Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and to speak again in a Budget debate.

Often in debates on the Budget, I have heard announcements, as a Lancashire MP, about pots of money that my area has not been eligible for because we do not have a devolution deal, so I was really pleased to see in today’s Budget that we are now in the final stages of agreeing a devolution deal in Lancashire for a mayoral strategic authority. That opens up the opportunity for my constituents to have the same options as the rest of the north of England, which already has these deals. The indication is that Lancashire will now be able to access good growth funding worth £7.27 million, which will unlock prosperity in my constituency and right across the red rose county.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

As the MP for Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, right in the heart of Staffordshire, I too welcome the devolution announcement today. It means that, in contrast to the chaos we are seeing at Reform county council level—we are on to our fourth leader this week, if anyone is keeping count—residents in Stafford will be able to access that devolution funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that putting the power into community’s hands to direct their own future is central to making sure that we have good growth in every postcode?

[Cat Smith]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I wish her well in Stafford with the situation at her local council.

I urge local leaders in Lancashire to get this deal over the line. I hold my hands up and confess that I was perhaps the least enthusiastic of the Lancashire MPs when it came to the prospect of having a mayor, but I recognise that, without that, my constituents will be left behind. Therefore, we all need to work together in Lancashire to make sure we can access this funding.

The biggest issue my constituents raise with me— I was recently out doing street surgeries in Scale Hall in my constituency and was approached by several people who raised this same issue—is energy bills, so I suspect my Scale Hall constituents will be particularly pleased to see the £100 energy support payments, which should benefit over 37,000 households across Lancaster and Wyre in council tax bands A to D. On top of the extension of the 0% VAT on electricity bills until June next year and the abolition of the standing charges on gas, that will come as welcome relief to families right across my Lancashire constituency.

I regularly meet the business community, and recently met representatives from the Lancaster business improvement district, who made the case to me about the challenges facing the retail and hospitality sector. I am pleased to see the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates freeze, which is estimated to benefit 638 properties in Lancaster and 640 properties in the Wyre council area of my constituency—hundreds of businesses in my constituency will benefit.

Constituents have also raised with me the challenges on the high street. Increasing small business thresholds and removing eligibility for vape shops and adult gaming centres will go down really well with my constituents. I welcome that; it will mean that high streets, like those in Garstang and Lancaster, will thrive and be places where people want to spend time and money supporting our great local businesses.

There were also announcements in the Budget to cut fertiliser tariffs to give farming businesses more room to breathe. That will certainly go down well with my farming constituents. The rise in fuel prices is disproportionately affecting users of red diesel, so Lancaster and Wyre farmers will welcome the extension of the 3.7p cut to duty on red diesel for a further six months. That keeps the rate at its lowest level for 20 years.

My final contribution to this debate is about a missed opportunity. The economic cost of alcohol harm in England is estimated to cost us £27.4 billion annually. That includes costs to the NHS, the justice system, the wider economy and social services. The financial burden on the NHS alone stands at £4.9 billion, which is enough to pay the salaries of almost half the nurses in England.

The culprit is the very strong, very cheap alcohol that is available everywhere in this country, from supermarkets to corner shops—and increasingly from the delivery services that will deliver it to the door, day and night. This situation often makes vulnerable people drink far more than is safe and creates the ideal conditions for escalating alcohol harm. That harm that can be reduced by introducing minimum unit pricing—something that is already in place in Wales and Scotland, and has seen reductions in harm there.

Millions of people are consuming alcohol at levels that increase their risk of serious health conditions. The severity of harm rises as alcohol consumption increases, and cheap alcohol drives higher consumption. At a time when the NHS is under immense pressure and health inequalities continue to widen, there was a significant opportunity today for the Government to have taken an evidence-based approach to tackle alcohol harms. That approach makes economic sense and would rapidly improve public health and save lives.

I want to stress that minimum unit pricing does not damage pubs, restaurants or the wider hospitality sector. It is specifically designed to target the cheapest, strongest alcohol sold through supermarkets and off-licences—the products most associated with serious alcohol harm. We have to remember that alcohol-related deaths have remained high since the pandemic; they have not been coming down. I believe that we need to take radical action. Introducing minimum unit pricing would benefit the economy and save lives. The measure has support across the hospitality sector, which recognises the distinction and sees cheap off-trade alcohol as a broader market concern.

I leave the Front Bench with the concerns that I have around not addressing alcohol harms, and the benefit that minimum unit pricing could have for the economy and public health. I welcome the Budget overall. It offers breathing space for my constituents in Lancaster and Wyre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The disappointment of today’s Budget is that, having put on his running shoes for the media earlier this week, the Chancellor spent his statement running away from the big challenges facing the country and ducking each difficult decision. The first big challenge that he ducked was getting a proper grip on the public finances, so that we do not have to leave our children and grandchildren with spiralling national debt. He tells us that everything is under control because the OBR says that his fiscal rules have technically been met, but the public are not fooled by Treasury scorecards, and neither are the markets.

