Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Sadly, this Budget does not tackle the critical national issues that we face. It does not have a plan to reduce spending on welfare. It does not have a plan to increase spending on defence. It does not have definitive interventions to improve growth, tackle our spiralling debt or deal with the record high taxes all of us currently face.

What about locally? How does the Budget score for my constituents in Runnymede and Weybridge? Does it keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving? Well, there is nothing on level crossings and not much on rail or roads. On backing jobs and local businesses, it does not do anything about the catastrophic employer national insurance contributions.

What about defending our green belt and our natural environment? There is nothing on the Environment Agency. On protection from flooding—I am glad that the Minister with responsibility flooding is on the Front Bench—there is no mention of the River Thames scheme in the Budget. The largest infrastructure scheme put forward by the Environment Agency is notably absent, which is deeply, deeply concerning.

How about supporting children and families? Again, there is nothing on special educational needs and disabilities or on childcare.

The scorecard from Runnymede and Weybridge on keeping my constituency moving is nil, nil, nil, nil, nil. Why is that? It is because this Budget is a tomorrow Budget. It is a future Budget, with all the key decisions left until after a review or until this Parliament is over. I have some news for those on the Government Benches and those on the Opposition Benches to the left of me. We know what that means. The fact that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister would rather have a non-Budget and call a general election than make the hard decisions today tells us everything we need to know about this Labour Government. There is another way with the Conservatives, and I am looking forward to it and so are my constituents.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Michael Wheeler.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for granting this point of order. I am seeking some clarity because both this week and last week, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero indicated that no decision had been taken on whether they were going to grant approval to the Rosebank oilfield. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” publication today states that the Government’s projected oil and gas receipts for the next year, which are now expected to raise £5.1 billion for the Treasury, include:

“production from currently producing fields (including Jackdaw), and the NSTA’s estimate of production from development of new fields, which includes Rosebank, and from future discoveries.”

Madam Deputy Speaker, might you be able to offer some guidance on how this House and the country can get some clarity on whether or not the Rosebank oilfield has been granted approval or will be granted approval, and whether the OBR’s forecast can be trusted at all?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. I have received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter. It is not a matter for the Chair, but Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order.