Preparedness for National Emergencies

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered preparedness for national emergencies.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and I am grateful to colleagues for coming to this important debate. As the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy has set out, the assumptions underpinning UK security are being challenged to an unprecedented degree in what it describes as

“an era of radical uncertainty”.

This is not a distant or theoretical challenge; it is happening now, and it is shaping the lives of our constituents already. We are rightly beginning to recognise that resilience at home—across our infrastructure, our communities and our economy—is vital. In opening this debate, I want to do four things: reflect on a recent example of where preparedness fell short; set out the changing nature of the threats we face; address the need for stronger co-ordination across Government; and reflect on the role of the public.

During Storm Éowyn in January 2025, thousands of homes across my constituency lost power, many for several days. That came during a period of cold weather, leaving people without heating, electricity and, in some cases, access to essential medical equipment. People did not know where to turn, but they were receiving inconsistent information and had very little clarity on when the situation would improve. What stood out to me was not a lack of commitment, as energy companies, emergency services, local authorities and community organisations worked tirelessly. What it showed was that when the system came under real strain, the weaknesses were clear. Preparedness cannot be about having plans on paper; it must be about whether those plans work when they are actually needed.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It was really useful to observe the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Resilience Forum test exercise to understand what could go wrong and how it would deal with it. Does my hon. Friend agree that local resilience forums are crucial to our preparedness in national emergencies, because they know what our local communities need?

[Graeme Downie]

I could not agree more. A lot of planning had gone into severe weather events in Fife over the years, but it had never been tested. A lot of it was out of date, and staff had moved on. For example, in High Valleyfield, a former coal-mining village, there was an almost 10-year-old resilience plan that said that the local community centre would be opened. The community knew about the plan, but the council had totally forgotten about it. They did not even know who had the keys for the community centre, so the community figured it out for themselves.

Broader lessons were also highlighted during that event, such as vulnerable customer data not being shared, confusion about support for care homes, a lack of generators, limited logistical capacity to deploy that provision, and access to temporary accommodation. Those are very practical failings, but they had very real consequences. The challenges we face now are broad and evolving—cyber-attacks, infrastructure sabotage, supply chain disruption, hybrid threats from hostile states, climate-related events and health and bio-security emergencies.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

This weekend, in my Paisley and Renfrewshire North constituency, there were flight delays due to fuel shortages, which were no doubt caused by events in the middle east. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is precisely the type of event we should be mitigating against, before it becomes a national emergency?

[Graeme Downie]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: we need to ensure that we are preparing for all these eventualities, regardless of what causes them—I believe that individual case was caused by one driver shortage. The need to plan and have contingencies in place is vital.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Last year was monumental in terms of the number of events suffered in the UK and internationally; think about the economic damage to Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer, and there were power outages across Spain and Portugal for 10 hours. There is a real need for wider resilience. Certain other countries have made further progress on the issue, ensuring that each individual has, say, a “go bag” that will give them seven days’ provisions to ensure that they survive any natural catastrophe or other such event.

[Graeme Downie]

I am about to go on to that point; I will mention the need for resilience to be across Departments and involve the public.

The impact of these events is often not immediately dramatic but gradual, cumulative and enduring. One crisis flows into another, as I am sure Ministers feel every day. We must think of preparedness as being not just for an event but for a different type of world altogether. In that context, I refer to article 3 of the North Atlantic treaty, which is often overlooked but is highly relevant. It puts a duty on nations to maintain and develop their capacity to resist attack through continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid. Article 3 refers to an armed attack, but I believe that in the unstable world we live in we should read that in the broadest possible terms. Attacks no longer happen instantaneously, as they did when NATO was created, and neither do they come just from other states.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being typically generous in taking interventions. Last week, the director of GCHQ spoke about Russian hybrid warfare against the UK and how pervasive it consistently is. That is understood by defence experts, but is perhaps not well enough understood by the general public. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a duty on Government to educate people about the scale of Russian hybrid warfare against the UK, so that we are properly prepared?

[Graeme Downie]

I absolutely agree; that is a point I will come to later. We must engage with the public if we want their permission to plan for resilience.

