the long grass. The Chancellor did not announce defence spending. He said that he would set a “target date” for 3% in 2030. A target date is not a policy or a commitment; it is just noise. Bizarrely, at the same time, Britain will end up with the highest tax burden in our history. It is forecast to increase to 37.9% of GDP next year, and to continue to rise until 2031-32. Labour’s answer? You guessed it: more taxes. The Budget confirmed a new tax on the tourism industry. Only the bizarre mindset of a Labour Minister could believe that the way to help an industry is by imposing more taxes on it. As has often been said, “If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.”
There are so many missed opportunities in the Budget. Retail, hospitality and leisure were crying out for support. As has been mentioned, we had proposals—which we would have been happy for the Labour party to copy—that would have taken 250,000 businesses out of paying business rates altogether, permanently. Labour’s solution was to take 70,000 businesses out temporarily, only giving back a fraction of what they had already taken away. This was a Budget of missed opportunities, and what alarms me most is the inability of Labour Members to recognise the damage they have already done, because that means they do not know how to get out of it. There is an alternative—a pro-business Conservative alternative—so bring on the election because we are looking forward to implementing that alternative at the earliest opportunity.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I welcome the measures in the Budget that will give my constituents some much-needed breathing space as they look ahead to the winter. The £100 payment towards energy bills, the scrapping of gas standing charges and the extension of 0% VAT on electricity bills, will all make a difference to household budgets in my constituency at this pressured time. I also welcome measures to support small businesses, such as the fantastic Elysien that I visited last week, and our brilliant local pubs and brewers such as Renegade and Double-Barrelled.
Today I wish to speak in my capacity as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, and because those facing discrimination and disadvantage are often the most exposed to financial pressures, I must start by saying that measures in the Budget to support people with the cost of living are particularly welcome. I also welcome the funding to tackle misogyny announced in the Budget, and the Government’s ambition in that area. In the Committee’s inquiry into the manosphere we have heard alarming evidence about online misogyny fuelling harm, and we have been left in no doubt that if we are to meet the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, we must urgently focus our attention, and our resources, on prevention. Although £15 million over three years is a welcome start, compare that with the vast profits being generated by the platforms and industries through which misogyny and hate are amplified. We are being outmatched, and as misogyny continues to plague our society, we must rise to the challenge.
The Budget also contained some welcome measures for parents and carers. I welcome the changes to the carer’s allowance to remove the cliff edge. We cannot keep telling carers—the majority of whom are women—that we want them to participate in the workforce while maintaining a system that penalises them for trying to do so. I note that the changes will not be in force until 2030-31, and I would welcome additional commitments from the Government to support carers in the meantime.
I also welcome the paid paternity leave for self-employed fathers and other parents announced in the Budget as an important first step towards the wider parental leave reform that we need. It is regrettable, however, that that gap in the system will not be filled until 2029. The Women and Equalities Committee has been clear that we need a pathway towards six weeks of paid paternity leave, and a simpler, fairer, more gender-equal parental leave system. The 18 months of the Government’s parental leave review will soon be up, and we hope and expect to see that pathway laid out.
One of the biggest barriers to equal participation in the workforce remains access to affordable childcare, so I was a little disappointed that childcare measures were not included in the Budget this year. It is a huge achievement of this Government that we have overseen a record expansion of funded childcare—something I was proud to work on as a Minister. Too many lower-income parents are unable to access the support that they need to re-enter work or work longer hours. The Government already fund around 80% of childcare delivered in this country. We have in effect already created a new public service, and it is time that we reformed our complex system to reflect that reality, and to make universal childcare a centrepiece of the Government’s 10-year plan. These are not peripheral issues but fundamental barriers to economic growth. According to the Women’s Budget Group, women’s equal participation in the workforce could be worth £113 billion to our economy, even before we consider the enormous figures that could be unlocked by improving employment opportunities for disabled people and other groups who face barriers to work.
That brings me to my final point. If we truly want to tackle inequality, we must have a conversation in this place about the barriers that prevent people from working, from earning, and from securing a better life for themselves and their families, and that means a proper conversation about welfare reform. The current system is both fiscally unsustainable and deeply unfair to the people it traps in a cycle of inactivity, so I am looking forward to the final reports of the Milburn review and the Timms review, and to the Government’s setting out concrete proposals in this area. I am also clear that in that necessary conversation about welfare reform, we must also talk about the wider barriers to employment, support for carers, the role of parental leave and, above all, access to universal childcare.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Britain needed a much bolder Budget for growth—one for families and businesses, and to boost our economy.
For families, heating—or even cooling—our homes, getting around and feeding the family are all costs that continue to rise. The energy price cap is set to rise again in January, and 1.4 million low-income households in higher council tax bands will miss out under this Budget. However, our Lib Dem essential energy guarantee would take £100 off the average bill for everyone, paid for by clawing back excess profits made by monopoly energy operators. We would also cut rail fares by 10%, bus fares to £1 and fuel duty by 10p, paid for by the Treasury’s fuel price windfall.
For most businesses, rent, rates, energy and hiring costs are going up. At DJ’s Play Zone in my local area, Mark says that his rates bill has gone up by 52%, from £21,000 to £32,000 a year, on top of the national insurance jobs tax and rising wages. He is running a small business in a big building, so small business relief never reaches him. The Chancellor’s new £18,000 threshold changes nothing for him and many other businesses that slip under the net.
Daisy Cooper
My hon. Friend mentions the example of an indoor play centre where the business rates are going up. Is she concerned, as I am, that this winter those increases will simply price children out of play altogether?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. That is why we need wholesale reform, looking at how we are supporting the businesses that need it and at the broken business rates system.
Charlotte from Berkhamsted Bookshop tells me that the average independent bookshop will need to sell over 1,000 more books a year just to cover rising costs. Christopher, who runs a small martial arts academy in Tring, tells me that rising rent and service charges threaten his future, with almost no protection for small commercial tenants. Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for more to be done to help our local businesses, including replacing business rates with a commercial landowner levy and cutting VAT on hospitality by 5p.
Gideon Amos
Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent, Philippe Messy, who runs the excellent Little Wine Shop in Taunton, who was hoping to see a big move in VAT, but who has instead described the Budget as “a soufflé that did not rise—flat, flat, flat”?
Victoria Collins
I could not have put it better myself. On top of that there is the cost of hiring, as has been mentioned again and again. The Government have to tackle that for businesses.
If we truly want fresh hope for the future and for our wider economy, we need bold action. Supporting our entrepreneurs is key, and as Lib Dems who have pushed for a type of young entrepreneurs allowance for almost a decade, we are pleased to see that proposal and look forward to hearing more details. I would also push the Government to look at further work to support start-ups and scale-ups, including reviewing the seed enterprise investment scheme, tax on SEIS, tax credits and relief so that they work for businesses.
As for the founders’ relief, I ask the Government to work with the industry to ensure that it works. One founder said to me that they felt that if they stood on one leg and turned around enough times they might just about get close to getting some of it.
On incentivising innovation, the Government must take spin-outs from our world-leading universities across the UK more seriously. We are calling for the Government to quintuple proof-of-concept funding, create regional innovation centres and introduce standardised frameworks for negotiating intellectual property across the sector. As regards innovative spending, the extra £120 million for the Sovereign AI fund pales in comparison to the nearly £8 billion of active contracts with US tech giants or the billions spent on procurement. We call for a proper digital sovereign strategy to back our British businesses and to look at increasing research and development spending, so that we do not have to make decisions over Jodrell Bank, for example, and how that is impacting innovation.
Finally, we need a bold plan on Europe. We are calling for a growth and defence partnership with Europe, rejoining the single market and customs union. Not only can we cut taxes for families with that growth dividend, but inject real growth into our economy for families, businesses and our future.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Although the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade is no longer in his place, I start by thanking him and colleagues in the Department for the work they are doing with me and other local MPs in securing the long-term future of Jodrell Bank. I am proud that it is in my constituency and I am grateful for the work that he is doing.
Like many colleagues, I welcome the Budget. Businesses need certainty and stability in order to invest, and I welcome the prudent and targeted decisions, particularly around the cost of living, which other hon. Members have touched on. Absorbing some costs in a moderate reduction in the fiscal headroom, as set out by the Chancellor, is sensible and creates the stability that helps to maintain, rather than undermine, business confidence.
In recent months, Britain has proved extraordinarily resilient to the shocks caused by the conflict in the middle east—a war that, as other colleagues have pointed out, was recklessly supported by Conservative and Reform Members. Despite oil prices remaining above $100 a barrel, growth has been better than expected in Britain. Because of the stability from this Government and the measures provided in this Budget and in previous Budgets, there is now renewed hope for the future. That hope should be cause for optimism and provide a check on the constant doom and gloom that we often hear—a reminder that official forecasts are not destiny, but a target to beat.
In the past year we have gone from the Leader of the Opposition saying we might need an IMF bailout, to the IMF saying that we have the best deficit reduction plan in the G7. In the past two years, we have consistently performed better than the forecasts. In March 2025, the OBR forecast 1% growth, but we grew 1.4%. In April this year, the IMF forecast 0.8% growth, but we hit 1.2% in the first half of the year alone. Even after upgrading its original forecast, it was still behind the curve. Forecasts are not destiny—optimism is warranted.
Opposition parties sometimes seem almost to want Britain to need a bail-out—to will debt to rise, growth to slow or inflation to be higher—for their own narrow partisan self-interest, and to paint the worst possible picture. But we should be talking Britain up, not down. This is a great country to live, do business and invest in. I say clearly to hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, believe in Britain or Britain will not believe in you.
I welcome the pro-growth, pro-industrialisation policies in this Budget, particularly the plans to devolve power and funding so that Macclesfield, and every town, can invest in the things that matter to it—the plans to devolve business rates and empower local communities to benefit from the growth that they work hard to generate, and the devolution of income tax powers to follow in 2028.
In Cheshire, we are very excited we are getting our first mayor in May. As Labour MPs in Cheshire, we have campaigned hard to get to this point. We want to replicate in our own area the tremendous journey that Manchester, Liverpool and other cities have had, so that we can unlock our potential. Fiscal devolution is an opportunity and a challenge: an opportunity to write our own destiny, and a challenge to say that if we invest in ourselves, back good growth projects and support innovation, industry and productivity, we can make ourselves richer without being reliant on Whitehall or the outside world. It is an opportunity that we in Cheshire and Macclesfield will seize with both hands. Breaking the link between Whitehall handouts and investment in Cheshire is a huge step towards our having more control over our future, and I support this Budget wholeheartedly.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Last Friday, I welcomed representatives from more than 40 local businesses to my business breakfast. The businesses were of different sizes and from different sectors, but they had the same clear message: the cost of doing business is too high. These are hard-working people. They want to be able to get on, do business, expand and invest in their staff, yet at every turn this Government make it harder.
Six in 10 small businesses feel that the Government are not on their side, according to a recent opinion poll. Higher employer national insurance contributions, increases in the minimum wage and soaring energy bills are squeezing margins, and we can add to that the mounting regulation and burdensome employment law introduced by this Government. Business confidence has been negative for seven consecutive months. Businesses needed a Budget that gave them confidence; instead, they were thrown a damp squib.
Perhaps we should not be surprised. This weekend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, whom I respect, told us that she did not think that employers were working people. I invite her to Aldridge-Brownhills so that she can tell that to the people running our hair salons, restaurants, garages and delivery companies. Those are the people who are the first up in the morning to open up their business, leave last and often pay themselves last, after everyone else. That is the harsh reality. They do not stop being working people the moment that they give somebody else a job. That remark tells us exactly how little this Government understand the people who create jobs in our communities.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend raises the matter of extra regulation and extra tax. The people this Government are hurting and impacting on the most are young people, in terms of job opportunities. That certainly seems to be the case in my constituency. Is it the case in hers as well?
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I was just about to come to the impact on young people.
Recruitment and training were also raised at my business breakfast. Local employers want to recruit, but finding people with the right skills and experience remains a challenge. Employers need a more flexible apprenticeship system that gives young people the skills and experience that local businesses are looking for. With almost 1 million young people outside education, employment or training, it is time to close the gap between the skills that employers need and the opportunities that young people can access. We need training that leads to real jobs, apprenticeships that work for employers and a welfare system that expects those who can work to do so.
Ministers need to give businesses the confidence to recruit, yet the Government’s answer is always to spend more and tax more. Their decisions will have added £75.1 billion to the tax burden by the end of this Parliament, with taxes forecast to reach their highest level on record. Families and businesses across my constituency are being asked to pay for a Government who cannot live within their means. We cannot revive our high streets by taxing businesses out of business and into closing their doors. It is time that the Treasury assesses the cumulative impact of its tax increases and this Government’s policy choices on jobs and investment, before more livelihoods and more opportunities for the next generation are lost. The Prime Minister may like writing a blank cheque, but what he really needs is a reality check from businesses such as those in my constituency.
Let me speak about a sector that is close to my heart—hospices. For families in Aldridge-Brownhills, hospices such as Acorns children’s hospice and St Giles hospice provide care, comfort and support at some of life’s most difficult moments. Their staff, volunteers and fundraisers make an extraordinary contribution, but charitable generosity cannot keep pace with rising costs indefinitely. As Hospice UK has made clear, this Budget failed to address the funding crisis, even as hospices are cutting frontline services.
There is a crucial distinction between funding buildings and funding care. Capital investment is absolutely welcome, but a refurbished room cannot care for a child; we need the specialist nurses to staff it. When the NHS commissions care from a hospice, its contracts should reflect the cost of providing that care. Hospices need fair funding in all postcodes so they can retain staff and plan services with confidence.
This Budget falls short. It may buy the Chancellor some breathing space, but it offers precious little to my constituents and local businesses. It ducks the difficult decisions, leaves the ballooning welfare bill unchecked and pushes today’s problems further down the road, leaving the country less prepared for tomorrow. Just yesterday, there was a U-turn on indefinite leave to remain, which will only increase the welfare bill. Was that costed in the Budget? I really would like to know.
We have a Government who are more concerned with keeping their Back Benchers happy than with taking the tough decisions that this country needs. The Chancellor may have bought himself time, but it is my constituents who will pay the price.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this Budget debate. I very much welcome the breathing space that this Budget provides for families across Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare. I welcome the additional £450 million spending power delivered to the Welsh Government as a direct result of this Budget, which they will hopefully use to support public services across Wales. That builds on at least £6.5 billion of total additional spending power that has already been delivered to the Welsh Government over this spending review period as a result of decisions taken by this UK Labour Government.
I am also pleased that this Labour Government are backing economic growth in Wales, delivering on our commitment on rail with £30 million to drive forward new stations in Wales, subject to the Plaid Cymru Government confirming that they will match our ambition. The Government are giving families in Wales breathing space through help with the things that matter most: energy costs, fuel, food prices, pensions and wages. Thanks to decisions taken by this Government, around 1 million households in Wales in council tax bands A to D will receive a £100 payment towards utilities. I am also pleased that tariffs have been removed on over 100 food products, helping with the weekly shop. Many of these are small things, but added together, they make a big difference to families across my constituency and across the country. Wales’s patron saint, St David, is famous for asking people to “do the little things”. The context is slightly different, but the principle is the same: taken together, little things can make a big difference.
I also want to highlight the mineworkers’ pension scheme. I declare an interest, in that my brother is a former miner and many of my extended family have also worked in the coal industry. I will focus on the last remaining call, which is to transfer the guarantor’s fund. Many ex-miners were the lifeblood of the community in my part of Wales, not only building our communities but building and powering our country. Many sacrificed their life, and many more sacrificed their health—that was the real price of coal. We owe them a debt. The Labour party has made huge progress on the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme since coming into government. We are the only party to take meaningful steps to put this right.
In the 2024 Budget, the mineworkers’ pension scheme’s £1.5 billion investment reserve was transferred to its 110,000 members, resulting in a 32% pension bonus—around £29 a week. In the 2025 Budget, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme went through the same process, with its £2.3 billion investment reserve transferred to its 40,000 members. That resulted in a 41% pension bonus, or around £100 a week. I am pleased that in this Budget, the Chancellor announced that every penny of the surplus from the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme will remain with those schemes and their members, rather than being divided with the Government.
Crucially, the Chancellor also said that this is unfinished business, and committed to ensuring that the full transfer of the guarantor’s fund will follow. That will finally right this injustice, which miners have faced for too long. However, we need that final piece to be delivered sooner rather than later, for the sake of the many ex-miners who are elderly and the many who are in poor health. Many die every month. I recognise the urgency of this matter, and I pledge that I will continue to work with my colleagues. I say to former miners across my constituency: I will continue fighting for you until you get the justice you have been waiting so long for.
Finally, although I welcome the freeze in fuel duty, I must again raise the scandal of local fuel prices. Fuel prices have remained stubbornly higher than in other areas, particularly in the Merthyr Tydfil part of my constituency. I have noted lower fuel prices in central London than in Merthyr Tydfil; even the Asda store in Merthyr Tydfil was charging around 10p per litre more than in any of its other local stores. When I met representatives of Asda earlier this year, they recognised this, and reduced their prices by 5p per litre within a few days, but the remaining retailers did not follow suit. While the war in Iran has made matters a whole lot worse, the impact in Merthyr Tydfil is worse than in many other local communities.
Although I recognise that the Government cannot force retailers to lower their prices, I have contacted the Competition and Markets Authority to ask for its help in highlighting the unfairness of fuel prices in my community and their impact on my constituents, who feel that they are being unfairly ripped off at the fuel pumps. Building on this Budget, I ask the CMA to come to the table and see what it can do to help my constituents.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Government have labelled today’s debate “fresh hope for the future”, but I regret that the Budget failed to meet the hopes of my constituents. My constituency contains a number of leading spin-out, innovation and engineering companies, from Oxford Ionics to Zero fuels and from the Jaguar and McLaren Formula E teams to Siemens Healthineers. They want to put the area on the map as one of the fastest-growing tech hubs in the country, yet too many face one major constraint: energy. The queue for grid connections faced by many new businesses and developments in my constituency goes far into the 2030s.
Many households in the area are also used to power outages. The Cooper school in Bicester recently had to close for a day because of a lack of power. North West Bicester, a site for 6,000 homes, was delayed by more than two years purely because of a lack of grid connectivity. We now have two proposed mega data centres. Exeter college proposes a new centre south of Kidlington, while a large centre south-east of Bicester will require electricity equivalent to that needed for 1.4 million homes. That is a huge amount for an area already facing energy scarcity. My constituents are worried that the Chancellor’s commitment to pushing data centres to the front of the queue will overload local networks or delay connections for essential new services. The Government must commit to publishing an assessment of capacity before allowing data centres to jump the queue.
I agree with the Prime Minister and Chancellor that we need to give more power back to the people and to end the UK’s excessive centralisation in London. In principle, I support the creation of a Thames valley mayor and regional devolution, but devolution must give local communities a stronger voice when it comes to the cumulative impact of development in our areas. New housing, data centres and major infrastructure projects cannot be considered in isolation. They make demands on the same roads, public services and electricity networks, and residents experience the combined impact. The pressure on roads, GP surgeries, schools and utilities must therefore be assessed across the whole area.
