Budget Resolutions

Ed Davey 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.

[Ed Davey]

I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman in the Tea Room afterwards.

The Government know the damage that the Conservative-Reform Brexit deal has done to every family and business across our country, yet they choose to reject the single biggest policy for ending the cost of living crisis, turbocharging economic growth and boosting tax revenues without raising tax: a new trade deal with Europe. We need to properly fix our broken relationship with Europe, with a new customs union. We can grow our economy by freeing British businesses from the costs, barriers and red tape favoured by the Conservatives and Reform. Rather than trying to tax our way out of debt, as Labour is choosing to do, the Liberal Democrats would grow our way out of debt.

To be fair to the Chancellor, she has recently spoken about the terrible damage that the Conservatives’ Brexit deal has done to our economy—a deal that promised to save us £350 million a week, but which ended up costing the taxpayer £1.7 billion every week. But where is the Chancellor’s urgency and ambition to fix the problem that she rightly identifies? Today she did not even mention the huge hit to the Treasury from Brexit. She is like a doctor who has diagnosed the disease but refuses to administer the cure. She is refusing to take up our plan for a brand-new deal with the EU—a much better deal for Britain than anything the Government have pursued so far, with a new customs union at its heart.

Everyone but the most extreme Brexiteers now realises what a costly economic disaster the Brexit deal has been. Whether they are a young family struggling with ever higher food prices or a high street business just trying to survive the Chancellor’s latest new cost or tax, people are understandably looking for a credible economic policy to change their futures for the better, and it is crystal clear that only the Liberal Democrats are providing the leadership on our economy that people are crying out for.

There are some measures the Chancellor announced today that we do welcome. At last, she has decided to tax the big online gambling firms by raising remote gaming duty, as the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Problem gambling is related to hundreds of suicides every year, so of course online casinos and the like should pay more tax on their huge profits. Her decision to scrap the rape clause is an excellent one. I may not have heard the Leader of the Opposition, but I was not sure if she welcomed that. I hope the Conservative party will welcome it. The Chancellor’s decision to scrap the two-child limit is excellent. It was in our general election manifesto, and I am glad that she is now enacting Liberal Democrat policy. It is clearly the most effective way of lifting children out of poverty, and it will save taxpayers money in the long term.

The biggest relief today for millions of families and pensioners is the action the Chancellor is taking to reduce energy bills, and we welcome it, but even after the Chancellor’s changes, the Budget will leave the typical household paying hundreds of pounds a year more on their energy bills than five years ago. More action will be needed, but we need action on energy bills that works.

Reform and the Conservative party pretend that the answer to rising energy bills is to scrap our climate commitments and stop investing in renewables. They could not be more wrong. The Conservative-Reform energy policy would put up bills and make the UK even more reliant on imported fossil fuels, with their volatile and high prices. That would be a disaster for our economy, a disaster for our environment, a disaster for jobs and a disaster for people struggling with energy bills. A major winner from Reform’s energy policies would be Vladimir Putin, which might explain why the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is so keen on them. I urge the Government not to listen to the Conservatives or Reform, but to be more ambitious in cutting people’s energy bills and to take up our plan to cut energy bills even more right now and cut them in half within a decade, finally giving families and pensioners the relief they need from this cost of living crisis.

While there are some things to welcome, as I have just done, there are quite a lot of measures in the Budget that will cause a lot of pain and unfairness, all of which could have been avoided if the Chancellor had gone for growth with Europe instead. Her plans to tax salary sacrifice will be hugely damaging to savings and pensions, and it looks like it is another NI hit on workers. Why, oh why, when the electricity vehicle market still needs a boost to get going, is she taxing electric vehicles? If she was not spending £1.8 billion on digital ID, many of these tax rises would not have been needed in the first place. Her failure to U-turn on the family farm tax is a huge error. If the Chancellor was really looking to tax those with the broadest shoulders, why not put a windfall tax on the big banks that are making billions at the taxpayer’s expense due to the side effects of quantitative easing?

