Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for that constructive intervention. I am certainly in favour of looking at mechanisms for when we discover absurdities in the regulatory system. We know how long it takes to get legislation through the House or even introduced to the House as there are so many priorities, so we need to be able to act in the interim. We should look at that, and the House should give those powers where needed in such circumstances. Of course, national security is the No. 1 priority of any Government at any moment in time—it certainly should be.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Peter Kyle]

I will make some progress.

We also need a tax growth test, with outside experts reviewing all investment, hiring, innovation, revenue and incentives from HM Treasury and judging those against a growth test. That does not mean we would not still redistribute, invest and use tax in ways that are not always conducive to growth, but we do need to know in aggregate form exactly how the incentive landscape and the policy landscape in HMT align with the need for growth.

I am pleased that the Chancellor has made a lot of statements and some good progress on procurement. We should really be using that far more effectively to champion British innovation and support British scale-up companies. In procuring products and services, they have access to over £400 billion of spending, which eclipses investment we can make through Innovate UK, the British Business Bank, the National Wealth Fund or UK Research and Innovation.

I could not understand this as Secretary of State, and I still cannot when looking on. We went through a period, with my encouragement, of taking equity stakes in scale-up companies as part of our scale-up plan. There was all the due diligence that goes into making those decisions and which lead to the British Business Bank, through the independent and thorough work of its investment committee, taking an equity stake. Yet once that is done, there is no preferential access to any other part of Government. That should change.

The Regulatory Innovation Office should be upscaled and there should be local rewards for businesses that are growing fast. I have spoken—I will not speak in any more detail—about my frustration that this economy and the continent of Europe have never produced a $1 trillion company. Some of the wealth from those companies, when it is fairly distributed among their workforces and the communities in which they are sited, is an astonishing vehicle for levelling up. We need to ensure that we understand the reasons why our economy seems to have some kind of glass ceiling. It is a continental European challenge. Taiwan can produce a $1 trillion company that produces the wealth and power that goes alongside it, but there is nothing that Taiwan has that we do not have here in Britain.

Social justice and growth are intertwined. I started by saying that we are on a motorway going in the right direction, but at 30 mph. Fairly distributed growth delivers security, freedom and prosperity. If that is what the destination looks like, why would we not we put our foot down and try and get there faster?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I am very confident that the plans laid out today will take us to 3% by the end of this Parliament, and to 3.5% by the middle of the next decade. That is what we have committed to do and that is what I believe we will do.

[Dr Murrison]

Apropos the point that has already been rightly made, does the hon. Gentleman really believe that? The Red Book gives a very different story. What we are talking about is RDEL—the resource departmental expenditure limit or day-to-day spend on our armed forces. That means reserves—I am one—not getting their reserve training days, ships that cannot put to sea because of a lack of fuel, no bullets and no exercises. Is that what he wants? What does that say to the brave men and women who populate our armed forces?

[Jim Dickson]

The situation that the right hon. Gentleman is describing sounds like what pertained for the previous 14 years. We are turning that around.

Since the 2024 election, this Government have demonstrated a clear strategy to get on and fix the foundations of our country, most obviously in public spending, that had fractured under the previous Administration, and that includes defence spending. The Budget is built on long-term investment in infrastructure and crucial new projects. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in my constituency, in north Kent, where the funding for the lower Thames crossing—public funding, supporting big private sector investment of over £10 billion—will make such a difference to Dartford residents once it is complete.

The Chancellor’s announcement that he is expanding support to businesses and infrastructure projects through the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank is most welcome, and it has the potential for an investment boost right across the UK. As a tangible, practical example of how investment can make a difference in our constituencies, I commend the spending review that saw the announcement of the structures fund to invest in distressed transport assets across the country that were beyond the capacity of local authorities to repair. In Dartford, we hope to hear that funding has been allocated to repair the collapsed Galley Hill Road, which links Dartford with Gravesend, in the coming weeks.

As the Chancellor made clear, and as other hon. Members have pointed out, another long-term impact of the situation in the middle east is the rise in energy bills, which is likely to affect all of us over this winter. I remain extremely worried about the impact that will have, particularly on the most vulnerable households. Only this week, EDF Energy put out a new forecast that has the average household energy bill rising by more than a quarter, to £2,192 per year in January and potentially even higher in April. Clearly the blame for these price rises should be put squarely on the architect of the conflict between the US and Iran. I welcome all the work that this Government have done since 2024 to begin to transform our energy system.