Buried in the Budget document is another announcement of real interest to my constituents. There is £150 million of additional funds to support large asylum centres, such as that proposed for site A of MOD Bicester. My constituents and I oppose this scheme for many reasons, but in this Budget debate I will limit myself to the eye-watering costs of converting this derelict storage depot, which has never had accommodation for people, into a village for 1,256 asylum seekers. The best estimate is some £280 million in capital costs and £80 million in annual operating costs, which sums to more than £1 billion over 10 years. That raises serious questions about how far the additional £150 million will stretch. I urge the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and their officials to take a close look at Home Office spending. I fear that they will find once again that the asylum programme is out of control. They will certainly find that building new accommodation at MOD Bicester is a bad deal for the taxpayer.
Turning to hospitality, pubs, cafés and restaurants are key to the health of the high streets of Bicester, Kidlington and Woodstock. In the rural villages of my constituency, the local pub, alongside the church and the primary school, is the key local institution. Too many such businesses, including the much-loved Fat Zebra café in Bicester’s Market Square, have been forced to close. Too many others tell me that they are facing mounting and unrelenting cost rises. The changes on business rates relief are welcome, but businesses tell me that they may not be enough to keep them afloat. I urge the Treasury to look again at the Liberal Democrat proposal to cut VAT for hospitality businesses.
This Budget was a missed opportunity for my constituents. It failed to assure them that infrastructure would come first, before major developments. It backed a failing Home Office programme for large asylum centres. It failed to deliver a stronger local voice, despite promises of devolution, and it failed to support the pubs, cafés and restaurants at the heart of our communities. I urge the Government to give my constituents more hope in the future.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is lovely to be back speaking in the Chamber in a debate on a welcome Budget for the life sciences. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to put on my pharmacy hat and geek out a bit about the life sciences announcements in this Budget. We have more than £1 billion of private investment in the sector, backed by nearly £70 million of Government funding, supporting 1,000 jobs. We have £500 million in a new research hub in Manchester for Convatec, which makes stoma care products. We have £300 million in a research facility in Oxfordshire for Vertex. We have £200 million in Loughborough for manufacturing respiratory medicines, including the new generation of inhalers. Closer to home, just yesterday Ministers announced £21 million for the west midlands clinical commercial catalyst, with Coventry University among the partners. That is investment in British research, in manufacturing, and in skilled people who work in both sectors.
I also welcome the Chancellor’s decision to remove VAT on orphan drugs—rare disease treatments—providing direct care for compassionate use and early access schemes. That will make it easier for people to access new treatments and continue their care. However, access is not only about the newest treatments; it is also about people’s ability to get the medicines on which they already depend. We heard recently that Europe’s last fully integrated medicine factory, in Austria, is considering closing down, due to Chinese competition. That should make us think carefully about where our medicines come from, because in Britain we rely heavily on medicines and active ingredients from India and China. With tariffs returning and global supply chains becoming increasingly uncertain, we cannot afford to depend on a handful of countries or factories for medicines that patients simply cannot afford.
We have seen supply problems with Creon, the pancreatic enzyme treatment used by people with cystic fibrosis and pancreatic cancer; with particular formulations of sodium valproate, lamotrigine and phenobarbital, medicines used to treat epilepsy; and with ramipril, a common drug used by millions of people to treat high blood pressure and heart conditions. As any pharmacist knows, missed treatments can have an impact on health, and can mean that a condition being managed at home ends in an emergency admission. That is worse for patients, and it costs the NHS more.
Although I applaud the work that the DWP is doing to help more people with health conditions into work—and I look forward to the Milburn review—if someone with epilepsy cannot reliably get their anti-seizure medication, how can we expect them to work, let alone to be productive? If someone cannot get the medicine they use to keep a heart condition stable, and as a result they become too unwell to work, how can we talk about improving Britain’s productivity? Ensuring that people can manage their health conditions, stay in work and contribute to our economy must be part of that conversation as well.
I welcome the Government’s £520 million life sciences innovative manufacturing fund and the Chancellor’s additional £20.4 billion of financial capacity for the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank. The Government have made a strong start in attracting investment, but we also need to be strategic and proactive about where that investment goes. I therefore ask Treasury Ministers, Health Ministers and Business Ministers to work together to establish which essential medicines and ingredients are more critical, where our supply chains are most vulnerable, and where manufacturing in Britain can make the biggest difference. Let us then use some of that finance to attract private investment and build up our manufacturing capacity before the next shortage becomes a crisis. We have excellent scientists and researchers; let us make sure that we have the capacity to make and reliably supply the medicines on which patients depend.
Finally, I want to say a little about what the Budget means for my constituents. More than 40,000 local people are set to benefit from the £100 payment towards their energy bills this winter, and that help is very welcome. For those working in our shops, pubs and care homes, the increase in the national living wage to £13.21 next April will mean more money in their pockets. I particularly welcome the additional business rate relief for our high streets, supporting the independent shops, cafés and pubs that are so important to our communities, along with the removal of the relief from vape shops. Our high streets are about more than shopping; they are places where neighbours meet, where local people make a living, and where we take pride in our communities.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Some have dubbed this a “steady as she goes” Budget. That has been interpreted differently by those on different sides of the debate: some have taken it as praise while others have taken it as a criticism. You might be surprised to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I fall on the side of that being a criticism. That is because I hold the really controversial view that avoiding market turmoil is a minimum requirement for a Budget; it is necessary but not sufficient, especially given the challenges we face in this country.
I accept that we face constraints, given the war in Iran and everything that is doing to the country’s finances, inflation, energy prices and so on, but we have more challenges to face up to. This Government actually recognise those challenges. They have commissioned reports on welfare reform, but they have pushed it to the other side of the Budget. They have a Chancellor who recognises that we need a plan to spend 3% of GDP on defence, but those decisions, too, have been pushed further down the track. They understand that growth has been appalling in this country for a long time, yet they have not revealed what their plan for growth will be. These are all known issues that are unaddressed in this Budget, and I think that is a massive missed opportunity.
That is not for want of measures in this Budget. There are a record-breaking 98 measures in the Budget, but they add up to the lowest total value we have seen for a very long time. Let us get into some of those. The Government have praised themselves for their £100 energy support package, and who can be churlish about £100 in times like these? But the truth is that the scheme is insufficient and poorly targeted. The tragedy is that we had an energy crisis in 2022, when we had to deliver huge sums of money, almost universally. Everybody said, “We cannot let this happen again; we must have a much more targeted scheme in future.” Four years on, what is the system we have? We are relying on the valuations of properties from 1991 to target our support. What a failure of Government. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of low-income households are now set to miss out on support, and those most in need of support will not get enough.
Looking at all the “breathing space” measures combined, those in the very poorest deciles will get, on average, just £15 more than all the others. This Government could have done far more to deliver on breathing space. For instance, they could have looked to the Liberal Democrat proposal for an essential energy guarantee, which would be more targeted and would provide more support at the right income levels. This has been a real failure of Government.
A second measure for which the Government have been praising themselves is the bank tax and the contributions that they have got that sector to make. We called for a bank tax and so we broadly welcome it, but why did they not go further? The banking industry expected this measure to be permanent and expected it to be set at 8%, and bank shares went up when we found out that that was not what the Government were going to do. In the Treasury Committee this morning, we heard from people in the banking sector, who said that they did not believe the tax would affect competitiveness and that they would be unlikely to pass on the costs to the consumer. Basically, the banks have been getting £1 billion a week this year because mortgage rates and interest rates are so high. They could have been squeezed some more, and this Government failed to do it.
On living standards, this morning the Resolution Foundation described the situation as “catastrophic”. The 2010s was the worst decade on record, with 14% growth in real household disposable income. For the 2020s, the OBR’s growth forecast is 1.4%. This is a tragedy for every working family in Britain, and that is before we get on to the cost of doing business or the spending pressures that are pencilled in for down the track. Courtrooms, classrooms and councils are all set for real-terms cuts under this Government—it is all in black and white. That is their proposal to come.
All of this can be solved in only one way: via growth. I said at the beginning of my speech that there is a lack of a growth plan, but there is one waiting on the table for the Government. We would like the Prime Minister to stop having an open, frank conversation with himself on Europe, and to actually start putting forward some concrete proposals such as rejoining the single market. That is the quickest single measure to boost growth in this country, and we should get on with it.
This Budget has deferred decisions on welfare, defence, Europe, public services and growth. The Prime Minister came into office promising to end 40 years of neoliberalism, but it will surely make its 41st birthday. It has been a missed opportunity that the Government will come to regret. Budgets do not come around very often—just ask any of the six Chancellors in the last six years. Political capital is a depreciating asset—it is best to spend it early, and the Government have utterly failed to do so.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The theme of today’s Budget debate is “fresh hope for the future”, so I would like to take the opportunity to review the pledges that I made to my constituents at the general election, how this Budget helps to deliver on them and, given that the Government have said we are at the start of the process, my fresh hopes for the future. But since Opposition Members are so interested in getting into a conversation, I will deal with them first.
Last Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out a Budget that is the best-received Labour Budget in 23 years. That has been indicated very clearly, because the public and the markets have accepted it as a fantastic development. You can hear the disappointment from Opposition Members. You can hear that they are desperate for their attack lines, which are not getting through, in order to get public attention back on them, but what have we actually heard? From the Opposition Front Bench we heard about £30 billion of unfunded tax cuts. That is what the Conservatives’ plan is so far. On their own figures, the figure is £30 billion so far, but that is exactly what happened with the Liz Truss mini-Budget. They have learned no lessons from exactly that economic situation in what they put to us today.
I promised my constituents that we would have a thriving local economy and support for the town centre, and Crawley’s economy is thriving. Anyone looking at it would have to accept that. Our major employers in the area are expanding. Developments such as the Government-funded Crawley Innovation Centre are bringing forward the new generation of technologies that will generate further economic growth in this country. Business rate changes are making it easier for properties on the high street. Many of the reforms set out in the Budget are going to make things considerably easier for people. High street rental auctions will enable us to tackle people who own property but, for their own financial reasons, are not putting people in. My hope for the future is that we can get further rate reform, and start addressing the unfair practices in the delivery industry that are allowing that sector and online retailers to kill off many of our high street businesses.
My second pledge is to have housing that delivers for local people. We have the first-time buyer scheme—“Your First Home”—and first-time buyer ISAs. We have planning reforms coming through. We have £432 million for ending rough sleeping. We have over £40 billion for the biggest investment in affordable housing in a generation. We have new towns, and greater rights for private tenants through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We are delivering for people on housing. My hope for the future is more funding for affordable housing, moving away from the current financial structures, direct delivery from the Government, an end to hope value and housing revenue account reform.
I have said that I want a better future for Crawley’s children, and what do we have? We have paid maternity leave so that fathers can spend the first critical weeks with their children, and more fathers can set the tone for their relationship to develop. We have the expansion of 30 hours of free childcare and SEND reform coming forward. We have the return of Sure Start—I do not know why it has new branding—in our communities. We have an end to the two-child poverty trap, which Opposition Members begged us not to remove. We have the expansion of free school meals, and the fastest reduction in poverty of any first-term Government in this country’s history. My hope for the future is that we continue to work towards ending child poverty, with action on those not in employment, education or training, ensuring every SEND child gets the support they need and creating real social mobility.
I pledged real action on crime and antisocial behaviour, and we have the neighbourhood policing guarantee, an end to the £200 threshold for shoplifting, and new offences, including respect orders to ban repeat offenders from public places. We have preventive departmental spending, so we can really put in place the action necessary to protect our communities. My hope for the future is that we take the gloves off the police, bring in judicial reform to make it easier to send criminals to jail, make better use of automated technology and make greater use of on-the-spot penalties.
Lastly, on a better resourced NHS that is there when people need it, we have the NHS 10-year plan and national plans for diseases such as cancer, rapid action on waiting lists, new capital investment, a huge expansion of diagnostic equipment and record investment in our national health service. My hope for the future is that the service focuses on keeping people well, rather than addressing their needs only when they are sick, and that we move services back into every postcode, where possible.
There should be no limits on the aspiration of this Government or those of our constituents for our country. We should look at the progress that has already been made on the ills that affect our society. This Budget is taking us another step closer to the future that we all seek, and I look forward to many more Budgets from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
This Budget might be described as the “John Lennon Budget”—it expects us to imagine a better future. Actually, the Chancellor’s performance was more like a better Lennon lyric:
“Life is what happens to you
While you’re busy making other plans”,
because this Budget was long on platitudinous plans and short on decisive delivery. Leaving aside the self-evident exponential crisis of welfare spending—I say self-evident, but perhaps I should explain that benefits are due to hit £431 billion—there are three macroeconomic weaknesses in the Budget, which I will seek briefly to highlight.
The Prime Minister may say that he has to wait for the Milburn and Timms reviews, but while he is doing so and those plans are being hatched, 13.5% of all young people in the UK were not in education, employment or training in January to March this year. One million people aged 16 to 24 are without a job, training or education. To echo the comments of the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), this is a waste of talent on a scale that is a national scandal. The Budget represented a wasted opportunity to address those issues and, in particular, to build the skills that might enable those people to gain a necessary job. The failure to address that may become the defining characteristic of this Administration.
These are not new problems. I was the Skills Minister, as some people in the Chamber will know. I was well aware of the root causes of NEETs and how we might address them. We managed to reduce the number that we inherited in 2010 by almost 300,000 by 2015, and I was also able also to build up the number of apprenticeships to the greatest number in modern times: over 500,000. Since then, that number has dwindled. It is only by equipping people with skills that have economic value—skills that allow them to the best they can be—that we can also sustain an economy which is desperate for those skills.
What successive Governments have done instead is to import labour. Every time we import labour and every time we make it easier to do so, we displace the investment in our own workforce, both in the young people I described and in the existing workers who need to be reskilled or upskilled. The myth was perpetuated, largely by the Treasury—
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Hayes
I am always happy to give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does he share my disappointment and dismay with this fact—that, for every young Brit who is hired today, 27 young foreign workers are hired? Young people are being locked out of the labour market because of mass immigration.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Young people are being forced to compete with those foreign workers for a scarce number of jobs. The only people who support that policy are dim-witted bourgeoise liberals and hard-hearted plutocrats, because both of them glory in the idea of foreign labour. That foreign labour is edging Britons out of jobs and, by so doing, weakening our economy.
Daisy Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman surely has not missed the evidence that, since his party’s botched Brexit deal, it has become more expensive to do business in the UK, businesses are wrapped up in red tape, and many businesses have moved abroad, taking good, high-quality jobs with them. We have a NEETs crisis in this country, caused by many different factors. One of the reasons that there are graduates who cannot get jobs is because his party’s ridiculous Brexit deal has driven businesses abroad. If we get back into the single market and make doing business cheaper, those businesses will come back here and create jobs for British young people.
Sir John Hayes
I was going to address the issue of trade later, but the hon. Lady has encouraged me to do so now. The truth is that the balance of payments has been a neglected subject in this Parliament and for successive Governments for decades. We never sold as much to Europe as Europe sold to us, and that balance was out of kilter for the whole time that we were members of the European Union.
Sir John Hayes
No, I will not give way again, because there is only so much you can teach the Liberal Democrats!
The balance of trade figures was once a pivotal announcement in Parliament and for Governments. That has been forgotten as we have chosen to import more and more goods into this country, and to make fewer and fewer. The hon. Lady will recognise that, given that I represent a rural constituency that grows a lot of the food we consume, I am particularly sensitive to the fact that we have made ourselves dependent on foreign food imports. That is preposterous. We need to shorten supply chains and make ourselves more economically resilient. As the Prime Minister said, actually—
Sir John Hayes
I was about to make a point, but I will then give way once more to see whether I can teach the hon. Lady something more. As the Prime Minister said, we must remanufacture—we must build our manufacturing capacity again. Successive Governments have failed to do this. I do not claim any credit for any political party, and I certainly claim no credit for the Liberal Democrats.
Daisy Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely contradicting himself. He has simultaneously said that we need to shorten supply chains to improve our food security while defending the very trade barriers that prevent British importers and exporters from getting food to each other on a shorter supply chain. It was the right hon. Gentleman’s party that agreed the terrible trade deals with New Zealand and Australia that have put up food prices and undermined British farmers. Would he like to apologise for that? After 10 years, we are still teaching the Conservatives how damaging their trade deals were.
Sir John Hayes
I mentioned my record on apprenticeships. I was in the coalition Government when I was able to bring about that outcome, with the full support of Liberal Democrat Ministers. It was Vince Cable, actually, as Secretary of State, who understood the need to build skills and train domestic workers so that we were not dependent, in the way that I described, on European goods or goods from anywhere else in the world. We just need to make more of what we consume. It is not hard to work out.
I said that I would deal with one or two other things, and time is pressing. Productivity is a macroeconomic problem that has faced all Governments. Declining productivity over time means that we spend a great deal of money on things from which we do not get a great deal of outcome. Our productivity is worse than some of our key competitors. The Government need to focus on that; the previous Prime Minister and his Ministers said that they would, but there was little about that in the Budget.
To summarise, I think it was Disraeli who said, “Men are not the victim of circumstances; they create circumstances.” It is not enough to blame context for the failure to address the macroeconomic problems of skills, productivity and immigration. More must be done, and done soon.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
This past weekend, out on the doorstep speaking to constituents in Clwyd North, I was reminded once again that the issues that people care about most are often very different from the arguments that dominate social media. Away from the toxicity and division that can sometimes fill our feeds, people were not so interested in political point scoring. Instead, they wanted to talk about the practical challenges they face every day: paying their bills, accessing healthcare, supporting their families and making their money go a little further.
The message I heard time and again was that people can see that this Budget is responding to those everyday pressures, despite global challenges. They welcome measures that will help with the cost of living, whether that is support with rising bills or action to bring down the cost of everyday items in their shopping baskets. These may be small changes in isolation, but when people are balancing a household budget every month, small savings can make a big difference.
They welcome the £100 payment towards energy bills and the extension of the 0% VAT rate on electricity bills. They welcome the removal of the gas standing charge, too. This change, which has long been called for, will mean that households pay only for the gas they actually use; for too long, households have paid unavoidable fixed costs regardless of how much energy they use. This is a welcome step, but I want to see real progress on electricity standing charges, too. Many families in north Wales are rightly frustrated that they pay some of the highest standing charges in the country—paying before they have even switched on a light. We have heard the Chancellor make it clear that removing the standing charge for electricity is the next area of focus, and I will be pressing for that commitment to be delivered so that my north Wales constituents have a fair deal.
