Higher Education Funding
It would be good to hear how the money would be raised to meet all those obligations.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing
I thank my hon. Friend for shedding light on those cases. It cannot be easy for the families to hear again what happened. The reason we are back here, I expect, is because the sentences are not a deterrent, and because the term “death by dangerous driving” completely underplays what happens, particularly in the cases my hon. Friend explained. This is manslaughter. Does he agree that we should think not just about sentencing, but about how we present such cases to the courts?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
As always, the hon. Lady is speaking very passionately. She has talked about energy security in Wales. Would it not be a lot easier to achieve that if the Welsh Government did not proceed with their plan to ban electricity pylons?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
Higher Education Funding
“Crisis” and “world beating” are overused terms, and both apply to UK higher education, which, after an over-reliance on international fee income during years of underfunding, feels ready to snap. Four in 10 of the best universities on Earth are in Britain. Imperial College London, whose White City campus is in my seat, is one. It attracts the brightest brains for groundbreaking postdoctoral research, and its Scale Space facility incubates start-ups, but Home Office restrictions on dependants, the cutting of the post-study work visa, indefinite leave to remain changes and the new basic compliance assessment, which has inexplicably resulted in record visa refusals, have threatened all that. In a competitive world, international students have other options, which we see them opting for. I am also the MP for the University of West London. It is not top 10, but it is a local anchor institution. It is a big employer and a vital hub for under-represented communities. Both universities are concerned by the international student levy. The return of maintenance grants, which the proceeds will fund, is welcome, but the £925 fee that universities must pay per international student per year of study at a time of falling student numbers is unviable. Given how course fees vary, why not a percentage—6% was originally mooted? What is the logic behind the the first 250 students being free of the charge? Sadly, the University of Suffolk has for the first time gone below that number—an unwanted situation—thanks to that perverse disincentive. Could we not increase the number? Why are only the subjects in the Government’s industrial strategy funded by the grants? They include computing, maths and pure science, but no arts or social sciences, which potentially leaves those subjects to elites. Creative sector education—including at UWL, the old Ealing School of Art, which specialised for 100 years in art and the humanities and which was where the Who formed and Freddie Mercury studied—risks being wiped out along with jobs, as the University and College Union fears, because such subjects do not fit financial forecasts. Our universities are not simply dreaming spires and ivory towers. They are essential invisible exports offering soft power and regional capacity building, with growth in every postcode. The University of Westminster, the first polytechnic, was founded to enrich the working man; its Soho Poly venue was where Pink Floyd played their early gigs, and things still happen there. We must treasure our wide diversity of institutions, not just throw them to the wall. The Office for Students estimates that 119 universities—43% of the sector—will be in deficit this academic year, with 24 in danger of bankruptcy. After mergers and departmental closures, the next step, as predicted in the Education Committee’s excellent report, is insolvency. The Oxbridges will go from up here to down here, but where will the Suffolks and the UWLs go? Down there? Will it take someone to go bust before the Government finally take notice? When I taught in the sector, international students, who spend money locally, were seen as the golden goose to compensate for real-terms funding cuts, but our over-reliance is now exposed. The basic compliance assessment’s red, amber and green ratings have become <span id="138WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="138WH"></span>existential. The Government cannot rely on past laurels, then cash-starve a sector, demand gullible international students with limitless pockets, prop it up with staff good will and magically expect growth. The elasticity of demand inevitably snaps.
- Hansard source
Higher Education Funding
I know the Minister is really passionate about this subject, and her Department has done excellent work with the Department for Work and Pensions on the phenomenon of those not in education, employment or training. A statistic shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) was that the UK has the lowest proportion of public tertiary education expenditure among OECD countries. Could <span id="156WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="156WH"></span>the Minister have a word with Treasury colleagues about nudging that upwards, because that is a statistic we are not so proud of?
- Hansard source
Higher Education Funding
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this important debate. Sheffield is my university. I attended the 45th reunion last weekend and, apart from the fact that many of my former student colleagues had decided to dye their hair grey, everybody was looking remarkably well. I would also like to say that I actually went to university before Mrs Thatcher was the Prime Minister. I am a former NHS surgeon and a father of three children who have all been through our university system. Our universities are among our greatest assets, as we have heard during the many thoughtful contributions this morning. They drive research and support our local economies, but we cannot take them for granted. They are facing considerable financial pressure. Rising operating costs and an increasing reliance on international student income have left many of them in a precarious position. We all know that the importance of universities goes far beyond the lecture theatres. Just this Monday, I spoke in the House about genetic research at the University of East Anglia to help us distinguish between dangerous and less dangerous prostate cancers—a subject that we absolutely need to sort out. That sort of groundbreaking research depends on well-funded universities with the confidence to invest in the long term, particularly in subjects such as my own, medicine, but also in the sciences and many others, where the costs of providing higher education and training are considerable.<span id="148WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="148WH"></span> The Government’s decision to increase tuition fee caps in line with inflation rather than allowing their value to erode makes sense. I also welcome the return of maintenance grants. Those are important steps towards supporting universities and students, but we must recognise that there is a difficult balance at the heart of this debate. Universities need more money, yet increasing tuition fees means that we are asking students to take more debt. I can see that generational difference in my own family. My two eldest children studied under plan 1, my youngest is on plan 2 and the students I met at Thurston community college in my constituency face the prospect of something called plan 5, with repayments potentially stretching over 40 years. I graduated from medical school without tuition fee debt. I began my career, I entered the housing market and I gradually became more secure, but that looks very different for today’s graduates. A maths graduate who recently attended one of my constituency surgeries brought home just how complicated our student finance system has become. He brought a very well worked-out spreadsheet that explained it to me—at least at the time; I could not possibly explain it to Members today. We must avoid a situation in which the financial sustainability of our great universities is secured simply by transferring the ever-greater burden on to the next generation, for generational unfairness is the great challenge of this Parliament. I ask the Minister to consider just two things. First, how can we provide universities with greater long-term funding certainty rather than leaving them so dependent on tuition fees and unpredictable international student recruitment? Secondly, how can we ensure that efforts to stabilise university finances are accompanied by a fair and transparent student finance system so that young people really understand the financial commitments they make? Our universities need financial stability, but our students need financial security. That is a hard thing, but our Government know how to do hard things.
