Budget Resolutions
Scott Arthur Excerpts(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Average households will be £850 worse off by 2029-30, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. That is a consequence of this Budget, with the highest taxes in history, growth down, borrowing up and inflation up. In fact, the Government have missed their inflation target every single month they have been in office, with no projections that they will hit it any time soon. That target is 2%. The last time we hit 2% was in July 2024, when this Government took office. That is the result of a nightmare sequel to a horrendous original. We have had two Budgets, back to back, making people poorer, with more tax for more welfare.
It did not have to be this way; the Chancellor had choices. Instead of raising tax again—this time by £26 billion, with 43 different taxes—she could have cut the size of the civil service back to where it was in 2016. She would have saved £8 billion. She could have taken welfare spending back to where it was just before the pandemic. She would have saved £23 billion. She would have had the money she needed to not raise taxes, with some left over to cut them instead.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It would be interesting to talk through the implications of such a drastic cut to welfare in one single Budget, and what that would mean for people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, particularly the young people with children who will be lifted out of poverty by this Budget.
Joe Robertson
It is one single Budget with a plan over five years, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The best way to lift all families out of poverty and to stop them slipping into poverty is to grow jobs and grow the economy so that we have more money to spend on public services.
We know that the Government wanted to cut welfare. Indeed, they tried to cut welfare spending just a few months ago, but they were held to ransom by their Back Benchers and watered down their plans. Instead of coming back with a properly costed, reformed proposal, we have a £5 billion cash grab. They have given up on tackling the welfare bill altogether. We have more tax for more welfare.
Most people on welfare do not want to be there if they have a choice, but the key word is choice. The Government have to give them choice, by allowing businesses to employ people and by increasing job opportunities, not decreasing them. What happened to the party of a hand up, not a handout? Until Labour rediscovers the central role of businesses in employing hard-working families and in growing the economy, so that we can invest more in public services through growth, people will remain on welfare and our economy will remain sluggish.
I will finish by saying something on transport costs, particularly as the Secretary of State for Transport is in her place. Although I do not agree with her reforms to rail and buses, I share the sentiment behind them: that we should be putting passengers above profit. I continue to ask that she does that not just for rail and buses, but for communities all over the United Kingdom that rely on ferries. While she is freezing the cost of rail, my constituents are paying more and more in ferry fares, because we have providers that are controlled by private equity companies that are unregulated and unlicensed. I know that she would not accept that for any other community across the UK. Of course, I do not hold the Secretary of State responsible for that—it is not a situation that she created—but she is in the wonderful position of being able to do something about it, and I urge her to do so.
I thank the maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), for the talks that he has had with me and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley). I look forward to continuing those conversations because, quite frankly, with private equity trading one of the ferry companies in the past few days, those companies are not going to make the changes that we deserve without the Government stepping in.
Graham Leadbitter
I agree that we need a publicly owned energy company, and I would fully support that. The problem is that we do not have the full powers of an independent country, which are just the normal powers that we would need to do that. I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises that problem. We are nearly 18 months into this Government and their energy price promises have fallen apart, alongside the collapse in trust in the Chancellor.
Secondly, let me come to the Chancellor’s treatment of the North sea. Today, Harbour Energy announced a further 100 job losses, on top of the 350 it announced earlier in the year. Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Aberdeen port and many other sites and companies associated with the North sea energy sector are closing, reducing the workforce or focusing elsewhere in the world, as the sector grapples with a fiscal regime that not only acts as a barrier to investment but is accelerating decline. The latest announcement of job losses is pinned squarely on the Government’s failure to reform the energy profits levy. The decision by the Government to do nothing is akin to Thatcher’s treatment of miners and their communities and the steelworkers at Ravenscraig.
Graham Leadbitter
I would be happy to debate that when it is brought before the House by the Chancellor, if that ever happens.
To accelerate the demise of an industry without ensuring that the right and appropriate time is available for the transition is frankly criminal. I have heard many times Labour Members railing against the impact of Thatcherism in the 1980s—and they are right to do so—yet now they are defending their record of doing the same thing to our oil and gas sector. It is utterly shameful.