Of course, I heard local people talk about public services. I heard concerns about waiting lists, access to healthcare, and support for additional learning needs in our schools. No one pretends that money alone will solve those challenges, but extra investment will give us a far better chance of tackling them. I therefore welcome the extra £450 million of additional funding coming to Wales, which builds on the largest funding settlement since devolution, delivered in the spending review by this Labour Government. My constituents want to see shorter waiting lists, better support for children and stronger public services. They want to see funding translated into results. It will be up to the minority Plaid Cymru Government in Wales to make that happen by getting on with the day job, with fewer consultations and more action.
Finally, one thing that genuinely encouraged me on the doorstep was a sense that people were starting to see politics as more connected to their everyday lives. There was support for our new Prime Minister, with one constituent saying, “I could imagine the Prime Minister standing on my doorstep having this very conversation.” That comment stayed with me, because it was not just about the Prime Minister; it was about feeling heard. People want politicians who speak their language, who understand the pressures facing them and who are focused on the issues that matter to them most.
This Budget responds to many of the concerns that people have raised with me in person, while providing welcome additional investment and opportunity for Wales. I will continue working to ensure that the people of Clwyd North see the full benefit of that investment.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Last Wednesday my constituents in Eastleigh looked to the Chancellor for real help with the cost of living. While some of the measures that he announced are welcome, I am afraid that this Budget lacks ambition, and is short term and poorly targeted. According to the Resolution Foundation, the one-off household energy payment based on council tax band rather than need means that 1.4 million low-income households in higher bands will miss out, while the scrapping of gas standing charges will save the typical household just £1.83 a month. The cuts to VAT on electricity and fuel duty both end next July, long before the OBR expects pressure on family budgets to ease.
For constituents like Susan, a widow who lives in a park home in Fair Oak, the Budget offered very little. She is off the main gas grid and has no choice but to heat her home with liquid petroleum gas, which is far more expensive and is not protected by the energy price cap. Her £100 payment will barely touch the sides, and scrapping standing charges does nothing for her. Will the Minister set out what support the Government will provide for off-grid households like Susan’s, who rely on liquid petroleum gas and are not protected by the energy price cap?
The Chancellor’s decision to raise the threshold for small business rates relief from £12,000 to £18,000 is welcome. However, the policy does not live up to the headline, benefiting only a limited number of businesses in Eastleigh. On Thursday, I hosted a post-Budget business breakfast in my constituency. Lucy, who runs Telmar CNC, a precision engineering firm in Chandler’s Ford, told me that her rates bill has doubled in six years, and manufacturers like her business got nothing. Jane runs Elite Hair Salon, which, as a microbusiness, is too small for the changes to make any difference. She told me,
“Overall, this Budget has done little to support my business or many others within the hair and beauty sector.”
I welcome the extra small producer relief. However, raising alcohol duty yet again in February will hit the very pubs and drinkers that small brewers depend on, and that is why we oppose it.
We are approaching Remembrance Sunday; and, in the current climate, ensuring that our armed forces are properly equipped is more urgent than ever. In Eastleigh, Stuart, who runs GW Martin & Co, has welcomed the Government’s commitment to small firms in the defence investment plan, but he told me,
“We would like to see greater urgency in funding this necessary investment as we have capacity and capability to respond quickly, which will create jobs, growth and revenue.”
Instead, the plan to reach 3% of GDP on defence has been pushed back to next year’s spending review.
James, who owns JLMS—an apprenticeship provider—told me,
“This was not a Budget for youth employment.”
The payment for taking on an apprentice has not gone up in five years, while the cost of employing and training a young person keeps rising. The Chancellor had a choice. He could have reversed the increase to employer national insurance contributions, which has sent job vacancies to a five-year low. Instead, he told young people to wait for another review.
On plan 2 student loans, this Budget was again silent. It was an opportunity to reverse last autumn’s deeply unfair decision to freeze the repayment threshold from April 2027 for three years. With the minimum wage rising and the threshold frozen, we are approaching the point where a graduate on the minimum wage could have to start repaying. I urge the Treasury to scrap the freeze and link the threshold to average earnings.
I am pleased that the Chancellor has finally listened to Lib Dem calls to scrap the carer’s allowance cliff edge. That is a welcome first step, but it will not come into force until 2030, and carers trying to balance work with looking after a loved one need this safety net now, not in four years. Will the Minister commit to bringing forward its introduction so that carers do not have to wait until 2030?
Eastleigh needed a Budget with real ambition, but this one falls short. I urge the Chancellor to go further.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am glad to support this excellent Budget. I welcome and agree with the Chancellor’s praise for his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), whose commitment to secure economic foundations has helped to fund sustained public investment and deliver growth. It has helped the Chancellor rightly to offer breathing space now and fresh hope for the future.
I will focus on the latter, but, on breathing space, the Budget delivered, with 41,760 households in my constituency receiving the £100 household energy payment. As someone whose professional career was in the private sector, I was particularly delighted to see the two-year business rate freeze, which will benefit 336 local retail, hospitality and leisure properties in Rugby, Bulkington and the villages.
There was much in the Budget, too, on fresh hope for the future. The words of the Prime Minister are important in this context. In his Labour conference speech, he said:
“Hope comes from honesty…It comes from saying the things politicians usually avoid.”
It is what I call hard-headed hope. We need what I call the responsibility revolution: a focus on what each of us as individuals or organisations should contribute—or indeed sacrifice—rather than on what entitlements we are to receive. We older folk have a responsibility to the next generation, so my speech will focus primarily on the physical embodiment of fresh hope for the future: our young people. There can be no more important long-term issue than their interests.
In addressing a long-term challenge for those at the opposite end of the age spectrum, the Prime Minister set out in his Labour conference speech how the Government will adjust the pension triple lock, which is a bold and much-needed move. He also said that
“we will need to show the same boldness for our young people, too.”
The Budget did that in several ways. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s announcements of the Your First Home equity loan scheme and the first-time buyer ISA. That young people are priced out of affordable housing is a national scandal.
Thousands of people in my constituency will also appreciate the much-needed 3.9% increase in the national living and minimum wage. The young entrepreneurs allowance is a vital pro-young people, pro-entrepreneurship measure. Let us encourage young people across the country to consider entrepreneurship as a viable career option.
However, we need to go much further to provide hope for the future. We need to keep going until we can truly say that our young people are equipped sufficiently to be the architects of the future rather than tenants in a world designed by the older generation and all too often shaped by their interests. I would like to see the appointment of a Minister for younger and future generations sitting in Cabinet to scrutinise existing and future policy and legislation through the lens of how it benefits the next generation. We also need an independent body to hold the Government’s feet to the fire, so how about an office for intergenerational fairness?
Last year, I coined the phrase “youth triple lock” because I wanted to focus attention on young people’s needs and the need for some rebalancing. I suggest an above-inflation increase in the student maintenance loan. The Prime Minister hinted at that in a social media post with the Chancellor when he said that student loans are
“one to come back to.”
I also suggest free bus passes and something on housing, which, as I stated earlier, was covered extensively by the Chancellor’s excellent Budget.
There remains a risk that the social contract with our young people is fraying, so let us show that our Labour Government are not slowing down but accelerating our efforts to empower young people. Our role is not just doing what will make us popular with a plurality of mainly older voters; we need to rebalance things, because investing more in our young people is in the best interests of our economy as they are the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the workers, the business owners, the public servants and much more of tomorrow. We must unleash their potential. More importantly, it is the moral thing to do; it is the fair thing to do; it is the Labour thing to do.
I commend the Budget for all its measures, and in particular those regarding young people. As ever, measures to empower young people are a down payment on the future and, as with all healthy investments, regular, judicious and generous investment pays dividends in the long run. I hope that the 10-year plan will be another opportunity to demonstrate that to the younger generation.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Given the time constraints, I will keep my remarks as short as possible. Although there are things that are welcome in this Budget , such as business rate relief and energy cost relief, it does not meet the challenges my constituents in Yeovil are facing, let alone pave the way for the biggest change in a generation that this Government keep saying they are going to deliver.
For a start, rural communities have been completely overlooked again. The £100 off most people’s energy costs is great, but it is not means-tested, and is matched to a broken council tax system. For us in rural Somerset, the biggest issue is the price of heating oil, which has doubled in the last year. What we needed was an urgent price cap— I have spoken to residents who have said they are not heating their homes because they cannot afford heating oil. That is unfair, and the Government need to provide real help.
There was nothing in the Budget for farmers, the backbone of our rural economy. That adds insult to injury, given Labour has increased taxes on farmers, while cutting the farming budget in England by a further £100 million and locking farmers out of funding by running applications for the sustainable farming incentive as if they were selling Glastonbury tickets—believe me, I know how hard they are to get. That is not just bad for Somerset’s economy; it threatens our food security at exactly the time we need to be strengthening it. That is why we Liberal Democrats have called for the farming budget to be increased by £1 billion a year.
More broadly, by missing many of the big-picture challenges, the Budget has failed my Yeovil constituency.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for rural communities on heating oil, farming and other issues, but may I add the failure of this Government to extend the rural fuel duty scheme? My rural North Cornwall constituency does not have buses running to hospitals, educational opportunities and jobs. Does he agree that the Government missed an opportunity to extend that scheme to help our rural constituents?
Adam Dance
I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the biggest issues we have in Somerset is that even if there is a bus, sometimes it is so delayed, it is four hours late and students cannot get to college.
The can has been kicked down the road to the spending review next year as to how the Government plan to meet their NATO commitment of spending 3.5% of GDP on defence. Yet again, that leaves many of the cutting-edge defence firms that are the beating heart of Yeovil’s economy in uncertain times. Similarly, there was nothing in the Chancellor’s speech on education, when 70% of schools across England have had less funding in real terms than in 2010 and we have a growing SEND funding black hole. Investment in education is an investment in the future of this country and a sure-fire way to drive growth, so it is disappointing to see that funding solutions to this issue have also been kicked down the road.
One of the biggest issues impacting growth is how we do taxation. Business relief is great, but I do not know how many more of us have to call it “the broken business rates system” before the message gets through. So many businesses have contacted me since the Budget saying, “It is great, you have helped some, but you have not helped us. We are at the point of closing our doors.” Business rates need abolishing and replacing with a commercial landowner levy.
That is not all, however. Council tax is one of the biggest challenges raised by Yeovil constituents, because the system is out of date and we need bold Government action to change that. Unfortunately, the Government have decided not to rise to those challenges in this Budget and the people of Yeovil will continue to suffer the consequences of this Government’s inaction.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the final day of the Budget debate. It is a Budget that this Government can be proud of, a Labour Budget, a Budget that will deliver fresh hope for the future, and a Budget that will put £100 back into the pockets of 44,430 households in Dagenham and Rainham. Though the council tax rebate of £100 to help with energy bills might not sound like much, with the energy bills breathing space scheme, coupled with the Government’s other measures, such as no VAT on electricity till July ’27, the abolishing of standing charges on gas bills and capping new levies on energy bills at 0% until 2030, we are taking action to reduce household energy debt in every postcode. With such a focus on making utilities affordable, I cannot help but feel hopeful that the failing water companies who extort us for resources will one day be brought back into public ownership, finally ending the race to the bottom that Thatcherism started, where profit margins and shareholder bonuses are put above quality of service and the people that rely on it.
Speaking of services and the fresh hope that last week’s Budget set out, I wholeheartedly welcome the move to finally open up Stratford International, providing Eurostar access in east London. I have no doubt that this investment will provide a much-needed boost to the local economies in some of the most deprived areas of the capital. While that gives my constituents easier access to Europe, those living at Beam Park in the south of my constituency are still waiting for the train to Fenchurch Street. In fact, those residents are still waiting for the train station, which was promised to new homeowners and renters by the last Conservative Government, only for the plug to be pulled and promises to be broken. My helpful suggestion is that perhaps we should ask the last Government to own that decision. Despite the absence of an announcement that would deliver for Beam Park, I remain tenacious in my pursuit of the vital infrastructure that my constituents in Dagenham and Rainham were promised, and I very much hope, given the renewed focus on transport in London, that the £13.9 million shortfall to deliver this station can be found.
While my campaign for Beam Park station continues, my campaign to deliver a new and expanded emergency department for the Queen’s hospital in Romford, which serves my constituents, has been won, thanks to this Labour Government. We campaigned for £35 million and this Labour Government, ahead of their landmark Budget, awarded the Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust £42 million to redesign the accident and emergency unit at Queen’s hospital. The party that built the NHS is now ending corridor care and delivering an NHS that is fit for the future.
On the subject of health, it would be remiss of me not to mention environmental health, not least because of the Rainham volcano, a burning historic landfill that blights the health of the community in part of my constituency. Given the sheer scale of historic landfills in the country, I was disappointed not to see reinvestment in the Environment Agency to help these problems, but I am hopeful that, as the Government transform Britain, I can continue ticking off my pledges from 2024. If any Ministers are listening, I have covered my wish list in this contribution.
As the Member of Parliament for a working-class constituency often described as London’s red wall, I was overjoyed to hear the Chancellor unveil plans to deliver paid paternity leave for self-employed workers. I am honoured to serve under my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) as deputy chair of the all-party parliamentary group for tradespeople, and I know that this policy will give fresh hope to the plumbers, electricians, brickies and other tradesmen who will benefit from paid paternity leave from April 2029, giving self-employed dads the opportunity to be at the start of family life when it matters most. This is a real win for the work of the APPG, and it will make a tangible difference to family lives in Dagenham and Rainham, which is home to thousands of tradespeople and small business owners.
I will bring my contribution to a close very simply, as I started. This was a Budget the Government can be proud of: a Labour Budget that delivers respite for today and fresh hope for the future.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a former county councillor.
It is safe to say that I have not been inundated with emails praising this Budget or crediting it for tackling the thorny issues that my constituents face. Those eligible will welcome the £100 energy bill payment going towards their soaring bills, but the more than 10,000 of my constituents reliant on heating oil will wonder where they are going to find the rest of what has often been a £500 price hike on their oil bills. They will also be asking why the Government have cut VAT for those who rely solely on electricity but are happy to rake in double the VAT receipts from others who face those soaring bills. Removing VAT on those bills would put another £50 back in the pockets of those who have to fill a 1,000 litre tank. The Government are benefiting from a VAT windfall, and it is time that they gave that back to the people suffering from these higher costs.
Rural communities in general are struggling as a result of this Budget. In particular, schools are close to their crisis point in too many villages in North Norfolk. Earlier this year, Corpusty primary shut its school gates for the last time. It was heartbreaking for the families affected, and for the children, who were losing the only school that most of them had ever known. We fought tooth and nail against that closure—unlike, I should say, either the Conservative or Reform administrations at County Hall, who stood idly by. I warned anyone who would listen that Corpusty was the canary in the coalmine. Its fundamental challenges were not unique, and it was an indicator of a worrying trend that needs to change. I am deeply fearful of what comes next, because more school leaders and parents are telling me their concerns about their local schools.
For all their best efforts, headteachers just cannot make the books balance. It is not their fault; they are being failed by a funding formula that simply does not appreciate the realities of rural life and the importance of rural schools to their communities. In places where there is a fall in the number of children and young people, schools are crying out for a funding package that can help them stay afloat and adapt to a difficult financial and demographic environment. They should feel reassured by the falling rolls funding mechanism, which triggers a £140,000 payout to local authorities through the dedicated schools grant whenever there is a drop of 10%, year on year, in an area’s pupil census. Despite that drop being the reason why that money is coming forward, there is no requirement for it to be spent on those schools, or the issue of falling rolls. It is clear that both sides need to change their processes. The Government need to be more prescriptive about ringfencing, and I will argue that it is not an outlandish ask for falling rolls funding to be dedicated to falling rolls. On their side, the local authority cannot just use this as another sticking plaster to cover educational funding crises.
If we do not get a grip on the schools crisis, we face challenging times in our rural communities. If we lose the schools, we lose the working-age population. If we do not fund rural schools properly, whole communities suffer. If there is no local school, the area is not a viable place for a young family to live. That means no one of working age to do the inherently rural jobs in farming, or in the energy industry or defence. In a community without working-age people, there is no one to staff the doctor’s surgery, provide care or even pour a cup of coffee on a Monday morning.
We must act now if we want our cherished rural and coastal communities to flourish, and if there is to be good growth in every postcode, there must be cross-governmental support for small rural schools. The Government’s goals—not just for education and economic growth, but for transport, housing, climate change, food security and even defence—all depend on a vibrant future for our rural communities, yet this Budget’s measures are just another example of the Government working in silos, which is not working for our rural areas. It is time to re-establish hope for rural communities by backing small schools.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on “fresh hope for the future”, and that title could not be more timely. Across the world, we are living through a period of uncertainty unlike any that many of us have experienced in our lifetime. The challenges we face today are different from those faced by previous generations. Alongside the traditional military threats, we face cyber-attacks, threats to our critical national infrastructure, hostile state activity and economic instability across the globe. In a world like this, national security cannot be an afterthought. In my constituency, we have known that for generations; it is the backbone of the economy and our community. For many of us, defence runs in our blood and in our ancestry, but for too long, communities like mine were asked to believe Conservative promises. We were repeatedly told that defence was the highest priority, yet year after year, we saw programmes delayed, budgets squeezed, and our industry and economy hanging in the balance. That disrupted the lives of my constituents and undermined our national security.
The Conservatives claim that they are the party of defence. They stand here today and make more promises that they cannot fulfil. By the time they had left office, the National Audit Office was warning of an “unaffordable equipment programme”. They were running up a bill of tens of billions of pounds that they could not pay. In Barrow, those failed promises have a cost. It impacts investment decisions, training and development opportunities, the supply chain industry and, most critically, confidence for working families that they can put food on the table. That is why this Budget matters. It builds on previous work from the Government to support our national security, and it moves us away from the short-term thinking that characterised the Conservative years.
The full funding of the defence investment plan gives industry, workers and communities the confidence that this Government’s commitments are backed by resources, not just rhetoric. Fully funding the DIP sends a powerful message—one that my constituents are well aware of: by investing in defence, we support and empower our communities, our businesses and our national security. Through the defence investment plan, we will deliver stronger military capability, protect our at-sea nuclear deterrent through building up to 12 SSN-AUKUS submarines, and help supply chain businesses all over the country to reach their full potential. We are doing this partly through the innovative defence financing taskforce. For a long time, I have called for a financing and procurement system fit for the modern age. Too many small and medium-sized enterprises are held back by complicated bidding processes, timeline pressures and a risk-averse culture. This taskforce is the first step in addressing those issues. Like many of my colleagues, I firmly believe that it is a priority for us to reach 3% of GDP on defence spending. This is why I was glad to hear the Chancellor confirm last week that the details will be set out at next year’s spending review. This Government are prioritising investment in defence and ensuring that the path to 3% is built on sound financial planning, rather than soundbites.
Hope does not only come in the form of long-term investment, though; it also comes through addressing issues that are smaller-scale but no less important. I want to thank the Government for listening on an issue that I recently raised with the Prime Minister. Just two weeks ago, we spoke in this Chamber about my constituent Ian, who requires access to a life-extending medicine. After the June announcement that the application of VAT would be reformed, the drug’s developer withdrew from the scheme through which the drug was provided. Ian was left with no remaining options. With nowhere left to turn, his family were left with an awful choice: find the money to fund the huge cost themselves or, even more unfairly, lose remaining time with their loved one. That is why I welcome the Government’s announcement on VAT and donated medicines. Creating an exemption for medicines is a practical and compassionate measure that will ensure that life-changing treatments can reach those who need them the most.