I welcome very much today’s announcement that standing charges will be removed from gas bills next year, and the additional £100 of support for all those living in homes in council tax bands A to D, which will support over 35,000 households in Dartford over the next year. It may or may not be true, but I heard that Conservative spokespeople were taking to the airwaves following the Budget to say that they opposed the £100 discount. If that is the case, I think it is wrong and disgraceful. However, I hope that Ministers will look further at what we can do to shield the most vulnerable and accelerate the work to break the link between increasingly volatile gas prices and the prices that we pay for electricity.

I have also been among those calling for more support on business rates for small businesses. I am really pleased to hear about the changes that will see many cafés, shops and pubs taken out of business rates entirely, paid for rightly by a rise in machine games duty. I think most of us in this House can support that tax.

In my previous life as a local councillor, I saw the growing levels of homelessness on our streets, as I do now, and the dire consequences for those stuck there. It is therefore right that the Government are putting in place funding for the rest of the Parliament to offer a route off the streets to anyone sleeping rough. We have needed a comprehensive strategy to tackle rough sleeping for the past 14 or 15 years, and we finally have one.

I also support the proposed changes to bring in a first-time buyer ISA to replace the lifetime ISA. I look forward to more details on the Your First Home scheme, which I believe will be a boost to new developments such as those in Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency.

I am really pleased to see that the Red Book published along with today’s Budget confirms the formation of either a mayoral or foundation strategic authority for Kent. That is important news for our region. If a foundation authority or a mayor was in place, for instance, they could find the investment to ensure that we bring international rail services back to Kent after they were lost six years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I could not really make up my mind, when listening to the Chancellor, whether the Budget was a gathering note for an early general election or simply a wasted opportunity. Well, we have been told in the last few minutes that the Prime Minister has said to reporters:

“I can rule out calling a general election in the next 12 months.”

So that has sorted that one. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches will be heartily relieved.

We are left with a wasted opportunity: a Budget that contains no growth strategy worth the name; nothing on welfare, except for one or two small rises here and there; and nothing on reducing the size of the state. While countries in Europe are giving serious attention to reducing the size of the state following covid, this Government are doing very little indeed, to put it politely. The Netherlands is reducing the headcount in its civil service by 15%, except in the military and the police. If we were to do something even approaching that, it would be the thick end of a headcount of 100,000, freeing up resources for deficit reduction in the interests of generational fairness.

I am particularly focused on good growth in the BA12, BA13 and BA14 postcodes, but my constituents are seeing none of it. What they did see, practically on day one of this Government two and a half years ago, was the cancellation of the A303 improvements. They saw the long-grassing of the north-south strategic study to link the south coast with the M4. That seems to have gone by the board, meaning no Westbury bypass after all these years. We see continuing fiscal encouragement for the much-loathed plan for an incinerator at Westbury. We have seen VAT and charitable rate relief changes for independent schools, which has closed a foreign languages college in my constituency that brought in a great deal of foreign investment. We have also seen the retrenchment of one independent school, and only yesterday we received news that a further school that is very close to my constituency is finally, after over 100 years, closing down as a direct result of Government policy. There is not much growth there.

We have seen the family farm tax. We have seen the family business tax. We have seen the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which was included in the Finance Act 2025. It will come in on 1 January to add to farmers’ woes—something that I had thought the Government might mention in the Budget. It was said earlier that farmers have hardly featured at all in this Budget. Well, CBAM was an obvious thing to look at to reduce the cost of fertiliser. There are farmers in my constituency who are seriously considering not planting this year because of the cost of fertiliser. This was the opportunity to put that right.

My constituency is very military. We heard a deafening silence on spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this decade, making a complete mockery of the now Chancellor’s resignation in June. Goodness me—his namesake, Denis Healey, must be turning in his grave. In 1969, he famously said that

“once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled”

—the grounds on which the current Chancellor resigned in June—

“we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.”—[Official Report, 5 March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]

Yet it is precisely this issue—the welfare of our defence personnel and our ability to protect the state—that the now Chancellor resigned over in June. I have to say that that is quite extraordinary.

Now we find that RDEL will be cut in real terms over the next two years. In the time available to me, let me explain what that means. It means defence personnel’s accommodation will not be kept up to the extent that it should be. It means establishments will not be renovated. It means there will be no fuel for ships at sea. It means dockyard workers will not get overtime, which means ships will be anchored off at a weekend rather than service people being able to get home to their families. It means no exercises. I speak as a reservist, and it means no reserve service days, which means demoralising our reserve. This is catastrophic, and it is no way to behave. It is certainly not indicative of a Government who are halfway serious about the defence of this country.