Article 3 tells us that preparedness must be constant and not confined to defence Departments. It must be collective, but it requires active participation across the system. I would be grateful if the Minister picked up on how resilience is being embedded across Departments in the areas of threat highlighted by the national security strategy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward; I spoke to him beforehand. Does he agree that if groups tasked with preparedness training, such as the building resilience in communities project in Northern Ireland, are to be effective, they must be well funded? The work carried out with local groups to build grassroots disaster resilience can bring about results only if there is the scope to invest in reaching out and if groups are not hampered by tiny budgets. This is not just about England but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland collectively.

[Graeme Downie]

As ever, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I always agree with his interventions, particularly when they are made so well. There is a need to make sure that we break outside of the M25, frankly, when we talk about resilience. We also need to look seriously at the resilience of our critical national infrastructure. What is striking about many of the risks we now face is that they do not require a full-scale conflict. They can arise from hybrid threats, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) mentioned: those are much below the threshold of war but are capable of causing real and widespread disruption.

In a recent discussion with senior officials about the threat of Chinese-manufactured cellular internet of things modules, in my role as chair of the Coalition on Secure Technology, it was suggested to me that because the threat from such modules was theoretical—even though it was acknowledged that it was clearly feasible and would have a significant impact—there might be no need to prepare for it. Most risks are theoretical until they are very real, and the public then wonder why we were not prepared. I ask the Minister to specifically say what conversations he is having about the threat of cellular modules to the UK. Which Departments have been involved in those discussions?

I move on to our energy system—a key and particularly sensitive part of our infrastructure. We have seen how Vladimir Putin has used energy as a weapon against ordinary Ukrainian people, and he would be more than willing to do the same to British people as well. Without reliable energy, hospitals cannot function, communication systems begin to fail and supply chains break down. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, which I am a member of, will hold an evidence session on this very topic tomorrow. I have raised the issue with Defence Ministers before, but I believe that there are areas where we lack clarity on the legal position when it comes to hybrid attacks on our offshore infrastructure. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on what role the Cabinet Office can play in resolving that, as there seems to be an unclear boundary between the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Ministry of Defence in particular.

I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford about the importance of the devolved Administrations. Emergencies are experienced locally, as I highlighted at the beginning—they are managed locally, and resilience must be built locally. Too often, the UK’s national security infrastructure can feel as though it is concentrated within the M25 and shaped in central Government rather than fully embedded across all parts of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that is intended, but it does create a risk: if preparedness is genuinely to be a whole-of-society effort, it must extend beyond Whitehall.

In those areas, security, advice and expertise do not always flow consistently to devolved Administrations and local partners. At the same time, those Administrations do not deal with national security issues with the same regularity as central Government. That creates a potential blind spot—due not to a lack of commitment, but the structure of the system. It is exactly the kind of gap that hostile actors could seek to exploit. I hope the Minister will address what more can be done to ensure that security advice and capability are fully embedded across the devolved Administrations and local authorities, and how we can ensure resilience is genuinely UK-wide, rather than only inside central Government.

Finally, I turn to a topic that is becoming a bit of a hobby horse of mine: the requirement to trust the public when we are developing our national security and resilience. Preparedness cannot be delivered by the Government alone; it must involve the public.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. He has mentioned the M25 a few times; people may not expect South Hampstead to suffer from frequent surface water flooding. I have been contacted by two groups, the Hillsiders and the Hampstead and Highgate Climate and Nature Group, who would like to talk about strengthening education, especially about climate change in the national curriculum. There is limited information in the national curriculum when it comes to climate change and the climate emergency. Does my hon. Friend agree that strengthening education for children and young people would help in the long run when it comes to tackling national emergencies?

[Graeme Downie]

I absolutely agree. We need to make sure that we are preparing clear information about the risks that we face, what a climate emergency means in reality, and how communities can help respond to that fully and effectively.

We also need to make sure that we are providing practical guidance for individuals and communities, as well as a shared understanding of what resilience is.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Often when we are talking about building confidence among the public, we tend to think about it at the moment of crisis, rather than making sure that we explain the causes of the crisis that we need to prepare for. Particularly in the context of the energy crisis that we are living through, it is more important than ever that we emphasise that those global drivers could end up having consequences for our own communities. We need to be working to prevent them collectively, collaboratively and at an international level in order to be part of our national security and resilience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have discussed that issue many times, both in the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee and outside. The need for collective action is required and we must make sure the public are a key part of that. They must understand why certain crises are happening. Sometimes they are outwith Government control; we are affected by what happens in the world and we must make sure that we are bringing them along in that conversation.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Nowhere is it more apparent what happens when a community is not prepared than in South Devon. We have a major A road that washed into the sea in February and we now have communities that are completely severed: bus services are not running, school buses are not running, and people cannot get to healthcare appointments or to their jobs. It is a complete nightmare.

