Budget Resolutions

Sam Carling Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary opened today’s debate by praising the former Prime Minister and former Chancellor. That may come as a surprise to them both, given that earlier this year the Defence Secretary resigned from the Government, saying in his resignation letter that he could not serve alongside them because of the lack of direction and the drift. It is less than a year since Labour Members cheered and waved their Order Papers at the Budget from the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and it is striking how much continuity there is today with measures that they cheered yesterday, despite being so unhappy with the previous Chancellor.

To illustrate that, I will highlight certain phrases and words we hear from Labour Members on a regular basis, starting with perhaps the most frequent, which is the need to have no austerity. An “end to austerity” is a constant refrain—[Interruption.] I see those on the Front Bench nodding. They might be surprised to see that the OBR report states on pages 21 and 115 that there is an £11 billion shortfall from the year after next for all Departments, other than protected Departments such as Health. The Government have already said that they want to commit to Defence. I do not think the party that stands saying “24 hours to save the NHS” will cut funding to the health service going into an election, but perhaps that is its policy. If not, according to the OBR, Labour will be cutting funding for unprotected Departments by 2.6% in those final three years. There is a paradox about that: only last week, the Defence Secretary came to the House to say that there is urgency in national resilience, yet Departments like the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which would deliver that national resilience, will be the same unprotected ones facing cuts, so Labour Members are cheering a Budget in which there is austerity baked in—[Interruption.] They shake their heads.

Labour Members may have been told by the Labour Whips, “Do not worry—the spending review will fix that”, but having run a spending review, I know that a spending review allocates the funds but does not decide on the quantum. They may have been told, “Do not worry, there will be a election”—maybe there will—but yesterday the Prime Minister was saying the opposite. Either they believe a Budget that has austerity baked in, they think the spending review will fix it, or they do not believe the Prime Minister and think an election will avoid the issue entirely. But it is an odd position for Members who come to the Chamber talking about an end to austerity to then be cheering a Budget where that austerity is in the Red Book numbers.

The second paradox is that Labour Members talk about breathing space. There are policy areas that show continuity with last year’s Budget: the 2p on property income tax is a repeat of last year’s 2p increase—4p in all—with both measures starting at the same time, in April next year. The OBR makes it clear that that will lead to fewer people entering the rental market, fewer landlords and prices going up. The Budget includes a bank tax, again repeating a trick of the former Chancellor, who thought, “If I tax employers with national insurance, it will not go through into a jobs’ tax”, so we have a bank tax on the basis that that will be more palatable. But do not take my word for it: The Times leader on 16 October said it will be a tax on growth, and one of Labour’s favourite advisers, Lord O’Neill, said it will “hobble” growth.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. In the context of the criticism of tax changes for banks, how does he respond to the chief executive of Barclays describing changes along the lines of ones that we have made as “bearable”?

[Steve Barclay]

Of course it will be bearable for the chief executive because he will not take it from his bonus—he will take it by adding it to the mortgage rates and the loan rates that he charges the hon. Member’s constituents. Does the hon. Member honestly believe that the bankers will take that tax from their own bonuses, or does he think they will pass it on to constituents and consumers? That is exactly what The Times, Lord O'Neill and many others have commented: it is a displaced cost that adds to the constraints on businesses. This Government talk about wanting growth in every postcode, but making it harder for businesses to access capital will make it harder for them to expand. As with the measures imposed on landlords, this approach continues that taken by the previous Government.

There is a lack of consistency in the proposals, even measured against those announced in the Labour conference last month. As the Minister pointed out, at the conference the Chancellor talked about how he was aghast at the idea of debt. Well, the OBR document makes it clear that the Budget measures are adding £8 billion of debt this year alone, on top of the £11 billion of additional debt that flows from interest rates and inflation. [Interruption.] Again, a Government who say that they want to reduce debt have a Budget that is adding to debt in a way that will further constrain the growth in every postcode.

Unfortunately I have run out of time, but I suspect that in a few months’ time, as with the last Budget that Labour Members cheered, once the detail becomes more known and they see how it goes against many of the equities that they say that they stand for, we will find this Budget disowned in exactly the same way as the last one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

High energy costs are one of the biggest issues facing both my constituents and the small businesses that our economy needs to thrive, so I am delighted that the Chancellor announced that gas standing charges—which we all know are not fair—will be removed. That comes on top of cost-of-living policies already announced by the Prime Minister, such as removing VAT from electricity—a measure that the Chancellor has now extended—on top of a direct £100 household energy payment eligible for band A to D households. On top of the £150 taken off energy bills at the last Budget, these things add up.

Focusing on energy costs is the progressive thing to do. The poorest 10% of households pay the greatest share of their money on energy, at over 12%. The measures provide support for those most in need: the families, and particularly the children, in poverty in North West Cambridgeshire and across the country. Indeed, the whole Budget reflects progressive principles: 80% of households—all bar the top 20%—will have more money in their pockets from this Budget; the ninth decile breaks about even; and it is only the top 10% that are being asked to pay that little bit more—and it really is only a little more, at 0.1% of their income. That is very much the Labour way.

All the support that we are providing must of course be paid for, and a key part of that will come from delivering growth. And we are delivering growth. Our economy was the joint fastest growing in the G7 in the first half of this year. That comes alongside the news that the IMF forecasts that we are set to deliver a bigger reduction in borrowing over the next few years than any other G20 country. We are one of only two G7 countries to cut our deficit this year, despite all the global headwinds that we face.

