Budget Resolutions

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Expectation management is normally deployed because something is not so great. The scene is set that things are going to be really bad, so that when the day arrives, people think, “Actually, that thing we thought wouldn’t be so good is actually quite good.” However, the expectation management around this Budget has been six months of doom, gloom and terror. My constituents and everyone I know has been dreading what would come out on 26 November. Worse than that, we have seen crashing business confidence and the floating of taxes of all different shapes and forms. I am surprised that we have not seen a tax on taxes themselves being floated by the Chancellor or her Department in recent months. We saw a U-turn on the Budget before it was announced, and then an announcement on the Budget half an hour before the Budget was even delivered.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it was not a U-turn, but that there were better economic statistics that meant that the hole the Chancellor was trying to fill was smaller? People on both sides of the House should welcome the numbers being better. I find it quite bizarre that anyone would attack the Chancellor for finding herself in a better situation. It would be worse for our economy and all of us, including our constituents, would be worse off if we had had to look down the barrel of any change to the headline rates of income tax, quite aside from our manifesto pledges.

[Dr Spencer]

I suggest the hon. Member looks at the OBR report, which, as I mentioned, was released half an hour before the Chancellor stood up and which goes into detail about why that statement is entirely false.

Surrey is one of the biggest contributors to taxation revenue. It is my constituents who will be particularly hit, if not targeted, by the Budget measures. I hear their frustrations all the time about the amount of money we contribute and the lack of reciprocity when it comes to investment in Surrey so we can continue to be an economic powerhouse. My constituents worry about the future, particularly about what the Budget means for opportunities for their kids and about the debt that we are laying on them because of decisions made today. Sadly, this Budget and the one before it show that Labour is totally unable to rein in spending. We have yet another Budget of higher welfare paid by tax.

There has been a lot of focus in this debate on poverty and childhood poverty. That is absolutely right; it is a really important subject to tackle. It is important that we help all families, and everyone, out of poverty in the best way, but we fix and work towards resolving child poverty by ensuring that people have jobs and by focusing on the tax—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Spencer]

Go for it.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member therefore agree on the point in this Budget around investing £16 million in a cutting-edge science, technology, engineering and maths centre in my constituency to enable us to repair the post-Conservative scarring that we felt as a community, as we saw the hollowing out of our manufacturing sector?

[Dr Spencer]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I do not know the specific details regarding her constituency, but what I can say on the broader, macroeconomic details is that the reduction in employment as a consequence of national insurance contributions changes means that there are more children with parents who do not have jobs.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member address this point that in the case of the six in 10 children who are in families affected by the two-child benefit limit, those families have jobs? Will he address the situation of my constituent who lost her husband? She was working, he was working and they had three kids together. They were working and still they were affected by the two-child benefit limit. It is facile in the extreme to talk about just getting a job as the route out of poverty—it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

I am so pleased that the hon. Member raised the point about people who are in work but still poor. I will come on to that in relation to tackling child poverty, so if she waits a second, I will respond to her questions in full.

For the moment, I want to concentrate on the more macro costs point. Food inflation has gone up to 4.9%. Food costs are a big chunk of daily spending, especially for people who are poorer. That is a direct result of decisions to raise employer national insurance contributions. It turns out that taxes on businesses get passed on to working people.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Who knew?

[Dr Spencer]

Who knew, indeed.

Energy costs are a big chunk of everybody’s outgoings, and we are still waiting for them to come down. Property costs also are a big chunk of people’s outgoings, and this is reducing and putting more pressure on the private rented sector, particularly landlords. The measures in the Budget today around the increased taxation on property revenue will be passed on to the consumer—that is, people who are renting—adding yet another cost pressure. I wish Labour Members would think through what happens not just in step one of a Budget intervention but in steps two, three and four in relation to the impact on their constituents.

One way to deal with child poverty is to look at the cliff edges of the taxation system, including the wrapping down of universal credit when someone works for 28 hours. When the Work and Pensions Committee looked at in-work poverty costs—the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who is in his place, was the Chair at the time—one of the things that really came out, through and through, was that lots of the families in difficulty were single-parent families and they struggled with the 28 hours’ provision because of childcare costs and the marginal benefit. We also need to look at cliff edges in relation to housing allowance and council tax. We need to get rid of the cliff edges to ensure that work always truly pays.

Also really important in helping child poverty is making sure that the child maintenance system works. There are plenty of families with a parent who should be supporting their child but is not doing so. That is absolutely scandalous and it needs to be fixed.

[Lola McEvoy]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member that the child maintenance system needs reforming. Does he agree that, in 2010, it was wrong of the Conservative and Lib Dem coalition to introduce a £50 access fee for people who were trying to get the money that the absent parent of their child was refusing to pay? Was that a bad decision by his Government at the time?

[Dr Spencer]

I invite the hon. Member to look at the report that Parliament released on the reform of child maintenance, particularly on the barriers that were set up in the system, both in terms of direct and indirect payments. I think all of us across the House would agree that the child maintenance system needs reform.

The issue with the two-child benefit cap is that most, if not all, parents love their children and would like to have more children, should money, time and other things—[Interruption.] Okay, I stand corrected, but people make decisions when planning their families based on the resources they have, whether those are personal resources, time or money. It is fundamentally unfair to say to one group of people who are making difficult budgetary decisions in relation to having more children, “You’re going to be taxed more so that you can pay for other people who are not subject to those difficult budgetary decisions because they are not employed at the moment.” That is fundamentally not fair.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Spencer]

No, I am sorry. Other colleagues want to get in.

This Budget is unfair. Fairness is about honouring promises made and delivering on the Government’s responsibility to govern for all. Fairness is about making sure that opportunities are available to everyone, not just those who work hard, and that those who work hard to grasp them are not penalised for their efforts. Taxes should be used to improve security, services, growth and prosperity, not to garner political support. Fairness is not mortgaging away our children’s future on an ever-spiralling amount of debt.