Budget Resolutions

Debate between Meg Hillier and Tim Farron

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It seems, in some ways, a very long time since 2022. Do Members remember 2022? It was when we had a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who put the country in hock to the bond markets, made mortgages rise, and put the British public through a living hell. What a contrast that is with what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done today. She has put money into the NHS, she is backing investment in our country, she is supporting start-ups, and she is supporting the British public in a difficult cost of living crisis caused by the Conservative party.

I want to go into what the Chancellor has said today, but I cannot do that without first making some comments about the Leader of the Opposition. Who was “shambolic”, Madam Deputy Speaker? The last Government. Under them, mortgages went up, and children entered poverty in greater numbers. Which party created child poverty? It was them, not us. Which party has consistently talked down the country since the election, been negative at every stage and downgraded people’s confidence in our country? Which is the party of zero hours contracts? The Conservative party. Which party failed consistently to invest in our schools, the NHS, our prisons and our justice system? The Conservative party.

Under the last Government, the country spiralled. Under the last Government, I spent a decade looking at public spending in the privileged role of Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I saw those mistakes close up. I saw the big nasties that would be left, whichever Government was elected in July last year, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for tackling those challenges. Productivity, on which we have seen challenges as a result of the decisions of the Office for Budget Responsibility, has been low since 2010, and who was in government from 2010 onwards? The Conservative party. The last Government left the legacy—they left the big nasties—and now it is this Government’s job to clear it up.

Amid all the noise, however, we must remember that the markets are listening and that we all need to be responsible: Government, Opposition, and every Member of this House. Of course, speculation always swirls around a Budget; that is inevitable because we are all lobbying, quite rightly, on behalf of our constituents, our local businesses and every other group that we represent. We are all seeking to persuade our Government to do the things that we want done, and we are all impatient to see those things happen yesterday, which is why we were elected to make change. However, the leaks about the Budget were very unfortunate, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will grapple with that and ensure that it does not happen again. The most recent leak of the OBR data, moments before her Budget, is undermining for us all, so we will raise the matter with the representatives of the OBR when they appear before the Treasury Committee next week.

The Committee has looked at a number of the issues on which there was speculation, including child poverty, gambling tax and cash individual savings accounts, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for tackling some of those. Let me deal first with cash ISAs. In a report, our Committee recommended that the Chancellor should not reduce the limit on cash ISAs from £20,000. She has reduced it not to the £10,000 that was being mooted, but to £12,000. For short-term savers, there could be a real issue. With targeted support coming next year, along with work on the advice guidance boundary review, there is an opportunity to bring the British public into a more investing environment, and to encourage them to invest, or invest more. However, for many years, we have all been warned that our capital is at risk—it has been rather like the warning on the cigarette packets that we might die if we smoke—and it takes a long time to turn that culture around.

I pay tribute to the financial literacy and inclusion campaign backed by the Financial Times, which is running a three-year programme at City of London Academy, Shoreditch Park, in my constituency with young people in years 7, 8 and 9 to teach them about financial literacy. They are the investors of the future, but it will take some time for them to reach the point when they can invest. I am pleased that the Chancellor exempted over-65s from the limit, because that short-term saving is important, particularly for an age group who are planning for retirement or, indeed, already in retirement.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s support for start-ups, which are a huge issue in my constituency, and her widening of enterprise support, which will doubtless be considered by our sister Committee, the Business and Trade Committee. Encouraging companies to list in London is absolutely right, and the three-year stamp duty relief will hopefully be enough to encourage that. We have seen too many companies listing elsewhere, and we need them here in the UK to grow our economy and create jobs. There are many technical issues involving reviews of business tax that I am sure we will examine. We are putting our slide rule across all the measures in the Budget today.

My right hon. Friend referred to £4.9 billion of efficiency savings to be made by Government Departments by 2031. That is a potential challenge, and the Public Accounts Committee—another sister Committee—will probably consider that, alongside our Committee. However, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend will give His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs more powers to pursue promoters of tax avoidance schemes; we know what the problems have been in that regard. The Treasury Committee has the privilege and the responsibility of challenging HMRC regularly, and when its representatives appear before us in January, we will be able to ask them more about the matter.

