Fuel Duty

Luke Charters Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out because I was the energy PPS in the Home Office at that time, so I saw exactly how that worked, what it looked like and how difficult it is to put measures in place. Let me remind her that the Conservatives made a £200 unconditional payment to anyone who could claim that they were living off grid. That is a stark difference from this Government, who have put aside £53 million for the 1.5 million people across the entire nation who use heating oil because they live off grid—£35 per person. The Government have ringfenced that money, so it will only be available to the houses that are hardest hit, meaning that most households will not get any payment at all. That is the exactly the point I am trying to make: the Government talk a good game, but when it comes to delivery, they are not doing what they say.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making some impassioned points about heating oil. I have a simple question for him: does he believe that the war in Iran increases the cost of heating oil or not, and will he reject the escalation that the Leader of the Opposition has called for in entering that war in the first place?

[Dr Evans]

Of course the war increases the risk. The Americans chose to go into that war and that is now having an impact on all of us. The question under debate is what are we doing about that and what measures are being taken. We are discussing fuel duty, which, as it stands, the hon. Gentleman’s Government will increase in September.

I have asked the Government to talk about the framework and the trigger points. I was glad to hear from the Minister that that increase is under consideration, but we need to know when that consideration will be made and what the trigger points are, because, as I rightly highlighted, we have seen all this before in 2022. We know what it looks like and we know how difficult it is to get to the canal boats, the park homes and the people living off grid.

The fifth point that the Prime Minister made earlier this week was about de-escalation, but he has no control over that if he says that he is not involved in the war. I am all in favour of de-escalation, but that is not a domestic policy that will bring down the cost of living—nothing tangible can come from that stance.

Why does this all matter so much? I live in and represent a rural constituency that is about 85% agricultural. We sit in the very heart of England, at the centre of the logistics industry. That means that every single day men and women from across Barwell, Earl Shilton and Donisthorpe get up, drive their vans, go out and drive their lorries, and support the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

In true style, a knight of the realm recognises my very next point, because all these policies need to be set in context. Context is important, because each Government might need to raise taxes at some point, but here we have a toxic concoction of employment rights, more red tape, business rates going up and the support around business rates being taken away, fuel duty going up, national insurance contributions going up and the minimum wage going up. Any of those in isolation might be a good idea and might need to be done for support, but taken together they run against the Government’s milestones, mantras, missions—whatever they want to call them—on growth and the cost of living.

The pay-per-mile proposals for electric vehicles have been touched on, but I would like to expand on the issue. The proposals have brought huge consternation to many of my constituents. When I raised this issue straight after the Budget, I was blown away by the number of people from across the country who contacted me after seeing my question about how the proposals would work. There are simple, fundamental questions that the Government have not set about addressing. For example, what happens in the second-hand market? Who is judging when the mileage is being done? Are we likely to have monitors in our cars? That is meant to be done at an MOT, so what happens if I sell my car six months into it? What happens if someone lives in Northern Ireland and commutes to the Republic of Ireland? Where does the tax go then? What happens if we drive to Europe? For example, many people from my constituency like to take their caravan down to France for a holiday. Where do they pay their tax? How does that work?

The proposals are having the effect of stalling growth in the electric car market. Many people are saying, “I made the choice. I wanted to do the right thing for the environment and for my family, because that was a good decision to make”, but they are now regretting that decision, and the market is stalling as a result. I ask the Government how will that impact be felt in the context of fuel duty, and where will those measures fit into the framework of a continuing Iranian war?

To close where I started, I agree that in this place we can have a difference of opinion on when it is the right time to do something. I am pleased that the Minister said that everything was under consideration. That is really important for those listening outside. After all the Punch and Judy of this place on whose policy was right, whose was wrong and what has happened before, at the end of the day it is the families in Hinckley and Bosworth who will be looking at their budgets and at the uncertainty they see on the TV, and trying to decide what they should do.

I simply ask the Minister to outline what he would consider to be a trigger point for change. Would it be a certain price value for heating oil? Would it be a certain price value for petrol? Would it be a certain duration of the conflict? None of us knows when the conflict will end. All these questions could be addressed in a framework that we learned from during our time in government. In 2022, we had to come up with support schemes from scratch.