- Hansard source
Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing
Government figures show that rural roads account for 60% of road deaths but only 45% of traffic, and speed-related factors were recorded in over half of all fatal collisions in the last year. In my constituency of Gravesham, we lost two people in Sole Street who were cyclists on the road. Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural villages—where roads are narrower, without pavements, and shared by walkers, cyclists and horse riders—need particular attention and intervention?
- Hansard source
Impact of Government Policies on Businesses
Does the Minister agree that a good example of a Government policy that will have a positive impact on businesses in Scotland is our youth guarantee, which is providing Scotland’s businesses with skilled-up young people ready for work? That includes our new youth hub in West Dunbartonshire, which is set to open this Friday.
- Hansard source
The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I, too, welcome these regulations on global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions. We know that sanctions are a vital tool for the Government to use to promote our British values, particularly in relation to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. By designating individuals or entities responsible for human rights violations, for example, we send a clear message that the UK stands firm against despots such as Vladimir Putin. Sanctioned persons face penalties including director disqualification in this country, asset freezes and being prevented from travelling to Britain. Those are significant penalties, and those who are designated to face them are designated only on reasonable grounds. Although the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 was certainly an important piece of legislation, recent events have shown the incompleteness of its implementation. Of course, the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, which the regulations that we are debating replace, were correct to punish those who perpetrate violations of human rights. However, it <span id="8" class="column-number" data-column-number="8"></span>was clearly an oversight to punish those acts while not taking equivalent action for serious breaches of international humanitarian law. What do these new, expanded regulations mean? As the name sets out, the Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026—I will just call them the new regulations—expand the former regulations so that serious breaches of international humanitarian law around the world now constitute designate-able activity. Previously, that was not a consistent policy of the British Government. Such breaches could be designated in countries that face their own UK geographic sanctions—regimes such as Sudan, Syria, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is a common-sense change. Some examples of serious breaches include armed actors targeting defenceless civilians, performing public executions and a state deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. One of the chief catalysts for this action was the Israeli Government, under Benjamin Netanyahu, making a clear statement that they intend to bury the prospect of a Palestinian state, and with it the two-state solution, through illegal settlement expansions, particularly in the case of the E1 project. That breaches the rights of Palestinians to self-determination. Israel always had the right to defend itself in a proportionate manner after the heinous terror attacks of 7 October 2023. However, what we have seen in both Gaza and the west bank has gone far beyond that. This Government have thankfully accepted the 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was exactly right to say in his statement on 8 September: “If the occupation is illegal, do we want to maintain, at the level of principle, normal economic relationships? We say no.”<span id="vol790_col887" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="887" data-volume-number="790" data-external-id="9EF80BBA-19DA-424B-AB6A-7356E1C91517">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 887.]</span> Nevertheless, without a new statutory instrument, normal economic relationships with illegal settlements would have been effectively maintained. The previous regulations did not afford the Government the power to systematically oppose the creation of illegal settlements through financing and construction originating in the UK. The previous regulations, while a good step, were inadequate for the Government to deliver on their obligations under international humanitarian law. Although I wholeheartedly support the replacement of the previous regulations with the new ones, two questions remain, which I would like to put to the Minister. How will the Government monitor those who commit acts that may make them liable to designation? How swiftly will we act on reliable reports of such acts? I am sure that, in the case of the Government’s ambition with its allies to stop E1 being built and protect the two-state solution, the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House on 8 September and the joint statement from this and other Governments on how we will take action against settlement expansion were a meaningful factor in the Israeli Attorney General delaying the opening of construction and financing tenders to mid-November. To support the Government’s action, the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, which I co-chair with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), has written to over 150 financial and business entities, trade associations <span id="9" class="column-number" data-column-number="9"></span>and regulators to inform them of the obligations that these regulations place on them, their members and those under their regulatory purview. Currently, we have had a response from 27 of those entities. It is evident that the Government’s initial announcement on 8 September was a good warning for them to avoid involvement in E1. Nevertheless, that response rate suggests that people have not quite got the message. We cannot afford to march to the edge of action, only to falter when we have finally shown the collective action of the UK and our allies to be a powerful threat against breaches of international humanitarian law. I therefore ask the Minister: what work is his Department undertaking to ensure that this unity of purpose, particularly between those who are co-signatories of the joint Foreign Ministers’ statement on the two-state solution of 8 September, translates into unity of action? Does he also view these measures as sufficient to combat activities to maintain existing settlements? If not, what action will he take to ensure that that is the case? Only yesterday, I was approached by a journalist who had evidence of jobs in medical clinics in illegal settlements being advertised in this country at an event in London last weekend. I know that the Government were outraged by the advertisement of illegal settlement properties at the Great Israeli Real Estate Event, which took place a few months ago in London, so what action can they take to ensure that these activities cannot happen again? As I said, I fully support these new regulations. However, I would be interested to know whether creating a set of activity-based regulations applying to all existing settlements, not just the new ones, would be a better approach. I am grateful to you for allowing me to speak, Mr Stringer, and I thank the members of the Committee.