I have been thinking about why we need a Labour Government, and one of the central planks for me, as a constituency MP, was the issue of child poverty. We need a Labour Government because of what the Conservative party did to children living in poverty. There are now 4.5 million such children, and the figure has risen by nearly 1 million since 2012. Two million of them are in deep poverty. One in three live below the poverty line, in 2025, in the United Kingdom. Children are sharing beds with their siblings or parents, and turning up to school tired. Every weekend, I visit people in my constituency and see this challenge. Just last weekend, a woman showed me the bedroom that she shares with her now disabled husband, who had a stroke three years ago. There was a curtain between their double bed and a narrow space so that her daughter could share their room. Luckily, they have a second bedroom, where her two sons sleep in a bunk bed. That is the reality for so many children, and the poverty has an impact on their learning and their ability to perform in the world. It is a shameful stain on this country that when the present Government came to power, the UK ranked 37th out of 39 advanced economies in respect of child poverty.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I agree with everything that the hon. Lady has said about child poverty, and I welcome the lifting of the cap, but is there a little bit of a blind spot in this Government when it comes to rural poverty? Their own figures show that by the end of next year, the average hill farmer will earn barely above half the national minimum wage. Is the hon. Lady as disappointed as I am that the Government have not tackled that in the Budget and, indeed, have not got rid of the family farm tax, which will tax many of those farmers out of existence altogether?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman is a veritable champion of his constituency and of rural issues. There are very important changes to the minimum wage and the living wage, which will have an impact, and there is a lot that can be welcomed for rural areas, but I recognise that his constituency and mine sometimes have very different challenges, and I welcome the fact that he champions that here. Obviously, I have not had a chance to look through the Red Book and the Blue Book, but we on the Treasury Committee will bear that in mind.

Seventy per cent of children in poverty are in working families, so the chutzpah of the Leader of the Opposition talking about people making a lifestyle choice really makes my blood boil. In 60% of households hit by the two-child limit, the parents are in work, and 15% of affected families include mothers whose babies are too young for them to work.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said it better than any of us could: the Victorian rape clause means that women face humiliation. Notionally, it affects 3,600 women, but we on the Treasury Committee heard evidence that women will not put themselves or their children through the humiliation of using that policy. Any policy that required a workaround like that is outdated and long needed to be gone, and I commend my right hon. Friend for tackling the issue.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Tim Farron

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Let me finish my point about doctors’ advice before I move on to the issue of 18-year-olds. Dr Alexandra Mullock, who is a senior lecturer in medical law and co-director of the centre for social ethics and policy at the University of Manchester, said in written evidence to the Bill Committee:

“The freedom for a registered medical practitioner (RMP) to raise/discuss the option of seeking help to die in clause 4(2) is ethically problematic.”

She also highlighted:

“Professional advice regarding treatment will be received by the patient as a recommendation”,

as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) said. That is a really big concern. The UK coalition for deaf and disabled people is very concerned, and would like this provision removed as well.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Does she also acknowledge that, given what we are beginning to know about coercive control, the suggestion by a doctor—innocently; maybe neutrally—that this is an option could be latched on to by someone who is coercively controlling the person who may choose assisted dying, and we would never find out that that had been the case until after the person’s death, if at all?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman highlights an important point in relation to my amendment and others: in this House, we made coercive control illegal in legislation only in recent years. This is such a big issue, and what is different about the Bill—this is why some positions are particularly challenging—is that we are talking about irreversible decisions.

I want to talk a bit about how the teenage brain works. Children and young people are particularly susceptible to being influenced, including into dangerous and risky behaviour. In a number of countries, assisted dying laws have been expanded to allow children and young people to end their lives. We need to be alert to that very real risk. I am impressed by the work of the Children’s Commissioner, who recently published a report into children’s views on assisted dying. It was heart wrenching to read. Those with illnesses and disabilities were particularly concerned about what the Bill means for them. These children have not really had a voice in the debate so far, and there is talk about whether the Bill may apply to children with life limiting or severe progressive diseases.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Meg Hillier and Tim Farron

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Lady is a very experienced Member of this House, and she has made her point. She will no doubt have the opportunity to speak in this Budget debate, and there will be plenty of opportunities across the Committee corridor. I welcome her as a fellow Chair. Committee Chairs are already planning how we will work together to ensure that we hold the Government to account, whichever party we represent.

