Clause 1

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

This Government have repeatedly stated growth as one of their key missions, but their misguided policies are achieving the opposite in rural places like North Shropshire. We have demanded that the Government scrap these unfair taxes in full. If they refuse to do so, I will be joining others in the Liberal Democrats in voting against those changes this evening.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I rise to speak to clause 62 and schedule 12.

I certainly welcome the fact that, though belatedly, the Government did get to the point of climbing down on the £1 million threshold. They should have gone much further: this tax should not exist at all. If there is to be such a tax, it should be at a viable threshold. The climbdown was not delivered with great grace; indeed, it followed a debate in this House in which the Minister doggedly defended the £1 million threshold, telling us it was fair and necessary—the very words that he uses now to defend the £2.5 million threshold. However, even though that was the manner of the delivery, the climbdown, so far as it goes, is welcome.

We need to be aware of the limitations on how far this concession does go, as it will very swiftly be diminished with time because of the lack of indexation. This is a diminishing win—a win secured by our farming communities through their determined campaigning, but a win that will melt away as each year goes by. Take my part of the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland. In the past five years, land values have increased by 40%. If that trajectory continues for the next five years, in today’s terms the threshold will be worth only £1.5 million. It will lose 40% off its value.

Unless the Government are willing to face up to the need to index-link the threshold, the bona fides of their conversion on this issue is very suspect indeed. If they have genuinely realised that £1 million was wholly inadequate and £2.5 million as a minimum was necessary, they need to sustain that value going forward. That is the real test of the bona fides of this Government on this issue. They cannot simply sit back and wait for the Treasury to increase its tax take because land values rise and the value of the £2.5 million diminishes every time that happens. If it is only a tactical move to buy time, then time is on their side, because in due course this will fritter away to the point where it is of very little value indeed.

My plea tonight is for the Government to demonstrate that they have genuinely realised the need to protect farming families by committing to index-linking this concession. Without that, it will diminish very severely with time, and surely those who feed us and keep bread on our tables are the people this Government should be thinking about. They are not thinking about them if they insist on a de minimis threshold that will dimmish almost out of sight as time goes forward. That is the test of this Government.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I want to speak to amendments 42 to 47. The Bill fails to recognise the specific way in which family businesses are different from businesses whose shares can be traded. The tax changes announced at the 2024 Budget treat family businesses as though they are a liquid asset or as if their underlying value is expressed in tradeable shares, but family businesses are neither. Shares in a family business have only a nominal value, and it is this nominal value that is transferred upon death. No cash arises from the transaction—unlike with the sale of shares on an open market. That means that money to pay any tax charges arising on the transfer must be made out of the business’s current assets or by disposing of its fixed assets. The value of a family business is often in its fixed assets—typically land, buildings, plant and machinery, as well as patents, copyright and goodwill.

The purpose of business property relief was to enable those assets to pass intact from one generation to the next in order for the business to be transferred as a going concern and to maintain steady revenues that guarantee employment and supply chains. Removing BPR from the inheritance tax regime will mean that assets will need to be sold to pay the inheritance tax. That will not only reduce the overall value of the company but limit its ability to generate future revenue. Asset sales will already be subject to capital gains tax before the net value can be released to the shareholder by way of a dividend to pay the individual IHT liability, and that dividend itself will be subject to tax, so the asset sale has to realise sufficient cash to pay three separate taxes.

Members might argue that assets being disposed of by one company does not take them out of the economy, and indeed our tax system should ensure that assets are allocated to wherever they can be most efficiently exploited, but this change to BPR does not ensure the efficient reallocation of assets from one business to another. It forces the sale of productive assets that were being efficiently used, and there are no guarantees that the asset can be put to its most productive use under its new owner.

Recent experience has shown that UK assets are increasingly being picked up by foreign investors, increasing the risk of job losses, restructuring and head office operations being moved abroad. Forced sales that need to be completed within IHT timescales are unlikely to make their full market value. In a specialised market in which there are few annual sales, one depressed sale value can influence the valuation of other assets in the same class, having a knock-on effect on all company balance sheets.

Death comes to us all in the end, being the only certainty in life apart from taxes. The IHT regime recognises and allows for assets to be passed down the generations without being taxed as long as seven years has passed between the date of the gift and the death of the bequeather. For many family businesses, the change in BPR rules will just mean that they have to actively plan for an orderly transition of shares to enable them to take advantage of this provision. But for some families, it is already too late to plan effectively.