- Hansard source
The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026
Will the Minister also respond on why our regulations would not incorporate existing settlements as well?
- Hansard source
Engagements
<Question HRSContentId="{40D1E90C-2BC9-4B24-A640-A591F28C456C}">Q6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{1D07FA11-EE83-4F7E-8BE0-75C3B5850C7E}"></QuestionText>Hon. and right hon. Members will all know that Royal Mail has a serious problem. Part of it is that the parcel companies that Royal Mail competes against use bogus self-employed models for their employees, and too many pay a pittance for an unmanageable workload, where drivers cannot provide a quality service as they race to complete routes. The public purse loses too: Royal Mail pays £650 million in national insurance, while many of its competitor firms pay next to nothing. The Government’s consultation on employment status is a great start. Will the Prime Minister commit to using that review to truly level the playing field and secure the long-term future of Royal Mail, ensuring that my constituents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages get the service they deserve?</Question>
- Hansard source
Higher Education Funding
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this important debate. Southampton is home to two excellent universities and yet in my constituency, only 7% of kids on free school meals will hold a degree by the time they are 22. Of those who do not receive free school meals in Itchen, just 19% will get there. If we go a few miles up the road to Winchester, however, that become 39%. We must make sure that higher education is not shut down <span id="142WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="142WH"></span>as an option for young people. In my speech, I will focus on three points that are becoming worryingly clear about the funding system as it stands: it is not working for students, it is not working for universities, and—I fear—it is working only for the Treasury. I do not believe that is what this Labour Government are about. First, on students, I was the first in my family lucky enough to go to university. I started in 2000 when fees were—wait for it—£1,025. My annual loan was about £3,500. We looked enviously on the generation before us, who did not pay fees and who received a grant to go to university. This generation is looking enviously on my generation, which is worrying. I went on to spend 20 years as university lecturer, so I saw every subsequent wave of student finance agreements. The Treasury Committee has concluded that we were essentially mis-selling some of the previous loan agreements on terms that no commercial lender would ever be allowed to offer.
- Hansard source
Higher Education Funding
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely salient point. Many of us never imagined that we would get to an even worse place, but here we are. Only the top three earnings deciles of recent intakes will ever pay off their student loans in full. The nurse, the teacher or the engineer on £35,000 will pay 9% for decades and still never clear the balance. Dare I say it, but if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, let us call it a tax and treat it as one. If we properly sort it, it could well be a better deal than the current loan system.
- Hansard source
Higher Education Funding
I agree that this is not the deal that I think our country wants to offer its young people, particularly if the Government are about breaking down barriers to opportunity. Secondly, on universities, the Office for Students reported in May that more than a third of English higher education institutes were already in deficit last year, and that if recruitment simply flatlines, nearly six in 10 could be in deficit within five years. International student numbers, as hon. Members have stated, fell by around 45,000 last year, and student visa applications in the first months of this year were down by a third. In May, the Education Committee, which I sit on, warned of the real threat of insolvency. Universities such as those in my constituency—the University of Southampton and Southampton Solent University—are anchors of our local economy, and that is reflected around the country. We cannot afford to let them fail. They are not immune to the job losses that are affecting other HEIs.<span id="143WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="143WH"></span> Thirdly, I turn to the taxpayer. The Government estimate that the state meets 35% to 40% of the cost of higher education. Others take a different view: the Institute for Fiscal Studies put the figure for the 2022 cohort at around 3%, with 97% of the cost met by students. Sir Philip Augar recommended a 50:50 split. Whichever number we look at or choose to believe, we are a long way from the balance that Parliament intended, and the bill is quietly being passed to young people. That brings me to the international student levy. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely welcome the return of maintenance grants—for families on low incomes, they really matter—but a grant of up to £1,000 a year amounts to about £20 a week, and it is to be funded by a levy of £920 per international student from 2028. Last November, that was forecast to raise £445 million in its first year, but that forecast was made before visa applications fell by a third. I fear that a grant that depends on a shrinking tax base is a good intention built on sand. Before the levy legislation completes its passage, will the Minister commit to publishing an updated forecast of what it will raise based on today’s recruitment figures? Will she confirm that maintenance grants will be protected if they fall short? Finally, the Government have said that the whole student finance system is under review, and I welcome that news enthusiastically. Will the Minister set out how and by when that review will report, and whether it will move us back towards a fair balance between the state and the individual? As hon. Members have very eloquently said, this is all about intergenerational justice. It is about whether 22-year-old me would look at university and say, “Yeah, I can risk that,” or whether I would now be more likely to say, “Nah, my family has never done that and I simply cannot afford it.” It is about growth and the 7% of kids in Itchen, and more across this country, who deserve better opportunities and better odds.