[Mr Charters]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that 5p fuel duty cut at the height of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it was too slow. Will he remind the House of the level that diesel had got to at the pump when the 5p cut came in? Was it two quid? It was far too late, wasn’t it?

[Dr Evans]

Forgive me; I would be happy to give way again if the hon. Gentleman knows what the value was at that point. I do not know what it was because at the time I was working in the Energy Department trying to help support those households who were struggling and suffering, particularly those who lived in caravan parks, static homes and canal boats, who are off-grid and suffered by the very nature of where they got their fuel. He is right to say that we have to take this in the round. I have heard the Chancellor say that multiple times. How long will this go on? The decision is under consideration. I am not asking about when the decision is made or how to make that decision. This is more about understanding at what point we make those decisions and when the Chancellor decides that it is the right time to step in. It may well be that that decision was too late and that lessons could be learned. How do we know? That is the question I am posing to civil servants and this Government, because the hon. Gentleman’s party is now in charge of setting that out and deciding when is too long and when is too late.

I would argue that the current payment of £53 million is not enough for my constituents. Many of them will not benefit, because they will not be covered by the resilience fund. What the Government have done under the resilience fund—formerly the household support fund—is simply delegate the decision making to councils. Under the previous Government, when we were in charge, we chose not to do that because we wanted to support everyone who was struggling. It is this Government’s job to set out why they are not going to do that.

I would argue that keeping the fuel duty rise in September will create a terribly difficult time for any of us who drive cars or run a business that uses vehicles. Let us not forget that the energy price cap will change in July. The Government have rightly said that it is frozen until then, but the impact on prices will not come through the system until July, so we might well see prices and the price cap rise very quickly in July just as the fuel duty is about to come in in September. We are back to the point made by the knight of the realm, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) about this toxic concoction of everything happening at once. I urge the Government to be aware of that and to set out the trigger points and the framework.

Student Loans

Luke Charters Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Labour is failing young people. Youth unemployment is up since Labour took office—it is now higher than in the eurozone. There are more people not in education, employment or training since Labour took office—now nearly 1 million. There is a midlife crisis in our economy, too. More than 2 million people aged between 50 and 64 are on out-of-work benefits. The deal for young people is bad, and it has been made worse by this Chancellor.

Too many young people are coming out of university with excessive debt, and they do not know what the future terms of their borrowing will be. If a private provider were to provide loans in this way, where someone did not know when they signed up what the interest rates, repayment deal or income threshold would be, that provider would be unable to enforce it—it would be unlawful. When it comes to this Government and the Chancellor freezing the threshold, for some reason those on the Government Benches think that is okay.

We have heard from Government Members who said that they joined the Labour party to fight for a better deal. We heard from the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), who said that she is here to fight for her generation—generation Z. Is she not bitterly disappointed at the limp response from her Government now that they have power and can do something about intergenerational justice as she sees it? Instead, Labour Members come into this House to defend their Government increasing debt for students and freezing the earnings threshold at which those young people have to start repaying.

[Mr Charters]

I am on plan 2, and I had a targeted maintenance grant. I will ask the hon. Member a simple question: does he think it is a fairer system to have targeted maintenance grants in it—yes or no?

[Joe Robertson]

Let me ask the hon. Member a question, because his party is in government, he has power and he can change things. Does he think the system is fair? No, he does not, because he has already told this House that it is not. Is he not bitterly disappointed that his own Government have not got a plan to change it? If he does not like the system that existed before July 2024, why are his Government not changing it?

The Opposition have brought forward a plan, which we are debating today. It would mean that those on plan 2 student loans will not end up paying more and more above RPI, so the Government will not be making money out of them having a loan. That is a meaningful change. The Government can go further because they are in power. I hope that our party, by the time of the next election, will be able to offer more, but we have already announced that we would abolish stamp duty, helping young people. We have already announced that we would scrap bad courses that offer no real additional employment prospects for people who do them, other than leaving them saddled with debt.