Just like his predecessor, the Chancellor promises to bring borrowing down right at the end of the period covered by his fiscal rules, in this case with the hidden promise of 2.6% annual spending cuts, which includes those 2% a year cuts from mainstream schools every year, after the next general election. Those steep cuts will clearly never happen, and the markets know it. In the meantime, he did not say that he was increasing borrowing from 2.9% to 3.4% next year, and from 2.5% to 2.9% the year after—billions in extra borrowing. Like his predecessor, the Chancellor seems to take his inspiration from St Augustine: “Oh Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet.” Every year, the date for that fiscal restraint is pushed back another 12 months and borrowing revised up in the meantime. He speaks of fiscal discipline, but this is fiscal policy on the never-never.

Nowhere is the reason for that fiscal timidity clearer than on welfare. All hon. Members know that public spending cannot be controlled and Britain cannot get back to work without proper structural reform to a ballooning welfare bill, but where we needed action, all we got were yet more taskforces, reviews and procrastination.

That failure on welfare leads directly to the most sorrowful failure in the Chancellor’s entire Budget: national defence. The Chancellor knows the urgent need for an immediate plan to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 better than anyone; it is why he said he resigned as Defence Secretary earlier in the year. He knew the Government were playing Treasury accounting tricks—tucking MI5, pensions, the Chagos Islands bills and even £200 million for doing up Barrow-in-Furness high street under the badge of “defence spending” to pad out a press release—but when we strip out those tricks, our armed forces are facing a real-terms cut in their day-to-day running costs over the next three years.

Finally, the Chancellor had the chance today to undo the terrible damage done by his predecessor and inject real, sustainable growth into our economy. Business distress is at a 20 year high. High street names like Poundland are collapsing, and young people have paid the heaviest price of all, with surging numbers of NEETs and a genuine youth jobs crisis. Nowhere feels the triple whammy of high employment costs, punitive business rates and relentless regulation more acutely than our hospitality sector. Our pubs, bars and restaurants are the heart and soul of communities like mine in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire—

[Leigh Ingham]

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

[Mike Wood]

No, we are coming to the end of the debate.

Those pubs, bars and restaurants are the No.1 place where young people get their first foot on the jobs ladder. The Chancellor’s announcement on small business relief will clearly be welcomed by those firms that qualify, but the truth is that it will do little to help most hospitality businesses. Fewer than one in 10 restaurants and licensed premises are set to benefit, with the rest continuing to suffer from Labour’s business rates bill hike.

The Chancellor had a simple, practical lever right in front of him today—a meaningful increase in the alcohol duty differential for draught beer and cider pulled across the bar in a well-run local pub or restaurant, compared with cheap bottles and cans stacked high in supermarket aisles. It would have helped our British breweries, helped save community pubs and protected hospitality jobs for young people. Again, the Chancellor knows that: in opposition, he called for cuts in beer duty, but in the Treasury he is hiking the main beer duty rate. He ignores the cross-party pleas for big reductions in draught beer duty, and instead hammers publicans and brewers once again, with another hike in the beer duty he used to say should be cut.

The Chancellor needed to step up and take the decision needed to help pubs and hospitality. Instead, just like on debt, on welfare and on defence, he ducked it. Our businesses, our young people and our armed forces cannot afford to wait in a holding pattern until this Government discover their courage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

To many hon. Members, it will not come as a surprise that I want to talk about town centres. Stafford, the constituency I represent, is a market town—the clue is in the name—but since 2024, Stafford has not had an actual market. It is really hard to think of a more powerful symbol of what has happened to towns like mine over the last decade and a half. Towns such as Stafford are full of hard-working people who really want to get on. They want a good job, a warm home and a safe community—and it is not a lot to ask for. Under the last Conservative Government, they watched as the foundations of their community life were stripped away. Youth centres disappeared, we had the third worst youth service cuts in the country, important buildings were left to decay and eventually the market closed. The damage that such neglect does to a town is more than financial; it starts to chip away at the heart of a place and changes how people feel about their home.

Stafford has a vibrant, independent business scene. People can get unbelievable hot chocolates in the Monk & Smuggler, bestsellers from That Little Bookshop or incredible vinyls from Double Double records, plus much more. These businesses are investing their own time, money and energy in our town, and they have told me many times that they need their market back. They want Stafford to be a destination once again, and so do I—a place that people choose to visit, to spend time in, to spend money in and to build a future in. That is why I am so proud that this Government have committed £10 million to a brand-new, all-day market hall and events centre in Stafford, which I have been working on for a good while now, as my hon. Friends can attest. This investment says that towns matter, and that my town matters. It is an investment that will support businesses, create opportunities and help breathe life back into our high street.

This debate is obviously about something bigger than one town and one project. It is about who gets the power to shape people’s future, because if we are serious about growth, opportunity and rebuilding Britain, we cannot continue to run every important decision through Whitehall. The truth is that the people who know Staffordshire best are the people who live and work there. That is why the case for a mayoral strategic authority in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent is so strong. We have already seen the difference investment can make in Stafford over the last couple of years. We have seen growth and confidence start to return and investment at a scale not seen for many years.

Of course, there is so much more to do, but this commitment is a clear sign that this Government care about towns like ours, believe in their future and are prepared to back that with action. I look forward to working with Members across the House to make this vision a reality, and to ensure that Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent have the powers, the investment—my hon. Friends have talked about that—and the opportunities they need to thrive for generations to come.