Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Meg Hillier and Jamie Stone

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I count the hon. Gentleman as a friend, because he serves on the Treasury Committee and is indefatigable in his attempts to ensure that the Government are listening about research and development in defence and across wider sectors. It sounds as though, between us, the Government have heard that message.

Before I move on to the main thrust of the Budget, I want to address the Leader of the Opposition’s comment about plan 2 student loans. The Treasury Committee looked at this issue, which is having a very big impact on that generation of young graduates—the engine room of Britain, and the people who will be funding and growing our economy in the years to come, and making sure that the ageing population is supported. We need to do everything we can, and intergenerational fairness is a big strand of the Treasury Committee’s concerns, but let us be clear: who set up plan 2 student loans? It was the previous Government.

I talk a lot about slow politics. Governments should make decisions that will stand the test of time in 10 or 20 years, as well as dealing with the challenges of today and the catastrophes that might occur, either globally or locally, next week. Plan 2 student loans were designed by the Conservative Government and left as a ticking time bomb for this generation to pick up. Although I am saddened that we have not seen a change to the threshold at which repayments are made, I hope that the Chancellor will consider that as part of his longer-term plans, to make sure that this generation has one fewer burden. I hope that we will see some talk about that in the weeks to come.

Before the Chancellor rose to his feet it seems that some bank shares increased in value. I am concerned about that and, with the permission of the Treasury Committee, I will write to the Financial Conduct Authority to see if there is any evidence of leaked market-sensitive information that may have led to that movement, because that would be a very serious issue. On that point, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his very strong clampdown on speculation and leaks ahead of this Budget. He knows, as we all do, that stability is so important. He cannot completely halt wild speculation, but clamping down on leaks from the Treasury and the wider system is very important.

Despite the headwinds, the debt forecast has only slightly worsened. We have seen a Budget that pushes stability, and I welcome some changes in particular. The Treasury Committee looked at cash ISAs and the changes that were proposed in last year’s Budget, and as we said then, it was not the right approach. Building societies use cash ISAs to lend to home purchasers, and they were going to be particularly badly hit. Most people have much less than £20,000 in a cash ISA, and many never get anywhere near £12,000. The average is between £3,000 and £7,000, depending on how we cut the figures, so it is right that the Chancellor has made changes. I look forward to seeing the starter ISA for investors, and the Committee will examine the changes in detail, but the previous proposal had overcomplicated the system. The ISA is a trusted brand, and the Chancellor has taken a good step.

On the subject of building societies and mutuals, in a hidden corner of the Red Book is the announcement that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) has been appointed as the Government’s co-ops and mutuals champion. I commend him for achieving that position following his many years of hard work in this area. As the chair of the Co-operative group of MPs in Parliament, I am delighted that the Government are further leaning into the progress they have already made in supporting co-ops and mutuals. That is important for getting growth and the involvement of people in every community up and down the country, because this is a way of people owning and having a say in the shaping of their services and their outcomes, whether it is a credit union, a food co-op or a childcare co-op—the list goes on. There are many opportunities.

I welcome the reform of lifetime ISAs—again, something that the Treasury Committee produced a report on. The removal of the penalty payment seems like the only just approach to that. We have a challenge when products such as ISAs are created but do not work as well as they could, so I welcome the Chancellor looking at that.

I am delighted to see some changes in housing. In my constituency, house prices are rocketing through the roof, rents are high and thousands of people are living in temporary accommodation, and those in housing are often severely overcrowded. Every weekend I visit people who are living with three children in a one-bedroom flat—a very typical picture—with no freedom or agency to move, because the cost of housing is too high, the cost of rent is too high, and we do not have enough social housing. Indeed, it is cheaper to buy back from a leaseholder who is selling their property than it is to build new houses, so the VAT reduction for housing associations is a welcome first step.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I am a Member who represents a part of the United Kingdom where government is devolved. Despite the good intentions of this Government, the money that goes north sometimes goes into the tube and what comes out the other end is sometimes rather different, particularly on housing. Is that something the Treasury Committee could look at one day, to see whether what is delivered was the intention of His Majesty’s Government?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates a further area of my speech. I believe very firmly in devolution, but there are some caveats. That is something that we may consider. Of course, I chair the Treasury Committee, but I do not make all the decisions for the Committee—it is not an autocracy, unless its members choose to make it that way—so we will discuss that issue.

On housing, there are areas that are too detailed to go into the Budget, but I hope there is some discussion in the forthcoming spending review about system-built housing. In Murray Grove in Hoxton, in my constituency, some millennium products built by Peabody still stand the test of time. They were system-built offsite, which reduces the cost of construction and makes it faster, but we do not have enough throughput in the factories that do this for them to survive and thrive. That is a potential opportunity for us in the UK.

The Chancellor has a huge challenge. We are facing very difficult fiscal circumstances, but the wider picture is that we are seeing some green shoots of hope. According to early estimates, the economy grew by 1.8% year on year in the three months to August—the fastest pace since the country was rebounding from the pandemic in 2022. GDP has grown at an annualised pace of 2.7% so far in 2026, with early estimates indicating that growth has continued into the third quarter, and productivity has grown by more than 1% per worker in every quarter since the end of 2024. There is a degree of hope that if we keep stability and keep focused, we will meet some of the challenges.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Jamie Stone

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

The Joint Committee gave some thought to this, and the view was that members of the Sponsor Body should come to the House as Members representing the House of Commons Commission and others representing the Church Commissioners do to answer from the Back Benches. We learned from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) that the more open we are the better, so I would say that that infrequent appearance might not be enough, and at certain points in the project we might want to have far more open access both to Members of this House and the media, because it is not just Members of this House who need to know about it; this is a taxpayer-funded project that the people of the UK need to know about and they need to know that questions can be asked about it.

