Budget Resolutions

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[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 I am deeply disappointed that the Government’s energy proposal is linked to the outdated council tax system.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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I happily give way.

[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.

[Daisy Cooper]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[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—

[Daisy Cooper]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daisy Cooper]

Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

[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.