The largest employer in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is a family-owned business with the majority of shares owned by the founder, who is in his 90s. Even were the shares to be transferred now, there is little chance that seven years will elapse before his death, and therefore there is every risk that the firm will need to be broken up in order to pay the IHT liability, putting hundreds of jobs at risk.

Of course, tragically there is always the risk of unexpected death. While not being its principal purpose, one of the advantages of BPR is that it relieves the families of the deceased from involving themselves with complicated business transactions while mourning their unexpected loss. I welcome, of course, the announcement of the raising of the BPR threshold from £1 million to 2.5 million, but that merely reduces the number of companies that will be liable for the tax rather than addressing the issue.

There is currently no certainty on either the number of businesses that will be affected or on the amount of additional tax revenue that will be raised by the measure. The OBR has not delivered a costing based on the change to the policy announced in December. Given that the policy will trigger behaviour change, it is unclear to me that the benefits of this measure will outweigh the potential harm to employment in otherwise thriving businesses up and down the country.

I am sympathetic to the Chancellor’s instincts in this matter—I too, think we should be prioritising the needs of entrepreneurs over the protection of inherited wealth—but the likely meagre returns to the Treasury as a result of this policy do not justify the likely impact on employment that will occur if otherwise thriving businesses are forced to be broken up.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

We think it is right to have the same level across the country. It is the same in other parts of our tax system, and it would not be right to have different tax thresholds for different small parts of the country.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I certainly welcome the increase in the threshold as far as it goes, and I commend the campaigning farmers who secured it. In explaining it today, the Minister said that the Government have “got the balance right”, but of course those are the very words that he used at the Dispatch Box and in Westminster Hall when defending the £1 million threshold, and each time he caused torment and anxiety to farming families. Is he sorry for the anxiety caused needlessly to those farmers?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The number of estates that will be affected by this change will fall by half as a result of the changes that the Government announced late last year after listening to representations from various business and farming communities. That means that rather than 375 estates being affected per year, it will now be closer to 185 estates affected per year. Around 85% of estates will not pay any additional inheritance tax, and the vast majority of those that do will pay significantly less than they would have done before the change we announced late last year.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I want to begin by endorsing and agreeing with the very articulate and passionate contributions from Members right across the House. It is encouraging that there have been speeches from those on the Labour Benches attacking the cruel death tax on family farms—that is the only way to describe it. It is cruel, no matter what way you look at it.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) laid it out very clearly, as indeed he did yesterday in the Liaison Committee when he put the Prime Minister on the spot and the Prime Minister had no answer. A Prime Minister with no answer needs to change course. The Government have lost the argument on this issue. It is no answer to simply say, “We have the numbers to drive it through”. This needs to be done on the basis of equity and what is right. Having lost that argument—and so patently lost it—they need to face up to that. Just as the Prime Minister lost the argument yesterday in the Liaison Committee, so the Government need to face up to that point on this issue as well.

I want to make some comments about the Bill that are particularly pertinent to Northern Ireland. In any fiscal landscape, critical to being a part of a United Kingdom is the reasonable expectation that there will be the same fiscal ground rules across that United Kingdom—that if business is given advantage in one part, it will equally have that advantage in another. Yet when I come to this Finance Bill, particularly clauses 13 to 15, I discover to my dismay that businesses in Northern Ireland are not to have the same advantages when it comes to the capacity to scale up, as is provided for in clauses 13 to 15 regarding enterprise investment schemes, venture capital projects and enterprise management incentives. That is because the hideous tentacles of the Windsor framework have reached right into this Bill.

Because of the Windsor framework’s imposition on Northern Ireland business of EU state rules, we find in clauses 13 to 15 the exemption of Northern Ireland companies from the advantages to be given to others under those clauses. That removes the fiscal level playing field that should operate in any UK internal market. That undermines the UK internal market, because under those clauses companies in Great Britain will rightly be able to maximise state aid so that they can maximise their trading power, but an alike company in Northern Ireland has the benefit it can obtain from those scaling-up opportunities capped by EU state aid rules. That means they are not on a level playing field when it comes to competitiveness in respect of the capabilities in the Finance Bill.

That causes me to challenge the declaration that the Bill has no effect on GB-Northern Ireland trade. It most patently does if some companies in GB can scale up using these enhanced benefits from investment and venture capital unfettered by any state aid rules, while the same type of company in my constituency has the benefit it can draw fettered by the imposition of EU state aid rules. That is neither fair nor right, and it is but the latest manifestation of the Windsor framework and our continuing subjection to foreign laws.