For Ian, this Budget has provided something priceless: hope for his health, and hope that the Government are listening. That is what links this Budget together. Whether it is the apprentice in Barrow looking towards a skilled career in our defence industry, the local business planning to expand with confidence because of long-term investment, or a constituent gaining access to life-extending medication, this Budget is about creating the conditions for a better future. Barrow and Furness has always stepped up when our country has needed us. This Budget demonstrates that, in turn, this Government are stepping up for Barrow and Furness.
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
There has been quite a lot of chat about future generations throughout this Budget debate. I feel like I have aged a lot over the last four months in this place, but I want to speak today on behalf of a younger generation and, more importantly, the young people who live in my constituency.
Although he is not in his place any more, I would like the Secretary of State to put himself in the shoes of a young person in my constituency—a young person who has come to me in the last few days to tell me that since the Chancellor’s announcements last week, they are feeling not hopeful, but fearful. I would like the Secretary of State to imagine that he is a young person who has been to university, worked hard and made personal sacrifices to do everything that he was told he was supposed to do. I would like the Secretary of State to understand what it feels like to be a 21-year-old today, and to try to see how much breathing space there really is for entire generations of young people, who feel more hopeless than ever before, who have been let down time and again by successive UK Governments, and who, in my constituency, despite Scotland voting overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, were dragged out against their will, and so have come of age in broken Brexit Britain.
Let us imagine that this young person in my constituency studied for their undergraduate degree in an English or Welsh university and took out the standard tuition and maintenance loan. This young person might now have £60,000 of debt—an amount that they will watch rise year on year, even after they start paying it off, because this Government have changed the terms of a contract that young people signed in good faith. Because the Chancellor has failed to reverse the cruel repayment threshold freeze implemented by his predecessor, young people face the reality of paying off their student loans for the entirety of their working life. Many young people, my peers included, have said that they feel that they will never be debt-free, and I want the Secretary of State to understand how it feels to be a young person at the beginning of their career, staring at that much insecurity and financial instability.
In Scotland, we do not punish people for pursuing higher education, but our young people who choose to study elsewhere in the UK face consequences that were previously unimaginable. Debts have moved past stifling, and are now simply oppressive. To me, that speaks of a Government who are comfortable targeting low-income graduates for tax revenue, squeezing young people’s disposable income and making it impossible for them to save.
If this young person finds a job—perhaps in hospitality, for which Labour has refused to cut VAT—and they are paid the minimum wage, they will earn enough to make student loan repayments, at 9% of their earnings. Given the ever-rising cost of living, there is almost no chance that they will be able to make savings. They likely find it near impossible to get to the end of every month in credit. Because of Labour’s personal allowance freeze, that young person will see a larger chunk of their income eaten by taxes, without gaining any purchasing power. I want the Secretary of State to imagine how it feels to be a young person who, on payday, instead of feeling financially secure, feels despair.
Many young people across Scotland and my constituency, and further afield, cannot rely on financial support from their family. If that young person is renting a flat, they are likely to see their energy bills increase again in January, taking the total to more than £1,000 more than Labour initially promised, and dwarfing any minuscule changes made by announcements last week. In Scotland, that young person might be one of the 800,000 Scots now paying higher gas bills to subsidise English taxpayers, or one of the 150,000 Scots relying on heating oil who receive no support at all for that—this Labour Government so often forget about rural communities. That young person will be watching as the Resolution Foundation predicts that the disposable income of the average household is set to fall by £1,000. For a young person who is already struggling to put fuel in their car, that is a terrifying concept.
For a young person on the cusp of their adult life, who has done nothing but work hard, but who is staring in the face of job insecurity, the fear of never receiving a state pension, and the certainty that they will never be able to afford a house, and who has lifelong student debt hanging over their head and monthly costs that completely consume their earnings, the Budget is cold, hard confirmation that the new iteration of a Labour Government is no better than the last. Young people in Scotland deserve to feel hopeful, and to have ample opportunities to learn, save and work. That is not what they get from this Labour Budget.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
It will come as no surprise to hear that I will talk largely about Cornwall. This Budget brings welcome hope to Cornwall; we also have a bespoke devolution deal on a Cornwall-only strategic authority footprint, which respects our unique identity, and we do not face the futility of having a mayor acting in parallel to our single unitary authority. That fresh hope comes with £2.7 million of good growth funding, a share of the £150 million uplift to capacity funding, and local control of the new overnight visitor levy.
Cornwall welcomes millions of visitors, but our communities carry that pressure without receiving the investment needed to manage it. If properly designed, the levy could be a revenue stream that funds the infrastructure needed to unlock Cornish reindustrialisation and build fresh hope across our communities. The Government must recognise that if we have a single-foundation strategic authority, it is a pointless waste of taxpayers’ money to install an elected mayor in parallel, as an ideological quid pro quo for accessing extra funding and powers.
Sir John Hayes
Cornwall is similar to Lincolnshire in some of the challenges that it faces, particularly regarding the delivery of public services in a scattered rural area. Will the hon. Gentleman join calls for more action on heating oil? Many of his constituents will be dependent on heating oil, as people are in my constituency, but there is precious little about that in the Budget. I hope that we can create cross-party consensus that more must be done.
Perran Moon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I remind him that there was a support package in the Budget, which I will talk about a little later.
I welcome the Government’s focus on fiscal prudence and economic competence, and their determination to crowd in private investment in order to rebuild our economy. Since 2024 the Government have doubled the fire power of our financial institutions to more than £200 billion. Cornwall has seen the value of anchor investment in our tin, lithium and tungsten industries. Additional capital for the national wealth fund sends a signal of confidence in Cornwall’s critical minerals and their contribution to Britain’s economic security and energy resilience.
Cornwall has vast untapped economic potential through our internationally renowned resources of critical minerals. The Conservatives ignored those resources and abandoned Cornwall, but this Government are taking welcome action to bring back Cornish tin mining and bring back fresh hope to our communities. However, the Government must go further and faster to ensure that these vast resources are not offshored by competitive nations, to the detriment of UK plc.
There is also a risk that Cornwall will be disadvantaged precisely because we have chosen a model of devolution that reflects our national minority status. A key offer for foundational strategic authorities has been business rates retention, but Cornwall council has had that since 2017. Mayoral strategic authorities can also access a £1.5 billion borrowing facility and negotiate strategic place partnerships with Homes England, but Cornwall cannot currently do that either. With 25,000 homes on the social housing register, getting the deal and its associated funding would be transformative for Cornish house building and we will not stop demanding that.
In Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, house prices have risen almost 18% in five years, compared with 6.4% across England and Wales. Young people increasingly feel that owning a home where they grew up is beyond their reach, so the first-time buyer ISA and the £4.7 billion Your First Home scheme offer fresh hope. Alongside the 100% council tax premium on empty homes, they could make home ownership possible again for a new generation of Cornish families.
On energy, this Budget fully demonstrates how this Government are on the side of remote communities such as ours in Cornwall. One in seven households in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle rely on heating oil, compared with one in 29 nationally. With heating oil prices up 82% since the start of the Iran war, the two-year suspension of tariffs on kerosene is welcome, but I hope that is a first step and not a final destination. The same is true for the £100 household energy payment for over 43,000 households in my constituency, the additional £100 million for targeted energy support, the commitment to abolish domestic gas standing charges and the extension of zero VAT on electricity to July.
However, in my capacity as chair of the APPG on electric vehicles, I have some concerns about the signals we are sending to the automotive sector. The continued uncertainty over the zero emission vehicle mandate risks weakening investment in Britain’s position in export markets. Charging 20% VAT on public charge points penalises drivers without a driveway or a home charger. Although an eventual road tax for EVs is understandable, introducing it in 2028 through an unwieldy scheme risks discouraging adoption when demand needs to accelerate.
All things considered, this Budget is welcome for Cornwall. Each of the wins, from heating oil to energy bills, and from housing to devolution, comes alongside a vast improvement in the fundamentals of the British economy since the last election, despite strong global headwinds. The Government are restoring credibility and competence to the British economy, we are creating breathing space for our constituents, and we are rebuilding our reputation with our closest neighbours, our allies and our friends in the European Union. It is in the British national interest to do so. Rather than the withering disdain and distrust of the Conservative Government, this Government are engaging proactively, and I thoroughly welcome that.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
One million—that is the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. Youth unemployment stands at 14%. That is a scandal and a crisis. Far from giving young people hope, this Budget throws them under a bus, frankly, because it is fundamentally unfair. We are losing a generation.
This Budget is unfair to the 16-year-old who has finished their GCSEs and wants to start working, but who faces zero opportunities to find an apprenticeship or learn a skill. It is unfair and offers no hope to the 21-year-old who has done the right thing and studied for a degree, but who has come out with a qualification that is not opening any doors and has instead saddled them with crippling debt and directed them to the welfare office to claim out-of-work benefits.
This Budget is also unfair to the British taxpayer, who currently lays out £22 billion a year in student loan payments. That is a taxpayer who will see hundreds of billions of pounds never repaid; a taxpayer who faces chronic shortages in our labour market, particularly in the NHS, construction and hospitality. We have a lost generation, and this Budget does nothing for our young people.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. and learned Friend will know that we need to recalibrate our economy around the highest level of skills. Too many young people are directed into academic education—I use “academic” in the broadest sense—only to find themselves jobless, and too few have the opportunity to learn something vocational, technical or practical that would give them the chance to get a job and not take on huge debts.
Suella Braverman
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the point that I am about to make.
How did we get to this youth unemployment crisis? For the past 30 years, starting with Tony Blair, we have sold one promise to young people: that they need to get a degree, regardless of what it is or where it is from, and they will be set up for life. However, for so many young people today, that has been exposed as a lie. We have 700,000 graduates currently unemployed, some 400,000 of whom are claiming welfare. Average graduate debt stands at £50,000, average graduate salaries are falling, and graduate hiring is disappearing.
For many of those young people, it is not so much that they have taken out a student loan; they have been saddled with a life sentence. It is no wonder they cannot start saving, buy a house, get married or think of starting a family. They are being crippled by the system, and this Budget does nothing to support them.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
One aspect of the Budget that will make a huge difference to young people in my area is the £2.5 billion investment in a partnership with Rolls-Royce. That is great for civil and military aviation and will be used to create a lot of jobs for young people in my constituency. Does the right hon. and learned Lady welcome that measure, or would she rather we had not done it?
Suella Braverman
I am afraid that is just a drop in the ocean compared with the enormity of the challenge we face. I will come on to skills and apprenticeships in one minute, but I will dwell on how we got to this great university scam, as I call it.
We have some of the best universities in the country, and I will always defend them, but our universities are failing many of our young people and offering awful value for money. Some of the courses are not worth the paper they are written on. Is it really right that vice-chancellors are earning huge salaries but offering awful job prospects? Do some of them really deserve their £200,000 or £300,000 salaries when their institutions are offering job prospects for only 40% of their graduates? No. Do we really need courses in politics, sexuality and gender, with a vice-chancellor on more than £200,000? No. That is all while we have gaps in our NHS, construction and hospitality. That is why a Reform Government would deal with this issue. We would reduce the student loan budget by 20% and invest the billions saved into helping our country. We would train up British doctors and nurses and scrap the arbitrary cap on medical training places.
Let me say a word about immigration, because it has been a big factor. Many universities have got fat on foreign students. I am afraid that I have to say it: the last Conservative Government opened the floodgates to international students. It is something that I started to reverse when I was Home Secretary. As a result, universities have been selling immigration, not education. As a consequence—as I said earlier—for every young Brit who is employed in this country, 27 young foreign workers are also employed.
Suella Braverman
I am sorry, but I do not have much time. I will try to come back to the hon. Lady.
What I have described is locking our young people out of the labour market. A Reform Government would put British workers at the front of the queue for British jobs. That used to be common sense, but today it is controversial.
Moving on to apprenticeships and skills, I am afraid that this Budget is conspicuously silent on investing in skills, apprenticeships and the vocational trades. The number of apprenticeships has almost halved over the past decade, particularly among small and medium-sized businesses and for entry-level positions.
John Slinger
The right hon. and learned Lady, speaking about apprenticeships, has essentially said that nothing has been done. Does she acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in his Budget speech, specifically spoke about how
“Today’s Budget provides £100 million for a local apprenticeship service to match young people with local firms, funded from savings in welfare fraud and error”?—[Official Report, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 311.]
Suella Braverman
The reality is that £100 million is a small amount compared to the enormity of the challenge that we are required to face, as I said to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies). Employers are not taking on young people—that is a fact and it is borne out by the statistics. Employers are not taking on apprentices, because it has become too expensive for them. It has become heavily regulated and bureaucratic, and the training requirements are now too rigid.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Can the right hon. and learned Lady remind us of what her Government did, and what she did when she was in government, to increase apprenticeships?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Lady is on a weak point there, because it was the last Conservative Government who started the apprenticeship movement, and apprenticeships peaked at around 600,000 in 2016. I was very pleased to champion apprenticeships in my constituency, and thousands of young people in Fareham and Waterlooville have taken them up, but that number has been halved—we are now at about 300,000 apprentices.
A Reform UK Government would introduce an apprenticeship wage credit. We would pay small and medium-sized enterprises 30% of an apprentice’s salary to help them with the cost of taking on a new person, investing in our future and in young people. I want to live in a country where a young person is able to enjoy opportunities to prosper, work hard and thrive in their life, regardless of where they come from, what their parents did or the kind of school they went to.
I am afraid that this Budget offers precious little to our young people and zero hope to the next generation, and is a real disappointment for our young people, who are crying out for hope and opportunity. That is why I will be voting against it tonight.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on fresh hope for the future, including for the businesses on our high streets and my constituents who rely on them. Last week’s Budget, delivered by a Labour Chancellor, was the Budget that people in my constituency need. They know that our high streets cannot become hubs for criminal activity while legitimate businesses are priced out and run down. They also know that our high streets cannot remain clusters of vape shops and gambling premises, and cannot continue to withstand these hits without serious ramifications for the future of our communities up and down this country. I am proud that this Labour Government are making the right choices by putting place over profiteering.
Too many of the constituents and businesses that I represent feel that day in, day out, their finances are being stretched beyond what is palatable or fair. I understand that, the Prime Minister understands it, and it is clear from this Budget that the Chancellor understands it. My constituency of Heywood and Middleton North has so much potential, and its people are determined to see a sense of pride, vibrancy and purpose return to their neighbourhoods. I want to focus my remarks today on the high streets that have been eroded because of a sustained lack of investment, but that can prosper again and provide much-needed respite for responsible businesses, with power directed to leaders with the means to turn things around. That is what I heard from the Budget last week. The £1 billion package announced by this Chancellor will mean that businesses in Heywood and Middleton North will see their business rates frozen, reduced or cut to zero. The measure will apply to around 600 properties in my borough, and we are also taking more businesses out of paying business rates by increasing small business rate relief thresholds for retail, hospitality and leisure premises.
Businesses that enrich our communities are getting the focus they deserve. The choice at the heart of this is how we differentiate between those businesses that strengthen our high streets and those that weaken them. For years now, my constituents have seen vape shops and similar premises pop up en masse and corrode the ties between local people and the high streets they once knew. That is why I fully support this Labour Chancellor in not extending business rate relief to those businesses, but instead throwing our full backing behind those who are building back our towns piece by piece. That measure sits alongside the steps announced by the Government earlier in the year.
We are determined to revoke the outdated “aim to permit” rule in the Gambling Act 2005, which restricts councils’ ability to refuse new betting shops, even where there are strong local concerns. Additional planning permission will be required for vape shops to finally give local people and councils a say over where they open and to stop them from opening near schools. That is alongside a doubling of the maximum duration of closure orders for dodgy shops to give investigators more time to gather evidence and secure prosecutions. I have been calling for this for some time, because I have seen the scars that these illicit operations have left on high streets in Heywood and Middleton. It cannot be right that residents are forced to watch authorities scramble as these businesses skirt accountability and reopen weeks later. It is time that we sided with good businesses and made it clear that good practice is the only practice that will be tolerated.
There is a moral argument that we must engage with and win. Residents, shoppers and businesses in Heywood and Middleton North are all completely justified in not wanting the continued proliferation of these shops. They want to see civic ties, family ties and social ties restored on our high streets, rather than ample profits for endless vendors that exploit working-class communities, run down public health and chip away at the communities they once knew. That has been made clear not only in the Budget, but in the publication of last week’s cross-Government strategy, “Hope on the High Street”, which includes £210 million to transform derelict buildings into the new anchors of our high streets.
In closing, I want to put on record my thanks to the businesses, business leaders and workers who are the pillars holding up the high streets of Heywood and Middleton North. Each week, I visit businesses from Heywood market through to Middleton shopping centre, and they are making an immense difference to the towns I represent. Whether it is Tilly’s Tea Room or Pecado in Heywood, Waffle Co in Middleton, or Honey Café on Boarshaw, these are the businesses that we need to be supporting, and we should demonstrate to them that their contribution to our communities is recognised and valued. I am proud to stand here today and speak on their behalf, and I am proud to stand here as part of a Labour Government who are well and truly on their side.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I would like to address the barriers that businesses are facing right now that make them not so hopeful about the future. The south-west is home to many innovative businesses that employ local people and generate growth across the region, such as Drift Energy and Luthmore.
Based in Bath, Drift Energy is developing a first-of-its-kind sailing vessel that harvests wind energy on the move. This groundbreaking innovator would reduce UK reliance on imported fossil fuels, increase domestic green hydrogen capacity and open new manufacturing and maritime innovation opportunities. CBI Economics has estimated that by 2032, Drift Energy could deliver nearly £200 million in growth through operations in the south-west alone. Luthmore is a south-west business that has developed a first-of-its-kind battery-enabled alternative to the gas combi boiler. It currently employs 42 people—a figure that is forecast to double to 80 within the next nine months, making it a significant local employer. With the right support and conditions, these businesses could generate real growth in postcodes across the south-west.
The Government say that they will cut business costs and support innovation, but the measures in this Budget do not go anywhere near far enough in addressing the financial challenges that these businesses face. The Budget fails to address a significant funding gap—the gap between the points at which seed investment funds and venture funds respectively feel comfortable enough to begin investing in a business. As the financial markets continue to suffer, the risk appetite of venture funds decreases, which means that companies must reach a significantly greater maturity before they can be funded from these sources. The innovation loan and grant schemes, which have been separated into regional districts, and agencies such as the clean growth fund were meant to plug that this gap, but they are now approaching investments in a similar vein to commercial venture capital: they are looking for greater and greater reduction of risk. That forces innovative businesses that develop first-of-its-kind technology to seek funds from international sources, often with a requirement for operations to be moved away from the original region.