It would seem that most Labour Members have history degrees, given the amount of time they have spent speaking about the last decade, but we are talking about the system that exists now. When I went to university, I accepted the principle that young people who went to university did not contribute enough to the education that they received. Under the Blair Government, undergraduates were asked to contribute more. Clearly there is a benefit for society in having an educated and graduate workforce to take up jobs as teachers and doctors, for instance, but there is also a great benefit for those who take up those jobs, because of the higher earnings involved. That is a principle I supported. It is a principle most people supported, and I still support it. However, we have plainly reached a tipping point for too many students. The personal debt is so high that they have no real prospect of ever paying it back. Some have degrees that give them no real opportunity ever to earn more than they would have earned had they been in a good apprenticeship—a good apprenticeship that the last Government gave them the opportunity to enter into.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

Yes, and I am grateful for that question. Under our proposed reforms, four fifths—80%—of plan 2 graduates would benefit and pay less over their lifetime. The hon. Gentleman can look up all this stuff on the IFS website if he wants to check.

There are so many personal stories here. The other day, one doctor was recounting how she graduated with £75,000 of debt, has worked hard for years and has paid off every year, but she now owes £90,000.

[Mr Charters]

rose—

[Neil O’Brien]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me why he thinks that is fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charters]

The hon. Gentleman referenced the IFS report. He will know that it has costed his proposals and that for the plan 2 cohort there would be a capital cost of £30 billion to £40 billion—I believe that could be a gaping hole. It is a seriously uncosted policy, is it not?

[Neil O’Brien]

If the hon. Gentleman reads to the end of the IFS report, he will see that it costs our proposal in single-digit billions, and we have explained exactly how we will pay for it—I will come to that in a moment—so there is no gaping hole whatsoever. No wonder so many despair, with more broken promises from the Government and ever-rising debt, and no promise of action at any particular time.

How we would pay for our proposal—this goes to the hon. Gentleman’s question—is equally important. Since the last Government created the longitudinal education outcomes dataset, we have had much better data on which degrees do—or do not—provide economic value for students and taxpayers. Economic value is not the only value put on higher education, or any kind of education, but rather than simply pushing more young people towards courses that the Government’s own data show us do not benefit them—they do not help them, and they leave them feeling like they have been mis-sold and betrayed, with a lot of debt and nothing much to show for it—we need to have a rethink. The current approach is not working.

Since the election, youth unemployment has risen to levels significantly above the eurozone’s for the first time in a generation. That is mainly as a result of the Government’s decision to target lower-paid people for tax increases and to increase regulation, but it is not helped by the Government’s unbalanced approach to skills, based on an endless expansion of university courses whether they are any good or not.

Youth Unemployment

Luke Charters Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

It will apply to young people between the ages of 18 and 24. The hiring bonus will be available from this summer, and we will look at having a retention mechanism so that people are not hired one day and let go the next.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

Apprenticeship starts fell under the last Government, largely driven by the reduced uptake from SMEs, so today’s SME incentive is a game-changer. Can the Minister confirm that that incentive can be stacked with other incentives—for example, when hiring a care leaver—and will he send a message from the Dispatch Box to York employers that they should take on apprentices and provide the opportunity of a lifetime?

Welfare Spending

Luke Charters Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I do envisage that, as people get back to work, there will be savings on social security. I think we will see at the Budget projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility of future moves into employment as a result of the changes that we are making, and savings will certainly arise. We want our work coaches, as the right hon. Gentleman has just pointed out, to spend less time on bureaucracy and more time on what they do best, which is giving people the benefit of their expertise and helping people move closer to work.

Good work will also be a key part of the child poverty strategy, which we will bring forward by the end of the year. We will tackle child poverty by increasing family incomes, reducing family costs, building financial resilience and improving local support. Some people will remember that I took the Child Poverty Act 2010 through Parliament, with all-party support at the time. It was quickly scrapped by the coalition Government and the number of children growing up in poverty has gone up by 900,000 since then. Welfare spending has also rocketed. Reducing both child poverty and welfare spending are not opposites.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the benefit to the labour market of the roll-out of 30 hours of free childcare? I met a single mum in my constituency who is taking on more hours to support her family. That will help her children get out of poverty, thanks to this Government’s efforts.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a welcome and much-needed step.

The early years are crucial to somebody’s life chances. Ensuring that children grow up happy, healthy and able to fulfil their potential is certainly, to borrow a phrase from the motion, “a moral mission”. However, it is also about reducing demand on social security, instead of sitting on our hands like the last Government and leaving the system to pick up higher costs further down the line.