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman, although I am not sure that the Liberal Democrats are always quite so bold when it comes to local decision making. It is a pleasure to support the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I have known him for many years, and he certainly knows Cambridge well. The measures on rough sleeping will be strongly supported in the city of Cambridge. They are the right thing to do, because they also help tackle a problem that I have talked about before, which I described as the pauperisation of the public realm. Over the last few decades, too many of our city centres and towns have not had the investment and care that they needed. That goes some way towards explaining how we can be a country that, by international and historical standards, is well off, yet has a general sense of unhappiness. The fragmentation and privatisation of public services and spaces, widely attributed to decisions made in the 1980s, have come back to haunt us. I was pleased to hear the suggestions in the Chancellor’s speech, echoing the comments made by the Prime Minister over the last few months, that address those points.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
As I said, I think it goes back over decades, and it needs to be reversed. I thought the most radical measure in the Chancellor’s statement was the fiscal devolution. I am someone who, along with many others in the Chamber, has argued for business rates retention over many years. I look forward to seeing how that plays out. I represent a young city, and I am confident and optimistic about the future if we can give our young people the opportunities they need. I was pleased to hear about the measures to support innovation and entrepreneurs. At the Innovate Cambridge summit last week, we were told by local people that as an innovation cluster by density, Cambridge ranked second in the world and first in Europe in 2026. Just a few months earlier, the Oxford-Cambridge Supercluster Board published research showing that the growth corridor has produced 740 university spin-outs—almost 70% more than the fabled Bay area in America—and produces more scientific publications per resident than anywhere else in the world. As we know, all too often we manage to generate tremendous start-ups, but have a problem with scale up. The points in the statement about the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank can help us use the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor to drive prosperity for the whole nation, not just the region. I welcome the announcement of the flexibility that will be offered to the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, which will allow us to be innovative in the way we use public funds to also pull in private funds. I welcome the optimism and confidence that the Budget brings, but I add one word of caution. The success and strength of cities such as Cambridge, and of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, is based on the strength of our universities. Colleagues will know that universities are facing acute financial pressures, made more difficult by some of the measures that are being taken to address international students. The changing attitude of UK Visas and Immigration on visa applications is increasing the pressure, while the introduction of the international student levy will increase the financial pressure. I strongly urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to talk to Universities UK and look at alternative ways to fund maintenance grants. I understand and appreciate that there are long-term structural issues, but it is dangerous to allow universities to get so close to the financial brink, and it potentially undermines the success of the Ox-Cam corridor and cities like Cambridge. We should be optimistic about our future. That we have the talent to succeed is based partly on the fact that we attract talent from across the world. We need to remain competitive internationally. Innovation and knowledge are things that we are good at in this country. They should be celebrated, and there are measures in the Budget that will be strongly welcomed by innovators, but we need to ensure that they are not undermined unintentionally as the Government seek to address other issues.<span id="333" class="column-number" data-column-number="333"></span>
- Hansard source
Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) on securing this debate on an issue that is particularly close to my heart, having seen two young women from my constituency lose their lives as a result of dangerous driving. I know that too many colleagues in this room will have supported families who have experienced similar tragedies. I want to begin with the story of Lillie Clack, and the extraordinary work that her family have undertaken in her memory. On Christmas Day 2021, Lillie was a passenger in a car driven by a man who had been drinking. That driver, Charlie Hilton, was fleeing the police at speeds of more than 100 mph when he lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a tree. Lillie suffered catastrophic injuries and died three days later. She was just 22 years old. In February 2023, Hilton was sentenced to 10 years and six months in prison for causing death by dangerous driving and other offences, but no prison sentence can bring Lillie back or undo the devastation caused to her family. And Lillie’s death is far from an isolated incident.
