What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
11,997 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. She will be aware of my ongoing concerns with regard to Turkish businesspeople who have made their life in the UK after entering under the European communities association agreement, also known as the Ankara agreement. Will she set out how today’s announcement affects that group?
For the purposes of the new planning powers and the rates relief exemptions announced in the Budget last week, what does my hon. Friend’s Department define as a vape shop?
I welcome the fair solution for existing migrant care workers, because they did nothing but respond to a need for their labour that was caused by our care recruitment crisis, which was caused by low wages and inadequate training. What are the Government doing cross-departmentally to prevent future care recruitment crises? How will the contribution of care workers be weighted in the framework in future for those who have arrived or will arrive after May 2025?
First, I want to rebut some of the nonsense that we heard from the SNP earlier. Scotland’s budget is going up by £600 million because of the choices made in this Budget for Scotland’s public services—that is up by £18 billion since Labour came into office—and talking of a £650 million cut is inadvertently misleading this House. I may say something a wee bit ruder outside the House. This Budget will abolish gas standing charges, abolish VAT on electricity bills and give £100 to 1.8 million Scottish households between council tax bands A and D —if it is confirmed that the SNP will choose to hand it over in that way. The prices at the pumps that our constituents complain about have been brought about directly by the US and Israel’s war in Iran, but we have made a choice to freeze fuel duty, which I welcome, and maintain the 5p fuel duty cut till June. That is alongside the red diesel duty cut, which will be welcome in the many eligible sectors, especially agriculture. As for working people in Falkirk, the permanent increase to the tax-free mileage should help traders who use their own vans for work. I also welcome the tripling of the trading allowance to £3,000. This Budget also rightly supports pensioners. Many pensioners in my constituency live on the state pension alone; as it has risen, too many have ended up with the administrative irritation of paying small amounts of income tax, with all the paperwork and worry that that brings. I welcome the new pension tax allowance from April 2027, which addresses that directly. It means that pensioners whose income is no more than the full state pension will not pay income tax.<span id="669" class="column-number" data-column-number="669"></span> To deliver good growth in my postcode, it is vital that we invest in the Grangemouth industrial complex, as I said last week. I welcome the British industrial competitiveness scheme, and the back-payment to 2026, but while I acknowledge the heightened cost of extending it to every manufacturing business—I believe that would be about £3.5 billion—I think, as do other colleagues, that we should look at extending it, especially for manufacturing businesses that are reliant on gas, and that have decarbonisation timescales that are not as quick as we might like. I welcome the restatement of the Government’s intent to include refined products in the carbon border adjustment mechanism. It will be a vital tool in levelling the playing field, after the undermining of domestic refining. The same un-level playing field led to the closure of Grangemouth, because it was not dealt with over multiple years. A cross-party group wrote to the Treasury regarding this. I think it is important that we put a deadline on when we will introduce this, because this positive signal needs to be translated into real protection for our existing refining sector, as well as for the bio-refining sector that the Prime Minister rightly believes has huge potential to deliver for Grangemouth. Turning to the Acorn project, I agree with the principle of getting better value for taxpayers’ money across Government capital plans, so that we can free up money for defence. I agree that that should include energy projects in our constituencies. Some of the rhetoric that we have heard from the SNP and their Ministers on supporting the project has been downright reckless and self-defeating. However, I hope that the Minister can acknowledge that much of the reasonable scrutiny on this has not been met with the clearest of answers. I would like to hear confirmation that the new route for previously committed funding has the support of all existing and committed commercial partners, and confirmation about the amount of funding committed already that is not being changed. I would also like to know why funding has been changed for Acorn but not for other carbon capture, usage and storage projects, such as Viking in Humberside, and, more broadly, what the changes will mean for reindustrialisation in communities like Grangemouth that are supposed to benefit from this infrastructure, especially considering that they have not had a fantastic experience with the debt equity model of the National Wealth Fund. This Budget creates breathing space for families in Falkirk who are worried about the end of the month, and for the poorest pensioners who dread getting a tax letter. It lifts some of the pressure. This Government have shown in the Budget that they will act for working people, pensioners and industry. I ask Ministers to turn that breathing space into future certainty, particularly for an industry that can define the next 50 years positively, through new jobs, as it has defined the last 50.
Does my hon. Friend also call on the SNP to extend the business rates relief that our Labour Government have provided, especially considering that they have historically maintained a stricter system for high streets such as those in Paisley and Falkirk?
I would like to ask a question on behalf of a constituent of mine who has been in touch today. He came across the world from Pakistan to Islington to work as a care worker nearly five years ago, so he is greatly relieved that he will be able to get his ILR quickly and that his family will get some security. But that family has now been joined by a little boy with a rare genetic condition. Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the family will be able to apply for additional support once dad has got his ILR, or will it be necessary for them to wait until he is actually a citizen?
