Budget Resolutions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

We look forward to the Treasury Committee challenging the Government on the details of the Budget. This Government were elected on a promise to tackle the cost of living and grow the economy, and this is the second Budget in which they have failed to do either. For millions of people struggling with higher bills, all this Budget really offers is higher taxes.

The OBR sets it out in black and white: disposable income and living standards are down thanks to this Budget. Surely the Chancellor should have learned from her first failed Budget that we cannot tax our way to growth. Under the Conservatives, the UK’s tax burden reached its highest level since 1948 and it hit the economy, yet under this Budget the tax burden will hit an all-time high.

There is an alternative to all these Conservative and Labour taxes, and the shocking reality is that the Government know it: a new trade deal with Europe—a major new deal to cut the cost of living and grow our economy. The truth is that Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal has cost the Treasury £90 billion a year in lower tax revenue. Imagine if the Chancellor had adopted our plan to reverse those Brexit costs. Imagine how much more we could be helping families and pensioners across our country with the cost of living. Imagine how we could be ending the cost of living crisis today.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. You are a senior Member of the House, and I made it very clear earlier that no interventions should be made on party leaders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It gives me a certain pleasure to share some agreement about the need for more resource in defence and resilience with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). For all the Government’s talk of increasing spending on defence, the vast bulk of the promise they have made is after this spending period, and the small increase that has been allowed for in these spending plans is not even sufficient to make up for the problems that the Ministry of Defence has managing its own programmes. There is now a huge row going on there about what it is going to have to cut in order to stay within the spending envelop set by the Treasury. It is not a new problem, but it is a significant one, and it is one that underlines the need for the Ministry of Defence to adapt to a very different climate—a much more warlike and adaptive system for acquiring military kit.

The great theme of this Budget and the last, to which the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington referred, is growth. I think we need to be realistic that the growth rate was flattened by the global financial crisis of 2008-09, and our productivity rate never recovered from that period. It is a puzzle. It is partly because our economy is more and more service orientated, which is labour intensive, but I think it is also because we have expanded the public sector so dramatically in recent years.

Public sector productivity is way below what it was before covid—it has not recovered. The productivity of the national health service is lamentable. These are issues of leadership, organisation and efficiency. The Government need to look at getting much better value for money for what we are spending, given that this country now has the highest ever peacetime levels of public expenditure.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member accept that some of the blossoming of the public sector in this country is as a result of Brexit, for which he advocated over very many years?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am tempted not to be drawn into the rather silly Brexit debate that seems to go on. It was notable that the Government spoofed towards the idea that they would make Brexit the scapegoat for the economy, but actually very little has come out from them on that. The Liberal Democrats may think, “Oh, if only we had a customs union to deal with the European Union, we would be £90 billion better off,” but that is fantasy economics. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Treasury is not saying that? Because it is not true—it is complete rubbish.

The idea that we have lost 4% of GDP as a result of Brexit is based on a very flimsy piece of evidence: a report put together from 13 forecasts made in 2016 and 2017, all before the Brexit deal was completed and we had a free trade agreement. It has never come to pass. In fact, a respected commentator, Wolfgang Münchau, said that we were approximating along growth rates in line with France and Germany before we left the European Union, and that our leaving the European Union was the “economic non-event” of the century. We have been approximating along at about the same growth rates. The very dire forecasts were based on the idea that there was going to be a 25% decline in our trade—that has not happened. There has been a marginal decline in our trade with the EU—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Ministers on the Treasury Bench might be more interested in having their private conversations, but it is making it very difficult to hear the hon. Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am very sorry that those on the Front Bench do not like hearing this, but there is no “get out of jail free” card through realigning with the European Union. It looks as though the European Union wants to charge us money for the Brexit reset. In fact, the expenditure line—what we make in net contributions to the EU since we left—has absolutely crashed. We are now contributing very little, and that money is available to the Exchequer. If we rejoined the European Union, we would have to find another £20 billion for contributions to the European budget—no thank you very much.

The real point about a Budget is that it is when the country hears from the Government about their judgment. It is not about lots of little schemes—the £400 million extra being raised from council tax does not even cover the margin for error on annual public spending each year. It is almost irrelevant; it is a window dressing about punishing the rich. Incidentally, if we go on every Budget making sure that the top deciles contribute far more than the bottom deciles, we will finish up with a more and more punitive tax and benefit system that will be more and more damaging for economic growth.