- Hansard source
Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing
I absolutely agree. I extend my condolences and, I am sure, those of all Members to Abigail Eggleston’s family that she died in such tragic circumstances. According to the Stop Excessive Speeders campaign, between 2020 and 2025, 282 people were killed or seriously injured in road collisions in Mitcham and Morden, including five who lost their lives. Those figures seem extraordinary. Another young woman from my constituency who lost her life as a result of dangerous driving was Aalia Mahomed. Aalia was just 20 years old and was studying <span id="175WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="175WH"></span>at King’s College London. In March last year, she was sitting on a bench outside her university when a van mounted the pavement and struck her. She died at the scene. The driver, Christopher Jackson, subsequently pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Aalia had her whole life ahead of her. Her family have been left to come to terms with a loss that no sentence can undo. Her death is a reminder that dangerous driving threatens not only those travelling on our roads, but pedestrians going about their everyday lives. It is tragedies like these that have led families to campaign for change. Since Lillie’s death, her mum Debbie and her auntie Donna have worked tirelessly to ensure that something positive comes from the unimaginable tragedy. I want to take a moment to recognise what Debbie has achieved. On what would have been Lillie’s 25th birthday, Debbie opened Lillie’s in the Garden, a beautiful tea room at Merton and Sutton joint cemetery. I had the pleasure of attending its opening, and I cannot speak highly enough of the wonderful space that Debbie has created. It is somewhere for people visiting loved ones at the cemetery to find comfort, and somewhere for anyone passing to enjoy a cup of tea, a slice of cake and a friendly conversation. I encourage any hon. Members who find themselves on Garth Road in Lower Morden to pay it a visit. Through her charity Eyes Wet Now, Debbie is also working to support other bereaved families. It is a remarkable achievement and a wonderful tribute to Lillie. Debbie and Donna have also campaigned for the introduction of Lillie’s law, with more than 43,000 people having signed their petition. Their campaign has two demands: first, that a driver’s licence be immediately suspended following a fatal road collision, pending investigation, and secondly that anyone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should be permanently disqualified from driving, whether or not alcohol was involved. Those proposals seek justice for those who have lost their lives; they are also about preventing further tragedy. I want to recognise the extraordinary determination of Claire Corkery, who has been campaigning for justice following the death of both her parents. In January 2024, Tom and Sue Corkery were walking their dog in Bearsted, Kent, when they were struck and killed by a speeding driver. In a single moment, Claire lost both her mum and her dad. The driver, Scott Gunn, was subsequently convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to 16 years in prison, but it took over a year for Gunn to be brought before the courts. Throughout that time, he was legally permitted to drive, and he admitted in court that he had continued to drive. Even after his conviction, Gunn received a driving ban of just eight years. Claire is understandably concerned that he could return to the roads once he has served his sentence and his disqualification has expired. Claire has also campaigned against the early release of dangerous drivers. She is determined to ensure that their sentences reflect the seriousness of the lives lost. Her experience demonstrates precisely why the two demands of Lillie’s law are so important.
- Hansard source
Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing
I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. Lillie’s law is campaigning for the power to suspend licences immediately following fatal collision, and for permanent disqualification for those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Claire’s determination, like Debbie’s, deserves recognition. I recognise the important progress that the Government have already made. In August, the Government confirmed that those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving would be excluded from the new early release arrangements. Debbie Clack wrote to the Prime Minister personally to thank him for that decision. For a family who have endured so much, it meant a great deal to know that the seriousness of what happened to Lillie has been recognised. I welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, which was published in January and which sets out an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65% by 2035. The strategy recognises the need for stronger action against dangerous drivers. It considers new powers to suspend the licences of those under investigation for the most serious motoring offences, resulting in death or serious injury. That is a significant step towards addressing one of the central concerns of Lillie’s law. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on the progress of those proposals and on when we might expect to see them brought forward. I also want to raise the question of permanent driving disqualification. I recognise that courts already have the power to impose lifetime driving bans. Will the Minister explain what consideration the Government have given to mandatory permanent disqualification, and whether further measures could be considered to strengthen the protection of the public? The Government’s own road safety strategy makes an important point: holding a driving licence is not an automatic right. Principle should guide us as we consider how to protect people from the most dangerous drivers. I hope that the Minister will continue to listen to Debbie and families like hers, and work with them to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent another tragedy like those of Lillie, of Aalia and of Tom and Sue Corkery.
- Hansard source
Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing
Is the hon. Member prepared to give credit to my constituent Miss Corkery, who campaigned tirelessly for death by dangerous driving to be excluded from the early release scheme, and to recognise that she and other campaigners were successful?
- Hansard source
Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing
Debbie and Donna both met the previous road safety Minister to discuss their case and their reasons for asking for licences to be suspended after an accident, and then for there to be a lifetime ban. I thank the Minister for offering to meet them. I am sure Debbie will be marching her way towards him as she hears him speak.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
The right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) needs to have a tough look at the reputation of her Government. She talks about welfare and she talks about defence, but it was her Government who crashed the economy. Under her Government, welfare spending rose by 0.7% of GDP in the last Parliament alone, and in the last year of the Government in which she served it rose by £33 billion. She knows—we all know—that reform is necessary, and reform is coming, because under this Labour Government we are reforming the social security safety net and ending the scandal of young people on personal independence payments, who, in droves, are being put on a benefit that they are less likely to come off than someone over the age of 55. As the Prime Minister said earlier, Labour’s approach is a “names, not numbers” approach. There is a lot of thought going in, and I pay tribute to Alan Milburn for his thinking about how to reform the system as a whole. It is easy to talk about numbers and top-slicing, but that takes no account of the human beings at the heart of the benefits system.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