The community knew that that might happen at some point, but for many years the local authority refused to address the issue and do the preparation required to make sure that the inland road network was sufficient to compensate for the main road that has now washed into the sea. It is an absolute disaster. If we had been better prepared, our communities would not be in the situation they now find themselves in.

[Graeme Downie]

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady’s constituents are having that issue; that is terrible. Again, it is why we must make sure that we are preparing for all different types of resilience. That must be at the forefront of the minds of the public and different levels of Government when we consider the different challenges that we face, whether internal or external and whether beyond our control or very much within our control, as it sounds that example was.

The national security strategy tells us that the assumptions underpinning UK security are being challenged to an unprecedented degree. We must not hide from the public the scale or nature of the threats that we face. We must trust people with information that we might previously have chosen to withhold and we should worry less about causing alarm and more about appearing to hide the truth. If the public do not feel and understand that, they will not support and force us to carry out the investment and actions required to address the challenges. Any Government who have not undertaken that work with the public at its heart will have very large political price to pay.

I have not even had time in this speech to touch on the threat to the public and the need to prepare for ongoing misinformation. If we lose trust with the public, resilience will be weakened.

Preparedness for national emergencies is not a single policy or programme; it is a system—more than that, it is a mindset. When the next crisis comes, and it will, the question will not be whether plans existed on paper. It will be whether, on the ground, the Government did enough to prepare and make sure that our communities were ready.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

I thank everyone for participating in the debate this afternoon, in which we heard the different range of threats that the UK is undoubtedly facing. I urge the Minister to continue to work across Government wherever possible, particularly on the threats to energy infrastructure, subsea cables and other items that were brought up by Members. We must ensure that such work is co-ordinated through Government, and that the public are fully aware of the level of threat that we face. I thank the Minister for his response.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered preparedness for national emergencies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

First, may I affirm the importance of the project that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about? The Government are backing the future of nuclear fusion across the country, and this site in particular has a huge contribution to make. Construction will be on its way by the end of the decade, with research and development tests before that. At the heart of it, we will be backing the use of AI to further our clean energy goals in fusion and beyond.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

T6. Last week I met pupils from Pittencrieff primary school, Dollar academy and Queen Anne high school in my constituency to talk about how to keep them safe online. They were very much in favour of some restrictions to make sure that they were safe on social media but were very cautious of age-based bans. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the consultation coming forward is reflective of what young people say and that it fits their daily lives?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes. We have already had more than 25,000 responses to our consultation, including 1,700 from children and young people. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member wants to send in the views of their constituents, including of young people, I will personally read them.

Middle East

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have made the point a number of times that it is important that there is a clear legal basis. I am not actually sure what the Conservative party’s position is. Are they saying that they would have joined the original strikes, irrespective of whether that was lawful or not? I have not heard a clear answer to that question. It would be very helpful to have one.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Iranian action in the strait of Hormuz and the attacks on energy infrastructure risk driving up energy prices here in the UK. Will the Prime Minister, in the coming days and weeks, make it clear that the blame for any rising energy prices lies with Iran? Will he also hold all possible discussions to support people in this country, including in my constituency, with any ensuing rising bills?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. This will be a concern for his constituents, and for so many of our constituents, and we will take every measure to protect them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

4. What recent steps he has taken to establish a digital identity system.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

7. What recent progress his Department has made on implementing a digital ID scheme.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

18. What recent progress he has made on the digital ID scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Simons]

We are building a digital ID system because it is the infrastructure that we need for the foundation of the British state and better public services in years to come. I am proud that we as a Government are investing the time and resources to improve government and make it work better for people so that it is easier to access public services. We are doing the hard work that Government should do rather than expecting people to do it for themselves. I hope that hon. Members from Opposition parties will come to see the force of that argument for their constituents.