These businesses want to employ local people, but the Budget does not address the failure of Government policy to support businesses to mass-manufacture in Britain. There are no local incentives that would reduce costs and enable them to compete with international manufacturers. British businesses moving abroad is not good growth in every postcode. The Budget leaves the future uncertain for those businesses, making it harder to employ local people, harder to trade with local businesses, and easier to move abroad and ultimately prevent the growth that we all want.
I also want to address, very briefly, the unwelcome and short-sighted cuts in the warm homes plan and the boiler upgrade scheme. This decision is of profound concern in respect of not only our climate commitments but the basic health, security and wellbeing of many households across the country. As fossil fuel prices surge, the boiler upgrade scheme is cutting bills for people across the country, employing thousands, and improving the resilience of homes by breaking the link with oil and gas. The boiler upgrade scheme is more than a grant to help households; it is creating a UK industry that can deliver cheaper heating, skilled jobs, greater energy independence—and, yes, growth. I urge the Government to reverse this disastrous decision and immediately restore full funding to our warm home commitments.
We all want growth. I have drawn attention to a few things that make growth very difficult for businesses across the south-west and across the country, and I hope that the Government will consider them.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
For many of my constituents in Liverpool West Derby, the cost of living crisis means a daily struggle to keep the heating on, pay the rent and put food on the table. I welcome any measures that ease that struggle, and the direction of travel from the Budget last week was really welcome, but “breathing space” is nowhere near enough when 14 million people are struggling to put a meal on the table tonight. People need to see a credible plan to improve their living standards and tackle the shameful poverty and hunger that we see across the country.
The Trussell Trust reports that between 2024-25 and 2026-27, the number of people experiencing severe hardship grew by 500,000. That included 115,000 children, and there would have been more, but thankfully we scrapped the two-child cap. We cannot ask families to keep making sacrifices while offering them so little prospect of things getting better. We see the unrest across Europe as a result of this feeling of hopelessness with politics and politicians. The Prime Minister has, thankfully and rightly, identified the damage caused by 40 years of neo-liberal politics. Reversing the damage requires true radical action on a scale that matches the hardships that our communities face, and nowhere is that damage highlighted more than around our kitchen tables.
In September, the Right to Food UK Commission published its final report. We heard evidence from across the United Kingdom—from communities speaking directly to us. What we heard should really shame this House. We heard about parents missing meals so that children can eat, people in work relying on food banks, and families choosing between heating their homes and feeding themselves. At a community session in London, a stone’s throw from this Chamber, one woman put it in three words: “Rent eats first”. The rent is paid, then the energy bills and then the debts. Food is whatever is left. That is the plight of millions in all our communities.
The commission’s central finding is clear: people are going hungry because they cannot afford the food that is available. Low wages, inadequate social security and the rising cost of essentials are leaving families without enough to live on. These are failures of policy that require political action. The question is no longer whether we can afford a right to food; it is whether we can afford to carry on without one. In Liverpool, a woman giving evidence said simply:
“A right to food is a right to exist.”
She was spot on, because we are already paying for failure. Updated analysis from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission puts the wider economic and social costs of Britain’s unhealthy food system at £298 billion a year—up from £268 billion two years ago. That includes more than £100 billion in direct costs across healthcare, social care and welfare, alongside the enormous costs of lost productivity and diminished quality of life. Those figures cover the wider unhealthy food system, so tackling food insecurity and making healthy diets affordable must be absolutely central to the Government’s mission.
We pay through our taxes, our public services, our health and the opportunities denied to our children. The question is whether we carry on accepting these costs, or invest in preventing them. Alongside the wider reforms that we need, the Right to Food UK Commission has set out an initial package of practical measures, including universal free school meals, holiday food provision, and proper funding for community kitchens and hubs. Our initial asks are fully costed, with funding identified through tax reforms put forward by Lord Prem Sikka. We have set out what needs to be done, what it would cost and how it could be paid for. Whether the Government choose to act is now a question of political will.
The Right to Food UK Commission’s modelling estimates that we could create about £100 billion-worth of wider economic and social benefits over two decades. That includes improvements in health, education and people’s ability to participate in society. Behind those calculations are outcomes that every Member of this House should want: children arriving at school ready to learn, parents able to feed their families without skipping meals, and fewer people developing avoidable illnesses. These are investments that can improve and lengthen people’s lives. That is why the commission calls for a statutory right to food, backed by resources, clear duties and accountability. It means clear legal duties on the Government and independent scrutiny, so that Departments cannot pass responsibility between themselves while families continue to go hungry.
Members from across the House have joined me in calling for a right to food in the next King’s Speech. I ask the Government to listen, work with the Right to Food UK Commission, and commit to the legislation needed to deliver lasting change. Hunger really is a political choice. The Government have the power and responsibility to end it and give millions, in every postcode, hope again in politics.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
This is a Budget that puts community first. It is a Budget for families, who will benefit from support on energy costs over the cold winter, and for much-loved high street businesses, with cuts to business rates. With the announcement of a Thames Valley mayoral strategic authority, it is a Budget that delivers devolution, so that decisions that affect Bracknell Forest and our wider region can be taken in our region.
I have heard from countless families across Bracknell Forest about the cost of living pressures that they face because of skyrocketing fuel and energy costs as a result of the war in Iran, so I strongly welcome the announcement of a new £2.6 billion energy bills breathing space scheme, which will provide £100 in direct support for over 30,000 families in Bracknell Forest, helping them to keep their homes warm this winter. I also welcome the extension of the 0% rate of VAT on electricity until July 2027, and the removal of gas standing charges so that people are charged only for what they use.
I know that the prices we have seen at the pumps in recent months are a huge source of anxiety for many across Bracknell Forest. I am pleased that the Government have recognised the pressures on motorists that have been caused by increasing fuel prices, and have extended the 5p cut on fuel duty to July 2027. They have also frozen rates, and made permanent the more generous mileage rates for both employees and self-employed people who use their own vehicles for work. These measures will have a real impact on households across Bracknell Forest, especially over the coming winter months.
Supporting households is an essential and extremely welcome priority in this Budget, but I also welcome the clear signals that this Government have given to local businesses. Wonderful local cafés, restaurants, pubs and shops drive our local economy, but I have heard from too many that are struggling in this challenging environment and that have been forced to consider raising prices or cutting staff. For that reason, I was delighted to see the Chancellor announce that he will increase the small business rates relief thresholds for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, meaning that about 47% of all RHL properties in the south-east will pay no business rates at all.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is right about small businesses, particularly small retail businesses, playing a pivotal role in the health of communities, and that the Government have done the right thing in the way he described. However, those businesses are also suffering from online competition and edge-of-town or out-of-town development that is taking footfall away from town and city centres. Does he support a call for the Government to be tougher on edge-of-town development, so that we concentrate footfall where it is needed most?
Peter Swallow
Absolutely, which is why I welcome the measure in this Budget. It means a direct tax cut for over 250 small businesses in Bracknell Forest, directly funded by increasing VAT compliance on those online marketplaces. It is right that the small businesses that thrive on Crowthorne High Street in my constituency, and across Bracknell and Sandhurst, do not face unfair competition from the big online marketplaces. That is a decision that this Government have rightly made in this Budget.
This Government do not just talk about growth in every postcode, but recognise that our high streets are at the heart of achieving that growth. On that note, growth in every postcode means recognising the unique barriers holding back growth in every region of the UK. For the south-east, one of the biggest barriers to regional growth has been the slow progress of devolution. That is why I am delighted that this Budget also commits to a mayoral strategic authority for the Thames valley. Nobody knows the specific local and regional challenges we face better than our own local community, and no one is better placed to solve them. Devolution will bring more powers for Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, more funding for our region and a more joined-up approach on regional transport, skills and public services.
This is not just about local business. In the south-east, we can proudly say that we are home to some of our most loved and most critical national businesses from Waitrose, which has its headquarters in my constituency, to our defence sector whose contribution to the economy is estimated to be £3.6 billion in 2025. We are also home to one of our greatest and most innovative British assets—our life sciences sector. So I welcome the opportunities that a more regional approach to our economy will create. This is a Budget that backs our region to do what it does best, which is to drive growth across the Thames valley and the whole of the UK.
All these measures will strengthen our social fabric, boost our local economies and build resilient communities in these challenging times, but there is no community without security. As war continues to rage in Ukraine and the middle east, and as hostile actors swamp our information sphere and sow division in our society, we cannot afford to delay delivering the support we need for defence. That is why it is so important that the Chancellor has put forward a Budget that delivers fully on our commitment to fund the defence investment plan, and ensures we remain on track for the NATO target for defence spending to reach 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Alongside plans for a new multilateral defence mechanism and additional investment through the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank, this Budget treats our security with the gravity it deserves, after decades of underfunding by the Conservative party.
The Budget is a clear demonstration that this Government have listened to the concerns of families and businesses in Bracknell Forest, and have decided to act on them. It meets the challenge of today with pragmatism and the promise of tomorrow with ambition. I know it will not solve all the challenges facing businesses and families in Bracknell Forest, but gosh, it is a darn good start.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on a Budget delivered in an extraordinarily difficult global economic climate and with limited fiscal headroom. Yet I do believe that it will be remembered as both radical and important in prioritising cheaper energy and focusing on prevention, which is a massive step. Fiscal devolution and supporting high streets and entrepreneurs are significant measures that will ultimately bring significant benefits to the residents of Rossendale and Darwen, particularly now that Lancashire has an opportunity to join the mayoral pathway. On that point, I take this opportunity to urge the leadership of Lancashire county council to listen to businesses and community leaders and finally agree to a mayor and grasp the huge opportunities that this Government have offered.
More broadly, the Chancellor has balanced immediate support and the need for breathing space, with long-term reforms needed to build a global economy for the 21st century. At its heart, the Budget lays the foundations for a reindustrialisation strategy capable of bringing good jobs to places that need them most. This vision resonates powerfully in Rossendale and Darwen and across the UK. Making more things in more places means secure, well-paid jobs and a more resilient country.
That is why we established the Reindustrialisation Research Group, bringing together over 90 Labour MPs to support the Prime Minister’s vision and help translate it into action. It is good to see the Budget addressing the key questions that have been raised ever since the Prime Minister first championed the idea. First and foremost is clarity on objectives. That is important, because if we judge economic success only through national GDP, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past, pursuing the easiest growth while overlooking the towns and communities that were left on the sidelines for far too long. Instead, reindustrialisation must deliver good growth everywhere, spreading jobs, hope and opportunity across the country.
The Chancellor has been clear that reindustrialisation is also essential to national resilience. We must once again produce the steel, fuels, chemicals and other things that we need to be secure in a turbulent world. In understanding that, we see that reindustrialisation is far more than just a rebrand of the modern industrial strategy. Supporting high-growth economic clusters is vital, but it cannot be the whole answer. As the Red Book itself states:
“Reindustrialisation means more good jobs around the country. It means more towns and cities making and innovating and having a stronger role in the national economy.”
This is a UK-wide project to build the great British businesses of the future, whatever and wherever they may be, combining our proud manufacturing heritage with world-class innovation, creativity, research and development. That means tackling the constraints holding firms back, and the Budget is clear on what they are: high energy costs, limited access to finance, procurement and so on. Addressing those at a national level while drawing on the power of devolution, and supporting businesses through powerful local partnerships, provides a comprehensive approach to unleashing the potential of British manufacturers.
We need to take up the challenge with urgency. We must recognise that right now we are losing good businesses, ones that could compete and win if only they were on a level playing field. So, the first step towards reindustrialisation must be to halt deindustrialisation. Among other things, that means further action on industrial energy costs. We called for an extension of the British industry competitiveness scheme to all manufacturing companies in the Budget. I realise the constraints the Chancellor was under, but we must recognise that this is unfinished business. We need to continue to look at all options for immediate measures.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a really powerful speech about the importance of reindustrialising our communities and halting deindustrialisation. Does he agree that we need to do everything we can to get the ceramics impact fund, which was designed by the Government to support the ceramics sector, out of the door and into businesses where it can make a difference as soon as possible?
Andy MacNae
Absolutely. Ceramics is one of those industries, along with steel, chemicals, fuels and so on, that is foundational to our economy. It is part of our national resilience and our national story. It is vital that we retain it in the interests of a safe, secure and stable country, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
We need the structure to effectively deliver reindustrialisation and we need to be clear that that requires a whole-Government approach. It needs dedicated capacity empowered to drive implementation, and policy co-designed with businesses and trade unions.
Finally, we need to turn ambition into measurable national objectives. The ReRG proposed a target of 1 million additional jobs in production by 2035. That would help to rebalance our economy and ensure that prosperity is felt in every part of Britain. The forthcoming 10-year plan is our opportunity to make that vision real. I urge the Government to build on the Budget and work with the ReRG, businesses and trade unions to back British manufacturing and ensure we deliver good jobs in every community.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for events.
I welcome the Budget from the Chancellor and I particularly welcome his announcement that the UK Government will provide £6 million for the Scottish Event Campus in my constituency. That is a vote of confidence in the SEC, Glasgow and the events sector more generally; hope for the future, grounded in proven past and current success.
The SEC plays an essential part in underpinning Glasgow and Scotland’s position as a global events and conference destination, and this funding recognises that. Today, the SEC generates more than £605 million in economic value, welcomes 2.5 million visitors a year and supports 5,300 jobs. The investment in this Budget will help to multiply that economic and social contribution, unlock private investment in the campus’s further development and create more jobs, while supporting the wider Glasgow, Scottish and UK economies.
Given the SEC’s success in hosting COP26 and events for both of Glasgow’s Commonwealth games, this investment will help to secure Scotland’s position as an ideal location for future international conferences, exhibitions and live entertainment. It also helps to shape a city that treats the River Clyde as a cultural and economic asset. The success of the Riverside Museum and the Govan-Partick bridge is a testament to what can be achieved when the Clyde is recognised as an asset. This Labour Government continue to prove through investments like the local growth fund and this funding that they take seriously the task of making Glasgow city region a prosperous and attractive place to live and do business.
I also welcome the Budget’s recognition that the central belt of Scotland, from the west coast to the east coast, is home to vital industries and world-leading research. Yesterday evening, I had the privilege of hosting the University of Glasgow here in Parliament to mark its 575th anniversary. It certainly has a long and successful track record, but it also has the research and innovation to drive economic growth now and in the future. I hope that this funding for the SEC will show how important the campus is to that wider regional picture.
However, to ensure that the SEC remains competitive against our international rivals, we must continue to invest in the city’s skills and infrastructure for tomorrow. The up and coming visitor economy growth strategy must also deliver a more cohesive, cross-Government approach to supporting business events.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for events, I see at first hand how the events industry benefits the wider economy. VisitScotland estimates that the Scottish events industry brings £6.1 billion to the Scottish economy each year. Some of the biggest economic benefits from the events sector come not from one-off sporting or music events, but from business events such as conferences and trade shows. These events tend to last longer, so visitors spend more time at the destination, use more hotels and support more local restaurants, bars and cafés. Industry estimates indicate that UK conferences and meetings generated £22.5 billion for the national economy in 2025, up from £19.3 billion in 2024.
I very much welcome the specific commitment in the Budget to invest in the Scottish Event Campus, both as a significant investment in this key project in Glasgow and as a clear indication from the Chancellor that this Government acknowledge the economic importance of the events sector across the UK. This is a Budget that is focused on the livelihoods of today and the economy of tomorrow.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I welcome much of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in the Budget, but tonight I will speak of our NHS, for we will not grow our economy if we are not well.
Norfolk and Suffolk foundation trust is the mental health trust that serves my constituents, and it has been transformed thanks to its brilliant staff and inspired leadership—I thank all of them. Last week I learned that some of the teams have been early adopters of AI, using it to transcribe patient consultations. More time with the patients and less time staring at computers—imagine that!
Some of us remain suspicious of AI in healthcare, but who here has not asked their phone about a symptom or a medical worry? Many GPs already use AI-assisted triage to tackle the dreaded 8 o’clock rush. I am therefore pleased to hear that we will fund the technology that will increasingly shape our health service. Let us embrace it, not fear it.
I welcome the Government’s approach to healthcare, but much remains to be done. Too many of our patients are being asked to be just that: patient. We have record NHS staffing and resources since the pandemic, yet activity has not increased proportionately. Why is that? How much genuinely improves people’s health? We know that health depends on housing, wealth and much else besides. Falling life expectancy in some of our communities and the problems in maternity services demand urgent political attention.
I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of funding for surgical robots, having heard how they are helping patients at West Suffolk hospital, but frankly, if I were asked where I would invest taxpayers’ money, my answer would be: in primary care and neighbourhood health centres.
Sir John Hayes
Of course I respect the hon. Gentleman’s professional expertise, which I do not share, but much of what he has said so far is counterintuitive. My constituents tell me that what they want from the health service is personal interaction—to form a meaningful relationship with a GP, surgeon or specialist. That is how trust is built, not through machines, AI and robots.
Dr Prinsley
If the right hon. Gentleman simply listens to the next part of my speech, he may be reassured. Let us build on GP partnerships and shift resources from hospitals to communities. We could have centres that are open in the evening, at which there are specialist nurses, mental health professionals and pharmacists. These would be places where the patients know their doctor, and the doctor knows their patients.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman, a medical professional, recognises the importance of primary care. We spend a fraction of what the NHS spends on chronic care on primary care. Just last night, I hosted a reception for the Independent Pharmacies Association, which I know will be grateful for his words.
Dr Prinsley
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Keeping people healthy and at home, wherever possible, should be supported by our developing national care service. It is a simple but transformative move, and I am delighted that our Government will fund it.
In Suffolk, seven new NHS dental practices have been announced, including two in Bury St Edmunds. I applaud the organisation Toothless in Suffolk for its advocacy, but the dental contract must be reformed. Why has this been delayed? A new dental school is opening at the University of East Anglia, and we must ensure that graduates choose NHS dentistry, rather than private practice.
It was a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee for the Health Bill. I welcome the single patient record, alongside the retention of Healthwatch and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. Patient voices and independent safety investigations must remain central. Some of our political opponents suggest that the NHS has had its day and advocate for an insurance-based system. I profoundly disagree. My father joined the NHS at its foundation in 1948, having served as an RAF medical officer. I spent more than 40 years as a surgeon, and my son works as an A&E doctor in London—78 years of continuous family service to the NHS. Perhaps the NHS is in my DNA. It is certainly in the DNA of the Labour party.
Finally, I want to say something about medical research. We celebrate Jenner, Lister and Fleming, but let us remember the extraordinary British scientists of my lifetime, including Nobel prize winners Crick, Hodgkin, Milstein, Nurse, and Hassabis, whose AlphaFold work revolutionised protein structure prediction. There are many others, including the grandfather of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), the unsung Harold Hopkins. Their achievements remind us why supporting scientific research must remain a national priority. I remain a great optimist for our NHS—there is fresh hope for the future—but we must cherish our NHS. We must invest in it and protect it.
