Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) needs to have a tough look at the reputation of her Government. She talks about welfare and she talks about defence, but it was her Government who crashed the economy. Under her Government, welfare spending rose by 0.7% of GDP in the last Parliament alone, and in the last year of the Government in which she served it rose by £33 billion. She knows—we all know—that reform is necessary, and reform is coming, because under this Labour Government we are reforming the social security safety net and ending the scandal of young people on personal independence payments, who, in droves, are being put on a benefit that they are less likely to come off than someone over the age of 55.

As the Prime Minister said earlier, Labour’s approach is a “names, not numbers” approach. There is a lot of thought going in, and I pay tribute to Alan Milburn for his thinking about how to reform the system as a whole. It is easy to talk about numbers and top-slicing, but that takes no account of the human beings at the heart of the benefits system.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a typically powerful speech, but, in my 21 years in the House, I have normally found that the person who holds her position gives a somewhat less partisan critique of the Budget, recognising that the primary role of all of us as Back Benchers is to hold the Executive—the Government of the day—to account, rather than just playing to our party political base.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I look to the reputation of my predecessor in this role, who took her job very seriously but would still make a point. It would be very difficult for me to stand up and, from the Government Back Benches, not react to those in the Conservative party who crashed the economy in 2022 and left a lot of the mess that we are now dealing with. I am passionate about these issues because I spend a long time looking at public spending and at the waste of the previous Government, as does the Public Accounts Committee, quite rightly. It should challenge this Government on any waste of taxpayer pounds, because taxpayers work hard for their money and they need to be sure that someone is watching the Government to make sure that they are spending it as well as they can. We know that that is not always a simple task.

I look to welfare reform. Yesterday, I was with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in my constituency of Hackney South and Shoreditch. We met with Scope, which is doing amazing work with disabled people. Some 72% of the recent cohort supported into work were still in work 26 weeks later—people who had been written off by the system. If we make sure that it is done properly through some of the devolution measures that the Government propose, we can make sure that the “names not numbers” approach is replicated across the country, where there are already good examples.

I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to fund the defence investment plan—again, I looked at this issue for many years as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. It is right that we stand with Ukraine—a cross-party position—and it is right that we spend the right money on defence. Unfortunately, the last Government reduced the money spent on defence to a ridiculously low level under austerity, leaving us exposed to the challenges we face in the world. I hope that we will have cross-party consensus that we need to increase defence spending and back the Chancellor in that mission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

The Budget was a whirl of little things. I picked up a road map, a taskforce, a few bob scattered around various organisations, and even a few pence off a jar of gherkins. But it is a missed opportunity. It smacks of managerial incrementalism, rather than the bold and radical reforms that our economy needs if it is to meet the challenges of the future. Those challenges include intergenerational unfairness, an ageing population and—heavens above—the menace presented by Vladimir Putin.

The Budget is based on the somewhat smug false premise that somehow the economy is going broadly in the right direction. It is not. The Chancellor prayed in aid the comments of the IMF on near-term growth and fiscal consolidation. However, the reality is that that should not be the benchmark. We should not be looking at France, which has had so much civil, economic and political unrest that it is heading towards a potential bond crisis. We should be asking a fundamental question: what level of growth does the economy need to address the challenges that I have just set out? The answer is that we need to at least get back to the growth trends that we had before the global financial crisis—at least 2% to 3% per year. We are a very long way from that.

The Chancellor lauded the fact that growth has been revised up for this year; he neglected to mention that from next year the position is very different indeed. He made no attempt to acknowledge the mistakes that this Government have made since they came to office. Huge mistakes by his predecessor, such as massive tax increases predominantly on businesses, have had the effect of lowering investment, raising unemployment, reducing output, and—because taxes are often passed on in higher prices—pushing up the rate of inflation.

We are now in a position where, if my reading of the OBR document is correct, due to the inflationary effect that this Government have in part induced, fiscal drag alone will result in more than 200,000 average days’ work being destroyed. We are left with almost the highest level of unemployment in five years, high and sticky inflation, high interest rates, massive servicing costs on our national debt and huge levels of borrowing.