In many ways, I feel sorry for the Conservatives, because they have the very difficult job of reading a Red Book full of good news and trying to make it sound bad—[Interruption.] I welcome the discussion in the Budget about lowering business costs, both through business rates relief and freezes. We have heard a lot of criticism that there is nothing in the Budget for hospitality, but about 50% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in the east of England will not be paying any business rates at all. The reforms to regulations will be saving businesses up to £5.6 billion a year if we hit our target.

I encourage the Government to ensure that that also applies to our life sciences sector. I have spoken previously in this Chamber about options for reforming clinical trial regulation such that we save business and the NHS time and money and attract more investment—not necessarily by cutting regulation, but by streamlining it and reducing duplicated effort. An awful lot of different regulators look after clinical trials at the moment, and I think there is a lot of potential to streamline some of that down, save a lot of money and bring more investment into that area.

I will turn briefly to another area I would have liked to see more work on, and something I hope the Government might consider taking forward in the spending review, which is gift aid and the tax exemptions given to charities. There is very little scrutiny over that expenditure, which is sizeable, with more than £5 billion of reliefs for charities in the tax year to April 2026. Of course, the vast majority of charities spend that money well and on good causes, and that is to be commended. However, due to fundamental problems in the law, it is far too easy for organisations that provide very little or no benefit to the public—in some cases, they may even cause active harm—to obtain charity status and, in so doing, claim public money through gift aid and tax exemptions. That fact damages the whole sector and those within it who do such good work.

In July 2025, The Guardian reported that the Kasner Charitable Trust transferred £5.7 million to support an illegal settlement in the occupied west bank. In theory, therefore, the UK taxpayer could have funded an illegal settlement by over £1 million in gift aid through that transaction alone. The fact that that was permissible under our current system clearly shows that major reform is needed, including to Treasury rules, and that significant amounts of taxpayer money could be saved, because that is not an isolated example.

There are many similar organisations—taxpayer-funded charities—that are preaching horrendous misogyny, homophobia and other forms of hatred. This is a monumental waste of our constituents’ money, which we could be redirecting both towards our public services and to tackle violence against women and girls at the same time. I know that that is a priority for this Government; they are showing it in the measures in this Budget, such as the £15 million announced to create a misogyny prevention fund, which will have a real impact.

However, such measures are hugely undermined when the taxpayer is also subsidising major organisations like this. Earlier this week, there was a report of a mosque in which preachers were advising husbands that they could hit their wives. Just yesterday, I became aware of a church with awful posts on its website that deny the existence of marital rape, alongside all sorts of other horrendous misogyny. That church had an income of £5 million, £1 million of which could be taxpayer funding. That has to stop, and I implore Treasury Ministers to consider what options they have to ensure that it does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I am going to give a slightly different speech today, because I think that what the Government are doing with this Budget shows both a material and moral difference between our two sides. For us on the Labour Benches, it has always been clear—indeed, it is in our founding values—that every single person in this country should be able to live a decent life and that out of that we build prosperity for all. Those on the Opposition Benches believe that only some should be able to afford a decent life—a vision that has made us not just materially poorer but morally poorer.

I have written Budgets in the Treasury and in Somaliland. I have seen really difficult Budgets and, make no mistake, this was a difficult Budget at an incredibly difficult time. We face existential challenges, including an affordability crisis, a burning planet, war in Europe—and all of it coming at the same time. Underneath it all is a question that underlines our politics: will we stand strong together to meet this moment, or will we fall apart divided, weaker and poorer?

We made our choice in this Budget: we will see every single person, family and place do even better than before. Families, workers, business and Government will work in partnership to create prosperity. In this Budget we reduced energy bills so that families can afford the basics, but also because when families have more in their pockets, they spend more down the shops, and that helps their local businesses.

We are helping businesses with the things that they require —roads, skills and investment in energy—and we are cutting rates to give them a bit of breathing space as we go into what we all know will be an incredibly difficult winter. For the Government, it is being able to raise the funds that we need in the fairest way possible and in a way that does not damage prosperity. That is why we have a windfall tax on the banks, who have made huge profits in the past few years, and on oil and gas giants. They are making tens of billions of pounds from Iran and Ukraine, so we are making a choice to use some of that money to help cut bills for people in our constituencies across our country.

We know that this works not just because we have the fastest growing economy in the G7 but because it is what our past tells us. We know that it was Bevin’s alliance of labour and capital that helped win the second world war. We know that Attlee built common prosperity based on common sacrifice, all of it from common endeavour, and Blair and Brown renewed a nation. All that built upon the fundamental ideal that we hold, included on our founding membership card and, indeed, today, that we achieve more by standing together through our common endeavour.

There are those who believe differently from us. They believe that we should allow oil and gas giants and banks to make huge, record windfall profits, leave that there and not try and help every single person in this country. We have also seen that Reform, which supports racist thugs and masked people on our streets, will use those kinds of tactics to distract from the fact that it wants to give its crypto-billionaire mates tax cuts. That is who we stand against and that is the ideal that we stand against on the Labour Benches.

We choose a different path. The British people are better than that—better than the anger and the division, but also better than the penury that leads to. We know, on these Benches, what we have always known and seen throughout our history: that we build prosperity for all; that we stand together when each of us can stand as tall; that a nation is only as strong as each of the people who has a stake in it; and that they have a stake in that nation if life is affordable for all. That is the choice that we have made in our history—in our greatest moments—that was the choice that helped us win a war and rebuild our nation afterwards and it was the same choice that saw us build prosperity in our past and, indeed, prosperity in our present. That is what this Budget represents, that is the choice that we make and every single one of us is so proud of it.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has just come to my attention that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made a particularly nasty age-related comment during my speech. I wanted to see, first, if that was in order and secondly, if he might like to say that so that his young constituents can hear what he thinks of them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I did not hear any comments in the Chamber and it is not a matter for the Chair—I did not hear it.