Martin Wrigley
The hon. Gentleman cherishes the NHS; does he agree that the single patient record, of which he speaks so eloquently, must be delivered by sovereign British technology?
Dr Prinsley
I do not claim to be an expert on the selection of software programmes for the single patient record, but I believe that a single patient record will be transformative. If we ever lost our NHS, we would never ever get it back.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Budget is predicated on inspiring hope and building a fairer, more equal society. I welcome and support that. Crucially, to deliver that, we need to understand and learn from the past.
After world war one, the country became more inward-looking. Adopting the economics of austerity led to low growth, mass unemployment, the general strike and the great depression. Two decades later, we had another war, but after world war two, the Labour Government really did grasp the politics and the economics of hope. We created a social security system, built the NHS, and nationalised our mines, steel, railways and even the Bank of England, all as we emerged from the ravages of a war in which towns and cities were bombed and half a million of our people died.
We do not even need to look as far back as that to see the politics of hope in action. The 1974 Labour party manifesto said that it would tackle the severe economic problems of the day with democratic socialist policies, the aim being to secure
“a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families.”
Five decades on, we again need that degree of ambition.
We live in significant times. The most terrifying set of questions we have in this place is on defence. We constantly hear, “We’ve got to get to 5%. Let’s cut welfare to do it. Let’s issue war bonds. Let’s get ready for war—we’re already at war.” Among the clamour for increased defence spending and defence of our way of life, it does not often get mentioned that nearly 4 million people use food banks, and that we have 14.5 million people living in food insecurity. The “Be Ready” campaign encourages people to stockpile three days-worth of non-perishable food; how do we think people living in food insecurity will manage that? Where on their list of priorities is buying a power bank or a wind-up radio, when they are debating whether to put their heating on or to eat a meal? Constituents regularly tell me that there is too much month at the end of their money; doctors tell me how under-resourced the health service is; teachers tell me that kids are turning up to school exhausted from hunger; and community groups and churches across Alloa and Grangemouth tell me that they are starting to make warm spaces available again as we head into winter, so when politicians and media commentators talk about people making sacrifices, I find it insulting.
In Clackmannanshire, residents are expected to have 55 years of good health, making it one of the regions of Scotland with lower healthy life expectancy. In Grangemouth, people generally die younger than in the Falkirk council area, and before the Scottish national average. This Budget has committed billions more to military spending that will inevitably go to private capital firms and arms manufacturers; all the while, the cost of living crisis rages on, and public services are still under the most immense pressure. The political choice we face is between weapons and war, and wages and welfare. We should bear that in mind, as well as the 14.5 million people who are hungry while we talk about hope.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To accommodate all Back Benchers, the speaking limit is to be dropped to four minutes.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Budget introduced by the Government on Wednesday last week was billed as delivering “Breathing space for today” and “fresh hope” for tomorrow. Those are indeed noble sentiments from a Chancellor and Government determined to make things better for working people, even in these most difficult of times.
War rages in the middle east and Ukraine, and none of us knows when the conflicts will end, or the scale of their impact on our country and economy. What the people of Watford know is that the cost of living crisis is still very real. Certainly, when I talk to residents in my constituency, I hear that the cost of day-to-day living is a tough challenge for many. Since the 2024 Labour landslide, Chancellors have tried to make things better for people, fixing the foundations of our economy and delivering growth in the toughest of times. I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s Budget; my right hon. Friend has managed to deliver something for most people, and for that, I and my fellow residents will be grateful.
Britain has had the joint-highest growth in the G7 this year. That is brilliant news, but what matters to the great British public is feeling the effects of that growth in their pockets. To that end, the announcements from last week show that Watford wins with Labour. The £100 energy bill relief for those in council tax bands A to D will help my fellow residents; it is a real cash injection to help with energy bills, and 37,140 households in Watford will benefit from it. Further, the extension of the zero VAT rating on electricity bills through to the summer of next year will help people through the cold winter and spring months, which is welcome indeed. The Chancellor’s plan to abolish the standing charge on gas bills will deliver further financial help, as will the continued freeze on fuel duty. Watford residents are car users, so that will help them, just as the £2 cap on bus fares in January will help those who rely on public transport. Meanwhile, the first rail fare freeze in 30 years is already delivering for those on the train network.
Businesses on the high street will welcome the small business rates relief threshold for retail, hospitality and leisure. That will help around half of those in the sector in our region of the country. Those who do not benefit from the exemption will see a real-terms freeze in business rates for ’27-28 and ’28-29, which is welcome, especially as things remain tight. In Watford, that will help 662 businesses and a further 373 in Hertsmere, which is where the Bushey part of my constituency is. The measures will bring vibrancy back to the high street.
Under the new devolution arrangements, Hertfordshire, the county that my constituency is in, will become a mayoral strategic authority, and that will help unlock further the potential of the town and the county to deliver a brighter future, with more jobs and opportunities. Housing remains a challenge across the country, but in Watford, the cost of housing can be prohibitive; people who grew up in the area are sometimes forced out by high prices. That is why I welcome the Your First Home initiative. The help for first time buyers will really help people to make a home in Watford.
After being elected to this place, I became involved in the campaign for better paternity rights organised by the Dad Shift, and I was particularly pleased to see the hard-working campaign achieve a victory, when the Chancellor granted paternity pay to self-employed dads. That is definitely another move that will help families welcoming a new member—of a very different variety—in Watford. Turning to the other end of the age spectrum, I welcome the end of the cliff edge for those delivering care. I have also full-throatedly supported the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls, and I welcome the measures designed to help in that respect. In conclusion, this Budget was designed to provide breathing space for today and fresh hope for tomorrow. It delivers that for Watford and the wider community, and I wholeheartedly support it.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
This Budget is aimed squarely at people struggling with the cost of living—good! In a year when one in five UK households have experienced food insecurity and there are 9 million people in severe hardship, according to the Trussel Trust, the Government should make no bones about putting them first. The Government have identified where household budgets are being pinched the most and have redistributed wealth accordingly.
Slashing bills for 80% of households in England is no small thing, and I am glad that the Welsh Government have since announced that they will use the consequential funding to extend the benefits to my constituents in Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr. A high proportion of my constituents are reliant on heating oil, so I especially welcome the fact that the payment will be applicable to those off the gas grid. That, when combined with the scrapping of import tariffs on kerosene, could amount to a real reduction in heating costs.
Let us hope, though, that the additional £450 million that the Budget allocates to the Welsh Government for public services is spent wisely, at a time when three out of four of Montgomeryshire’s hospitals face the loss of all their beds, all their X-ray services and all their minor injuries units. Returning to tariffs, I applaud their removal from a wide range of everyday goods. It is appalling to hear these measures spoken of as small fry by the Conservatives, when it is the poorest in our society who are affected most by such price rises. In providing that bit of breathing space, the 3.9% rise in the minimum wage is another positive step.
The surest way to improve our food security, however, is to produce more at home, and that means supporting our farmers, so I welcome the suspension of import tariffs on fertiliser and the extension of reduced duties for red diesel. These measures will make a difference to the agricultural sector, which has taken a body blow this year in the form of the Iran war driving up input costs, compounded by a summer of severe droughts and wildfires, and further compounded by an outbreak of bluetongue. Threats to our national security are compounding, too, from climate change, AI-enabled cyber-attacks and a new age of interstate conflict, but we cannot forget about the basics. As an island nation, we must have domestic resilience in food production. You will have to forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but food security is national security.
Let me end on fiscal devolution. The experience in many parts of Wales is that devolution is unfinished business. Powers have been devolved to the Senedd, but not to our regions and communities such as north-east Wales or the Marches. I am happy to hear that English local authorities will start to retain more business rates from next year, but I would like to see greater detail on how the Government are working with the devolved Administrations to realise the benefits of regional governance across the UK. This Government, like any Government, will be judged on how they improve the material conditions of hard-working people. It is that target on which this Budget is rightly focused.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that it is unconventional to crowdsource one’s speech on the Budget, but I happened to do my annual online Budget Q&A last night, and it was an absolutely joyful experience. The key themes that were raised with me were: is this Budget bold enough; and what does it do for our communities here in the Cities of London and Westminster? Members will be delighted and perhaps unsurprised to know that the key questions raised by my constituents are very similar to those that are being raised here in the Chamber.
It is really clear to me, as it is to my constituents, that this Government cannot control every challenge beyond our shores, but we can seek stability, strengthen our resilience and support those most in need. The foundations for a more stable economy were established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) when she made the tough choices to stabilise our economy. What we need now is for families to have confidence that they can plan for the future. Businesses need confidence to invest, expand and create jobs, and our economy needs confidence that public finances are being managed responsibly. That is why this Government’s commitment to fiscal discipline and credible fiscal rules is so important.
Economic credibility is not an abstract concept discussed only in this Chamber in Westminster; it affects mortgage rates, investment decisions, business confidence, household budgets and, increasingly, whether people can afford to own a home of their own. That is in stark contrast to the damaging effects of the mini-Budget that the Conservatives want us to forget, but we very much remember it and, sadly, our constituents remember it through their day-to-day budgets. This Government rightly take a responsible approach, and I particularly welcome those measures that are supporting enterprise, investment and job creation. My constituency, the Cities of London and Westminster, has more jobs than people in it, and every day we see the contribution that businesses make to our economy, from small independent firms to globally recognised companies.
Economic security must also include housing security. Far too many people, particularly in London, cannot afford a home of their own. What was particularly important to me in this Budget was the announcement of £432 million of additional investment to stabilise support for the most vulnerable. It was an absolute honour to welcome the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to my constituency on Monday, where we recognised the long-standing work of frontline rough sleeping outreach workers. This was a long-standing call from those who work in the sector to recognise the skilled work they do every single day to help the most vulnerable. I am proud that this Government have made the decision to make long-term investment to keep people off the streets. Not only is it the right decision and the compassionate decision—
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Rachel Blake
I will not give way—we will hopefully move to a vote soon.
This is the right moral decision and the right compassionate decision. It aligns with our values—it should align with everybody’s values—and it is also the right economic decision. It is not in the interests of public spending to allow people to live on the streets. I pay tribute to the work of the Connection at St Martin’s, which hosted us that day.
We have seen the risks that the Opposition are prepared to take with our economy. This Government are taking a responsible approach, which enables us to make those investments in some of the most vulnerable in society. I commend this Budget to the House, and I commend this responsible approach to fiscal discipline, which allows us to make those important political choices.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
There is much to welcome in this Budget for my constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden. Some of the measures include £100 for 41,000 of my residents. They will benefit from this immediate support with their energy bills as we seek to tackle the cost of energy crisis. The measures also include the expansion of paid parental leave to self-employed people, which will help around 90 new families in my patch every single year, and the business rates relief for businesses with rateable values of £18,000 or less, which builds upon and goes further than the previously announced plans to increase business rates relief on pubs from April 2027.
I know how hard our pub and shop owners work and the huge contribution they make to our local communities. I must give a shout-out to my local, the White Bull in Oswaldtwistle, which has recently undertaken plans to extend its dining area, and where I would be delighted to treat the Minister to lunch if they were to come and visit—I strongly recommend the Hungarian goulash.
I will focus on two main substantive issues in this Budget. First, I welcome the commitment to a mayor of Lancashire. This Labour Government have made it clear that having a mayor is firmly on the table for Lancashire, and at my business event last week, with over 130 leaders from across east Lancashire, business leaders were clear that they want this to happen as quickly as possible. Therefore, it is time for Reform-led Lancashire county council to stop delaying and get behind a mayor for Lancashire, which is key to unlocking our economic potential.
But even better, we do not have to wait for a mayor for us to get going. Following the calls from many Labour colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), the Budget includes a commitment to capacity and capability funding for areas that are progressing towards a mayoral strategic authority, which will put £7.7 million of funding into Lancashire from next year. Alongside that, there is the development of the local growth funds, with a total of £80 million for non-mayoral areas to support priority projects that will support their economic growth and development.
Secondly, I turn to what this Budget does for entrepreneurs. Some of these measures include the increases to the trading allowance, a proposed young entrepreneurs’ allowance and £200 million of additional funding for female founders. Furthermore, there is a significant set of plans to support early-stage and scale-up funding, with a commitment of an extra £5 billion to the British Business Bank, £450 million of which is allocated to a new venture debt product to help innovative firms access capital without immediate equity dilution.
Over the past year, I have been raising with Ministers the challenge faced by these businesses during their pre-commercialisation so-called “valley of death” and the opportunity to help low-carbon technology businesses in Hyndburn and east Lancashire that face this barrier through funding the RedCAT proposals that I have shared. RedCAT provides businesses that are trying to produce new products for their first identified customer, and I hope that through these combined announcements there may be ways of funding RedCAT. I urge Ministers to meet me to work out how we can overcome some of the siloed approaches within Government to unlock this and unlock economic growth not just in Hyndburn and Lancashire, but in other parts of the country.
This Budget goes a long way towards helping my constituents through these difficult global headwinds, as well as outlining a broader ambition to reshape our energy markets and the economy for the future in a way that delivers good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart. Devolution is the chance for Lancashire to take control of our own future and stop having to come cap in hand to Westminster. While we work towards this, I will continue to work with Ministers to deliver the jobs, opportunities and growth that Hyndburn desperately needs.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I am the Member of Parliament for Darlington, the home of “No. 11 North” —the Darlington economic campus. I want to put on record my thanks to Beth, Joe, Laura and all the civil servants who worked round the clock to ensure that we could deliver the Chancellor’s first Budget. The Treasury campus in Darlington was the brainchild of the previous Government, and it was funded by this Government to the tune of £118 million for a brand-new hub. It is proof that the best interventions from this place garner cross-party support.
I am sure that everyone in this Chamber will agree with investing record amounts in defence to support our world-leading armed forces and defence industry; backing British inventors, innovators and founders, so that if someone has a great idea here, we will make sure they can succeed here; £100 cashback in January for energy bills for 45,000 households in Darlington, and hundreds of thousands more across the country, which is much needed and well received; and hope for our high streets, with a freeze on business rates and an increase in the business rates relief threshold to £18,000, which will benefit 222 business in Darlington. I am particularly pleased to see that these measures are paid for by the global e-marketplaces and by taking the relief from those pesky vape shops. The country and, I am sure, their representatives across the House can all support that.
What seems to divide the House is how we should deliver it. It is right that this Government, under this Chancellor, continue their commitment to fiscal responsibility. We must reduce the amount we are paying on debt interest. I welcome the fact that those who have made record profits off the global insecurity that has driven cost of living pressures on households across our country will pay a little bit more through the bank levy. The truth remains that we will not spend more than we earn, but despite record investment, incredible world-leading growth sectors and an army of grafters—yes, in every postcode—we are getting battered by global storms. That is not the fault of the Conservative party, but we feel that the severity of the impact is. I welcome this Budget’s ringfencing of spending on preventive policies and services. Preventive funding should be ringfenced.
If the last Government had rediverted the money that they saved through short-term cuts into upgrading the grid, building new nuclear, building new renewables to create energy security, building new hospitals, building council homes—or building any homes—or building roads, building railways or, indeed, investing in our armed forces, perhaps they would still be trusted with an ounce of public money. Instead, they proved to a whole generation that they should not have the keys to Whitehall. They oversaw some of the worst business deals on record, incentivising hotel use by private contractors to house people seeking asylum and outsourcing our pensions, our social care and our post. They failed to prepare for the pandemic, and then they crashed the economy, leading to the fastest annual fall in living standards since records began.
Yes, this Government have more to do. I welcome the myriad interventions the Chancellor has made in this Budget aimed at protecting our economy, our industry and our security.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we do not need to choose between cheaper and cleaner energy, as the two can exist in harmony? One of the ways in which that will happen is the abolition of gas standing charges, which will save 23 million homes £45 on average. That is just one of the good things this Labour Government are doing not just to tackle our climate crisis, but to put more money into people’s pockets.
Lola McEvoy
I absolutely agree. The standing charge policy has come up on the doorstep and has really cut through, so I am delighted to see it.
So yes, Darlington is home to “No. 11 North”. Yes, it is home to the world’s first passenger railway, and home to pease pudding, and it is soon to be home to a brand-new multimillion-pound STEM training centre, backed by £16 million from the last Budget, backed by industry and backed by £5 million of Pride in Place funding. Yes, we do have all that, but we are way more than all those things; we are a test case for good growth and we are bucking the national trend. We are a resilient, investable ecosystem. I grew up in a part of Darlington that was historically called Hopetown. We had hope 200 years ago, and we hope again.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Much of the discussion on the Budget has focused on the national level, and rightly so, but for my constituents the true test is whether life in Aylesbury and the villages feels any different—whether decisions in the Budget translate into thriving local businesses, stronger communities and more confidence in our futures. I was out knocking on doors at the weekend, and one lady said to me, “This town is miserable now, isn’t it?”, which always pains me to hear. She said that when she wakes up on a Saturday, she does not head into Aylesbury; instead, she will go over to Tring or Wendover, where she can park cheaply and easily, and find all the shops and cafés she needs. In some ways, she has a point. Over the last decade or two, we have lost many of the shops, pubs and cafés that we used to have, but I know that our town has huge strengths and potential, and this Labour Government’s Budget helps us to start to turn a corner.
The fact is that our towns do not thrive by accident. They rely on entrepreneurs who are prepared to take risks, family businesses that have served their communities for generations, and independent retailers that give our town centres their character and identity. These are not simply economic actors; often the same people are sponsoring local sports clubs and community events—I think, for example, of the long partnership between Xpress Labels and Aylesbury United—and they help young people get into work. If we are serious about the future of our high streets, we have to back those businesses to succeed. We have to do that nationally and locally, as Aylesbury town council does very well.
I have spoken to many businesses that tell me that business rates remain one of their biggest cost pressures, and the brilliant organisation Buckinghamshire Business First has also raised that issue with me. I welcome the decision to expand small business rates relief and take thousands more local firms out of business rates altogether. Across Buckinghamshire, 2,000 businesses will now be paying no business rates at all. That makes a real difference to small businesses that are trying to invest and take on staff. I also welcome the real-terms freeze in business rates for the next two years for all our retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. I know that the additional 20% relief for pubs, social clubs and most live music venues will be welcomed by many constituents who have written to me about these matters.
I welcome the focus in the Budget on support for entrepreneurs and early start-ups. We should be making it easier for people with a business idea to take that first step, which is why the decision to triple the tax-free trading allowance from £1,000 to £3,000 is important. Whether someone is testing a new business idea, turning a hobby into a source of income, or exploring self-employment for the first time, that measure helps to remove barriers and encourages enterprise. I am pleased to see the introduction of the young entrepreneurs allowance, to help young people trying to get into work. I also celebrate further support for female entrepreneurs in the Budget through the new scale-up programme for female founders, and the additional backing from the British Business Bank. We have many brilliant entrepreneurial women in Aylesbury—I think, for example, of Carys Dorritt at The Polka, a digital marketing agency—and we should absolutely be on their side.