In its document, the OBR sets out what is happening to real household disposable income across the forecast. If my reading is correct, it is lower now across every year within this set of forecasts than in the forecasts back in March. In other words, hard-working people up and down the country are getting poorer as a direct result of the actions taken by this Government.

[Graham Stuart]

I received a card from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation yesterday—I do not know whether my right hon. Friend also received one—suggesting that every family in Beverley and Holderness will be at least £440 a year worse off at the end of this Parliament. But today, on top of the points that he has already made, we are going to see not only disposable income being constrained, but debt going up in each of the next five years by more than was previously suggested.

[Sir Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

That brings me to another point, which is that the Chancellor has taken a conscious decision to reduce the headroom, in the primary target, from around £24 billion to £15 billion. That is a mistake. If he had taken the radical measures necessary to get on top of public spending, particularly the welfare bill, he could have increased the headroom. He talks about the risks ahead—that is the very reason why we have the buffer of that headroom. If we have low headroom, we end up paying a premium on the debt servicing costs to which my right hon. Friend just referred.

The average headroom that Chancellors have come forward with since the instigation of the OBR runs at about 1.4% of GDP. In today’s terms, that would be about £40 billion of headroom. We are now down to £15 billion. Members across the House should therefore not be surprised if the Chancellor comes back at a future date and tells us, just as was the case with his predecessor, that the headroom has entirely evaporated, once again, because of reasons beyond his control. This is a mañana Budget. This is a Budget kicks the can down the road.

When the Chancellor resigned as Secretary of State for Defence, he made it very clear that his resignation from Government was nothing to do with the defenestration of the previous Prime Minister, and was instead a matter of principle: he did not believe that our country was going to be adequately protected as a result of not coming up with the money to fund the 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. He now has his hands on the levers, and he has failed to do even that on this occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I will make some progress, because lots of Members want to speak, and I have not even got on to the main argument that I want to make.

There are real benefits from this Budget. In my constituency, the council tax rebate will impact positively on 42,000 homes. The same will be true in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and in others around the country.

The Chancellor also mentioned directly the defence dual use investment for companies doing dual-use innovations. When he was Defence Secretary and I was Secretary of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we worked together, and it was the first time that the Secretaries of State of those two Departments came together to work on the strategic challenges and opportunities faced in the defence industry. I am really pleased that we now have a Chancellor investing in dual use. It will be based on the conversations and workstreams that we set up when we were those two Secretaries of State. Those two roles should work together going forward.

When Labour came to office in 2024, we inherited a growth emergency. Now we have taken solid steps forward, but we must still have the mindset that we are facing a growth emergency. It is my belief that we are on a motorway heading in the right direction but even now are only travelling at 30 mph.

I believe that the challenge we face is a complacency that was set down in previous times, when we took growth for granted. From the 1997 Government onwards, for a decade before the financial crash, I think it is fair to say that we felt that growth was dependable—that there was a sense of inevitability about growth. We could focus on all the social issues we wanted to tackle based on the proceeds of that growth, but we did not pay enough attention to underpinning growth and making sure that it was sustainable into the very long term.

[Graham Stuart]

I agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman just said about the need to focus on growth. The question is: how do we get it? It seems that too many on the Labour Benches believe that it is by Government intervention rather than reducing the taxes that create disincentives for business. Is he as alarmed as I am at the more than £2.2 billion increase in taxes on business today—from writing down allowances to company distributions and business asset disposal relief, as well as the probable more than £6 billion reduction in lending that will result from the £1.5 billion bank tax?

[Peter Kyle]

The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention was longer than my speech has been so far. When I find that I agree with every word that somebody is saying, I usually sit down and listen to a bit more of it rather than trying to challenge it. Perhaps the rest of my speech will answer the questions that he raises.