The child poverty strategy will build on our cross-Government approach to lifting people out of poverty through rolling out free breakfast clubs, raising the national minimum wage and, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) points out, expanding free childcare and free school meals to all families on universal credit. It will be an ambitious strategy and in developing it we will consider all the levers available to give every child the best start in life.

To make work pay: that was what universal credit was intended to do. Yet it was left with perverse disincentives to work in the system, forcing people, as many did, to aspire to be classified as sick in order to qualify for a higher payment. We have addressed that by rebalancing the payments in universal credit, alongside other reforms. The system should not force people to aspire to be classified as sick; it should promote and encourage work and provide support to make work feasible.

As the shadow Secretary of State kindly mentioned, we are progressing the review, which I am responsible for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

The welfare bill is out of control. A system with laudable aims that was designed to act as a safety net for those who fall on hard times now threatens not only the nation’s finances but the spirt of hard work and self-reliance. That is why I will support the motion.

My Conservative colleagues and I believe in fairness. We are the party of the strivers—the men and women who rise early, work long hours and provide for their families. The shopkeeper who opens up before dawn, the construction workers on site in all weathers, and the parents balancing multiple jobs—these are the people who make Britain great. They keep our economy going and our communities alive. This Government are letting people down. People see many others gaming the system, while their taxes continue to rise to fund a welfare bill that has spiralled out of control.

Of course, I understand that there must always be a safety net—I say that as someone who has lived experience of being on the breadline growing up—but this safety net has turned into a fishing net, with a culture that promotes the idea that it is okay not to work, that it is fine for others to pay for our lifestyle choices and that it is acceptable to rely on the state forever. Since the general election, we have seen over 1 million more people added to universal credit—1 million more people. For all the Government’s talk of saving the NHS and helping people back into work, the numbers tell a different story.

[Mr Charters]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member, because I think his audience here in the Chamber is bigger than his party leader’s for her speech on welfare earlier today. Could he look back to his party’s record in government when it comes to the NHS? As the intelligent man I think he is—I consider him a friend—does he agree that larger NHS waiting lists, which his party left, increase the benefit bill? Does he agree with that easy-to-accept premise?

[Mr Bedford]

When the Conservatives left office, there were just 2 million people on universal credit for health-related reasons. Today, that number stands at 3 million—a remarkable increase that highlights the sheer lack of action by this Government to get welfare under control. It tells the younger generation that aspiration is no longer the British way and that it is easier to depend on the state than to strive.

While the Government continue to spend, it is our constituents—hard-pressed taxpayers—who are footing the bill. We in this House would be wise to remember that there is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money. Unfortunately, taxpayers are getting a rough deal. Our approach is different. Only the Conservative party is on the side of the taxpayer. The Government published proposals to save £5 billion in welfare spending.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Charters Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

The hon. Lady only had to wait till next week’s Treasury questions, when she could have asked her question, but she has the same answer. What we should do is look at the record of parties and what they have done. When I look back over the last 14 years of Tory Budgets, I see a party—[Interruption.] And the Lib Dems; thank you for pointing that out. I have seen parties chopping and changing pension tax relief left, right and centre, because they had no plan. Those were the same Budgets that drove child poverty up and wages down.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

T7. It is great to be back after taking paternity leave, and thank you for your support, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Government’s parental leave review, but currently partners only get unpaid time off work for two antenatal appointments. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a gap, and can he confirm that the review is looking at how we can better support parents at that crucial time?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the recent addition to his family. I hope he had a restful summer, although I doubt he did considering the likely lack of sleep. He is right to raise this issue. It is now past the date for the call for evidence, but if he wants to write to me directly about that issue, I will ensure it is fed in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Charters Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to tackle fraud in the welfare system by organised criminal groups.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

The Department works collaboratively across Government and law enforcement agencies to investigate welfare fraud perpetrated by organised criminal gangs. This type of criminality is complex and far-reaching, and a collaborative approach is therefore essential. I am pleased to confirm that new powers in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill will help us better tackle organised crime by taking greater control of our investigations through new powers of entry, search and seizure.