These are not laws that we make here. EU state aid rules are not set here; they are set in a foreign Parliament that no one in this United Kingdom elects by a combination of Ministers from 27 other countries who have no accountability to anyone in my constituency or any constituency in this Parliament—and yet those rules are traducing and impeding business in Northern Ireland.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. and learned Member is making a passionate contribution, and he is absolutely right. In truth, clauses 13 to 15 all increase support for businesses across the UK, apart from those in Northern Ireland. It is not that we have been overlooked; the clauses expressly, explicitly and deliberately exclude us. That amounts to discrimination. It has to end.

[Jim Allister]

It has to end. It is discrimination at the behest of a foreign power. It is Brussels saying, “You must impose state aid rules on Northern Ireland.” The product of that in these clauses is a foreign Parliament dictating to this Parliament what we can and cannot give to our own businesses in this United Kingdom. That is so fundamentally offensive to our constitutional integrity that it goes to the very heart of what it means, or what it should mean, to be part of a United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

The Scottish Government have been given a record settlement—a £820 million boost in this Budget—that takes the total additional funding for the Scottish Government from this Labour Government to more than £10 billion.

I was talking about the entrepreneurship package in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) said, we are doubling the maximum amount that a company can raise through the generous enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes. We are making them more generous, and are supporting more investment in companies that are making the transition from start-up to scale-up, and we are not stopping there.

When some of our most innovative, high-growth companies succeed, bringing jobs and growth to our economy, we want them to list here, too. That is why this Bill ensures that companies that list here in the UK will benefit from a stamp duty holiday on their shares for the first three years on the market—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan). We are backing British entrepreneurs and ensuring that the UK remains one of the most attractive places in the world to found, scale and list a business.

Let me address the point referred to by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) about the application of the measures that I have just spoken about to Northern Ireland. I can assure him that Northern Irish service companies will benefit from the expansion of the scheme, and goods and wholesale electricity companies in Northern Ireland will continue to benefit from the previous scheme limits.

[Jim Allister]

The key is in the point that the Minister finally made there; that is under the previous scheme. Northern Ireland is not to get the uplift that the rest of the United Kingdom does under clauses 13 to 15. Why? Because we are subject to EU state aid rules. We are being held back by the old rules, whereas everywhere else in the United Kingdom gets the new uplift.

[Lucy Rigby]

I assure the hon. and learned Member, who makes a valid point, that there are hardly any—very few, if any—of these types of goods and wholesale electricity companies in Northern Ireland that come close to the existing limits of the scheme, let alone the extended limits.

We are very clear about the role of business and economic growth in improving household incomes, but we are also clear that after the Opposition gave this country the worst Parliament on record for living standards, far too many people are still struggling with the cost of living. This Government are already making progress to tackle that. Wages have gone up more in the first year of this Government than in the entire first decade of the last Government. Real household disposable income was £800 higher in the first year of this Parliament than in the last year under the Tories, but we know that there is more to do.It is because of the fair and necessary choices in this Bill that we are able to help ease the cost of living for millions of families across this country. Those choices are how we are cutting energy bills for millions of households by an average of £150 per year and extending the warm homes plan. They are how we are lifting the two-child cap and, with it, lifting half a million children in this country out of poverty. They are how we are freezing prescription charges and rail fares, and increasing the national living wage while protecting the triple lock on pensions. This is a Government who are committed to helping people with the cost of living, to putting more money in people’s pockets, and the choices we are making in this Bill do just that.

My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) are absolutely right that the choices this Government are making in this Finance Bill will help restore our public services. Those choices are why the Chancellor is able to put libraries in primary schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to, and they are why she is able to protect NHS budgets as well. They are why she is able to invest an extra £300 million in NHS technology, roll out 250 new neighbourhood health centres right across this country, and continue to get waiting lists—which stood at a record high when this Government came to power—back under control. That means millions more people able to access the healthcare they need, free at the point of use; millions more people getting the operations, preventive care and scans they need. It is how we will be able to repair our NHS and ensure it will continue to exist for the next generation and for many generations to come.

This Finance Bill is about delivering on our commitments. It is about building a stronger economy in which prosperity and living standards rise, child poverty falls, businesses succeed and public services are renewed. Every measure in this Bill is geared towards that goal. We promised change and fairness, and we are delivering both. For those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Family Farming in Northern Ireland

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that although the Government say that the effect of the inheritance tax on farms will be pro-growth, it will actually be anti-growth? In order to prepare for the day when a huge tax bill will have to be met, rather than investing in growing their enterprise, farmers are holding back so that they can hopefully make some contribution towards the exorbitant demands that are made upon death.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. and learned Member is right; the policy is stifling growth. As I have said before, farmers want to advance and grow, and they want to spend money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will happily look at any report any Member recommends I read, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to send it my way.