In that decade, because of the predictability and certainty of growth, I think that growth policy was seen like any other policy. In other words, if there was a shelf with all the different policies of Government on it, growth would be one set of policies on that shelf. I know that there are a lot of analogies going around these days, and Liz Truss has blown a hole in analogy use as well as in our economy, but it is my belief that we now need to have the mindset that growth is the shelf itself. We cannot have successful social policies delivered in the way that all of us in this Chamber would like unless we have a solid, predictably-growing economy into the long term that provides security and prosperity and from which we can share investment fairly around the country.

We must on both sides of the House be as animated about economic growth as we are about creating prosperity, spending it and challenging the social ills in our society. We must care as much about economic growth as we do about rough sleeping, social care and international development—I say that as someone who spent my early life in international development. Tackling those issues depends on economic growth itself.

Public services are incredibly important. They are enablers of growth. We cannot have growth if people are arriving late to work, are too sick to work or are stuck on a Tory waiting list for treatment. We need to have the right skills in the right places. All of those things are absolutely essential, but we should not kid ourselves that such growth is not built on by private enterprise.

Thanks to the Prime Minister deciding that I could have some time over the summer, I was able to write an essay—now that Tony Blair has brought them back into fashion. I know that many Members will have already read it, making some of my words today obsolete, but let me refresh their minds about what I focused on. I confined the essay to my experience in Government and how we can configure Government more assiduously and dependably to unlock the economic growth that our country needs so much—focusing on what Government themselves can deliver. That experience comes from leading two Departments as Secretary of State. I saw in both those Departments that civil servants can deliver boldly when they have the authority to and when incentives align.

I will use one example—the automotive sector—to illustrate to Members the challenges that the Government face to unlock growth. Delivering support for the automotive sector means aligning energy, trade, regulation and all these different areas of policy. All are held by more than one Government Department, and each of those Departments has its own priorities. As Secretary of State in the Department for Business and Trade, at times I was prioritising the automotive sector and recognising how important it can be for growth. Let us bear in mind, when Jaguar Land Rover suffered its cyber-attack, 0.2% was taken off our GDP. When it was up and running six weeks later, 0.2% was returned to our GDP. The importance of industry is still fundamental. When the Prime Minister and the Chancellor talk about reindustrialisation, hon. Members should not underestimate its ability to deliver growth for our overall economy.

We have another asset when it comes to the automotive sector in our country. When we talk about frontier technology—I am looking for the Minister for Artificial Intelligence, who was in his place a moment ago—we think about the AI labs, most of which are in California, with some in China, but we have a frontier industry here in the UK in the automotive sector, and it is Formula 1, because 11 of the 12 teams do all their research and development and all the deployment of their vehicles right here in the UK. No other country in the world has that asset, and that filters skills through our automotive sector. The ability to grow that sector is huge, but that needs Government to work in an aligned way.

I discovered how different Departments with different priorities have oversight over things like automotive, and how sometimes they can slow down those priority areas. We need the structures and incentives in Government to be much better aligned, because we cannot have all these important sectors depending on Ministers’ ability to WhatsApp each other to sort out problems. We should have a system of Government that is already on the side of making pro-growth choices.

I want to say a few brief words about defence, which has already been raised in the debate. I am grateful to the Chancellor for the statements he has made on this. We focus on the percentage of GDP allocated to defence, but the debate cannot just be about how big a share of our economy we spend on defence; it must also be about how big an economy we have. If we were to achieve five years of 3% annual growth, 3% of our national income on defence would deliver almost the same amount of money as moving to 3.5% in an economy of today’s size.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, I think, to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), but may I challenge a couple of his points? He talked about the risk of higher mortgages. I might remind him that there have been six interest rate cuts since 2024, which will have supported his constituents by bringing down their mortgage bills. He also mentioned productivity. I remind him that the upgraded growth forecast from the OBR is due to productivity gains from investment in AI. There is positive news, and I am sorry that he has missed it so far, but he may want to spend a bit more time looking.