The worst tax hike of this Budget by far—the biggest tax rise in this Budget—is the Chancellor’s decision to repeat the Conservative policy of freezing income tax thresholds. Freezing these thresholds reduces the amount that people can earn tax-free and hits the lowest-paid the hardest. I have to say that hearing the Conservative leader criticising it now rings incredibly hollow—and I think the “Member for Bark-shire” was objecting to her comments. The Leader of the Opposition cheered Conservative Budget after Conservative Budget that did exactly the same thing as the Chancellor has done—raising taxes on the low-paid. The Conservatives dragged an extra 4 million people on very low incomes into paying income tax, and an extra 3.5 million people into paying the 40p rate. The OBR says that this Government are now planning to drag a further three quarters of a million low-paid workers into tax and nearly 1 million people into the 40p rate. Someone on the average salary is paying an extra £582 this year because of the Conservatives’ policy, and under the Chancellor’s plans they will pay an extra £300 a year by 2031.

Contrast that with our record on income tax. We raised the personal allowance by £4,000. We cut income tax by £825 for millions of people, and took 3.4 million of the lowest-paid out of paying income tax altogether. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are the only party that believes in cutting income tax for ordinary people; Labour and the Conservatives make them pay more.

As well as adding income tax pain to families struggling with the cost of living crisis, the Budget will add to the cost of doing business crisis facing Britain’s hospitality sector, on which the Chancellor went nowhere near far enough. Our high streets are suffering. Pubs, restaurants, cafés, caravan parks, zoos and even our beloved theme parks are struggling against higher business rates and the Government’s misguided jobs tax. The Liberal Democrats called on the Chancellor to help them with an emergency 5% VAT cut for hospitality for the next 18 months. That would have been a lifeline for some of our most beloved local businesses and for people’s jobs, boosting local economies across Britain, and it is very disappointing that the Chancellor has not listened to our calls.

Finally, can I say how disappointed I am at how little there was for carers in this Budget? As a carer myself for much of my life, I am determined to speak up for the millions of carers less fortunate than I am—the millions of family carers and care workers who make enormous sacrifices looking after loved ones, the carers who keep our NHS going and the carers who keep our society going. They deserve far more support from the Government, and I will keep pressing their case.

I do welcome the carer’s allowance review, but it confirms our argument that the carer’s allowance system is out of date and in need of urgent change, and we are yet to hear commitments to such changes. I welcome the decision to reassess cases where overpayment has caused huge hardship, but with those changes not coming into force for another year, the Government must instruct the Department for Work and Pensions to immediately suspend repayments during that delay and swiftly deliver compensation. More needs to be done to help family carers juggle their jobs with their caring responsibilities, and we urgently need the social care commission to actually start fixing the system on a cross-party basis and make sure that our loved ones get the care they need. The Chancellor cannot claim to be supporting our NHS properly, however much money she puts in, while she and Treasury officials keep blocking the social care reforms that alone can transform the health service across the country and boost our economy.

A caring society, a growing economy and a plan to drive down household bills, boost high streets and go for growth with Europe—that is the vision the Chancellor should have set out today. Instead we got a low-growth, high-tax Budget from a Government who I fear are just not listening.

Korean War: 75th Commemoration

Ed Davey Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Yes, and my right hon. Friend’s comments will be recorded and available for all to see.

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

I completely concur with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about the need to pay tribute to the South Koreans and their Government for their acknowledgment of the ultimate sacrifice paid by so many of our fellow countrymen in the defence of liberty and democracy in the Republic of Korea. They paid for and helped to establish a war memorial to the British fallen; that memorial now stands outside the Ministry of Defence. That point backs up what both right hon. Members have said. Will the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) reflect on what measures our country and our allies need to put in place to support South Korea in its security and to work towards a peace on the Korean peninsula?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is right to ask that question. We should apply ourselves to everything that is needed to ensure the freedom of South Korea, its Government and its people. We did it once; we should be prepared to do it again. It is worth noting that Korea now sits next to one of the growing threats, on a scale of power and potency that we have not seen since the cold war; that is, of course, China. Its ambitions in the area are to dominate all these spheres from Taiwan to Korea.