[Mr Charters]

Having spent my career before entering this place tackling fraud, I recognise the scale of the challenge, so I commend the Secretary of State for her leadership, with the biggest ever crackdown on benefit fraud. Given the success of whistleblower reward schemes in tax and financial crime, does my hon. Friend agree with me that there is merit in exploring similar schemes to uncover organised fraud in the benefits system, so that more funds can be recovered to support those who genuinely need support: our constituents?

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We take all allegations of fraud seriously. People who suspect fraud against the Department for Work and Pensions can use existing channels to report it, including the national benefit fraud hotline. This Government are not complacent. As I mentioned in my substantive reply, we are taking action with the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which will provide a range of new powers to address fraud and error in the social security system, after the Conservative party failed to substantively update our powers to tackle ever-more complex fraud during 14 long years in office. However, I will watch with interest whether there is learning from the schemes my hon. Friend mentioned that could be applied to cases of benefit fraud.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Luke Charters Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last, but I hope not least.

Before entering this place, I spent a lot of my career tackling fraud. One key trend in fraud is its increasing sophistication. Rather than the art of a local chancer, fraud is increasingly conducted by organised crime groups using elaborate mechanisms, deeply advanced technology and rapidly shifting modus operandi. That includes benefit fraud gangs. I am sorry to say this, but fraud in the benefit system has reached an industrial scale. Frankly, it is time the Government got a grip, which is why I welcome their swift action in introducing this Bill.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote an excellent op-ed today highlighting this exact point. This is the money of many hard-working Brits, and it has been stolen from right under their noses. The Tories presided over a system that allowed criminals to line their pockets at taxpayers’ expense.

[Paula Barker]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech, and he talks about benefit fraud on an industrial scale. Does he really believe that just over 2.5% is an industrial scale?

[Mr Charters]

As I will come to, it is about the advanced techniques that these fraud gangs are using. It is industrial-level criminal activity.

Last year, £7 billion was cheated out of taxpayers’ pockets, and we have been left to clean it up. If we had that cash, we could have funded extra police officers or vital repairs to some of our hospitals. Frankly, it would also have made it easier to fill the £22 billion black hole left by the Conservative party, wherever its Members are.

I now turn to a few concrete examples of why this Bill matters. First, on the economics, the Bill is expected to save £1.5 billion over the next few years. These are not insignificant sums of money. It is important to stress that the public purse is not an endless pot, and the contributions of millions of working people across the country, including many of my constituents in York Outer, help to fund it. They want to see taxpayers’ money being spent wisely. Stealing benefits is not just fraud; it is a slap in the face to the hard-working taxpayers who fund our public services. This Bill changes that.

The Bill is not just about keeping more taxpayers’ cash in the Treasury. As Brits, we embody the values of kindness, decency and fairness. Although we are rightly outraged about criminals circumventing our system, we all want a reliable welfare state for the people who truly need it. Every £1 stolen by benefit fraud gangs is £1 less for a low-income single parent looking for a job on universal credit, £1 less for a disabled person on the higher rate of PIP, and £1 less for someone on carer’s allowance. In many cases, these payments are a lifeline for people getting back to work. At the moment, this cash is going to criminals rather than carers.

I now turn to a few recent cases of organised benefit fraud to elucidate the scale of the challenge we face. All have been settled and are now in the public domain following prosecutions.

In May 2024, we saw the largest benefit fraud case in history. The operation saw five Bulgarian nationals forge thousands of documents to make thousands of fraudulent universal credit claims to the value of £50 million.

In October 2023, seven people were sentenced for falsely claiming employment support allowance. They used advanced techniques to hijack identities, resulting in the crime group stealing hundreds of thousands of pounds.

An investigation by City of London police in 2020 saw enforcement against a benefit fraud ring to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds. I take a brief moment to praise the excellent work of our law enforcement agencies, including City of London police, who I have met, for their collaboration. That is exactly how the last fraud ring was closed. This example shows the benefit of public-private partnerships, which this Bill seeks to catalyse, in tackling benefit fraud,

What do these cases have in common? The benefit fraud was actually a predicate to other illicit activities. They demonstrate the need to upgrade our response, and this Bill represents additional lines of defence in our rising to the challenges we need to fix. Some of the measures in this Bill will do exactly that: supporting covid-era fraud investigations; strengthening the PSFA by establishing it as a separate entity; giving the PSFA powers to compel evidence and enter premises with a warrant; extending the time limit to bring action against historical fraud to 12 years; and granting extra powers for recovering money.