I welcome today’s Budget, because in these tough times we need to put in place the foundations to build the base for a competitive future and prosperity for all. I was surprised by the rather extraordinary response from the Leader of the Opposition, who almost denied the impact of the Liz Truss mini-Budget. Perhaps it may be worth reminding the House that the unfunded £45 billion of tax cuts led to bond prices plunging, sterling falling and the Bank of England having to intervene to prevent a financial stability crisis. It is important that we recognise what happened. That, alongside the fact that the welfare bill rose by £33 billion in the years to 2024, might help bring some honesty to the debate.

Let me speak about today’s Budget from the point of view of three key tests, because it needs to be a Budget for stability, growth and easing the cost of living. The Budget comes amidst unprecedented economic shocks, with conflict in the middle east and Europe, which has disrupted international energy and commodity supplies. The Bank of England identified the energy shock from the middle east as a major source of uncertainty in July 2026, so I welcome the Budget and, in particular, the Chancellor’s determination to combine fiscal discipline with a relentless focus on growth and tackling the cost of living.

Fiscal discipline matters. It is not simply about an accounting exercise at the Treasury; it is about credibility and national economic security. Indeed, the bond markets matter. In 2022 we saw what happens when investors lose confidence in the sustainability of public finances. However, fiscal discipline and growth are not competing objectives. Ultimately, having sustained economic growth, higher productivity, higher investment and more people in good employment is the surest foundation for sustainable public finances.

I am pleased that the UK economy has shown resilience, for which I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and to the stewardship of the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). It is important not to talk Britain down, because we were the joint fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year, alongside the US. Borrowing last year fell to the lowest level for six years, the IMF has upgraded our growth to 1.3% for this year, and the IMF’s chief economist has said that we “stand out” on deficit reduction. I know that the Opposition may be disappointed by the OBR’s revision of the forecast.

I welcome the Government’s commitment as a priority to get energy costs down not just today, but for the future. I would welcome more clarity from the Government on whether they are reconsidering the expansion of the British industrialisation competitiveness scheme, which I believe may be coming forward in the 10-year plan. However, with global headwinds from the conflict in the middle east impacting us here and economies throughout the world, it is vital that we have our own plan for growth and for tackling the cost of living.

On growth, I will briefly speak about fiscal devolution and entrepreneurship. Business and industry must be at the heart of our plans for growth. It is important that we have a plan for building the principles of stability, partnership and innovation, with unleashing potential in every corner of the economy in the UK at the heart of our plans. That is why I was pleased to welcome the fiscal devolution road map, which is bold, ambitious and game changing. It recognises that we need to deal with the challenges of today and address the structural challenges to achieve higher growth tomorrow.

For too long Britain has been one of the most centralised major economies in the developed world, with only 5% to 6% of total tax revenue raised locally, while the OECD average is closer to 11%. However, fiscal devolution means more than devolving spending decisions; it is about enabling greater responsibility and stronger incentives to expand local economies and tax bases.

[Graham Stuart]

We have had devolution since the Blair Government, and Wales has become one of the poorest parts of the whole of Europe, although it has had serious and real fiscal devolution. If it has been so spectacularly painful for the residents of Wales to have such devolution, why does the hon. Lady think it will be so marvellous for people in other parts of the United Kingdom?

[Seema Malhotra]

I think there is an important debate to be had about how we make sure that fiscal devolution is successful and what the enabling factors are, but it has been successful elsewhere. As the right hon. Member will recognise, I was pleased as a London MP to see today’s commitments to establish a successor to the Elizabeth line business rate supplement and to support transport infrastructure in the future through some of the new mechanisms. It is important that we look at how fiscal devolution can accelerate projects that will unlock homes, create jobs and generate economic growth not just in the capital, but across the UK.

As we devolve—and I am putting this to the Treasury team—it will be important to confront another economic challenge, which is co-ordination. Economies do not stop at administrative boundaries; there are cross-regional economic spillovers. If we do not design institutions to take account of them, ensure appropriate accountability and evaluation, and help successful innovations in one region spread to others, what appears optimal for each region individually may not be optimal for Britain collectively. I look to the Treasury team to update the House on what can be learned from elsewhere about having co-ordination as well as devolution.