I appreciate your helping me not to be in trouble with my Whips, Sir Roger. I want to start by saying that everyone in this room and in this place wants to protect children. We have different ways of getting there—some of us support the ban, some of us do not—but never be in any doubt that we recognise that there are problems and are debating the best solution. Do bans work? Well, let us follow the evidence. Hon. Members will not be surprised that, as a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I will look at the evidence for what has already worked and what is happening at the cutting edge of science right the way through. Bans do not work everywhere that they have been tried; in fact, the bad activity just moves. But the bans are designed by people who, like the majority of people here, other than my younger hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), are Gen X or baby boomers—I am not trying to be rude Our experience and understanding of social media is very different from our children’s. They do not see Facebook as social media because they do not care about Facebook. We could ban it all we want and they would be like, “I’ve never been on it in my life, nor do I ever intend to.” They understand that there is no difference between social media and other platforms because everything is now social media: every gaming platform, every chatroom and everything that we now see. Let us look at what actually matters and what is actually happening. I do not think it is part of the conversation: we hear a lot about TikTok, Instagram and Facebook because we know about those platforms, not because that is necessarily where children are getting harmed the most. I did a survey of more than 500 young people in Milton Keynes and, given that the number of signatories from Milton Keynes Central is 503, I think they all signed the petition and found three more signatories. They were clear about where they are spending time, where they have problems, where they see material that is not all right, and where they are approached by strangers. That is happening on the platforms that we do not talk about. YouTube has amazing educational content, but it is also one of the places of most harm. Roblox is a lot of fun for gaming but that platform, although it is advertised to children, is actually one of the worst. I do not know if any hon. Members know about “the Com” and “764”, which are groups on Roblox and Discord that recruit primarily vulnerable people. They get those people to video themselves while they are self-harming and have watch parties as they self-harm each other. If we do not include Roblox, Discord and 764, we are not protecting children. In the UK, child sexual abuse images are overwhelmingly shared and distributed via WhatsApp. The radicalisation and co-ordination for things such as the riots that we sometimes see on our streets is overwhelmingly happening on Telegram and Signal. We are not talking about those places. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for North <span id="278WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="278WH"></span>West Cambridgeshire said, it is a whack-a-mole approach if we write a list and then have to add platform names to it. In Australia, they would have to add LinkedIn to it because that is where people under 16 will now participate in the same kind of activity as they were before. We have taken important action. We have banned the taking of child sexual abuse pictures and videos at device level. That is really important. Let us look at what else could work and what the evidence tells us. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) used the example of toys. She is right that we do not want toys or products that harm, but we do not ban the toy, we ban the thing that is wrong with it. Train sets used lead paint: we did not ban all train sets, we banned those with lead paint on them. We need to make it safe. That is why exemptions are so important: we need a route back because that will create behaviour change. We need safe places for children to learn, to play and to explore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said. Quite famously, I have published a nine-point plan, which I have shared quite extensively and spoken to industry about. Although it is not the be all and end all, it shows how we can create a path back if platforms meet its nine requirements. First, there should be no stranger contact: it should not be possible to contact a young person and take them on to another platform. That is not to say there are not important areas for which we could have mediated places that are safe for young people to explore sexuality and other things, but strangers should not be able to deliberately target young people on platforms. There should be no algorithm feed for under-12s. They should be using their executive function to choose what they want to watch next, not seeing what the algorithm thinks they should see. There should be only a limited algorithm feed for those aged 12 to 18. That is already happening on some platforms. In fact, some young people said to me, “I just turned 18 and I want to go back to my limited algorithm feed; I don’t like the feed I am on now.” There should be time limits by age. The inquiry of the Science and Technology Committee into digital childhoods found that time limits and age-related curfews would be the most important changes we could make. The biggest impact on mental health from social media comes from children having it in their bedrooms: they are not sleeping the hours that they should be sleeping. Curfews at device-level could save children from fear of missing out—or FOMO, as they like to call it—and let them get to sleep. The second biggest impact on young people’s mental health is from age-inappropriate material. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke about horrific stuff with eating disorders. We must be clearer that that has real consequences. We have yet to see Ofcom use all its powers in that area. I would like to empower parents and young people by having British Board of Film Classification ratings on material so that parents are clear whether it is appropriate for their child. In addition, we have not even talked about the online advertising guidelines. Are the adverts popping up in YouTube Kids videos appropriate for children? Nobody is looking at that. The adverts that pop up in their little apps or games—“Melo’s cat cafe”, or whatever they are <span id="279WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="279WH"></span>playing—again, are not being properly regulated, although we have rules that tell us what is age-appropriate advertising. We should also have device-level age checks. Age checks are always difficult, but doing them at device level, and being clear that, when a parent passes their device down, they should clear it and set it with the proper age, is more secure than any of the things that we have talked about when it comes to children using fake identities to get on to sites. I do not want to talk about other people’s childhoods, but I may have used a fake ID in the past to buy a beer—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I know—shocking! The same thing is happening online. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury brought up a really important point about AI companion chatbots. This is not all right. If people do not have to pay for these homework chatbots, companion chatbots or romantic chatbots—if they do not have to pay for the product—they are the product. We have very strict rules from the Information Commissioner’s Office on data protection for children, but I have yet to see the ICO take proper action on this. Our children’s data is being fed in. The grooming and sexual behaviour is not an end in and of itself; the aim is to keep the children online to mine their data. That should be stopped right away. I thank everybody for coming to the debate, and the 503 people in Milton Keynes who signed the petition. By working together, and working with young people and parents, we can get to a solution that provides the benefits of an online childhood without all the problems that we see today.