[Graeme Downie]

At the beginning of the year, I visited Estonia to see how 100% of public services are delivered via its digital ID system. It is done safely and securely, and as the Minister said, citizens now have better access to and control over their data, including over who sees what, when and where. The system also saves Estonia about 2% of GDP, which has allowed it to re-energise its system and continue to evolve for the future. Will the Minister reassure me that, despite the news last week, we will continue to press forward strongly with a digital ID system and show the people of the UK that it can be beneficial to their lives and make things much better for them?

[Josh Simons]

Absolutely. By the end of this Parliament, every UK citizen who wants a digital ID will be able to get one free of charge. To deliver that, we will launch a huge digital inclusion drive across the UK, and I look forward to working with hon. Members from across the House on that, including my hon. Friend. Like Estonia, we will build the UK system to earn citizens’ trust, adhering to the principles of data minimisation and decentralisation with strong safeguards in place. We will consult imminently on how best to design that system.

G20 and Ukraine

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We regularly discuss how we deal with the shadow fleet. The Danish authorities do a lot in their waters, as do the authorities in Norway and other countries in the region, and we are looking at what further we can do in relation to the shadow fleet. His underlying point about the oil and gas that are fuelling Russia’s aggression is hugely important. We need to ensure that that oil and gas is taken off the market, and that can only happen if we deal with the shadow fleet, among other things.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his continued support of Ukraine. Going back to the announcement about the £4 billion deal with Indonesia at the G20, may I thank the Prime Minister for his efforts in securing that maritime partnership programme for Babcock? It will benefit people in my constituency and secure hundreds of jobs. Does the Prime Minister agree that the partnership is testament to the skills and experience of the workforce at Rosyth, and will he continue to do everything he can to support shipbuilding in Scotland, and at Rosyth in particular?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Winning such deals, whether they be the Indonesian deal, which we finally concluded while we were at the G20, or the frigate deal with Norway, means competing against others in the world—we competed against France, Germany and the United States for the frigate deal—and that is only possible for us as a country because of the quality of the workforce, their professionalism and their commitment to delivering on time. After the frigate deal with Norway, I went up to the Clyde to see the workforce and to thank them for putting me in a position where we could secure that deal. I would be grateful if he passes those thanks on to his constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

Special advisers are appointed by the Minister whom they advise, and the line of accountability is through Ministers to Parliament. That is why the Prime Minister takes questions every week at this Dispatch Box. The National Security Adviser is an adviser to the Prime Minister, and as I said, I am also very happy�as are other Ministers, I imagine�to appear before the Committee at a convenient time.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

T4. As parliamentary chair of the Coalition on Secure Technology, I have raised several times in this House concerns over the prevalence of Chinese manufactured internet of things cellular modules. Will the procurement review unit carry out a risk assessment of the true risks posed by Chinese supplies of cellular modules in the UK�s critical national infrastructure, and will he meet me to discuss this important issue?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

The Government take the security of critical national infrastructure extremely seriously. The UK�s national technical authorities, including the National Protective Security Authority, the National Cyber Security Centre and the UK National Authority for Counter-Eavesdropping, already provide expert guidance and best practice to owners and operators of UK critical national infrastructure, including on risk assessments and supply chains. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

I do believe in this policy, in the same way I believe in all the announcements we made in the Budget. As is so often the case with Conservative Members, they will the ends of the Budget but not the means. If the hon. Lady wants changes to the public services that people in both our constituencies rely on, we need to have the revenue to pay for them. That is what this Budget was all about: cleaning up the mess we inherited and getting the investment into public services that is so desperately required.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

As we know, one of the best ways to grow employment in Scotland is through apprenticeships. A few weeks ago, this UK Labour Government announced changes to apprenticeships in England that will allow businesses to work more closely with colleges and other skills providers to ensure there is a job at the end of apprenticeships. In Scotland, meanwhile, all we see is stagnation in skills policy, which is reducing opportunities for young people in my constituency and across the country. Will the Minister make every effort to press the Scottish Government to properly reform apprenticeships in Scotland and give young people and others the opportunities they need and deserve?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I certainly will. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all he does to promote apprentices and skills, and particularly apprentices in our defence industry, who are doing so much to keep Scotland, the UK and, indeed, the world safe.