We need to make sure we scrutinise this fully and properly. I talked about the election of members to the Sponsor Body. We on the Committee wanted that, but the Government did not accept it. My one caveat about having elections is that we must make sure we have full balance across the House. I will probably want to press this in Committee, because we want to make sure that, for example, smaller parties such as the SNP are not disadvantaged if there is an open vote across the House and Members vote on party lines, as may happen. Given the excellent support and input of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts and others, it would be invidious to cut out a Member because their party label meant they would not secure the votes. That must be considered, but of course in principle I support elections for all the reasons that others have highlighted.

The scrutiny of this project is vital. This House will scrutinise it, the Estimates Commission will put the proposals forward and, thanks to the mechanism worked up with the Procedure Committee through the Backbench Business Committee, we can get those estimates and discuss them and the detail here.

We have made sure that under the Bill the National Audit Office will have the powers to audit the Sponsor Body, the Delivery Authority and the project. The Public Accounts Committee will, as of right, be able to hold evidence sessions on the National Audit Office reports and examine the numbers in detail. I will no longer be the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee when all this happens, although I hope to have some input in the early stages. I am laying down a marker for my successors, however, because the length of the project means that at least another couple of Select Committee Chairs will be looking at this.

[Jamie Stone]

That is incredibly important advice. One thing that assisted us with the Holyrood project was getting public endorsement every so often that the books were fine. I stand full square behind what the hon. Lady has said.

[Meg Hillier]

The Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office is coming to the end of his term at the end of this month, and one item on my list of things to talk to the new Comptroller and Auditor General about is ensuring that there is a good and thorough process. Of course the National Audit Office does an excellent job, but we need to ensure that this is on its radar in the right timeframe and that we work up a way of ensuring that everything works effectively. We need to get in early to ensure that costs are not suddenly ramped up at the end.

I need to talk a bit about costs, and I will come to that in a moment. Other Select Committees will of course have the chance to examine these issues and, as the Leader of the House has said, there will be a further chance for this House to have a say in 2021. It is important that we build in scrutiny of the evaluation of, for example, the jobs and the money and of where the contracts are being let. In our speeches today, we have all been putting pressure on the Sponsor Body seriously to consider having a mechanism for ensuring that the wealth opportunities from this huge, amazing, international project are shared fairly across the UK wherever possible, and we must ensure that it is held to account for any pledges that it makes. We will hold its feet to the fire on this, and other Select Committees will have a role in that regard as well.

I want to touch on the northern estate. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, who is no longer in his place, suggested that it might be better not to glue that project to the main Palace project. However, my Committee believes that it is pretty vital that the Sponsor Body manages both projects, because they are so interconnected. The fact that the cloisters have now been empty for 18 months even though that was an urgent project is not a demonstration of a lack of will—there are many issues involved—but with all goodwill to the Clerks the House, they are not project managers of major projects. The whole point about the Sponsor Body is that it will have the expertise to hold those who deliver these big projects to account and to ensure that they get on with it. It is important that we also hand over the northern estate to a body of people who really have that expertise.

I am pleased that the Ministry of Defence car park issue now seems to be resolved, as it was getting ludicrous. The Committee was horrified to discover that a delay in that area could have meant a three-year delay and hundreds of millions of pounds in extra costs. We will also get future office space and more flexibility over the buildings as a result of any new buildings on the northern estate.

I remember when I visited New South Wales—I was there on holiday; this was not done at the taxpayer’s expense—I went to the head of the Sydney Olympics and was given the opportunity to visit the New South Wales culture minister. They had an amazing project to work with local businesses to help them to get ready to bid for projects on the Sydney Olympics. This helped businesses to learn how to procure and to work out a whole list of everything that would be needed on the Olympics. I would urge the Sponsor Body to adopt a similar approach, so that hon. Members who have already expressed an interest in bringing business, opportunities and work to their constituencies can show their local businesses what will be needed. For example, we will need to know how many wood carvers and stone carvers will be needed, so that the people out there who know how to do those things can gear up and be ready when bidding for that work starts.

I want to finish by talking about the important issue of costs. We need to nail them down, but we must not rush to pluck a figure from the air. The costs that we have been talking about so far—around the £4 billion mark—were indicative figures based on 2014 prices. They are not the true cost of establishing the work necessary to improve this building. That cannot be known until the business case has been worked up and we actually discover what is behind things. There will be a number of known unknowns, because every time we remove a bit of wood panelling there may be asbestos behind it. We just do not know, because the building’s plans are not accurate. There will need to be figures in the business case, but a proper contingency must also be built in that will have to be explained to the Sponsor Body in case the Delivery Authority needs to draw on it, and the relevant bodies need to be held firmly to account. To put inaccurate figures out now would be unhelpful, and we must ensure—the Leader of the House will be on this—that the figures are in the realms of reality.

No matter how expensive the project is, we must be honest with the taxpaying public about what is being spent. However, there will be no blank cheque. The Public Accounts Committee, under my watch or that of any successor, will keep a close eye on things, as will Members of this House, but we need to get on with the project now. We need to get the Sponsor Body in place, and it needs to appoint the Delivery Authority. I congratulate the Leader of the House on, I hope, getting us to a consensus tonight.