Milton Keynes MPs are like buses: you wait a long time, and two come at once.<span id="661" class="column-number" data-column-number="661"></span> It costs us £133 billion every year because women are excluded from paid work on equal terms with men. I have worked closely with Members from across these Benches, as well as the Women’s Budget Group and the Good Growth Foundation, to put together an unashamedly female agenda for how we can realise the £113 billion of gross value added that we would see every year if women could fully participate in the economy. I want to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends the Treasury Ministers for their engagement on this really important document. I want to talk about what this Budget delivers for women. It bolsters us, it promotes us and it protects us. It bolsters us with paternity leave and adoption leave for self-employed people, with breakfast clubs and with VAT cuts in energy bills. We know that, more often than not, it is women who are trying to make the household bills add up at the end of the month and women who are the first people in the family to go without when there is not enough. The commitment to the gender pay gap and pay transparency is so important, but women are business owners too, particularly on our high streets, where our hairdressers and nail technicians are seeing business rate cuts. High-tech, high-investment, science-based industries will also have fair investment practices, with tech-forward standards to improve workplace culture, £200 million—double the previous commitment—for women-led businesses through the British Business Bank and a scale-up programme to help them flourish. Finally, this Budget protects women and girls. It establishes for the first time a misogyny taskforce to tackle the core issues that are holding women back, keeping them scared and destroying equality in our society, with £55 million of funding over two years to meet the commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. It will strengthen our law enforcement activity, improve protection for victims, and identify and disrupt harmful behaviours. This is a Budget for women, because if women succeed, our country succeeds.
At the close of the third day of debate on the Budget, I will not go into all the detail that I might have gone into. I will concentrate on support for our high streets, and the transfer of power from Westminster and Whitehall. Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to go to our high street and talk to business owners. I talked, for instance, to Tom Berry, who owns probably the coolest record shop in Stroud, Sound Records. His business rates have been reduced from £400 a month to nothing. A great many businesses have had all their business rates removed because of the change to the small business rate relief threshold. A number of pubs now pay no business rates. For properties worth over £18,000, there will be a two-year real-terms rates freeze, providing much-needed stability at a time of great global economic uncertainty. I was delighted that the small producer relief on alcohol duty became more generous. Stroud Brewery and, in particular, my village brewery, Uley Brewery, have benefited. Uley Brewery’s famous pint of Old Spot ale will soon be available in the Strangers’ Bar, so I hope that Members will sample it. I would also like to say a little about pubs and VAT. This was not in the Budget, but we are looking at trying to reduce VAT on hospitality. A blanket cut to 10% would cost £12 billion and benefit organisations such as McDonald’s, but having a targeted approach would really help pubs. On devolution, I strongly welcome this Government’s intention to shift power out of Westminster and Whitehall. We have one of the most centralised countries in the world, with over 95% of tax revenues going to central Government. We in Gloucestershire do not have a devolution deal at the moment, and I ask all parties involved to form a consensus, so that we can benefit from devolution. That is one of the best things that this Budget delivers. The Budget has 98 measures to help with the cost of living. There is also £65 million for a community asset programme, which will help with community buy-outs. A little hidden thing is probably the most important thing in this Budget: prevention is ringfenced. That will be transformative for preventive therapies, particularly in health and elsewhere. I really welcome this Budget. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for including me.
Sir Roger, you will not be surprised to hear that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for the way in which he introduced the debate. I want to start with a couple of anecdotes. Over the weekend, a mum messaged me to say that her daughter was getting bullied at school. She lives in Currie in my constituency. I do not know the details yet—I asked her to email me them—but I can almost guarantee that social media will be involved in some shape or form, because so far, every bullying case that we have dealt with in my office has had a link to social media in some way. A couple of Sundays ago, I was at St Mungo’s church in Balerno, and a mum was talking to me about her kids and their use of phones. It was a time to reflect, because we have come a long way since the 2024 election. Kids starting any state school in Edinburgh next year will not have access to their mobile phones in school—hopefully, by that time, they will not have social media on their phones anyway. However, we have to accept that it has been a bumpy ride getting this far; there have been a few steps forward and an occasional step backwards. None the less, all progress is progress. In the time since I was elected, I have spoken to many, many people in my constituency. The vast majority of them were parents, but those parents included GPs, teachers and, in one case, a paediatrician. They all agreed that they were concerned about the harm caused both by smartphones in school and the use of social <span id="280WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="280WH"></span>media. We have had around 600 emails from people, the vast majority supporting some sort of ban. I have also spoken to young people in schools, at Scout meetings and so on, about a ban. All that led me to support a ban in full—the fullest possible ban, actually. However, I then met the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the Molly Rose Foundation, and they were very clear about some of the cliff-edge aspects, which other hon. Members have spoken about. I must say that on the day the announcement was made that we were proceeding with a ban, I felt uncertain because of those conversations with the NSPCC and others about what a ban would mean. It was only once I saw that they were supporting it, at least tentatively, that I felt able to support it that day. I welcome the Brianna Ghey Legacy Project also supporting a ban, and I thank Brianna’s fantastic mum, Esther, for all the work she is doing. I acknowledge the many good points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) on some of the impacts that a ban could have, but there are also more trivial impacts, such as those in Scotland. For example, the Scottish Government understand what young people are thinking by collecting data online via an organisation called Young Scot—everybody in Scotland knows about that organisation—but it will now be much harder to do so without having access to people on social media for that perfectly legitimate reason. I want to recognise that any ban must only be part of a much broader effort to ensure that young people are as safe as possible online. We know that bans are already in place overseas, but they are not perfect. No matter what restrictions the Government put in place, some children will continue to use restricted platforms, while some services will inevitably fall outside the scope of any ban. Of course, exactly the same arguments were made when the Government put an age limit on accessing pornography and other harmful content online, but we all agreed that putting friction between young people and pornographic websites was entirely legitimate. While I have reservations about this ban and whether it should be complete, I accept that any friction between young people and harmful social media content is a good thing.