Ukraine

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

One of the principles I have held in mind over recent days is to ensure that what we do is co-ordinated with NATO, as it must be. We are deployed in different countries already, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. That is why I am in such close contact with the Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, on a near-constant basis.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his stamina in all the meetings over the weekend and, not least, in coming to the House for an extra hour and a half—and counting—this afternoon to keep us informed. Like other Members from across the House, I took part in the trip to Ukraine for the third anniversary last week. Does he agree that while the cross-party consensus on Ukraine, including from the SNP, is welcome, the SNP Scottish Government must take action to ensure that businesses in Scotland benefit from the increase in defence spending and continue to contribute to the security of the United Kingdom and of our allies in Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with that principle. The increase in defence spending is a duty but also an opportunity across the United Kingdom for good, well-paid and skilled jobs in many businesses.

G20 and COP29 Summits

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The contingent this year was actually fewer than the contingent last year. It involved a wide number of individuals because a lot of negotiation, as the hon. Member probably well knows, goes on at COP, and it is vital that we are there doing that important work.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

What was clear throughout the Prime Minister’s statement was the need for defence collaboration across the world, as we live in a much more unstable global situation. In his discussions with the Australian leadership, was he able to recommit the UK to AUKUS? Can he give us an update on the next steps, please?

Income tax (charge)

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but there was an even more basic difference between our Budget earlier this year and this one: as a result of measures in our Budget, the growth rate went up, whereas as a result of measures in Labour’s Budget, the growth rate went down.

Reducing the number of working-age people claiming health-related benefits back to pre-pandemic levels would save £34 billion a year. It would bring more people into the workforce and improve the wellbeing of the individuals concerned, but welfare reform was dropped from the King’s Speech, and yesterday’s Budget saw the welfare bill rise by an average of £13 billion a year. According to the OBR, increasing public sector productivity—another area that we did not hear much about—to pre-pandemic levels would raise £20 billion a year. We heard some warm words about that, but delivering it requires difficult negotiations with the unions.

That was too difficult for the Government, who cancelled plans to reduce the civil service to pre-pandemic levels, increased the salaries of train drivers by £10,000, and gave junior doctors a 22% pay rise—all without asking for a single productivity improvement in return. It was no strings for the unions, but no help for 2.5 million pensioners in poverty. The Government should be ashamed. Picking the pockets of businesses, which do not vote, is the easy path, but when it damages economic growth, the result is less money for the NHS, less money for schools and less money for the armed forces, which is why, in the end, Labour Governments always run out of money.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member was keen to quote the IFS earlier. Does he also agree with the IFS that

“it was not credible for Jeremy Hunt to claim that planned departmental spending limits would hold”

and there was

“no world in which 2 per cent rises would have happened and been sustained”?

[Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)]

Hear, hear.

[Jeremy Hunt]

I always listen to the IFS, and indeed to the Resolution Foundation, very carefully. I think that the IFS was right—[Interruption.] Let me answer the point, if I may. The IFS was right to say that it would be very challenging to hold to 1% spending assumptions, but in the Budget earlier this year I explained exactly how we would do that. I asked the NHS, “How are we going to improve efficiency so that we can live within tight spending limits?” The NHS said, “We need to overhaul the IT systems.” We gave the NHS £3.5 billion to do so, and in return it was able to deliver 2% productivity savings.

[Graeme Downie]

indicated dissent.

[Jeremy Hunt]

The hon. Member shakes his head, but yesterday the Chancellor said that she was going to roll that out to the whole of the public sector. I think that it is possible to do so; my concern is that doing so involves difficult decisions, and the track record of this Government is that when those decisions involve a conversation with the unions, they run a mile.

The final spurious claim from the Chancellor was that yesterday’s draconian measures were necessary because she had received the worst economic inheritance since world war two. Not a single independent economist supports that claim, and it is not hard to see why. Inflation is at 1.7%, around half what it was in 2010. Unemployment is at 4%, nearly half the 2010 level. If the public finances were in the same state today that they were in back in 2010, the deficit would now be £160 billion higher, which is the entire budget of the NHS. Instead, we left behind a deficit that had been halved, and was lower than that of France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about my election, and the PAC looks forward to scrutinising all Government expenditure carefully. He has fallen into the same trap as everybody else. Unfortunately, the OBR said yesterday that it could not find the £22 billion black hole. I do not have the exact quote, but the Government were advised, “When in a black hole, stop digging.” I suggest gently to Labour Members that they stop digging, because it could not be found.