The question is: did the Government get the judgment right last time? The answer was obviously no; they said that those tax increases would be a one-off but they have had to come back for much more, because the effect of their measures has damaged economic growth. What we are missing from this conversation is a real discussion about the long-term growth of public expenditure and what we can afford. The “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report, produced by the OBR in the summer, was a sort of two-day wonder in the public debate. We then went back to discussing the very narrow question of how much headroom we should have in just one year—as though aiming for that little hole is the answer for the long-term economic viability of this country. What a ludicrous way to run a country! It is about as un-strategic as you can get.

As a consequence, we are living in a fool’s paradise. The Government have repeated their errors. They are punishing wealth creators and padding out the welfare system, which is decreasing incentives for work. The tragedy of the nearly 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training is getting bigger. The national minimum wage will reduce opportunities for young people, because it will no longer be worth pubs and hotels recruiting young people, given that there is no cost advantage to recruiting students as opposed to full-timers. Perhaps that is what the Government want, but it will not be good for employment for young people, nor good for growth and enterprise.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

As the mother of somebody in that age bracket who works in a pub, I just wanted to stand up on his behalf and say thank you to the Chancellor.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will not be thanking the Chancellor and her Government on behalf of all the young people who thought they would be able to get jobs in the hospitality sector, but now will not get them. Students will not get those part-time jobs to help to pay off their student loans. These issues have to be balanced—[Interruption.] I am not going to give way again.

The point is that this Budget will prove, once again, that higher spending, higher borrowing—the debt is still going up, by the way—and higher taxes are not a route to growth, prosperity, employment, happiness and security. This is a Government proving, once again, that socialism does not work. We are heading for a terrible reckoning on the basis of the long-term fiscal forecasts produced by the OBR. There is going to be a crunch.

Last year the Government sent the gilt rates rising. This year the gilt rates are way above the level that was provoked by the Liz Truss Budget. These two Budgets are much worse than the Liz Truss episode, and they have raised—[Interruption.] The Liz Truss episode was short-lived; this is permanent. It is Government policy to inflict higher borrowing costs, higher debt, higher taxation and lower growth on our country—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if those on the Front Bench could contain themselves. This Government have made permanent a fiscal and growth crisis, and we will rue the day that we elected them, because once again they will prove that Labour Governments always trash the economy permanently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

That is a very good way of putting it. The other way of putting it is to say that there is a huge attempt to gaslight the country and, I am afraid, Labour Members about what is actually being proposed.

Let me give another example. We are told that the Government are trying to encourage business investment, yet the Blue Book contains a £1.5 billion reduction in incentives for business investment. The contradictions are clear, and I urge Members to read the Blue Book, because the Chancellor is relying on us not reading the leaked book. Sometimes it is quite impenetrable, and sometimes it is quite difficult to understand, but there are some key things that I want to point people to, if I may.

First, I ask Members to turn to paragraph 1.3 of the executive summary, which tells us that, contrary to what the Chancellor said, debt will rise over the next few years. Debt moves from being

“95 per cent of GDP this year and ends the decade at 96 per cent of GDP, which is 2 percentage points higher than projected in March”.

That was the first thing she said that was incorrect.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Obviously, the Labour briefing says how much the previous Conservative Government borrowed over their period in office, but given that we inherited a situation where £1 in every £4 of public spending was being borrowed, it took a considerable period of austerity to get annual borrowing down. During that borrowing, we accumulated a lot of extra debt.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is worth remembering that if we had not gone through a period of austerity post the financial crash and the mess that we inherited, we would not have been able to rescue the economy during covid. We would not have had the headroom that allowed us to re-leverage the country in emergency circumstances. I wish that we now had the same foresight.

Paragraph 3.13 of the Blue Book points out that, in the OBR’s view, there is nothing in this Budget that will do anything for growth. The OBR has declined to revise its previous output predictions because the Budget does nothing for growth.

Finally, the fourth bullet point in paragraph 1.28 points out that the tax-to-GDP ratio will become the highest it has ever been in this country and will constrain business incentives for the future. I urge colleagues to read the Blue Book—the truth lies therein.

We find ourselves in a position where we have a Budget that is trumpeting itself as a triumph, but which is nevertheless producing the highest tax rate of all time, completely flat and anaemic growth, and inflation and interest rates—they are in the Blue Book—that will be higher for longer than they otherwise would have been. The outlook has worsened since March, to the extent that the OBR makes a point of it.