I was extremely pleased to see the measures supporting young entrepreneurs and also women entrepreneurs. I championed that in my previous work as chair of the APPG for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is oddly absent from debates about youth unemployment. We celebrate success when people have an initial public offering or attract a big investment, but we do not talk about the preceding journey or the inequality that often characterises it. So I am looking forward to the Government’s measures having an impact in encouraging entrepreneurship among young people across the country.

Let me say a few words on opportunity and the cost of living. I believe that the Your First Home scheme will make a huge difference not just to my constituents in Feltham and Heston, but also across the country. It is vital to have measures such as the 20% equity loan scheme to help first-time buyers, with a minimum deposit requirement of just 2.5%, to ensure the scheme is accessible to those who have a regular income, but have been unable to save for a large deposit. The council tax rebate, removing VAT from domestic electricity bills and the reforms to standing charges, alongside the first rail fare freeze in 30 years that was announced earlier this year and the freeze in prescription charges, are all important measures.

In conclusion, this is a Budget for stability and growth, and one that eases the cost of living. It is designed to raise Britain’s productivity and investment, and to spread opportunity to every part of our country by investing to save and investing to grow. Taken together, fiscal credibility, empowered regions, effective co-ordination and investment in human potential will lead to better growth that is productive, inclusive and sustainable. This is the time and the challenge that we as a nation must rise to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this Budget debate and to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). Like him, I tend to think that this Budget reflects the seriousness and the vision of the Chancellor, but unlike him, I do not conclude from that that the Chancellor has a deep and serious vision of the future for this country. On the contrary, he, alongside the Prime Minister, has come up with a whole series of small measures. In fact, there are more measures in this Budget than in any previous Budget, and their average value is lower than in any previous Budget. In other words, the Chancellor is fiddling. He is playing with little gifts that he can highlight and say, “We are doing this for business. Look, we are we are taking 70,000 businesses out of business rates.” Of course I welcome that, but it is inadequate in a high street that is falling and losing.

The Conservatives have a leader and a shadow Chancellor with a vision, and that is why our policy would take 250,000 high street companies out of business rates so that we can have the shops, the cafés, the pubs and all the other businesses that give chances to young people and give them that first job so that they can learn how to talk to a boss, how to engage with customers, and how to understand tills and money. That first job gives them a chance, whether it is a Saturday job or whatever. I know that Labour Members did not mean to do it, but that door has been slammed in young people’s faces by this Labour Government. That is why we have seen youth unemployment go up.

[Noah Law]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am sure that, when he meets young people in his constituency, he is exactly the same as me. I am sure he meets more and more young people who feel a sense of hopelessness. They feel that they are further than ever before from getting on the housing market, and some of them cannot even look that far because they are struggling to get that first job—that first opportunity. Today’s Budget shows that this Government still do not get it, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman does. Perhaps we can finally hear a non-partisan Labour intervention from someone who takes deeply seriously the need to get business going in this country.

[Noah Law]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but does he appreciate that, in the south-west at least, 56% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will be lifted out of the business rates system entirely? Is that welcome news to him? I hope he has some welcome news in his own patch as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I think—I am not an expert on this, let alone on all those jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s region—that most are already outside of that system and are therefore not being lifted out. UKHospitality has suggested that as few as 10% of these businesses will be affected by the measure. That is my point to the hon. Gentleman, who I know is sincere and wants to properly reflect the serious challenges facing his constituents and his part of the country.

This Government do not get it. Instead of the bold measure we should have had—250,000 businesses being brought out to bring life, dynamism and hope back to his high street and mine—we have a timid Government playing on the margins. That of course is the central problem of today’s Budget, as was laid out far more eloquently and—as Labour colleagues would doubtless say—more reasonably than I ever could by the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt).