I recently visited the national economic crime centre at the National Crime Agency, and I know the scale of the challenges we face when it comes to tackling fraudsters. I have no doubt that, with this Bill, the Government will smash the benefit fraud gangs, but we must also acknowledge that this Bill represents a significant shift for the financial industry. It is a step into a new dawn for those in the banks who work on tackling economic crime, as they will be spending more time tackling benefit fraud.

It is right that the Government are pursuing a growth-first strategy, which has to be carefully balanced with the economic crime plan. The Financial Conduct Authority’s new consumer duty was an important stride forward for the industry, and I was proud to play a small role in that, but, as scrutiny of the Bill continues, I warmly invite Ministers to engage with the FCA and report back to the House on how the new powers will carefully balance consumer vulnerability with the need to drive down benefit fraud.

Finally, there is an important scenario that must be considered more carefully as the Bill progresses in this place. A victim of domestic abuse—let us call her “Jane”—is quietly saving money to escape, but then an account information notice is issued. Based on three months of bank statements, a debt recovery notice follows. Jane has 28 days to appeal, but no access to legal advice. Worse still, her abuser intercepts the letter and her savings, which are her lifeline to escape, are seized. Her escape plan is exposed, putting her at risk. We must ensure that financial processes do not accidentally or invertedly work against victims of domestic abuse in those scenarios, as I am sure Ministers are aware.

To close, the Prime Minister said in a speech at a recent Labour party conference:

“If we want to maintain support for the welfare state, then we will legislate to stop benefit fraud”.

When it comes to tackling organised crime groups, not only is he right, but the Bill is proof he is delivering on his promise. The Bill is about smashing the benefit fraud gangs, treating taxpayers’ money fairly and ensuring we have a safety net left for the genuinely vulnerable people who need it. I refer time and again to a point I made in my maiden speech that rings as true today as it ever has done. I said:

“I want to ensure that there is no safe harbour for fraudsters, no compromise in our pursuit of their schemes and no escape from justice.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 124.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Income Tax (Charge)

Luke Charters Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

This weekend I held a surgery at a great place called the St Giles’ centre in Copmanthorpe. The day started with a coffee morning and ended with a beer festival. Thankfully, I was not misunderstood when requesting a strong brew, but sadly I heard some sobering stories from my constituents. I met one constituent stuck in housing full of damp, another battling for an education, health and care plan, and a sub-postmaster yet to receive compensation; these are the everyday tragedies that our constituents face after 14 years of failure. The Budget mattered to them because they have been let down for far too long, and this historic Budget—the first ever delivered by a woman—rose to the challenge. Working people want the Government to give them bang for their buck. We said that we would protect working people’s payslips, and that is exactly what we did.

Let me start with education. I know the pressure that schools faced under the Tories, not least because my wife is a genuinely inspirational teacher, so I am pleased that we have turned the page, with a £2.3 billion increase in the core schools budget, the recruitment of new teachers and action on the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete crisis. A constituent recently wrote to me about their child, who has been unable to attend full school full time since the start of 2023 due to insufficient funding to support their additional needs. Due to the crisis in special educational needs and disabilities funding, as every day goes by that child loses crucial opportunities to develop key social skills, but the extra £1 billion of funding—a 6% real-terms increase—that we have committed to will change that. Our schools will get the support they need under this Labour Government.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions opened today’s debate, and I know that the Labour Government, as they did from 1997 to 2010, will do everything in their power to bring down poverty. I am also delighted that extra resource will be dedicated to tackling fraudsters, after the Crown Prosecution Service recently prosecuted an advanced organised crime group that defrauded taxpayers in an industrial-scale benefits fraud. I welcome the anti-fraud funding announcement.

I am proud that the Government are making the most of a tough economic inheritance and meeting the needs of my constituents. I do, however, welcome the previous comments of the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) on Budgets. She praised fuel duty freezes, backed building more homes, welcomed extra pothole funding and supported increasing the national living wage, so I presume that during her first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Leader of the Opposition on Wednesday, she will welcome this Budget. Our Budget is a downpayment to get our future back; it will protect working people, and we should be proud of it.