Since we took office, the Government have taken a range of decisions to seek to restore economic stability and raise revenue to help support our public services, because it was vital to attempt to sort out the mess we inherited, so that we can invest again in the future. The decision to reform APR and BPR was one of the decisions that enabled us to do that.

Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the very wealthiest estates. According to data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for 2021-22, almost half of agricultural property relief across the UK—40%—was claimed by just 7% of the estates that made claims. That is £219 million in tax foregone from just over 100 estates.

It is a similar picture for business property relief, which is linked and is treated in the same way under the reforms, with more than 50% of business property relief claimed by just 4% of estates. That is £558 million in tax foregone from just 158 estates. That contributes to the very largest estates paying much lower tax rates than smaller estates and everyday people up and down the country.

[Jim Allister]

In that context, does the CenTax report not make evident sense? If we impose the full-blooded inheritance tax on the top end—on those above £10 million—are we not reaping the same tax return, while at the same time not punishing and driving out of existence those at the bottom end? Is that not logical, and is that not right?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. and learned Member raises the CenTax report, and it is worth noting some points about the analysis in that report. First, the Government have consistently said that around 520 farms would be paying additional inheritance tax as a result of the reforms announced at the Budget last year.

Members from all parties have been turning to the CenTax report as an independent analysis of the Government’s reforms. That report agrees with us on the number of farms that will be affected. That independent analysis conducted separately from the Government comes out with the same conclusion on the number of farms that will be affected and it says that its proposal—the minimum share proposal, which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim mentions—would more than double the number of estates that would pay additional inheritance tax. I do not think the right way forward is to have the number of estates that would be affected increase from about 500 to, I think, about 1,200. I have looked at the report, which has been raised by Members from all parties, but I do not think it is the silver bullet that others have concluded it could be.

The context I just set out is why we are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April next year. We are doing so in a way that maintains a significant relief for estates, including smaller farms and businesses. Individuals will still get 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. I know that Members know this, but it is worth setting out the position again. On top of that amount, there will be a 50% relief. That means that inheritance tax will be paid at a rate of up to 20% rather than the standard 40%.

Taxes

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

A substantial level of political knockabout is inevitable in a debate such as this, but when it degenerates to the Punch and Judy of “It’s your fault—yes it is!” and “No, it’s not!” it is not really doing anything for my constituents who live in the moment of this Government. Therefore, the debate should properly have a focus on what the Government are doing in respect of our economy.

In Northern Ireland, we have felt, and continue to feel, the brunt of many of those measures, some of which, such as the inheritance tax on family farms, are cited in the motion. I agree entirely with the analysis of the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) as to the depth and long-term consequences that that is having on family farms.

However, I want to focus for a moment on the other side of the inheritance tax imposition: namely, business property relief, because that has not had the same attention but is having an equally detrimental effect on many businesses. That is particularly so in Northern Ireland, where we have the staggering statistic that 89% of our businesses are micro-businesses—in the UK, the figure is 23%—which translates into the reality that most of those businesses are small family businesses. Those small family businesses, by virtue of what is happening to them with business property relief, instead of planning for growth are now having to plan for death—for inheritance—which is having a suppressive effect on our economy.

We must add to that the fact that we in Northern Ireland live subject to the pernicious Irish sea border, with all the costs that that brings. I heard some hon. Members lamenting that we got Brexit. Well, I lament the fact that in Northern Ireland we did not get Brexit—we were left under the EU’s clutches and controls. Let me illustrate that with a practical example that has just come to light. As a result in Northern Ireland of our living under EU rules, we live under the general safety regulation, and that means that a purchaser in Northern Ireland who wants to buy a new car from a car salesroom in Northern Ireland will be charged £4,000 more than his counterpart in Great Britain. Why? It is because the GSR has to be met. That is but another illustration of how individuals and businesses in Northern Ireland are being oppressed by the lack of Brexit and the continuance of EU rules.

I have heard talk today about wonderful trade deals. Those wonderful trade deals mean that goods coming from those countries into Northern Ireland are treated as coming into the EU. Therefore, if there is a differential in tariff, they pay the EU tariff. Those tariffs would not be paid in GB if those goods had 0% tariffs, or they might have a 10% tariff, but if they are being brought from the US or India into Northern Ireland, the EU tariff will be paid.