The Leader of the Opposition said that the Chancellor had received a hospital pass on inheriting the economic situation from his predecessor, but I remember someone once saying to me, “Do you know what the best thing you can ever have in life is, Graham?” I said, “No, I don’t. What is it?” They said, “A lousy predecessor.” On that measure, the Chancellor has been quite fortunate. And yet he comes forward with something this timid, this pallid and this lacking in inspiration, and gives a speech that entirely aligns with those qualities, and he is met with a near rapturous reception from Labour Members who have had to put up with the two previous Budgets, with their disastrous impact on the UK economy.

Why were those Budgets so disastrous? I can tell the House: it is because growth and wealth, which the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), spoke about so eloquently earlier, come from the private sector. They do not come from a mission-led Government having a tight deadline to go and help rearrange governmental boards and improve the quality of people on them—that is peripheral. It is private business that creates them, but what did the former Chancellor do? She raised taxes on business by £60 billion. [Interruption.] More than £60 billion, I am told. The small businesses that I meet in Beverley, Hedon, Skirlaugh, Withernsea and across my constituency really want to grow and have customers who want to come in, but the tax position has meant that they cannot offer jobs to the young people I also meet outside those shops, standing around listlessly, who want those jobs. That gap has been widened by the £60 billion in taxes.

According to Government Members today, that gap has been narrowed because of this business rates reduction for 70,000 businesses. But that is not telling the whole story, is it? It is a sleight-of-hand Budget as well, which is why I think it is a disappointment. Business taxes have not gone up by another £60 billion—praise the Lord—but they have gone up by over £2 billion through fiddly measures. On top of that, there is the ever-popular call of, “Let’s attack the banks to feed the Labour Back Benchers,” who are so divorced from economic reality. The banks will be paying £1.6 billion in 15 months—that is if we believe that in 15 months, the Chancellor will say to this particular set of Back-Bench Labour MPs, “Oh, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s look forward to the day we take the tax off the banks.” I rather fear that the 15 months will be extended because of those people who have done so much damage before by leaning on their Front Benchers. Anyway, let us assume that it is real and it only lasts 15 months: £1.5 billion or £1.6 billion will be taken out of the banks.

You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, being a long-standing and experienced Member of this House, that the capital of banks has a big multiplier attached to it. When the Government take £1.5 billion or £1.6 billion away from the banks, they are not hitting the rich and helping the poor; they are actually massively reducing the pool of funding available for the very businesses that, if only the Government started to get some of their policies right, might get to a position, as they profoundly want to, where they can offer a job to that young person outside who cannot get one today.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way during his discussion about banks. Is he aware that Barclays’ profits are up by 1.6%?

[Graham Stuart]

I am delighted. Only one thing is worse than fat, greedy, complacent, lazy banks—if that is how the hon. Member wants to characterise them—and that is broke ones, because once we have a bust banking system, the whole of society is stuffed. People cannot get on the housing ladder, start a small shop or get anywhere. That is why I plead with Labour Members, who I know have had little to do with private businesses—they have come from their charities, social work and trade unions, and have no understanding of business. It seems a populist thing to do to attack the banks, but in fact it hurts ordinary people and means that that small shop on the high street cannot take on the unemployed youngster outside.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I will not give way if the hon. Member will allow me.

What is happening to business investment next year? According to the Government’s own figures, it is falling. What is happening to the debt of the nation as a result of today’s Budget, compared with the position earlier in the year? It goes up in every year of the forecast—five years of additional debt, and it was already scary. Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), whom I respect a great deal, and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) have been trying to say that this is a great Budget for entrepreneurs, but it is not. It is a Budget that allows a listing ship of state and the economy of this country to drift ever closer to the rocks. Year by year we will see debt going up, taxes going up and incentives going down, and without those incentives, those businesses in Beverley, Withernsea, Hedon and Skirlaugh, or wherever they are in my constituency, just cannot offer that job to that person.

To look at the specifics of the Budget, how is some of this being funded? The Chancellor skated over it as best he could, but he is going to tax amusement arcades. As if coastal towns such as Withernsea and Hornsea up the coast are not hurting enough, he is going put up tax on the entertainment of ordinary people going to the amusement arcade. He is an enemy of fun.