The fiscal rules are designed to provide fiscal certainty and predictability, to bring a sense of discipline to the public finances, and to reassure the markets, as I have mentioned. I welcome that stability, as will the markets, as the FTSE increase suggests. Given the headroom that the Chancellor has secured under the new rule, the Treasury Committee will be watching how much she invests, because we need to see the growth that she has set out as her goal. That must be sustainable, so it needs to be productivity growth. There is no single solution, but analysis by the Resolution Foundation found that a 1% increase in capital stock increases productivity by 0.4%. We will look closely at this, and at the spending review in 2025.

On tax, the increase in employers’ national insurance to 15% is an understandable measure. It is always challenging to find money in these difficult fiscal circumstances, but the increase brings money into the Exchequer at a faster pace than some of the other measures that were mentioned in the media. I have a wide approach to reading about things. If we read The Daily Telegraph, we will think the world is going to hell in a handcart, but if we read more measured commentary, we will find that the Chancellor is judged well on what she has achieved today.

As the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said, there are concerns about how the measures in the Budget interact. Alongside sister Committees, we on the Treasury Committee will examine those.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady and the Treasury Committee look very carefully at the Chancellor’s proposals on agricultural property relief? They are very likely to do damage to small, family-owned farms, and especially to tenants, who are likely to be evicted as a consequence. Will she look at what that might do—not just for basic justice, but for food security in this country?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

If I were the sort of person to get big-headed as a result of the number of Members asking me to do things that are probably not within my remit, I could extend the remit and the power of the Treasury Committee infinitely. Of course, it is the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. As I say, we Chairs are planning to ensure that we work closely together on issues where there is an overlap of interests, and we will pick up on all these issues. The Government have promised openness, transparency and accountability, and I take my Front Benchers at their word on that. I am sure that the Chancellor and her Ministers will be available to talk to people and address Members’ concerns about specific elements of the Budget.

I welcome some of the other measures that have been announced. The increase in the national living wage will make a huge difference for so many of my constituents. They work hard and are certainly not shirkers, as some Conservative Members might call them, but they can barely make ends meet. In my constituency, many people work four days a week because they earn enough to be able to do so. Others have four jobs over seven days, just to hold body and soul together. I welcome the increase and the removal of age discrimination.

The devolution model makes so much sense in so many ways. On the Public Accounts Committee, we repeatedly looked at the challenge of bidding for pots of funds, which is costly and time-consuming. We need to trust our elected Mayors to make decisions for their area, and the model shows the direction of trust that, hopefully, this Government will continue to go down.

Before the last general election, I listed what I called the big nasties. This was just some of the additional spending that needed to take place on things that had been left, sometimes by the previous Government and, sadly, sometimes by successive Governments. These issues included the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete failure in schools—I welcome the move finally to deal with that—the long waiting lists in the NHS and overcrowded prisons. From the Red Book, it looks as though the Justice Department has had an uplift, although it is difficult to make a full judgment on that in the few minutes I have had to glance through it.

Other things such the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge and Porton Down need investment. These are risky things not to invest in. There is going to be a challenge in public spending even with the increase. Although the increase is welcome, the growth that the Chancellor has called for and is trying to achieve will be required in order to deliver and ensure that we see the spending that we need. Even with the uplift that she highlighted—the 1.5% from next year in day-to-day spending—this is a very tight financial situation for all Government Departments.

The boost to the Department of Health and Social Care is staggering, and welcome. I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee will, among us, hold the Health Secretary to account for his promises to make sure that that is spent well and delivers permanent and lasting change. Also, the capital investment is desperately necessary. It is not that long ago that the previous Government raided capital budgets for day-to-day spending in the NHS. That cannot be allowed to continue.

The investment in defence is also absolutely necessary. There is a huge gap in the defence equipment plan, which I know my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is all over, and she is right to make that increase. I look forward to the path to 2.5% of GDP on defence; never again should we be going below that.

Local government, although it has had a boost, is going to be very squeezed. Again, we will be working with sister Committees to look at that.

The Chancellor also promised to close or reduce the tax gap. That is very bold, and difficult to deliver, so again the Committee will be looking closely at how it is dealt with, as well as at the recovery of fraud moneys, which can be challenging to deliver in any particular timescale.