The Chancellor announced that she expects national insurance contributions to rise by a staggering £25 billion, although she promised in the election that they would not. During the election, she said that the measures would not be a tax on working people; clearly she believes that entrepreneurs, who spend their time, energy and talent forming new business, are different. They will be heavily taxed, and changing the employment rules will make it more difficult to employ extra people. A 15% national insurance tax and a savage cut to the threshold, down from £9,100 to £5,000, will harm any business in my constituency employing more than four people. It could be the difference between a business growing and providing more jobs and a business not surviving.

We must all remember that the private sector, and individuals who work hard and put their livelihoods on the line, take financial risks to boost productivity and provide the growth the country needs, and they must be nurtured if they are to succeed. Small businesses account for more than 90% of all businesses.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Gentleman can have a try, too.

[Graeme Downie]

I ran a small business for at least 10 years. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the increase in the Budget to the allowance on national insurance from £5,000 to £10,500, which will protect small businesses and help them grow?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I have run a business for a much longer time than that. There are many measures in the Budget that will be very deleterious, especially for the smallest businesses, and we will have to wait and see how they turn out.

The Budget will have serious implications for farmers and rural communities in my constituency. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a farmer. I am incredibly disappointed that from 2026, agricultural property relief and business property relief will apply only to the first £1 million of assets. That will worry many in my farming community and those in many other constituencies. It will result in fewer farms to rent.

Equally damaging will be the cap on the amount that can be transferred to spouses for inheritance tax purposes. The purpose of that tax relief was to ensure that working farms that provide our food will not have to be split up after the death of a family member. Very few farms are valued under £1 million—basically only those of less than 100 acres are—and the rest will face a 20% tax. That will lead to the loss of jobs and livelihoods in the North Cotswolds and elsewhere. It will change the fabric of our countryside permanently. The structure and productivity of agriculture will change as more and more farms are split up and sold off as a result of this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Every country in the world faced enormous challenges. The record of the Conservative Government in tackling those challenges bears comparison with any other country. That cannot be diminished. I will say a little bit more about the NHS in particular as I move forward with my remarks.

I saw that Alastair Campbell tweeted in defence of this particular Budget. He said:

“It was a very Labour Budget”.

I would certainly agree with that. It put up spending massively, borrowing massively and tax massively—to that extent, it was a very Labour Budget. In the first 30 minutes of the Chancellor’s speech yesterday she did not actually make any announcements; she simply tried to justify some of the measures she was going to introduce by talking about the fictitious black hole. The shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, has already adequately exposed why that is a fiction, and the Office for Budget Responsibility was unable to find any evidence for the figures that she quoted.

Let us be clear: tax and spend is a matter of choice. It was the choice of this Government to break all the promises that they made at the last election. It was their choice to break their manifesto commitments not to increase national insurance contributions. They said that they would not increase tax on working people, but in many areas the measures that they have introduced will have a significant impact on working people.

The denial that there was a tax bombshell to come is extraordinary, given that they subsequently announced a £40 billion one, which will result in the tax burden in this country rising steadily to what will be the highest ever on record. Yet this is a Government who took office saying that their priority would be to fuel growth. I can say to the Minister that he cannot fuel growth by punishing the businesses that will be responsible for creating the jobs and wealth of the future. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast following the Budget shows that growth is forecast to fall steadily.

I want to speak about one or two of the tax choices that have been made—they, too, are a matter of choice. It was up to the Chancellor to decide how to raise the extra revenue. Even before the Budget, we already heard of one extremely damaging, painful decision—the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance—to save money by taking it away from pensioners across the country. I have received many emails expressing great disappointment that the Chancellor pressed ahead with that measure and did nothing yesterday to reduce its impact.

It is primarily businesses that will pay the price in this Budget. The increase in employers’ national insurance contributions is estimated to cost them £25 billion, which represents £615 more for every single employee of a business over the threshold. What is the result? If the cost of employing people increases, that can have only two consequences: lower wages and fewer jobs. Each of those will hit working people. On top of that, businesses will face an increase in the national minimum wage. That will hit the businesses that are already finding it hardest to survive. It will impact on the care sector and the hospitality sector—already under enormous pressure. The decision to increase the national minimum wage for young adults by 16% will make it even harder for those people to find jobs.