Like so many problems in the world, the solution can be found in Scotland. Young people in Scotland can use a Young Scot card to verify that they are 16, but I understand my hon. Friend’s point. It is critical that, alongside robust age-assurance measures, online platforms be required to be as safe as possible for all users, both young people and adults. A ban cannot be used as an excuse by companies not to comply with their responsibilities, and important questions remain about the scope of the ban and the regulation of high-risk <span id="281WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="281WH"></span>features. In July, I welcomed the Government’s further commitment to require infinite scrolling features to be switched off by default. However, there is more work to be done on location-sharing features for under-16s, as well as further regulation of AI chatbots. I accept and understand the point that for some people, such as those who are struggling with mental health problems, health problems or perhaps their sexuality, going to social media may be a source of really good information. However, I am also concerned that young people who go to social media for advice on those really sensitive issues might end up interacting with people whose motivations are not good, and I think we have to be very mindful of that.
I absolutely agree. Of course, the vast majority of people who go online to seek help in that way do find it, but there is a small minority of often very vulnerable young people who we should all be concerned about, and we have a duty to protect them. Both the Mental Health Foundation and the NSPCC identified AI chatbots as a clear ongoing risk to child safety. I am a member of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group, and I pay tribute to the important work that it carries out. I was therefore deeply concerned by the recent report from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, which found that ChatGPT will provide vulnerable people with restrictive diet plans or advice on how to hide eating disorders from their families within 20 minutes of a conversation starting. Tests found that simple prompts such as, “This is for a presentation,” or, “It’s help for a friend,” allowed users to circumvent the very weak barriers in place inside ChatGPT. Clearly, the Government should act on this issue. Even more concerning was the finding that little progress has been made in addressing eating disorder-related content on AI interfaces since a similar study was conducted in 2023—almost three years ago. Alongside numerous other examples, this demonstrates that online services cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. We have to ensure we can trust Ofcom to regulate in this area—we are not quite there yet. This cannot be acceptable. Advice on sustaining eating disorders, as well as advice on suicide, self-harm or other substance abuse should not be readily available to young people. To create a safer environment, the Government must continue to take action to push online and AI services into effective regulation. Self-regulation will not work. Time and again platforms have demonstrated that they will not place our children’s safety before their profit. While I welcome the proposed plan, I hope that it is not an end point but a starting point for a conversation about how best to ensure that the online world is as safe as possible for everyone who wishes to use it.<span id="282WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="282WH"></span> I want to go back to the cliff-edge point that was made earlier. I am really concerned that when this ban goes live people will suddenly lose access to services they have relied on. It would be good to hear how the Government will manage the transition so that it is not a cliff edge but a soft entry into what will hopefully be a safer world.
Surely any legislation should prioritise the safety of children rather than privacy?
I am just trying to get the sequencing right in my head. The Government are going to put regulations before Parliament before the end of the year. We all welcome that. Will it include Ofcom’s thinking about individual platforms, or do we have to wait for that? If we have to wait, when will we hear from Ofcom on that point?
I welcome this statement and its greatly imaginative measures. I particularly welcome the fact that care workers will have a second opportunity to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Does the Home Secretary agree that the care workers whom we welcome to this country are every bit as valuable as the highly paid doctors, entrepreneurs and industrialists who come here with high salaries?
For over a year, I have argued for changes to Sheffield’s local plan, with a fairer distribution of green-belt sites across the authority, greater use of brownfield sites, high streets and retail spaces, densification on transport routes, a better application of the Government’s golden rules, and strengthened powers to utilise long-term empty properties to ease the pressure on Grenoside, Chapeltown and Ecclesfield. Consequently, I am calling for a pause in the local plan process, especially in the light of new evidence demonstrating that all the green-belt parcels in my constituency are now assessed as containing our best agricultural land, including Town End farm. Will the Minister meet me and Sheffield colleagues to discuss the local plan, and to ensure that Sheffield builds more homes, especially the social and affordable homes that we need?
My constituent, Mr Welch, and his sister have been left completely trapped by the death of their mother last year. Despite slashing the price of her assisted living flat from £200,000 to £60,000, the flat remains unsellable because the market has collapsed, and the £1,300 a month service charge risks wiping out the estate. Will the Minister urgently review the guidance and support available to bereaved executors in this position, and meet me to discuss the recourse available to such families?