[Alex Ballinger]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Coastal communities are losing out, and savers are being hit by a £500 million increase in tax—again, I do not think that has come through clearly. Some Members talk about this being good for pensioners, but it is not. Those who have saved and put money away for the future are going to be taxed again and again. We will see tax reach a new peak of 37.9% next year, and according to the Government what is going to happen? It is going to go up again. We will have sky-high borrowing and sky-high tax.

One would have thought that the central challenge for this Chancellor would have been to ensure we had a firm plan for defence spending to reach 3% by 2030. Did he deliver that? No he did not, which suggests that he resigned more to get the job than to do the right thing by defence.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). He is always very entertaining, and I am always intrigued by how there seems to be an inverse ratio between the number of interventions he makes and the number he takes. I reassure him that on the lousy predecessor test, this Government were truly blessed in 2024 by the former right hon. Member for South West Norfolk and the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak).

[Graham Stuart]

Touché.

[Jim Dickson]

I welcome the Budget, and it is a pleasure to follow distinguished members of the Treasury Committee from across the Chamber. As others have noted, when the IMF published its most recent forecast, it highlighted how despite the consequences of US military action in Iran, our economy is proving more resilient than expected, with 1.3% growth for this year and similar for next. That is largely underscored by the OBR forecast. I back our Government to exceed those forecasts, as they have done this year, and we wish them well in doing so. We should not underplay the damage done by the conflict, with price rises in important commodities such as oil and fertilisers pushing up inflation, but it is positive that the IMF has upgraded our growth prospects. That, I believe, is a testament to the work of the current and previous Chancellors, and it is welcome that we remain towards the top end of the G7 for growth, even though—as always—Members of the House would want growth to be higher, and we hope very much that it is.

In my view, it remains essential to reassure the markets that we will stick to the fiscal rules, and I welcome the Chancellor’s pledge today to keep doing so. We must ensure that we continue to keep sufficient headroom against those rules, and again the Chancellor has done that.That was recognised by the IMF, which singled out the UK among the G7 for the way that we are managing our debts. As shown in chart 3.4 in the Red Book, which sets out the distributional impact of the Budget, we are doing that while ensuring that those at the bottom end of the income scale do better proportionally than those higher up the income scale. I believe that means this is a proper Budget for working people.

This careful and fair economic management will allow us to ramp up defence spending to meet the spending target of 3% by 2030, after our armed forces, frankly, languished under the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewin]

It is news to me that I will be writing the manifesto, but I am always open to a promotion. Our spending review will cover all elements of spending on public services, but this is a Government who have backed public services, unlike the Conservative party.

In a more uncertain world, it is imperative that the UK lives by our values. I have been going through the Red Book, and—this is on page 103—the single biggest increase in investment announced today is in our defence, to fund the defence investment plan. That is a very important statement of intent at such an uncertain time for our country, Europe and the world, which is further demonstrated by the package of £10 billion for additional support in loans to Ukraine.

Before the Budget speech, I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister reassert how important it is to him that we have a stronger economic trading relationship with the European Union. Also—I will be honest—I am slightly pleased by how much it upset the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), because that means we are going in the right direction. It is a sad state of affairs that the Conservative Party has drifted so far away from mainstream business opinion that they are saying they will not countenance any improvement in our deal with the European Union. That is why people in areas such as mine, Welwyn Hatfield in Hertfordshire, are no longer voting Conservative.

[Graham Stuart]

It is not that we do not wish to see a better deal with the EU. After we left, every day in government was about trying to get the EU to be more reasonable, and that is always a good endeavour. I think the fear—the hon. Gentleman would probably recognise this—is that we have a Government who thought it was a good idea to negotiate the giving away of British sovereign territory somewhere far away and then pay tens of billions of pounds for the privilege. They are not the people we want representing us in Brussels, are they?

[Andrew Lewin]

I think the right hon. Member is talking about the issue of the Chagos Islands, which has absolutely no bearing on the speech that I am making today, but if the Conservative party wants to hold to its position that the current deal with the EU is a good one, I will take that debate any day of the week.