Some say, “You can claim it back.” Well, if someone is willing to go through the hideous paperwork of a reclaim and they can prove that the goods they brought in will never end up across the border in the EU, they can eventually—maybe after a year—get a refund. What does that do for cash flow in any business? Those are the realities from Northern Ireland that the Government are refusing to face up to. They are causing trade diversion, yet the Government lamentably refuse to deal with that.

This motion carries considerable merit for me, in that it draws this Government’s attention to what they promised, and the contrast with what they are delivering is very substantial indeed. The Government might have a huge majority, but it is about governing well and not governing in whatever way takes their fancy or the fancy of their Back Benchers. They should do the job, do it right and do it right as far as Northern Ireland is concerned.

Spending Review 2025

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and he always passionately argues the case for Blackpool. Yes, there is deprivation in Blackpool, but there is also huge opportunity, which is why we are backing Blackpool with the investment we are putting in through the spending review.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Why does the Chancellor think it appropriate to pledge £50 million on a preferential basis to a sporting organisation that has a political objective as its first and defining attribute, and that has named some of its sports grounds and trophies after IRA terrorists who brought such death and destruction to Northern Ireland, while other organisations are required to make do with what they were allocated in 2011? Does the Chancellor not see and agree that £50 million would make a far better contribution to meeting the housing needs, particularly for social housing, and the sewerage infrastructure needs that in my constituency have brought much of the building of new housing to a halt? What is the priority when matters like that are ignored?

[Rachel Reeves]

Alongside the investment at Casement Park, we have also made record investment, with a record settlement for the Northern Ireland Executive, in the announcements we have set out today. In addition, there is substantial investment in the defence sector, including in Northern Ireland. So there is plenty of money going into Northern Ireland, and it now needs to be spent wisely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the invitation to join him in his constituency. I very much enjoyed the regional reception with business leaders, as I have done in every region and nation across the country during the spending review. We will continue to work hand in glove with them to unlock investment, create jobs and create growth for everybody, across the whole country.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Earlier, when the Chancellor was talking about the impact of tariffs, she pledged that the Government would act in our national interest. How can it be in the whole national interest, so long as the trade laws governing Northern Ireland are not the trade laws of the UK but those of a foreign jurisdiction, namely the EU?

[Mr Speaker]

We have an urgent question shortly.

Spring Statement

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final question, I call Jim Allister.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Chancellor better explain how the civil service cuts will translate into the devolved regions and the impact on future block grant allocations? Are there lessons to be learnt from the fact that in 2015, the Northern Ireland Executive had a voluntary exit scheme, upon which it spent £700 million, and then proceeded to re-engage hundreds of civil servants as agency workers?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. That is why we have not set a number for the reduction in the size of the civil service and instead have made it an admin target. We do not want the number of civil servants to fall and then the number of agency workers and consultancies to increase. Absolutely, this Government will learn from failed efforts, both of the UK Government under the Conservatives and other Administrations in the past.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I think one of the Conservative Members said that he will update me in his speech later. I may have misheard him, but I think I heard him say that he will confirm later whether the Opposition will reverse the national insurance changes we are making, so I look forward to that update.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Minister explain to the House how it is right for the Government to cover the extra national insurance contributions of those working in the public sector, for example in hospital provision, but it is not right to do that for those working in hospices, in end of life care? How can that circle be squared? Why will they cover the national insurance contributions for those working in hospitals that are treating people, but not for those working in hospices that deliver end of life care?

[James Murray]

The fundamental principle is about which organisations the Government will support in response to the changes to national insurance contributions. The approach the Government are taking, which is in line with the approach taken by the previous Government in the health and social care levy, is for the Government to provide support for Departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance contributions. As I said to the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), that means central Government, public corporations and local government. Primary care providers are independent contractors and will therefore not be exempt from the changes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I join my hon. Friend in celebrating investment in her region. Our growth mission is one in which each part of the country will benefit, and we look forward to working further with her.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

With farmers protesting again in Westminster today, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer running away from meeting farming unions from across this nation? Why do those who feed our nation not deserve some of the Chancellor’s time?

[James Murray]

Just two weeks ago, I spent a fair amount of time meeting representatives from the National Farmers Union and other representative organisations from different nations within the UK. I listened to their concerns and what they had to say. We have to be honest that we disagree. They do not agree with the Government’s policy, and I need to be direct about that because we had to take a number of difficult decisions at the Budget. But I do not apologise for the importance of balancing the public finances and sticking to our fiscal rules.