Just 10 days ago the Government heralded the investment summit, which was supposed to persuade international investors that this was a country they should want to invest in. Yet a week later, we have higher capital gains tax and higher stamp duty, and a war declared on non-doms. Instead of investment coming into this country, already we are seeing the flight of people living here—the entrepreneurs on whom our future success depends are leaving in droves.

[Graeme Downie]

The right hon. Member mentioned people fleeing the country. Could he point to at least three examples of anyone at the investment summit now saying that they will withdraw that money?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The investment summit announced a lot of investment for which the Conservative Government were actually responsible. Let us wait and see. The Budget was yesterday. Businesses will have to look very carefully at their plans, but I do not expect them to do so in a mere few hours. I am happy to have this debate with the hon. Gentleman again in a few weeks’ time once we have seen the impact of the measures that have been announced.

There are two specific measures that I want to touch on because they have a particular impact on my constituents. One of them, which has been mentioned a number of times in this debate, is the removal of agricultural property relief. The Country Land and Business Association estimates that that will affect 70,000 businesses. Family farms in particular will feel the impact worse. It is hardly surprising that the president of the National Farmers’ Union has said:

“This Budget not only threatens family farms but will also make producing food more expensive… The shameless breaking of those promises on Agricultural Property Relief will snatch away much of the next generation’s ability to carry on producing British food, plan for the future and shepherd the environment.”

This is a measure that the Labour party said it would not introduce, but it has broken that promise and is now proposing to introduce it, with enormous damage not just to farmers but to food security and our environment.

The second measure that I would like to touch on—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I see you have acquired Speaker’s cough. I will heed your warning, but I want to mention VAT on private schools. In my constituency I have three small independent schools: Heathcote school in Danbury, Elm Green in Littleborough and Malden Court school. The parents who send their children there are not rich; they make huge sacrifices. In Essex we are very fortunate to have really good grammar schools. Those parents make that sacrifice to help their children hopefully get into the grammars, but they will not be able to continue if there is 20% increase in fees as a result of the imposition of VAT. They will withdraw their children and those schools will be threatened with closure. The consequence is that the children will need to be placed in state schools, which are already under huge pressure. My constituency is growing rapidly, and there is enormous pressure on schools. This will simply make it worse. This policy is simply vindictive and will do enormous damage.

Very quickly, I note that the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) has come back into the Chamber, and she would be disappointed if I did not say that I welcome the hospital building programme in the Budget and the announcement of new money. However, once again I reiterate that a hospital in my constituency is threatened with closure. We have been promised a new one for 30 years or more, under both my Government and the Government before that. She was good enough to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and me the other day, so that we could make the case. If she does hold this money, I hope that she might be able to direct some of it to my constituency.

This Budget is one of the worst I have heard in all my time in this place. It will do enormous damage. I am grateful for this opportunity to put that on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I congratulate all those on this side of the House who have made their maiden speeches this afternoon. It has been absolutely fantastic to hear all those stories.

It has been a long 14 years since we had a Government and a Budget that will deliver for Scotland, the UK and working people. We have had 14 years of austerity, 14 years of chaos, seven Chancellors and 19 fiscal events, but not one of them delivered a thing. Opposition MP after Opposition MP—wherever they have gone—welcomed investment and said, “I want a new hospital; I want this and that,” but not one of them had an idea about how to pay for it. Yesterday, I was proud to sit and listen to a Chancellor who was being honest with the British people about the mess that was left, what we will spend, the improvements that we will make, and how we are going to pay for them.

That is what changed yesterday as we heard the first female Chancellor deliver the first Labour Budget in 14 years, and what a Budget it was. It boosted public investment by over £100 billion and maintained the fuel duty freeze and 5% cut, which are vital for families and small businesses in Dunfermline and Dollar, and across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Alongside that, the Budget supported the take-up of electric vehicles and abolished non-dom tax loopholes, raising £12.7 billion. It increased, extended and reformed the energy profits levy, as we promised to do, and kick-started GB Energy, which is headquartered in Aberdeen, to deliver the clean energy and green jobs that we will need in the future. Despite GB Energy being described by Conservative Members as a vanity project, it will deliver the infrastructure that this country needs, which they failed to deliver in 14 years.