Gravesham is one of the youngest boroughs in Kent, but it is the fourth highest in the south-east for young people not in education, employment or training. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the youth hubs on our high streets in Gravesham, so that young people can find a way back into education, employment and training?
I supported the Home Secretary’s original proposals and the tougher measures she has been taking since she came into post. I am also pleased that she made the point clearly about disqualification because of a criminal record. Has any assessment been made by the Department of how many of these care workers will remain in the care sector after the qualifying period?
It is fair to say that my constituents in Ealing Southall will not all have been glued to the telly last Wednesday to watch the Chancellor’s speech. Instead, due to wars abroad, many of them will have been trying their best to feed hungry kids, who were off for half term, or stressing about whether to turn the heating on or not. After years of austerity, my constituents have spent more than a decade too worried about their daily lives to be able to pay much attention to Budget day, and all the talk of GDP, OBR and CPI does not seem to have any impact on their lives. This Budget changes that. By cutting energy bills and giving 34,300 households in my constituency a £100 council tax rebate, this Budget recognises the families in Ealing Southall worried about getting through this winter and the next. By reducing tariffs on everyday items, this Budget recognises the hard choices that mums in Ealing Southall have to make every day. By permanently raising the tax-free mileage rate to 55p, this Budget recognises the many nurses, plumbers and care workers in Ealing Southall who use their car for work. By allowing carers to work more hours without losing their entire benefits, <span id="646" class="column-number" data-column-number="646"></span>this Budget recognises the situation of many carers in Ealing Southall. The Leader of the Opposition dismisses those changes, but in doing so she simply shows how out of touch she is with the reality of working people’s lives. Small changes such as those matter. As well as giving people breathing space, this Budget takes the big decisions needed to finally undo the damage of 14 years of the Conservatives. Investing in skills and apprenticeships so that my constituents can get better-paid jobs is the best way to protect them from the uncertainties of foreign wars and global crises. This Budget’s £15 million investment to restore the union learning fund is one example of that. The Leader of the Opposition dismissed the union learning fund as a “random new scheme employers don’t want”, but in fact it is a brilliant old scheme that 78% of employers said they were hugely supportive of until the Tories got rid of it. Yet again, the Leader of the Opposition shows how out of touch she is. The new union learning fund will address the challenges of today and help to reskill the workforce to take on jobs in AI and advanced manufacturing. It will help the Somali Uber drivers in my constituency to get help from their union, the GMB, when they fear losing their jobs to driverless cars. This Budget also invests in apprentices such as Jack and Aidan, who I met when I visited West London College earlier this year. They can see buildings being built outside their window, and the new apprenticeship brokering scheme will help them to work on those sites. Although they might not have been glued to the telly last week, when the kids had all been fed, the elderly parents had been looked after and the working day was done, people in Ealing Southall switched on their telly and their heating, and they saw a Government who are giving them not just the breathing space they need to make their lives a little easier right now, but the tools they need to face the future with confidence.
I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the measures that he laid out in his Budget last week, and for his focus on giving my constituents breathing space as we navigate through tough global headwinds. Like him, I pay tribute and offer my thanks to the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). It is clear that through her work and clear focus on fiscal discipline, she helped to stabilise the economy, despite the significant headwinds, and to create the headroom that has enabled us to take the positive actions set out in this Budget. I am lucky to have my office on Leigh Road in Leigh-on-Sea. Along with Leigh Broadway, it is a thriving high street, full of small independent shops and hospitality businesses, including Tiny, a sandwich shop, Juice Bay, which does fantastic smoothies and juices, and Float On Records. They are all new businesses and it is great to see so many new businesses opening despite the challenges we have faced of late. That shows me that there is confidence in our economy and belief in our country. And it is not just in Leigh: Mez, a delicious Turkish restaurant, recently opened in Westcliff—I can vouch for that as I had my dinner there on Saturday. However, I have listened to businesses in my constituency that tell me that sometimes things can be challenging. That is why I am delighted by the Government’s announcement that more retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will be completely exempt from business rates, meaning that around 52% of those types of business in the east of England will pay absolutely no business rates whatsoever. That is help for businesses. An additional 484 businesses in my constituency will have their business rates frozen in real terms until 2029, giving business owners time to plan ahead, while many others will see their business rates reduced. When my constituents get home from their days out shopping, they will know that they have support with paying their bills. In addition to extending the 0% rate of VAT on electricity, an enormous 39,520 households in my constituency will benefit from the £100 payment to combat rising energy costs. I know that will help many people, from young families through to pensioners. Speaking of pensioners, I welcome the excellent news that pensioners on low incomes will not have to pay income tax on their state pension. I am glad to hear the announcement that pensioners who rely solely on their state pension income will get to keep all of it. The Budget also provides the security that comes with knowing <span id="678" class="column-number" data-column-number="678"></span>that pensions will continue to rise in line with earnings, while the adjusted triple lock will mean we can focus on providing a high-quality national care service. Finally, I was really glad to hear that self-employed fathers and partners will now get statutory paternity pay. I have personally championed that, alongside many colleagues, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for her work in this area and in championing this cause. This Budget shows that the Government are listening to people in my constituency and taking action to fix the issues they have raised. The constituents I spoke to at the weekend know that the times that we are in and that we face are difficult, and they are grateful for everything this Government are doing to support them.