<strong> </strong>I look to the reputation of my predecessor in this role, who took her job very seriously but would still make a point. It would be very difficult for me to stand up and, from the Government Back Benches, not react to those in the Conservative party <span id="322" class="column-number" data-column-number="322"></span>who crashed the economy in 2022 and left a lot of the mess that we are now dealing with. I am passionate about these issues because I spend a long time looking at public spending and at the waste of the previous Government, as does the Public Accounts Committee, quite rightly. It should challenge this Government on any waste of taxpayer pounds, because taxpayers work hard for their money and they need to be sure that someone is watching the Government to make sure that they are spending it as well as they can. We know that that is not always a simple task. I look to welfare reform. Yesterday, I was with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in my constituency of Hackney South and Shoreditch. We met with Scope, which is doing amazing work with disabled people. Some 72% of the recent cohort supported into work were still in work 26 weeks later—people who had been written off by the system. If we make sure that it is done properly through some of the devolution measures that the Government propose, we can make sure that the “names not numbers” approach is replicated across the country, where there are already good examples. I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to fund the defence investment plan—again, I looked at this issue for many years as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. It is right that we stand with Ukraine—a cross-party position—and it is right that we spend the right money on defence. Unfortunately, the last Government reduced the money spent on defence to a ridiculously low level under austerity, leaving us exposed to the challenges we face in the world. I hope that we will have cross-party consensus that we need to increase defence spending and back the Chancellor in that mission.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I count the hon. Gentleman as a friend, because he serves on the Treasury Committee and is indefatigable in his attempts to ensure that the Government are listening about research and development in defence and across wider sectors. It sounds as though, between us, the Government have heard that message. Before I move on to the main thrust of the Budget, I want to address the Leader of the Opposition’s comment about plan 2 student loans. The Treasury Committee looked at this issue, which is having a very big impact on that generation of young graduates—the engine room of Britain, and the people who will be funding and growing our economy in the years to come, and making sure that the ageing population is supported. We need to do everything we can, and intergenerational fairness is a big strand of the Treasury Committee’s concerns, but let us be clear: who set up plan 2 student loans? It was the previous Government.<span id="323" class="column-number" data-column-number="323"></span> I talk a lot about slow politics. Governments should make decisions that will stand the test of time in 10 or 20 years, as well as dealing with the challenges of today and the catastrophes that might occur, either globally or locally, next week. Plan 2 student loans were designed by the Conservative Government and left as a ticking time bomb for this generation to pick up. Although I am saddened that we have not seen a change to the threshold at which repayments are made, I hope that the Chancellor will consider that as part of his longer-term plans, to make sure that this generation has one fewer burden. I hope that we will see some talk about that in the weeks to come. Before the Chancellor rose to his feet it seems that some bank shares increased in value. I am concerned about that and, with the permission of the Treasury Committee, I will write to the Financial Conduct Authority to see if there is any evidence of leaked market-sensitive information that may have led to that movement, because that would be a very serious issue. On that point, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his very strong clampdown on speculation and leaks ahead of this Budget. He knows, as we all do, that stability is so important. He cannot completely halt wild speculation, but clamping down on leaks from the Treasury and the wider system is very important. Despite the headwinds, the debt forecast has only slightly worsened. We have seen a Budget that pushes stability, and I welcome some changes in particular. The Treasury Committee looked at cash ISAs and the changes that were proposed in last year’s Budget, and as we said then, it was not the right approach. Building societies use cash ISAs to lend to home purchasers, and they were going to be particularly badly hit. Most people have much less than £20,000 in a cash ISA, and many never get anywhere near £12,000. The average is between £3,000 and £7,000, depending on how we cut the figures, so it is right that the Chancellor has made changes. I look forward to seeing the starter ISA for investors, and the Committee will examine the changes in detail, but the previous proposal had overcomplicated the system. The ISA is a trusted brand, and the Chancellor has taken a good step. On the subject of building societies and mutuals, in a hidden corner of the Red Book is the announcement that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) has been appointed as the Government’s co-ops and mutuals champion. I commend him for achieving that position following his many years of hard work in this area. As the chair of the Co-operative group of MPs in Parliament, I am delighted that the Government are further leaning into the progress they have already made in supporting co-ops and mutuals. That is important for getting growth and the involvement of people in every community up and down the country, because this is a way of people owning and having a say in the shaping of their services and their outcomes, whether it is a credit union, a food co-op or a childcare co-op—the list goes on. There are many opportunities. I welcome the reform of lifetime ISAs—again, something that the Treasury Committee produced a report on. The removal of the penalty payment seems like the only just approach to that. We have a challenge when products such as ISAs are created but do not work as well as they could, so I welcome the Chancellor looking at that.<span id="324" class="column-number" data-column-number="324"></span> I am delighted to see some changes in housing. In my constituency, house prices are rocketing through the roof, rents are high and thousands of people are living in temporary accommodation, and those in housing are often severely overcrowded. Every weekend I visit people who are living with three children in a one-bedroom flat—a very typical picture—with no freedom or agency to move, because the cost of housing is too high, the cost of rent is too high, and we do not have enough social housing. Indeed, it is cheaper to buy back from a leaseholder who is selling their property than it is to build new houses, so the VAT reduction for housing associations is a welcome first step.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