Helping our businesses to flourish is just one part of the transformation that I want to see in our town centre and on our village high streets. From creating more spaces for young people to improving our green spaces, and from improving public transport to sorting out parking, there is much more to do, but backing businesses that are the beating heart of our towns and villages is a great place to start.
If anyone doubts that change is possible, they should take a walk along the High Street opposite Vale Park. For eight years, residents have been campaigning to remove the ugly and dangerous scaffolding that blocked the pavement on the main route into town, and I have been pleased to support them—and finally, last week, we won! You may ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, “What’s the deal with a pile of scaffolding at this late stage in the debate?” Well, what was supposed to be a temporary fix became, over eight years, a sign of how little Buckinghamshire council seemed to care about our town. But it has gone now; we have proved that we can start to change things, and I am hopeful about what is next.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the final Back Bencher, Dave Robertson.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I am always a little worried when Members cheer because I am last!
I join colleagues in recognising and supporting important measures in the Budget that will give people across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages—the place I call home—valuable breathing space. There are 34,790 households across my constituency that will receive £100 directly into their bank account in January because of this Budget. That comes on top of the removal of VAT from energy bills, the return of the £2 bus fare, and the promise to get rid of standing charges on gas. Haulier businesses have also been supported by the delay to the fuel price escalator. We could go on and on and on. Any of those changes on their own will not be the end of the cost of living crisis, but I am already hearing from people back home who are so happy that this Government understand the importance of giving them that breathing space in their personal finances.
The changes to small business rates relief announced by the Chancellor in the Budget will mean that many businesses in our town and city centres and in our villages will be lifted out of paying any business rates at all, and many more will see a smaller bill. Fifteen premises in the centre of Sankey’s Corner in my constituency will be taken out of paying that bill at all—that is a huge number of shops that will now have more money to put back into their businesses and the community. I have been unable to get the total figure for how much will be saved there, but it looks like it will mean an investment into that community of anywhere between £50,000 and £100,000 per year forever. That is a real investment in a high street in Burntwood by this Government.
Similarly, of around a dozen shops on the high street in the village of Fradley, four will no longer be paying business rates at all and a further four will have their bills cut because of this Budget. On top of that, across Lichfield and East Staffordshire, some 764 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will see their rates frozen in cash terms because of decisions made by this Labour Government.
I am pleased that the Government are pressing ahead with plans for devolution across Staffordshire and Stoke. While the previous Government pushed power and funding into the West Midlands conurbation and the East Midlands combined authority, they gave a cold shoulder to the county to the north. This Government are prepared to step up and give our county the powers, and drive the economic growth, to bring good jobs across our area. Just yesterday, I spoke to the principal of South Staffordshire college about the importance of getting these powers to where they need to be, so that our skills training can meet the needs of our local area, especially the rural areas of my constituency and the wider county. The economy needs workers, and ensuring that those workers have the skills they need is something that is so important to areas like Staffordshire. I am excited to get the decisions on skills made in the right places.
There are a few other points that I wanted to pick up, but in the interests of time I will turn finally to the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. The pension schemes for former coalminers and mineworkers have been poorly set up for so long, so I am very pleased that this Government have moved even closer to delivering the justice that coalfield communities—like mine, in Burntwood, Handsacre and the surrounding areas—deserve. The end of the Treasury grabbing half of the scheme surpluses should be applauded; the end of the standstill clause so that bonus pensions can be guaranteed should be applauded; and the previous return of the investment reserve to the people who earned it should be applauded. All those steps for communities should be applauded, and they simply would not have happened without a Labour Government.
However, there needs to be action on the last remaining piece of the jigsaw: the final reserve—the guarantor’s fund. The commitment from the Chancellor to move quickly on this, and the commitment this week from the Work and Pensions Secretary this to happen in weeks not months, have been really welcome, but we cannot wait. Miners have already waited for far too long. Every day, miners leave the scheme. Every day, we lose people. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We must push for them, because it is their money—they earned it—and this Labour Government need to do what we should always do: stand up for our mining communities.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken a part in the debate over the last four days, in particular the more than 40 Members who have spoken in the debate today.
If I may, I will mention the contributions made by a few Members on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) talked about the important issue of protecting the green belt. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said that this was one of the most centralising Budgets, despite the rhetoric. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made a beautiful speech about looking for a chair for his wife, and talked about the delivery charges that penalise people in rural areas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) talked about the importance of business confidence and the fact that it has been in negative territory under this Government for seven months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) talked about the importance of job losses because of Labour’s decisions and made the absolutely true point that if Labour MPs understood economics, they would not be socialists. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) made an important point about competition for grid connectivity in his constituency, which is a matter of importance across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made a reference to John Lennon, which was a cultural reference about two centuries more modern than I was expecting him to make!
We heard a series of excellent speeches from Members on the Conservative Benches and some interesting speeches from Members on the Government Benches, trying to pick through parts of the Budget to talk about. Let me point out the speech by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), who is also the Chair of a Select Committee. In her speech, she demonstrated what is best about the Select Committee system. Yes, she is a Labour MP, but she stands up for all MPs in the way in which she holds this Government to account.
There has been a consistent message from Members on the Conservative Benches: that this Budget has left the British people facing higher inflation, higher interest rates, greater borrowing and more debt than was promised last year—that this Budget will leave families worse off, not better off.
May I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Here we are—two working people. Did I get that right? This was a Budget of “fiddly” bits, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It was a “nothing” Budget, according to the CBI. It was
“remarkable for its lack of action”,
according to the Resolution Foundation. It was,
“big in size but small in ambition”,
according to the Institute for Government. They are not wrong.
The most surprising aspect of this “kick the can down the road” Budget is that the debate managed to last four days. After four days of debate and a week of scrutiny, the abiding sense is that this was a Budget of missed opportunities: a missed opportunity to demonstrate that we are serious about defence; a missed opportunity to get people off welfare and into work; a missed opportunity to spell out the tough decisions needed to curb public spending, eliminate the deficit and cut our debts; and a missed opportunity to support young people wanting to fulfil their potential but finding it hard to get work or worried about their debts.
Even the Prime Minister sees this Budget as a missed opportunity, lamenting that it is not “ideal”. I mean, how bad does a Budget have to be for the Prime Minister to disown it before we have even voted on it? Now we have it from Labour MPs themselves: this Budget is as bad as Liz Truss’s Budget—that is true. But the point is that Liz Truss’s period in office was short, sharp and over in a moment. The problem with this Labour Government is that the pain is long, and we are still stuck with it.
On defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) spoke yesterday of the genuine threat of war. Just days ago, the Government told us to prepare for war in 1,000 days, but at the Budget the Chancellor said that he needed more time to work out how to fund defence. Let us get this straight: the commitment to spend 3% of GDP on defence was a matter of principle for the Chancellor in the summer, but, by this Budget, it had become a matter of inconvenience. How can anyone trust his words?
The Chancellor says that he has a target for 3%, but he has no commitments and no plans. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), called that “lamentable”, and he is right. However, in opening the debate on Thursday, the Defence Secretary said that he did not care—that he did not care about the views of the Chair of the Defence Committee. What an arrogant dismissal from a Minister who is barely 15 weeks into the job! No one in this Parliament has a monopoly on wisdom, least of all the Defence Secretary.
The OBR says that spending will increase by over £100 billion, to exceed £430 billion by the end of the forecast period, but the Budget contains no plans to bring the ballooning welfare bill under control. The Chancellor seemed confused and a little lost. In his speech last Wednesday, he said:
“As the Prime Minister and I have both said, we will bring down the welfare bill, and we will do it in a Labour way.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 311.]
The next day on Radio 4, when asked whether the welfare bill would be reduced before the next election, the Chancellor said,
“There will be a reduction in the benefits bill. We’ll do that in a Labour way.”
That seemed pretty clear, but the Chancellor was then forced to clarify that when he said yes, he really meant to say no. He said that it was
“not correct to say that we’re going to bring this welfare bill down in this parliament”,
so there we have it—the Labour way to cut welfare is “Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but yeah.” As the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), said, it is a “Little Britain” farce from a “Little Britain” Chancellor.
As the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), said on Thursday, the UK Government’s finances are walking along a cliff edge. With our national debt at 100% of GDP and with the Government continuing to tax and borrow more, he was right to do so. You do not help the disadvantaged in our society by dodging hard choices and going broke; you make their lives much harder. A Budget that ignores the warning signals and buries its head in the sand is a Budget that is deliberately increasing the risk to those least able to cope. Rather than cut borrowing, Labour plans to borrow nearly a quarter of a trillion pounds more over just the next two years, costing every British household an extra £476 per year in additional debt interest. That is not smart, and it is not fair—not to this generation, and certainly not to future generations.
The Chancellor praised his “fiscal discipline”, but he knows that he is standing on quicksand. Let us be clear: by voting through this Budget, Labour MPs are voting for real-terms cuts to the schools budget, the prisons budget and adult social care—it is there in the documents, in black and white—but they will not vote for real-terms cuts elsewhere. They do not have the backbone for tough decisions. The Chancellor will have to start work on how to raise taxes yet again to fill the £49 billion hole in his finances. The British people should be under no illusion—a fourth tax-raising Labour Budget lies ahead, with massive tax increases to fund Labour’s addiction to borrowing, big government and more welfare.
This Budget is not a fair Budget. It raises taxes on savers for being prudent and reducing their dependency on others. It raises taxes on people who rent out their properties so that someone else can have a roof over their head. It snatches away tax relief for people who start a business—not to become a billionaire, but because it is their passion and they want to create a small nest egg for when they retire—and it introduces new taxes at a time when the tax burden is already far too high.
A Conservative Government would not shirk their responsibilities to make big decisions. We would take the hard decisions to reduce welfare, improve the productivity of public services and cut back on overseas aid and the size of the civil service, with 50p of every pound saved going to reduce our deficit under our golden economic rule. That is a Conservative plan for governing now, with a team who have deep experience of the world outside politics and a leader with the backbone to see our country through to a more secure, more prosperous and fairer future.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
This Budget provides breathing space now and fresh hope for the future, which is the focus of today’s debate. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members across this House who have made contributions—not only today, but over the four days of the debate on this Budget—on the action we are taking in government to steer Britain through the global economic storms, kick-start good growth in every postcode, strengthen our national security and chart a new course for our country in the years ahead.
Many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), rightly stressed the challenges we are facing because of the storms in the global economy. We have heard a lot from Opposition Front Benchers—most of it hot air—but there was not a word of apology for calling on this Government to join the war in the middle east that is driving up energy costs, inflation and the cost of Government borrowing. We cannot wish away these global economic storms. Instead, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out a course to steer this country through them.
We have chosen to use some of the fiscal headroom established last year to absorb the impact of the Iran war and to protect the economy, British businesses and family budgets. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) and for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) rightly said, fiscal discipline underwrites every policy of this Government. We will meet the fiscal rules in full, and for the first time, in the third year of the forecast. Last year, borrowing fell to its lowest level in six years as a percentage of GDP, and it continues to fall across the forecast.
We will not take any lectures from the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) or the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). They like to claim that they were innocent bystanders who just happened to be Treasury Ministers at the time of the Liz Truss mini-Budget. We all know that they were the architects of the mini-Budget. The shadow Chancellor still maintains, and said as recently as September, that there were a “lot of good things” in the mini-Budget, and to this day the British people are paying the price for his failure. Liz Truss’s stint in office might have been short-lived, but the impact was long-lasting.
The contrast with this Labour Government could not be clearer. I am proud that the IMF has said that the UK stands out as a country where
“action to reduce debt and deficit has been taken decisively”.
It has said that we will have the lowest deficit in the G7 by 2029. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) rightly said, the British economy has proven more resilient than many predicted, including Opposition Members. Indeed, it has defied expectations. The Tories and Reform like to talk down our economy, but the fundamentals of the British economy are strong. Public investment is up. Business investment is up to its highest level in 10 years. Productivity has finally turned a corner, and we had the joint-fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of this year.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister talks about people talking down the economy, but the Joseph Rowntree Trust says that Labour is overseeing the sharpest fall in living standards in 65 years. I wonder whether she thinks it is wrong. If she does, how much are the Government overseeing in terms of declining living standards?
Emma Reynolds
The last Parliament was the worst Parliament on record for living standards. Since the last election, living standards have increased by 1.8%. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to read the executive summary from the OBR, which stated:
“As a net importer of energy, the rise in energy prices constitutes a negative terms-of-trade shock for the UK, which pushes up on inflation and lowers real household disposable incomes.”
Those are the global headwinds we are facing.
Graham Stuart
Following on from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), the Minister will be aware that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that constituents of mine—families—will be at least £440 worse off in this Parliament. It will be the worst Parliament ever. There is no covid and no new Ukraine impacting on energy prices. Can she answer my right hon. Friend’s question? Is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation wrong or right?
Emma Reynolds
What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that wages have risen faster in the first two years of this Government than they did in the first 10 years of his Government, so we will take no lectures from him or his party.
Against this backdrop, the Chancellor is providing immediate breathing space for families and businesses. Our £100 household energy payment will support 20 million households in England. That is 80% of households, and it will be paid for by a time-limited 3% increase to the bank surcharge, which the Conservatives will oppose in the Lobby.
We are going further on bills, by extending the removal of VAT on electricity until July and extending the 5p cut on fuel duty, and next year we will abolish gas standing charges. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), and many others, for welcoming this energy support package. Overall, in 2026-27, households in England are estimated to benefit by about £160 on average from the support that we are providing on energy, according to new analysis published this morning. Households on the lowest incomes are expected to benefit the most, with the bottom 20% benefiting by about £230 on average, almost four times as much as the top 20%. Because we know that higher energy costs are a challenge for business too, we are reducing bills by up to 25% for more than 10,000 eligible businesses from next April through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary earlier. That will help to support the British firms at the heart of the future of Britain’s reindustrialisation.
Beyond energy, we are supporting families by giving self-employed dads paid paternity leave, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for welcoming that measure. We are backing British businesses and high streets, and here I would like to correct the record. Of course the brilliant men and women across the country who run small businesses are working people, and I thank them for their contribution to our local economies and our local high streets—the bakeries, the cafés, the restaurants, the beauticians, the hairdressers, the local pubs, and so much more. In the first week of this new Government in July 2024, we cut an extra 20% from business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues from April next year. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for her invitation to the pub in her constituency, and I look forward to going there to eat the goulash.
In this Budget, the Chancellor has gone further by taking 70,000 more small retail, hospitality and leisure properties out of paying business rates altogether. For all other businesses in those sectors, we are freezing their business rates in real terms. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith)—my constituency neighbour—for what she said about that change in business rates, and the 2,000 small high street businesses across Buckinghamshire, including Aylesbury and indeed High Wycombe, that will be taken out of business rates altogether. To pay for this—as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell)—we are increasing machine games duty for higher-stakes machines, and we are carving out adult gaming centres and vape shops from business rate reliefs. We are also ensuring that online marketplaces collect and pay VAT, which they should be doing already.
Many Members have mentioned young people during the debate. We want young people to have the chance to earn, learn and get on. As the Chancellor has rightly said, we have a moral duty to the next generation. We are raising pay for low-paid workers, while being careful not to price young people out of that crucial first job. We have also expanded access to work experience, and provided record funding for apprenticeships. We have introduced a scheme for first-time buyers, and have capped student loan interest rates at 6%.
My hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) mentioned the mineworkers pension scheme. It is this Labour Government who returned the investment fund to the members of the scheme in a previous Budget, and in this Budget the Chancellor has rightly introduced a measure to ensure that not a penny of the surpluses will come back to the Government. Instead, 100% of surpluses will go to the scheme members. As for the outstanding issue of the guarantor’s fund, the Chancellor has made it clear that we will go on to ensure that the full transfer takes place.
As well as making decisions to provide breathing space now, the Chancellor took action for the long term to kick-start growth throughout the country, which is the only way to keep Britain’s families and Britain’s finances secure for the long term. That begins with, first, delivering the most ambitious devolution package in a generation. We are putting power in the hands of local leaders because they know the right levers to pull to drive growth and job creation in their local areas.
Secondly, this Budget delivers radical reform of our energy system, because our priority is to bring energy costs down to help British business to compete and British households to cope. We will only buy and build new projects where they lower bills and can connect to the grid. We will further break the grip of international gas prices on our bills by moving more of our old renewables on to fixed-price contracts, and we will build cheaper, faster grid connections through GB Grid.
Wera Hobhouse
Given that the Minister has just said that the Government want to support households but also move away from expensive fossil fuels, why make cuts to the boiler upgrade scheme and the warm homes plan?
Emma Reynolds
We are securing energy in our country and giving people an energy support package, as I outlined.
Crucially, we are putting an end to the Tories’ practice of loading levy costs on to bills, because, unlike them, we are determined to bring down energy bills for families.
Thirdly, we are supporting companies to start, scale and stay in the UK. We are introducing a new founders’ relief for founders of high-growth companies, and a new young entrepreneurs allowance to cover a year of living costs for young founders while they turn their ideas into businesses. Crucially, and as recommended by the women in tech taskforce, we are establishing a new scale-up programme to support female founders. The British Business Bank will also double its commitments to women-led businesses.
Finally, we have taken action to tackle the big challenges facing our country—most importantly, on defence. The first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe, and I am proud that this Labour Government have driven the biggest boost in defence spending since the end of the cold war. At the Budget last week, we took difficult decisions to reprioritise budgets across Whitehall in order to fund the £15 billion defence investment plan in full. At the spending review next year, we will set out the details of how we will meet our NATO commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. Crucially, that includes setting a target of 3% by 2030. This is a “credible path” to the UK meeting our NATO commitments—not my words, but those of the NATO Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, who has welcomed our plans.
I know that there is plenty of disagreement in this House on the measures in the Budget, but there is one area where I think we agree: we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people and Government of Ukraine. This Budget provides £10 billion of additional economic and military support for Ukraine. Together, we are sending a clear message to Moscow that Britain will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
This is a Budget built on fiscal discipline. It charts a way through difficult global economic headwinds. It provides breathing space for families and businesses now. It kick-starts work on the big changes needed to put this country on a better course on devolution, energy and defence, and it will deliver good growth in every postcode and strengthen our national security. This is a Budget built on Labour choices—breathing space today, and fresh hope for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That income tax is charged for the tax year 2027-28.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).
2. Income tax (main rates)
Resolved,
That for the tax year 2027-28 the main rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the basic rate is 20%,
(b) the higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the additional rate is 45%.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
3. Income tax (default, property and savings rates)
Question put,
That—
(1) For the tax year 2027-28 the default rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the default basic rate is 20%,
(b) the default higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the default additional rate is 45%.
(2) For the tax year 2027-28 the property rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the property basic rate is 24%,
(b) the property higher rate is 44%, and
(c) the property additional rate is 49%.
(3) For the tax year 2027-28 the savings rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the savings basic rate is 24%,
(b) the savings higher rate is 44%, and
(c) the savings additional rate is 49%.