When the Education Committee looked at online harms, we had every major social media corporation before us. They did not recognise our characterisation of their features as inherently addictive. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with that kind of denial going on, we have very few options available other than to ensure that corporations’ access to our children is restricted? That is how we should look at it, rather than as restricting children’s access to social media.
It is a pleasure to close this Budget debate on good growth in every postcode. I thank Members from across the House for their contributions in today’s debate. In particular, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) for her fantastic maiden speech. She spoke powerfully of the “everyday way”, in her words, that people in her part of London look out for each other. I know that she will look out for her constituents every single day. I, along with Members from across the House, I am sure, warmly welcome her to the Labour Benches. The Budget last week was a Budget to provide breathing space now and fresh hope for the future. It backed British business to unleash growth in every postcode and it kick-started the changes needed to put our country on a better course. It was also a Budget set against the backdrop of global economic storms, with trade tensions acting as a drag on global growth and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine approaching the end of its fifth year. These shocks may be global, but the effects are being felt here at home. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, we will spend £14 billion more each year on debt interest compared with the previous forecast. The Government’s responsibility is, of course, to determine how to respond to that. We have chosen to respond by using some of the headroom, which was built up last year, to absorb the impacts of the war and to protect the economy and family budgets as much as possible. We have also chosen, crucially, to meet the fiscal rules in full, with borrowing falling in every year of the forecast. Britain’s economic reputation was badly damaged under the Conservatives—so badly damaged, in fact, that the IMF publicly warned them to change course. The contrast now could not be clearer. The IMF said recently that the UK “stands out” as a country where we are taking “action to reduce the debt and deficit” and that action “has been taken decisively”. Despite the warnings from forecasters and the gloomsters on the Opposition Benches that our economy would slow down, Britain has defied expectations this year. The OBR has upgraded the UK’s growth forecast and in the first half of this year we had the joint-fastest growth in the G7. Productivity growth is up at 2.2% a year, compared with an average growth rate of 0.5% a year between 2015 and 2024.
The hon. Member is right to raise the fact that we are spending a large share of our budget on debt interest costs; £1 in every £10 is spent paying the interest on our debt. That was an increase that took place under the Conservatives after the spike in interest rates in 2022 under Liz Truss’s mini-budget, and the apprentice to Liz Truss is now the shadow Chancellor. Real wages have risen more since the election than in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government. Opposition Members talked about the private sector in the economy. I would point out to them that whole-economy <span id="688" class="column-number" data-column-number="688"></span>investment and business investment have grown by more in this Parliament so far than they did in the entirety of the last Parliament. We are turning the economy around from the hellscape it was under the previous Government. We are building on our recent economic resilience through this Budget. We are delivering immediate measures to help with rising energy bills: a £100 household energy payment directly to those living in property bands A to D in England, alongside a reduction to 0% VAT on electricity until July. We are also abolishing gas standing charges on household energy bills, while extending the 5p fuel duty cut and the cut to red diesel. We are reducing bills by up to 25% for more than 10,000 eligible businesses from next April through the British industrial competitiveness scheme.
I cannot speak to the individual businesses in the hon. Member’s constituency, but I can point him to the forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility that revises up employment by 200,000—employment increases every year of that forecast. We are also making changes to support workers by increasing the national minimum wage and national living wage. We are increasing the higher mileage rate and making permanent the increase to the standard mileage rate announced earlier in the year, and we are backing our high street businesses, with retail, hospitality and leisure properties seeing their business rates either frozen in real terms, reduced or cut to zero next year. The Secretary of State spoke powerfully and convincingly of the changes that this Government are making on devolution to drive good growth in every postcode, so I will not run through the points that she opened with. I was glad to hear that hon. Friends in constituencies where we will be extending devolution in England, particularly those towns and communities that missed out on the first wave of devolution under the previous Government, welcome that continued roll-out. It will mean that over 90% of England’s population is now on track to be covered by a strategic authority in the next couple of years. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), raised the issue of energy when opening the debate for the Opposition, and it is worth covering before we wrap up. At the Budget, the Chancellor set out a new pathway for energy that the 10-year plan will build on. Our priority is to bring energy costs down, to help business compete and to help families cope. Cheaper electricity will also boost electrification, increase our energy security and help decarbonise the whole economy. First, we are addressing levies and policy costs on bills. The Opposition loaded £100 on to bills via levies; this Labour Government have already taken £150 off energy bills at the last Budget. The Chancellor when further last week, by drawing a line in the sand on levies. He has confirmed that there will be no new costs added <span id="689" class="column-number" data-column-number="689"></span>to energy bills, with a comprehensive cost-control framework to follow at the spending review. He is also abolishing plans, first set out by the Opposition when in government, to add a further £10 a year to bills for hydrogen projects. Secondly, we are backing network investment, adding new generation only if it is affordable and the grid can keep up. Between 2016 and 2020, network investment declined in real terms under the previous Government, just when it was clear that more intermittent power would mean that we need more capacity. Now that they are in opposition, the Conservatives have no serious energy policy left. Their only real answer is to retreat in full from net zero, banning people from being parliamentary candidates for the Conservative party if they support net zero by 2050. That is a big mistake, and one that I am confident the British people will reject at the next election. In the Budget, we also committed to procuring clean power through the next auction round only if we are confident that it will lower bills. We will reform contracts for difference by allocation round 9 to support the lowest-cost system, fixing market distortions and siting assets in the right place. To Members who are committed to net zero on both the Government and Liberal Democrat Benches, let me be clear that it is only by getting electricity prices down, and ensuring that new clean power does not run ahead of the grid, that we can credibly achieve our net zero goals. I will turn to a couple of points made by Members before I conclude. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) asked a number of questions about the Acorn project; I reassure him and Members on both sides of the House that the Government remain committed to Acorn and want to see it succeed. The change announced last week switches funding from grants to loans or equity stakes, which we hope will provide better value for money for the taxpayer. The existing partners confirmed that approach last week, setting out that the Budget announcement does not change Acorn’s current development programme. The relevant Minister in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will be meeting the developers later this week. Acorn is not the only scheme to be affected by recent prioritisation decisions. In fact, some schemes in England have been stopped entirely. A number of Members on the Government Benches also raised the mineworkers’ pension scheme; they and others on these Benches have been relentless in their <span id="690" class="column-number" data-column-number="690"></span>advocacy for mining communities. I particularly note the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). It was a powerful contribution, and it was heard loud and clear by those on the Treasury Bench. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said last week, he knows that the job is not done, and he will go on to ensure the full transfer of the guarantor’s fund. I know that he is working at pace to agree a way forward. This is a Budget to deliver good growth in every postcode. It is underpinned by fiscal discipline, with borrowing falling in every year. It is the most decentralising Budget in modern British history, pushing power and resources out across the country. It marks an important moment in the history of UK energy policy, with a firm commitment to putting cheap electricity first. The Opposition added £100 to bills; we have taken £150 off. We are also drawing a line in the sand when it comes to new build costs. This Budget supports businesses on the high street, taking 70,000 smaller high street properties out of business rates altogether; and in industry, by implementing a 25% discount to electricity bills for heavy users. Of course, we have also prioritised helping families now, with £100 off energy bills this winter for 20 million homes, funded through higher bank taxes, which the Opposition oppose. This is a big Labour Budget built on strong Labour choices—breathing space for today and fresh hope for the future. <em>Ordered,</em> That the debate be now adjourned<em>.—(</em><em>Rachel Hopkins</em><em>.)</em> <em>Debate to be resumed tomorrow.</em>
I just want to say something that I think everybody in this House recognises, which is that the Home Secretary is probably the first person in this job for two decades or more who has really got to grips with this system, and she has achieved a great deal. She also puts up with people projecting on to her what they think her views about immigration should be. Will she say why rebuilding public confidence in the immigration system is so important for social cohesion?
I welcome the Home Secretary’s focus on fairness. People know that this country has a set of rules, and we all should adhere to them, whether we arrive in this country or are born here. The Home Secretary raised the matter of English language. Many people have settled already, and some have come in as spouses, without good English. This is a very gendered issue, with many women in particular trapped because they do not have access to English. Is she working with colleagues across Government and society generally to make sure that better English language teaching is available, so that people are not excluded and are able to participate fully?
I commend my right hon. Friend for consulting so widely in developing the earned settlement proposals and for listening to the representations of care workers in particular. I must express my astonishment at the refusal of Conservative Members to accept moral, social, financial or political responsibility for their failed immigration policies. These proposals will nevertheless adversely affect many. May I raise in particular early career researchers—postdocs and so on—who will not be earning £50,000 a year but will be contributing to our scientific understanding? Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the impact on our science base?
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and let me add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) on her excellent maiden speech. This is a Budget to create growth in every postcode, and nowhere is better placed than Newcastle to manufacture, innovate and grow if given the tools and opportunities to do so. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has clearly recognised this, allocating funding for investment and giving welcome attention to our region’s economic potential with the announcement of the international investment summit in Gateshead next spring. We have always been a city that builds, that innovates, that delivers, whether it is in advanced manufacturing, engineering, digital technology, energy or professional services. It was growing up in Newcastle surrounded by the legacy of great Geordie engineers and inventors, in a culture that championed making and building things, that inspired me to become an engineer. The north-east hosts world-leading companies and research institutions, but after 14 years of Conservative austerity, my constituents still find significant barriers to social mobility and opportunity. Newcastle Central and West ranked bottom of 543 constituencies for attainment and outcomes in the “Crossing Paths” 2026 report. Having grown up on a council estate myself, I am heartbroken that the life chances of disadvantaged young people are so curtailed. One fifth of those aged 16 to 24 are characterised as NEET in the north-east, and I echo the Chancellor in saying that I refuse to write them off, unlike the last Conservative Government. I look forward to the upcoming publication of Alan Milburn’s report. He was recently in Newcastle, and I know that he seeks to make a real difference for the intelligent and ambitious young people I meet regularly across Newcastle Central and West. It is a difficult time for so many families across my constituency, squeezed by increasing bills in energy, housing and so on, so it is great to see the Budget directly address that. Some 60,000 properties in the constituency will receive £100 towards their energy bills this winter, and I welcome the £1.5 billion in additional funding to <span id="640" class="column-number" data-column-number="640"></span>deliver social and affordable housing and, of course, the £20 million in Pride in Place funding for Elswick in my constituency. After years of fighting for the investment we deserve, our region will no longer have to pick up the crumbs from the Whitehall table, with the new north-east good growth fund helping our fantastic mayor, Kim McGuinness, to improve our public transport and deliver major regional projects directly. I hope that giving £20 billion to the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank will support start-ups, spin-outs and research facilities in the north-east, not simply in the golden triangle. I wish the Chancellor had provided more support in two further areas. The attainment gap in education between the north-east and London is the highest since records began. To challenge that, I would like to see further investment in the incredible young people of Newcastle Central and West, on the scale of the London Challenge from 2003. Secondly, there was significant support for businesses, particularly small businesses, in the Budget, but I would like to have seen even more. Growing businesses will provide jobs for our young people, and small businesses have been heavily hit by higher taxes and less disposable income from many constituents. Finally, I hope that the Chancellor’s £15 billion defence investment plan will be used to support regional growth and investment, as he has promised, and in particular to address the unacceptable truth that the north-east sends the highest proportion of young people into the armed forces, yet receives the lowest proportion of defence investment spending. That is something I will be thinking about this Remembrance week. Young people and, indeed, everyone in the north-east deserves growth in every postcode, and I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for providing the first steps to achieving that.