The hon. Gentleman anticipates a further area of my speech. I believe very firmly in devolution, but there are some caveats. That is something that we may consider. Of course, I chair the Treasury Committee, but I do not make all the decisions for the Committee—it is not an autocracy, unless its members choose to make it that way—so we will discuss that issue. On housing, there are areas that are too detailed to go into the Budget, but I hope there is some discussion in the forthcoming spending review about system-built housing. In Murray Grove in Hoxton, in my constituency, some millennium products built by Peabody still stand the test of time. They were system-built offsite, which reduces the cost of construction and makes it faster, but we do not have enough throughput in the factories that do this for them to survive and thrive. That is a potential opportunity for us in the UK. The Chancellor has a huge challenge. We are facing very difficult fiscal circumstances, but the wider picture is that we are seeing some green shoots of hope. According to early estimates, the economy grew by 1.8% year on year in the three months to August—the fastest pace since the country was rebounding from the pandemic in 2022. GDP has grown at an annualised pace of 2.7% so far in 2026, with early estimates indicating that growth has continued into the third quarter, and productivity has grown by more than 1% per worker in every quarter since the end of 2024. There is a degree of hope that if we keep stability and keep focused, we will meet some of the challenges.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
The hon. Gentleman is a good campaigner for his constituency and raises these issues repeatedly, but there has been some support from the Government on that issue. The Treasury Committee will be poring through the detail of what the Chancellor has announced today, so he may take my plaudits today, but we will go through that detail to see how much this delivers cumulatively for a household, which I know is the mission of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. On that point, we will wait for the detail, but there is a limited pot of money, and it must be targeted at those who need it most, notwithstanding the challenges the hon. Gentleman’s constituency faces. There are choices to be made.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince)—I say that just to up his constituency’s mention count. Around 48,000 households in my constituency households will benefit from the council tax rebate for those in bands A to D. I am assuming the Government took this approach because it is a simple way of getting the money into people’s pockets, but how that works will need a lot of unpicking. It is an instructive figure, in fact, because people think that London’s streets are paved with gold, but one in two children in my constituency are living in poverty, it is among the top three for the pensioners deprivation index, and it has a very high level of deprivation overall, while there are also challenges with the cost of living.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
As the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights, I have not had time in the moments since the Chancellor sat down to go through every graph in the Red Book or, indeed, the OBR’s forecast. Obviously, the Chancellor laid out the figures very clearly at the Dispatch Box, and we will be raising these issues in the Committee. It is easy to pick one measure that has gone down, but sometimes the figure will go up in a later year, and despite the headwinds, there is some room for optimism. Let me let me be very clear—I think the Chancellor would expect me to say nothing less, as Chair of not only the Treasury Committee, but the Liaison Committee—that Chairs of Select Committees see our role as robust scrutineers of the work of the Government of the day, whichever party is in power and whichever party we are from, as a core part of what we do. There will be <span id="326" class="column-number" data-column-number="326"></span>nowhere for the Chancellor to hide when he comes before us on 11 November, but I am sure he is robust enough to be prepared and to take on all comers.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
The hon. Gentleman raises quite a detailed point, but we know that AI can add about 0.2% to productivity in the economy overall. I do not have direct figures for the NHS, but my sister Committee—the Health and Social Care Committee, ably led by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran)—will no doubt be looking at these issues. As he knows, the Committee corridor is examining the power of AI, covering both the costs and the opportunities, and I am sure the House will continue to discuss the opportunity to improve productivity in various guises and to scrutinise the Government very robustly on that. What is interesting about the Budget is that some of its measures are for today, but it is clearly rooted in longer-term reforms, which I welcome, because we need to be thinking about the long term. One of those measures is devolution, and I am a firm believer that power should be devolved to the most appropriate level. In fact, when I was a baby councillor with the now chief of staff to the Prime Minister back in 1994, he and I were both responsible for devolving powers to areas within pram-pushing distance. I should say for younger Members that this was before the days of the internet, which perhaps dates me too much. Giving people a say over spending in their own local area can be a really powerful way of engaging people with the decisions that are made—not seeing politics as something distant and remote, but very much part of their communities.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I have given way several times, and a lot of Members are waiting to speak. Whitehall is often just too distant—not just physically and geographically, but in attitude—from communities and towns up and down the country. I always say that we should not make decisions about people without people. However good our civil service is—and I pay great tribute to the many civil servants I have quizzed over the years about public spending—there will still be a challenge if we do not have the right people around the table, and that may be because they just do not know what is going on in a geographical area. Our mayors have a very important role, but if money is to be devolved to them, there needs to be very strong local accountability. Of course, the last Government abolished the Audit Commission, which I think is a great sadness, and we have seen huge challenges in local government audit. The Mayor of London has the strongest accountability, with 25 London Assembly members able <span id="327" class="column-number" data-column-number="327"></span>to challenge him openly and regularly about his spending, and powers to delve into the detail, but mayors in other areas do not have that. I would say to the Government and the mayors that there is very good reason to have very strong accountability. First, a mayor will want to prove to their constituents that they have spent money effectively, and to be transparent about that, so that when they come up for re-election, people know that their mayors are not frittering away their hard-earned tax pounds and that they are delivering the things they want. Secondly, if a mayor spends money well in their area, they might prove to the Government that they can get more bang for the taxpayer pound than Whitehall achieves by doing it from a distance. Dare I say it, but there may even be times when the Government of the day do not give quite enough money to deliver what was promised, and mayors need the figures to prove that they have been short-changed. In all those circumstances, we need a stronger accountability process, and I hope that we do not go so fast in the drive towards devolution that we do not