I have been campaigning on the subject, as have many other Members in this Chamber. Some of us are sanctioned; others not yet. We have been sanctioned because we believe that unless the west stands up now to the growth of the totalitarian states—Russia, North Korea, Iran and China—we will face the loss of the freedoms that we profoundly believe necessary for democracy to flourish and for people’s rights and liberties to be upheld.

This is not just a debate about Korea, north or south; it is a debate about our ability, capability and determination to recognise threats and never give in to them, wherever they lie. If there is one thing that the British Government and the British people should be proud of, it is our unrivalled sense of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, which we have always stood up to uphold. My worry today is that we might look at China and Korea and say, “These are far and distant countries now, and therefore we have to look after only ourselves.” That would be a sad and shabby day for this country. I appreciate the comments by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but our commitment to freedom is a global commitment.

At this year’s UN General Assembly, the DPRK regime spoke of “human dignity and prosperity” and claimed that it was committed to international peace and security, yet the same regime continues to conduct intercontinental ballistic missile tests—it has launched eight short and medium-range ballistic missiles this year alone—while carrying out large-scale cyber-attacks, including the recent theft of $1.5 billion in cryptocurrency. It engages in transnational repression of human rights activists and illicit arms smuggling, and it continues to pour vast resources into weapons of mass destruction.

Only a few weeks ago, we saw the leaders of the axis of authoritarian states gathered in Beijing, arm in arm with President Xi, claiming that they would be the new world order. If people did not freeze at that sight, understanding that it is a genuine challenge, then on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war we should remind ourselves of the sacrifice of the brave British, American and other United Nations troops who stood up in the face of tyranny and managed to secure freedom—if not all of it, at least enough to give hope to those who live outside it. We are not only commemorating the 75th anniversary; we will have to relive it and remind ourselves that there is nothing more expensive than freedom. It is not free.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I think this will be a consensual debate, in which we come together to show our solidarity with South Korea and, above all, our respect and gratitude to British servicemen who gave their lives to defend freedom and democracy all those years ago.

We should remember what was happening in our country at that time. We were recovering from the devastation of the second world war. Families had made huge sacrifices, but we were prepared to make further sacrifices. In that context, it was an even greater achievement, as the hon. Member for Gloucester just outlined. It is important to remember that, and I urge colleagues to go and spend a moment looking at the war memorial outside the Ministry of Defence.

I have the pleasure to represent many Koreans. Half of the 40,000 Koreans in the UK live in south-west London, mainly in my constituency and Wimbledon. Indeed, New Malden in my constituency is known as Little Seoul; it has some fine Korean restaurants, should hon. Members wish to partake. I am also proud to be the chair of the APPG on the Republic of Korea. We are particularly grateful to the embassy staff for their support in engaging with our Korean friends.

South Korea is a fantastic country. The democracy that was won through that sacrifice has given back multiple times over to its own people, to south-east Asia and to the world, including our country. We should all be proud to say that our country is a friend of South Korea. We are able to enjoy their wonderful culture, with the K-wave—Korean wave—going across the world. I, for one, have BTS and Blackpink on my phone.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Show us!

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Davey]

I could show and play them, Mr Twigg, but that might be out of order. I also have a DVD at home of the film “Parasite”, which won many awards, showing that Korean culture goes way beyond music. I am a particular fan of kimchi, and proud that the royal borough of Kingston is the first place in our country to celebrate International Kimchi Day, when we eat lots of that wonderful food.

More seriously, the relationship between our country and Korea is strategic, and it is critical: critical for our economy, for our defence and for the geopolitical response that our country has to make. I will deal first with the economy, not least because the APPG wants to take evidence on the trade agreement that is being bashed out by trade negotiators. I was proud to be a trade Minister when we pushed for the EU-Korea free trade agreement, which was extremely effective. We published all the opportunities available to British companies in Korea as a result of that free trade agreement. I hope the agreement currently under discussion can build on that, so that we and Korean firms can benefit mutually, in the way that free trade allows.