Framing today’s statement is the fact that under this Labour Government and this Home Secretary, net migration is down 82% from its peak under the previous Conservative Government. However, can she confirm that alongside the changes that she is making to legal migration, there will be serious consequences for settlement for those entering our country by dangerous and illegal means?
My constituents will strongly welcome the decision to extend small business rate relief to many more businesses in the Crewe and Nantwich constituency, but they will also welcome the decision to remove small business rate relief from adult gaming centres and vape shops. Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying that this is an important step to incentivise the kind of businesses we want to see and disincentivise those we do not?
The hon. Member talked about the Opposition’s clean power plan, and how marvellous it is, but if those ideas are so good, why did the Conservatives not implement them when they had 14 years in government to do so?
I declare an interest as the proud patron of local youth charity, the Foundation for Active Community Engagement, which co-hosted my “Coffee with Claire” event, listening to young people and those of all ages across my community. I ran that event, along with an online survey, to listen to people, including young people, about their experiences and views. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that, when we look at these regulations, we make sure we avoid cliff edges—where young people might be completely cut off from social media and then exposed to it all on one day? There is a possibility, as we look at lowering the voting age, that some people’s first day of accessing social media could also be the day that they cast their first vote.
<Question HRSContentId="{D1C5D52B-D7B5-4D9D-8795-720045A392D7}">6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{7FB7B2EB-E0C8-44AC-964E-D9654CF4D724}">If her Department will take steps to improve protections for renters and owners of park homes.</QuestionText> </Question>
Tudor Rose Park in Peacehaven is a park home with 107 residents. Many are elderly and vulnerable; all have suffered years of unfair charges, crumbling buildings and poor maintenance. Just this morning at my surgery, two residents told me of the “despair, exploitation and intimidation” that many feel at the hands of park owners. I know that the Minister is looking at this closely, so can he tell me when the Government will act and introduce changes that will end the wild west of park homes and protect my constituents in Tudor Rose Park?
I welcome the announcement by the Chancellor last week on supporting our high streets, which is welcome. What conversations has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues about the future of Poundland? We have two shops and one depot in Harlow, so this is hugely important for my constituency.
The hon. Lady is right to talk about local government finances. My local council of Harlow faced 70% cuts to core funding made <span id="627" class="column-number" data-column-number="627"></span>by the Conservative Government, but does she recognise that when the Lib Dems were in coalition Government the funding was cut by nearly 30%? Does she also recognise that the Labour Government are introducing multi-year funding for local councils, which council leaders and officers in Harlow have been crying out for for a long time?
As the parent of a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old—sorry, that was a while ago. As the parent of a 17-year-old and a 19-year-old, I have been speaking about this for so long. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we should give young people more credit for their ability to understand and articulate the challenges they face online? They are not simply passive users of social media, and their views deserve to be taken seriously in this debate. It is important that we get across to everyone listening that we want to do things together. We do not want to do things to young people; we want to do things with young people.
I agree with an awful lot of what my hon. Friend is saying, but is one of the problems not that we need to recognise that young people are not a single homogeneous group, and that what is good for one is not good for another? That is what the Government are wrestling with, and I have huge sympathy for what they are trying to do. While we are hearing young people’s voices, one thing that is closer to a homogeneous group is parents, who want the best for their kids. We have to try to grapple with this issue and find a way through that works. Does he agree that that is what we are trying to do and hopefully we will get there together?
Almost everyone in my constituency who speaks to me about immigration says that they welcome those who come to work hard in our country and play by the rules. As the Home Secretary knows, though, many of those workers across multiple sectors of the economy face significant exploitation from their visa sponsors. She referred to helping workers break away from rogue employers; will she meet those of us who are interested in introducing a certificate of common sponsorship to resolve this problem?