(4) In consequence of the provision made by paragraphs (2) and (3), sections 5 and 7 of the Finance Act 2026 (which had set the property rates and savings rates for the tax year 2027-28) are repealed.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
Alcoholic strength of alcoholic product | Rate of duty per litre of alcohol in the product |
Less than 3.5% | £10.41 |
At least 3.5% but less than 8.5% | See Table 2 |
At least 8.5% but not exceeding 22% | £32.01 |
Exceeding 22% | £35.54 |
Description of alcoholic product (of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but less than 8.5%) | Rate of duty per litre of alcohol in the product |
(a) Still cider (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength not exceeding 5.5% | £10.86 |
Beer | £23.61 |
(a) Spirits, wine and other fermented products (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | £27.82” |
Description of alcoholic product | Rate of duty per litre of alcohol in the product |
Alcoholic products of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | £8.97 |
(a) Still cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but not exceeding 5.5% | £9.36 |
(a) Beer, spirits, wine and other fermented products of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% (but less than 8.5%) (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | £20.34” |
Alcoholic products, other than spirits, of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 10.41 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 5.80 | 52.05 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 5.22 | 675.38 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 2.90 | 1,262.35 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 1.74 | 1,914.67 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 2,696.54 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -0.86 | 2,696.54 |
Spirits of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 8.06 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 5.80 | 40.30 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 5.22 | 663.63 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 2.90 | 1,250.60 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 1.74 | 1,902.92 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 2,684.79 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -0.85 | 2,684.79 |
Still cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but not exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 10.86 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 3.02 | 54.30 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 1.82 | 190.39 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 0.61 | 281.46 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 342.17 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 342.17 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.10 | 342.17 |
Beer of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 22.81 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 13.15 | 114.05 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 11.83 | 1,527.76 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 6.58 | 2,859.02 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 3.94 | 4,338.49 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 6,111.78 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -1.94 | 6,111.78 |
Wine and other fermented products of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 27.82 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 3.10 | 139.10 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 3.10 | 278.80 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 1.55 | 434.02 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 588.67 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 588.67 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.17 | 588.67 |
Spirits of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 25.47 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 3.10 | 127.35 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 3.10 | 267.05 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 1.55 | 422.27 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 576.92 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 576.92 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.16 | 576.92 |
Alcoholic products, other than spirits, of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 8.97 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 5 | 44.85 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 4.50 | 581.95 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 2.50 | 1,087.77 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 1.50 | 1,650.42 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 2,325.60 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -0.74 | 2,325.60 |
Spirits, of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 6.62 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 5 | 33.10 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 4.50 | 570.20 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 2.50 | 1,076.02 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 1.50 | 1,638.67 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 2,313.85 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -0.73 | 2,313.85 |
Still cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but not exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 9.36 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.61 | 46.80 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 1.57 | 164.33 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 0.53 | 242.80 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 295.50 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 295.50 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.08 | 295.50 |
Beer of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 19.54 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 11.33 | 97.70 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 10.20 | 1,315.61 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 5.67 | 2,462.58 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 3.40 | 3,738.43 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 5,269.44 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -1.67 | 5,269.44 |
Wine and other fermented products of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 20.34 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.27 | 101.70 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 2.27 | 203.77 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 1.13 | 317.18 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 430.58 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 430.58 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.12 | 430.58 |
Spirits, of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal dis- count (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 17.99 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.27 | 89.95 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 2.27 | 192.02 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 1.13 | 305.43 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 418.83 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 418.83 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.12 | 418.83”. |
Point of Order
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) claimed twice during today’s debate that 27 young non-EU migrants have been hired for every young Brit since 2020, but the reality is very different. The report that the right hon. and learned Member was referring to has been debunked. If the actual numbers of employed young people, not the increases in the number of payrolled young people, are used, 10 UK under-25s are employed for every one non-EU national. I ask for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how Members of this House can be asked to correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I take it that she informed the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville before referring to her.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can see that the hon. Lady is nodding. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of hon. Members’ speeches, and any Member who wants to correct the record should contact Hansard. The hon. Lady has most definitely got her point on the record.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I would like to start by talking about FISH, although not the aquatic kind, you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, given the topic of this debate.
FISH stands for Friends in Sickness and Health. It is a wonderful charity in the village of Sonning Common in my constituency. Among other things, its volunteers run a minibus service for older residents and residents with disabilities to enable them to more easily get around the villages in my area. Their minibuses are perfect for providing people who would otherwise really struggle to leave the house with a trip out to the shops or to the market. Morrisons, I am told, remains ever popular, and the extra space on the bus is vital for bringing back all the shopping.
FISH are not alone either in my constituency. Henley HandyBus, supported by Henley town council, operates daily, and the Woodcote Volunteers host events, providing transport to their monthly tea parties. But it was Sonning Common’s FISH group that brought to my attention the issue of D1 licences when we met in October here in Westminster. The Minister is likely to be familiar with the issue, but I will briefly describe it in the words used to explain it to me.
A category D1 licence gives a driver permission to drive a minibus with up to 16 passengers and weighing up to 7.5 tonnes. Prior to 1997, all new licences were issued with this category as standard. In 1997, that changed, and now D1 minibus driving licences require an additional test. This happened for a very understandable reason—to enhance safety—and it brought us in line with other similar countries, but it also created a problem.
Community transport services have become dependent on an ever-decreasing pool of drivers who qualified prior to 1997. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am confident that means that neither you, the Minister or I have D1 licences. The reality is that more than half of community transport operators report having insufficient D1 drivers to meet demand. According to the Community Transport Association, 81% of community transport operators are not confident that they will have enough D1 drivers to sustain their services in as little as three years’ time.
What is even worse is that once a driver gets to the age of 70, they automatically lose their D1 category licence unless they apply to retain it, and they must do that every three years. Again, that is for very understandable and sensible safety reasons, but the upshot is that 99% of all D1 licences in Great Britain are held by drivers in a narrow age band of 47 to 69.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this incredibly important issue. It is the same in my constituency of Strangford; local independent bus companies provide a lifeline for the vulnerable, elderly and schoolchildren, yet the operators are facing incredible pressures, from rising fuel costs to regulatory burdens and an acute shortage of qualified D1 licensed drivers. If we are to prevent rural communities from being cut off, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must step in with targeted support to assist our local operators with driver recruitment, training and operational funding across the UK?
Freddie van Mierlo
The hon. Gentleman mentions D1 licences and a wider range of issues that face community transport organisations, and I am sure that the Minister will have heard his points.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Recently I hosted a roundtable of community transport organisations that was chaired by VASA, which operates in my constituency and is supported by Stratford-on-Avon district council. They are a lifeline for residents, often elderly residents, who otherwise struggle to reach medical appointments and other services. Does my hon. Friend agree that community transport should be recognised as a core part of our transport network and as essential infrastructure, especially in rural areas, and should be embedded in future national and local transport policies?
Freddie van Mierlo
I thank my hon. Friend for her very sensible intervention. My own local authority in Oxfordshire also heavily supports community transport organisations. I am sure that her proposals were heard by the Minister.
Over the next five years, more than 3 million D1 licences are likely to be lost as drivers reach 70—equivalent to one in five of all D1 licences. We are therefore facing a ticking time bomb as qualified drivers age out at the top and are not replenished enough from below.
Without decisive action from the Government, there will be serious concerns for the future viability of community transport.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I am a massive supporter of Mendip Community Transport. In fact, my village has a community transport minibus, which is an absolutely essential lifeline, particularly in such a rural area where we have no buses. What does my hon. Friend think about the fact that if someone wants to undertake a minibus driving test in my area, they must travel some long distance and the test can cost up to £2,000, which seems extraordinarily expensive?
Freddie van Mierlo
I thank my hon. Friend for that addition to the debate. I was aware of the costs, which I will come on to, but I had not been made aware previously of the distance that some drivers may need to travel to carry out a test. That would be an additional barrier to enabling volunteers to do what they love doing most.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you might reasonably ask, “Why don’t people just take the test?” A test is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask someone driving 7.5 tonnes of fast-moving metal to pass—we accept that; no one is disputing it—but it is how difficult and how costly that test is that matters. How proportionate is the test to the social benefits of community transport? How easy are we making it for people who want to do good in their community, giving up their time for others, to do so? If we make it too difficult, they will just say, “What’s the point?” and move on to something else. At the moment, drivers must pass an additional theory test, a practical test and a medical assessment, all to the tune of up to £2,000.
Setting a cost of up to £2,000 might make sense in terms of passing on the administrative costs of the testing regime to the customer. I can see how we might have got to that point rationally. The Minister may be able to confirm whether a profit is made on the testing regime; if that is the case, I ask him to look into that. I argue that the social and economic benefit of having more minibus drivers able to run local community services should be taken into account.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. I am listening intently to what he is saying and will listen intently to the Minister. I have seen at first hand the Volunteer Friends charity in my constituency, which runs a medicar transport service and supported shopping service. The issues that he has raised show how there are problems in the sector and how we need to do everything we possibly can to facilitate people to volunteer to help the community. I have seen with my own eyes just how important that is.
Freddie van Mierlo
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights just how widespread the issue is and how keenly it is felt in all corners of the country.
Rural constituencies like mine rely on volunteer transport to plug the gap between private motor vehicle usage and commercial for-profit bus companies. Many rural routes are not profit making and have no hope of being so. The alternative is clear: if we let community transport die a slow death, we will see more social isolation, with all the health and social care costs associated with that. We will also see councils come under pressure to step in with taxpayer-funded schemes and subsidies. At a time when the Government have cut my local authority’s funding, it is hard to see how that can happen. Why should it when we have a pool of people willing to volunteer? For the volunteers, it is rewarding work that gives meaning to people’s lives, providing an opportunity to give back and be part of something really special.
I put on the record my sincere gratitude for all the hard work that volunteers put in every day and the contribution they make. Two of those wonderful volunteers are John Pearman, the FISH transport co-ordinator, and David Whitehead, the chair of FISH volunteer centre. They do excellent work to co-ordinate half a dozen drivers and look out for opportunities to recruit new volunteers.
John told me how he found three potential new drivers, but once they had understood the costs and time needed to update their licence to D1 status, all withdrew their interest, even with the offer from Sonning Common health centre for free medical testing for volunteer minibus drivers. David and John therefore completely rely on the 47 to 69 age band, with the band becoming ever narrower each year.
When thinking about how to move forwards, the Government do not have to start from scratch. The 2022 call for evidence on driving licensing took views on the minibus licensing regime from over 2,000 respondents. Although most respondents supported a change in current licensing arrangements, no substantial actions have since been taken to improve the status.
The Government have pointed concerned parties towards exemptions that already exist for D1 licences. However, the Community Transport Association notes that those exemptions make no meaningful change in availability of drivers. The exemptions allow those with a standard driving licence issued post 1997 to drive a lighter minibus weighing up to 3.5 tonnes. However, nearly three quarters of all vehicles in the UK’s community transport fleet are minibuses with between 9 and 16 seats, often with weighty accessibility features. Larger vehicles give local charities, community groups and social enterprises the flexibility they need to operate effectively, with more affordable costs.
Tessa Munt
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way for a second time. I would like to point out that a number of community minibuses are electric vehicles, and their batteries make them very much heavier, which, along with accessibility equipment such as wheelchair lifts, automatically take their weight way over the 3.5 tonne limit.
Freddie van Mierlo
Of course, we want to encourage a shift to more sustainable and greener forms of travel, while still maintaining a good cohort of drivers. I will not take any more interventions because I know we have to move on.
More than one in 10 organisations have changed their service delivery model, often replacing conventional minibuses with cars or lightweight minibuses, resulting in lower capacity, increased costs and operational complexity. However, drivers of those lighter vehicles are not eligible to be paid, unlike those with the standard D1 licence, adding further to the burden.
So how can we help community transport? The CTA has put forward a proposal. It is not a blanket minibus licence for all drivers—not a return to 1997. Instead, the CTA proposes a targeted intervention to allow drivers to acquire a D1 licence to drive a minibus for non-profit organisations. The licence would draw on minibus learning programmes that already exist and require the driver to complete a training-based upgrade accredited by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, similar to the minibus driver awareness scheme, or MiDAS, which is a national programme of quality-assured education and training for the community transport sector. This approach was supported by respondents to the Government’s 2022 call for evidence. The CTA proposal requires an online theory test, a short practical session, and on-road and medical assessments, but, crucially, with a cost of under £300. The proposal allows the number of drivers to be increased in a safe way, using an established information and learning assessment.
Will the Minister say in his remarks whether he has considered the CTA’s proposals? I caveat that by saying that I am not a road expert and the CTA’s proposals may not be 100% the answer, but surely the Government can come up with a regime that achieves both aims: safe roads and a thriving community transport sector. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks on the points that I have raised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate and on raising this important subject. I am grateful to him for giving the House the opportunity to reflect on the enormously valuable contribution that community transport makes to communities across the country. I want to begin by putting on record this Government’s strong support for the community transport sector and our appreciation for the staff and volunteers who make those services possible.
I pay tribute to FISH, in this plaice, for doing a fantastic job. [Laughter.] It really does make a splash for all the right reasons. The people there are o-fish-ally doing a great job—I could not resist that, as the hon. Gentleman gave me a heads-up that he would mention the charity.
On a more serious note, community transport can provide a real lifeline, particularly for older and disabled people, those who are vulnerable or isolated and people living in rural areas where other public transport options are limited. It helps people get to work, education, healthcare and other essential services. Just as importantly, it allows people to see friends and family, take part in community life and maintain their independence. The scale of that contribution should not be underestimated.
Community transport operators providing around 13.8 million passenger journeys each year. This is ultimately not just a debate about driving licence categories or regulations; it is about people’s ability to get where they need to go and to remain connected to the communities in which they live. That is why the Government provide practical support to the sector. The Department for Transport provides the Community Transport Association with an annual grant to support its work with its members and the wider sector. We also make available up to £3.8 million each year to eligible community transport operators through the bus service operators grant, helping operators with their running costs. A 60% uplift has been added to community transport claims until 31 March 2027, with further support during the current period of increased fuel costs.
Our support is not simply about direct financial assistance. We want community transport to be properly recognised as part of the wider transport network. We encourage local authorities to consider community transport within their local transport planning and to look at how those services can complement conventional fixed-route bus services and improve connectivity. That is particularly important in places where community transport fills gaps that other transport services cannot easily fill.
I turn now to the specific issue that the hon. Member has raised today: the rules governing the driving of minibuses. I recognise very clearly the concern within the community transport sector about the availability of drivers with category D1 entitlement. Prior to 1997, someone obtaining a car licence was automatically granted the restricted category D1 entitlement—commonly known as D1(101)—allowing them to drive a minibus when it was not being driven for hire or reward. The automatic entitlement ceased for people passing their car test from 1 January 1997. Since then, drivers have generally needed to pass an additional test to obtain a category D1 entitlement, although there are limited circumstances in which a holder of a category B car licence may drive a minibus without a full D1 licence.
The practical consequences are that drivers who retain a category D1 through those so-called grandfather rights are gradually getting older, and the number of drivers with D1 is gradually reducing. I understand the concern that this creates for community transport operators, which have traditionally relied on this cohort of drivers. The CTA has made the case strongly that a diminishing pool of D1 drivers is making recruitment more difficult and imposing additional costs on organisations that need to train new ones. I want to acknowledge the constructive work that the association has done in bringing this issue to the Government and to Parliament; during Community Transport Week in October, the CTA held an event here in Parliament and launched its white paper, setting out its case for changes to the licensing arrangements. The Department is aware of that proposal and we are actively reviewing it.
I recognise the seriousness of the concern behind that work and the effort that the CTA has made to develop a practical proposal. At the same time, however, the Government must consider any proposed change to driver licensing arrangements very carefully. This consideration also takes place within the wider framework of the Government’s road safety strategy, which was published earlier this year. The strategy reiterates the Government’s commitment to reducing those killed and seriously injured on our roads, and to ensuring that road safety impacts are properly considered when developing transport policy. Any changes to driver licensing arrangements therefore need to be assessed in terms not only of accessibility, workforce availability and operational benefits, but also in terms of their implications for road safety outcomes.
I had a look before coming here tonight, and I can tell the House the statistics from 2025, the last full year of pass rates for D1. Of the 3,069 tests taken, 2,511 were passed but 552 were failed. Under some proposed changes, those without this D1 qualification could potentially be driving minibuses, and we can see how important safety is when considering the implications of any changes. Minibuses can carry up to 16 passengers in addition to the driver. They can weigh up to 5 tonnes and be driven at speeds of up to 70 mph. The responsibility placed on the person driving such a vehicle is therefore different from that involved in driving a private car. Also, many of the passengers who depend on community transport are themselves older, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. While I absolutely recognise the pressures facing operators, road and passenger safety must remain at the heart of our consideration of any changes to the licensing regime.
Tessa Munt
Can I ask the Minister how many accidents there have been involving community minibuses in the last two or three years, please? If he does not know, might he be able to write to me with that information? I realise this is a very serious matter, and I just wondered how many incidents there were.
Simon Lightwood
I commit to write to the hon. Lady on that matter, as I do not have the information to hand.
Of course, what I have said does not mean that the Government should close their mind to reform—quite the contrary—but it does mean that we must be satisfied that changes designed to make it easier to obtain the necessary entitlement do not introduce unacceptable risks for minibus passengers or for other road users.
That balance between flexibility and safety is not a new question. In 2022, the previous Government held a substantial call for evidence to look at potential reforms to driver licensing regimes, and one of the questions considered was whether people holding a category B car licence should be granted entitlement to drive category D1 minibuses. The review ran between August and October 2022, and deliberately sought evidence about whether reforms could widen the pool of minibus drivers while maintaining the safe use of our roads. The response demonstrated significant support for the change, but that is not by itself the same thing as evidence that the change can be made safely. The Department’s assessment of that exercise was that, although there was strong support for extending driving licence entitlement, the evidence presented was not sufficient to allow us to fully understand and assess the associated road safety risks. I understand that the Community Transport Association does not agree that the evidence currently available justifies maintaining the existing position. That evidence gap is, however, important. It is why the Department has continued to say that any potential relaxation of the D1 requirements needs to be considered alongside the implications for road safety.
I do not want the hon. Member for Henley and Thame to take from what I have said that the Government are insensitive to the problem he has described—far from it. We recognise the demographic issue affecting holders of D1 grandfather rights. We recognise what community transport operators are telling us about recruiting drivers. We recognise the argument that the costs and practicalities associated with obtaining a D1 entitlement may be particularly challenging for small, community-based and not-for-profit organisations. Through its proposal for reform, the Community Transport Association believes that it can address those pressures while providing appropriate safeguards. We will consider that contribution seriously, but we will also continue to place passenger and road safety at the centre of our consideration.
I hope Members across the House would agree that those two objectives—of supporting the sustainability of community transport and ensuring that people can travel safely—should not be regarded as opposing ambitions. Our task now is to determine how best to secure both.
Question put and agreed to.