I flag up in particular the relationship we can have on technology, with AI and beyond. In my constituency, we are developing relationships with Korean schools and universities, so that their knowledge of AI can be shared with our schools and university. It is important that we work with trusted allies such as our Korean friends to push out the boat on those new technologies. Beyond the economy, the energy relationship is important in all spheres, whether renewables or nuclear. The Republic of Korea is very much signed up to efforts to reduce its carbon emissions, and it is a trusted partner in the battle for climate action.

On our defence and security relationship with South Korea, under the Government of the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), a very important deal was done, and signed at No. 10, to strengthen defence co-operation in a way that we have not seen before. For all the reasons mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, strengthening that relationship could not be more important. Yes, there is the threat from North Korea, but above all there is the geopolitical threat that China represents not just to South Korea, but more broadly. President Lee Jae Myung, who took power after the recent elections, needs huge support. It is a difficult time in the politics of Korea, but he is showing real leadership, and we need to get behind his Government and their attempts to keep the peace on the peninsula through strength and diplomacy.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war and the colossal loss of life—2.5 million lives were sadly lost—we must appreciate the huge strides that South Korea has made as a democracy and a close and trusted ally, which the right hon. Gentleman has remarked on. Does he agree that while we commemorate the contribution of our brave British service personnel who served during that time, we must ensure as a nation that we are a beacon of security and stability internationally and strengthen our alliance with our South Korean partners?

[Ed Davey]

I could not agree more. I think that is a cross-party view, and all the stronger for it. It is important on the occasions that we agree on foreign policy to send out that message, because it is heard in other parts of the world. They know that together, as a country, we support our friends in South Korea.

Returning to the commemoration, I will concentrate my final remarks on the threat from North Korea, because it is a real one. We have seen how North Korean troops are supporting Russia in its illegal war against Ukraine. No doubt it is sending its technology. I am not on top of all the details of the things it is sending, but I know that it will be sending ammunition and missiles. That shows us that we need to be on our marks against North Korea today; it is a threat to the world order today.

Although I am no great fan of President Trump, I hope that he can succeed in any talks that he has with the North Koreans. It is essential that they are brought to their senses. That is a very difficult task, as he found the last time he attempted it, which did not go terribly well. [Interruption.] As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green says from a sedentary position, President Trump christened the President of North Korea “Rocket man”.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

“Little rocket man”.

[Ed Davey]

“Little rocket man”—as always, a double-edged sword.

Let us hope that President Trump is more successful this time. There are many ways he and our Government can take that forward. I have spoken with US politicians, and in particular Congressman Brad Sherman, who has put forward the idea of trying to move on from the armistice—let us remember that the war has not actually finished—to a formal peace treaty. I think that is an interesting concept. Arguing for a formal peace treaty, difficult though it may be with the current Government in North Korea, who are shocking and appalling in all the ways that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned, could show that we want to engage. It would be a difficult and tricky route, but trying to establish a peace treaty is one way that we could commemorate the 75th anniversary of the start of the war and, more importantly, commemorate and strengthen the peace that there has been so that people on the whole peninsula can live in peace.

Ambassador to the United States

Ed Davey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This debate finds the House at its best, holding the Government and the Prime Minister properly to account. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we may be rising for the recess, but this issue will not go away. I pay tribute to the right hon. and gallant Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for securing the debate and for laying out the series of questions that needs to be answered so that we can properly hold the Government to account. I will not repeat all his many questions. He made a long speech, which we will no doubt be rereading over the next few weeks.

I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). Her speech, in which she said that her Committee had tried to bring Lord Mandelson before the Committee to be scrutinised but were prevented from doing so, raised some serious questions about how Select Committees are being ignored by the Government.