We have increased the employment allowance for small businesses to £10,500. As someone who used to run a small business, I know how well that will be received. We have preserved the state triple lock on pensions, which will see over 12 million pensioners gain up to £475 next year. We have provided an uplift of £2.9 million for the defence budget, while maintaining £3 billion in annual support for Ukraine for as long as it takes.

As has been mentioned by my hon. Friends, this UK Labour Government will deliver a total of £47.7 billion in Scotland—the largest settlement in the history of devolution. That includes an additional £1.5 billion for the Scottish Government this financial year, and an additional £3.4 billion next year.

[Andrew Rosindell]

It is a bonanza of expenditure; a lot of money is being spent. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he would explain how it will be paid for. Just for clarification, will he please explain where all this money is coming from and how we are going to pay off the debt in the long term?

[Graeme Downie]

I believe the Chancellor outlined all of that absolutely perfectly yesterday. I would never seek to improve on the performance of our fantastic Chancellor, from whom we heard just yesterday.

Whereas the rest of the UK has only had to endure 14 years of the Conservatives’ incompetence, we in Scotland have suffered even more. We have had 17 years of the SNP blaming the Tories for its own economic incompetence and decisions. We have had years of two failed Governments who have been content to play political games, rather than come to the help of the people of Scotland.

[Frank McNally]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Following yesterday’s Budget, there will be a significant increase in investment in further education, which is critical to delivering the skills revolution that we need. In Scotland, further education has been decimated by the SNP Government. Does he agree that they need to recognise the important steps taken by the Chancellor and follow suit?

[Graeme Downie]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As I and other Members from Fife know, we are celebrating the 125-year anniversary of Fife College. I will attend a college dinner this week and I will make exactly that point to those attending. Further education is critical in providing the skills that Scotland needs, as I said yesterday during Scotland questions in relation to the defence sector. We need to ensure that the investment being provided by this Government is best used in Scotland to develop the skills that we need.

We have had years of two failed Governments but that time is coming to an end. It will truly end only in May 2026 when the people of Scotland have the opportunity to elect a Scottish Labour Government. But before the SNP exits stage right—although SNP Members seem to have exited the Chamber during this debate—I urge it to use the record funding wisely and start delivering for the people of Scotland.

The SNP Government must abandon their austerity programme of cuts to public services and a focus on their pet projects as they have gone along. They might be on their way out the door, but the least they owe the people of Scotland is not to leave the same kind of mess as their partners in constitutional distraction, the Tories, have left for the rest of the UK. That includes projects such as the Kincardine health centre in my constituency. Like the health centre mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), that has been delayed by more than a decade after being promised by the SNP.

Alongside the good news, we heard the Chancellor outline the mess and legacy left after 14 years of Conservative Government, who made announcements with no funds allocated. Among the empty promises from the Conservative Members was the £500 million of cultural funding promised to the city of Dunfermline in my constituency. While it is absolutely clear that the blame for that lies with the previous Government, it is none the less disappointing for the city of Dunfermline that the Government have been forced to consult on and review the funding. Dunfermline is an old city and the historic capital of Scotland, but it was officially awarded city status only in 2022. It is a growing city, which has the potential to be the driving force for the economy of Scotland. To achieve that, however, we need the right investment and support.

As the consultation on cultural funding is under way, prior to the Budget, I also wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking for assistance and support to find a small amount of investment for the port of Rosyth in my constituency to enable a new, regular passenger and freight service between Scotland and the continent. With major local employers such as Mowi and Amazon UK in the area, a ferry service to Europe would further strengthen their position as major contributors to the Fife economy and provide the option of more environmentally friendly logistics by removing truck journeys from the road.

Both the previous UK Conservative Government and the current SNP Scottish Government have talked about supporting that project, but neither have been willing to make the necessary investment. Having being failed by the previous Government promising money that they did not have, will Ministers meet me and others behind these plans to find ways of perhaps funding that commitment?

Yesterday, we truly turned the page on 14 years of Tory austerity and have given the UK and Scotland the chance to grow and succeed again. I will be the proudest Member of Parliament to support this Budget, which fixes the foundations of our country and sets us on a path to prosperity and growth in the future.