Graham Leadbitter
We have made the point repeatedly that there can be additional funding from banks, which I know hon. Members from the Liberal Democrats agree with, and funding could certainly be made available through a wealth tax, which we have supported for a long time.
The one thing I can welcome from the UK Government in this Budget is the removal of the two-child benefit cap, but I have questions for Labour Members. A principled few Members voted in support of the SNP’s amendment to the King’s Speech nearly 18 months ago, including the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I agreed with pretty much everything he said earlier. That could have happened then, but Labour Members chose not to support it. I am glad and grateful that they do now.
Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery
Scott Arthur Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, and for meeting me to discuss the matter yesterday. I appreciate the impact that the closure will have, not just on those refinery workers who are directly impacted, but on the wider economy. We absolutely appreciate that there are ripple effects from a closure like this.
On the statutory redundancy point, we have looked at this, and have pushed to see if there is more action that the Government can take to change or give additional payments. It is not possible for Government to do that, not least because the Insolvency Service has to follow specific rules on creditors and how they operate in the event of an insolvency. However, the owners of the company have profited from this business, and they should do the right thing by the workforce that delivered that for them.
I have agreed to hold a roundtable discussion, and I previously met the two council leaders to talk about this. I am happy to arrange that discussion, and to have it with whoever is useful and wants to participate, because the hon. Gentleman is right about the opportunities. I am happy to engage on the point about North Lincolnshire and business rates. Although the refinery will not continue to be a going concern, we are assessing bids from those who are interested in the site; we hope those bids will deliver jobs and economic benefit, and that business rates income will come from new industries on the site. That is not as good as retaining the refinery in its current form, but we hope we can make some progress.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and particularly for the news that there will be a thorough investigation. I have two quick questions. First, are the reports correct that the previous Government did not meet representatives of the sector for 13 years? I know the Minister said that he had met them recently. Secondly, families will be in crisis when they hear this news, and they will struggle to deal with it. Does he agree that the owner, who I understand is not short of money, has an absolute moral obligation to ensure that those families are supported? Statutory payments are welcome, but the moral obligation has to be made clear.
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for both those points. My understanding from the sector and from the Department is that a meeting has not happened in the past 13 years. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), on the Opposition Front Bench, wants to find me dates when her Government met the sector, I would be really happy to look at them, and at any minutes from those meetings. That would be helpful. There are particular issues for the sector, but also for individual refineries; some are more profitable than others, and some have transitioned to doing other pieces of work. It is important that they learn from one other, and that the Government do what they can.
On my hon. Friend’s final point, I agree that there is a moral obligation here. Having met the workers on the site, I know that they have done nothing wrong. They have worked hard over many years to keep the refinery going, and to deliver a profit. Those who have taken money out of that business should now do the right thing and fund those workers, and I hope that they will respond to my letter in due course.
COP29
Scott Arthur Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I will deal with the wider issues of peatlands, because money was allocated in the Budget for these issues through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That is a very important issue, and the wider issue is also important. We also need to make progress at a global level. The other issues are actually a matter for DEFRA, but I will undertake to write to the hon. Lady on them.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I was proud of the constructive role that the UK played in the negotiations, representing our country and also some of the poorest people on the planet, who are at the absolute frontline of climate change, partly due to the emissions from this country. But COP is not without its critics, despite it being the only platform to progress our climate ambitions. How does the Secretary of State think that the process could be improved? In particular, what gentle advice would he give to anyone thinking about taking over the presidency of a major world economy early next year?
Ed Miliband
I will resist the second half of my hon. Friend’s question, if you don’t mind, Mr Speaker. On the first part of his question, the COP process does have its critics, so I will say a couple of things. First, 15 years ago, when I last attended the COP as Secretary of State in Copenhagen, no country was signed up to net zero. Now, 90% of the world’s GDP is covered by net zero. That is not only because of the COP, but that process of international engagement is important, and it is a forcing mechanism to put world leaders on the spot. Secondly, the reason why it is hard is largely because we have 198 countries all trying to agree, which is difficult. If people can think of improvements to the system, that is great, but that engagement is really important.