We need to get serious about confirmatory hearings. The House and the public need to know what a Select Committee that specialises in a subject thinks about such an important public appointment before that appointment is confirmed. I hope that we will reform the processes of the House to build on what the right hon. Lady rightly said.

The Leader of the Opposition made some important points about the need for disclosure from the Government. We need those documents to be published if we are to have a transparent process where we can properly hold the Government to account. If they have answers, let us hear them, and then we can do that analysis.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Much has been said about the process, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was clearly never worth the risk to appoint Peter Mandelson? Will he go further than that on the professionalism of the role? We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about the reputation of our ambassadorial officials across the world. Would we be better served if in the future we looked to professionals to fill those roles rather than politicians?

[Ed Davey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. The previous ambassador to the United States was held in high regard, and many people think she should be appointed to the vacancy.

I want to mention what was said by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). Yes, we have all these questions to be answered, and there are disclosures to be made, but we must remember the victims in all this. I want to focus on the victims, because they deserve answers.

When we read those sickening messages, we think of Epstein’s victims and their families—girls as young as 14 groomed by Epstein, sexually abused by him, trafficked by him and sexually abused by other powerful men. I have been thinking about the trauma not only that they went through then, but have been through since, as they saw the man responsible for such horrific crimes escape justice for so long. They saw him convicted in 2008, but spend just 13 months in jail thanks to his powerful connections.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

We know that the trauma of sexual violence and sexual abuse can last a lifetime and, for many people, it can be too much to bear, as we have seen with Virginia Giuffre. Victims of sexual violence are often silenced, often ignored and always let down by a system that sometimes—often—sees powerful men protecting each other to diminish the crimes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister should never have appointed somebody who had known links with a convicted paedophile?

[Ed Davey]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to her for the work she has done to protect vulnerable women during her career. We salute her for that work.

As we remember the victims, how must it have felt for them to see Donald Trump, one of Epstein’s closest friends and a man found liable for sexual abuse himself, become President of the United States? How must it have felt for the victims to see another of Epstein’s closest friends made British ambassador to the United States? How must it have felt for the victims to hear the Prime Minister defend Lord Mandelson last week, even after he had seen those appalling messages? How must it have felt for them to hear Ministers say, even after Mandelson was sacked, that his appointment was a risk worth taking? I think that is quite shocking.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend has turned down the opportunity to dine with Donald Trump in the next couple of days, and he has been roundly criticised for that by some people who may well still attend. Does he agree that it is an ample opportunity for those people to ask President Trump about his entry in that horrific book of birthday wishes for Mr Epstein? Will my right hon. Friend ask them to report back to us about what President Trump said?

[Ed Davey]

The truth is that at such state banquets very few people get to speak to the visiting Head of State. However, the Prime Minister does, so I wonder if he will ask the President about his friendship with Epstein. I think he should and I think this House thinks he should.

For decades, the victims and their families have seen powerful men escape responsibility for what they did and what they knew. It should be a source of deep shame to Ministers that the British Government are now part of that story.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons that Epstein escaped justice for so long was that he was protected by other powerful men, and that if we are truly to protect young people from predators, we need to ensure that the protectors of paedophiles have absolutely no place in public life?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Davey]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I know that she has worked for victims of domestic violence and abuse as well. I can do no better than quote the words of Sky Roberts, the brother of Virginia Giuffre. He said about Lord Mandelson:

“He should not have been given the position in the first place. It speaks to how deep the corruption is in our systems.”

Not only must we hold the Government to account for this, but we need to fix our systems, whether through Select Committee hearings or by holding the powerful to account. Our constituents lose trust in our institutions when they fail to hold people to account. I am proud that my party, and I am sure others in this House, wish to see those reforms. Not least for the survivors, for the victims and for their families, we must hold the powerful to account.

In that regard, will the Minister, when he gets to his feet, apologise to all of Epstein’s victims and their families? We need an apology from the Minister today. Beyond that, will he say whether he agrees that the Prime Minister himself owes them a personal apology too?

[Several hon. Members rose—]