have those checks and balances in place. I am very pleased about the moves on cheaper energy and clean power. The Chancellor mentioned GB Grid, which is a start, but about 400 projects are needed to upgrade the grid, and I believe that GB Grid covers 10 or 11 of them, so there is still a huge challenge to get the grid up to speed to meet the target of net zero by 2050. I think the pledge to buy and build only when new technologies will lower bills and be connected to the grid may be an important driver in that area. We may want to quiz the Chancellor about that—as, I am sure, our sister Committee, the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, will want to do with the relevant Ministers in due course. I welcome the energy cost reductions for businesses, because I think all Members across the Chamber have heard that businesses have been really struggling in that regard. I have also been pushing for the closure of the loophole on VAT for online marketplace sales, so I am pleased to see that. On the face of it, this Budget looks as though it has done a good job, but the devil is of course in the detail, so I again put the Chancellor on warning that we will be looking through that detail over the next few weeks. We have the Office for Budget Responsibility before the Treasury Committee next week, alongside other economists, and we will have the Chancellor himself on 11 November, when we will have had a chance to go through all the figures in detail and can challenge him on what he has promised today and the promises for the future. Overall, I think we must see cross-party support for the approach to support households in these challenging international times, when a lot of the things that buffet the Government are very difficult for them to control. We must support small businesses. Quite rightly, we all are lobbied a lot by our small businesses. People invest their energy in their businesses, and they need support. We need a long-term vision. Part of our challenge as scrutineers of the Government on the Committee corridor is to hold them to account for their 10-year plan—which we have yet to see—for reshaping the state and devolution. I again warn all Ministers sitting on the Front Bench that the Budget may feel good after the statement today, <span id="328" class="column-number" data-column-number="328"></span>but we will be challenging them in detail about the money they are spending, whichever Committee they appear before.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
The House will be determined to know how this Budget is going to benefit Harlow. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £100 direct payment into the bank accounts of Harlow residents will make a huge difference this winter? By the way, it will help over 39,000 households in council tax bands A to D.
- Hansard source
Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs
For many of my constituents in rural Stirling and Strathallan, energy security also means being able to afford the heating oil they rely on to live and to run businesses from home. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues about ensuring that support for jobs in the oil and gas sector is mindful of the need to deliver the affordable and secure energy that many rural homes and jobs rely on?
- Hansard source
National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions
I suspect I am doing neither the right hon. Lady nor myself any favours by saying I absolutely agree with her. It is our duty as MPs to robustly defend local democracy. Does she agree that, when the communities we represent and their directly elected councillors oppose speculative development, the answer is not to silence their voices but to secure genuine public consent with a higher standard of development that meets local needs and hopes for the future?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for coming especially to hear my speech; I am most grateful to you. We have seen the rise today of a new political philosophy. It is called miserablism. They are so miserable about everything. The Chancellor could have stood at that Dispatch Box and said anything—he could have awarded £1 million to every single person in the country—and still the Opposition would have complained, because all they ever do is talk about prescription, rather than what they would do instead. When I first came into this House, all I ever heard about was deficit reduction. I heard Members who have spoken today say, when we were on the Opposition Benches, that we should apologise. We hear no such apology now. The very tenet of miserablism is to ignore the good news, such as the fact the deficit is coming down. The Chancellor has said that we will be back in the black within three years, despite economic headwinds that we have no control over in Ukraine and the middle east. The fact is that, on the ground, people are seeing the change. I will talk about three things in the limited time I have. First, on small businesses, my constituency is full of independent small businesses run by hard-working, innovative people. They add to our vibrant high streets and town centres, creating a sense of community. Small businesses will find it easier, thanks to this Budget, to serve their communities and provide local jobs. The increase in the threshold required to pay business rates, from £12,000 to £18,000, will lift 70,000 properties in the UK out of paying business rates and will help so many businesses in Caerphilly. If anybody wants to see the good news in Caerphilly, just look at what has been happening in Caerphilly borough, which in September was announced as having the fastest business start-up rate in the whole of Wales. Caerphilly has experienced a 49% increase in business <span id="388" class="column-number" data-column-number="388"></span>start-ups during the first eight months of this year compared with the same period last year. That is a testament to Jamie Pritchard, the leader of our Labour-controlled council. People want to come to Caerphilly to do business because they believe in what we are doing there. Alongside that, the UK Government are channelling investment into south Wales, which has helped to unlock £23 million for Norgine, a leading European pharmaceutical company in my constituency, to develop its Hengoed facility, which is expected to create 44 new jobs. If I was going to talk about one thing that does affect most people—if I had to take a straw poll in my constituency—it would be energy bills. Extending the VAT cut to July will help so many people. Not just householders will benefit from that. I remember visiting a business in my constituency, Rees Gym, which was worried about energy costs. The new British industrial competitive scheme will cut costs there as well. Gas standing charges will be removed from household bills. There will be a payment of £100 into people’s bank accounts if they are in council tax bands A to D, and the Plaid Cymru-led Welsh Government have already said that they will honour that in Wales, although they have also complained about some sort of cut. Miserabilism has found its way across the channel as well. I also want to say something about the miners. I come from a mining family. My grandfather was a miner. He was buried under three tonnes of coal and was invalided out of the mines. He was an example of the hundreds of thousands of people who built our society and who sacrificed their life and their health to keep this country moving. That is why I am so pleased that 100% of the surplus of their pensions will now go to them. It is only the beginning, and yes, we need to talk about future bonuses, but I am heartened and I genuinely believe that the Chancellor is a good man. He comes from working-class stock, as I do. He will speak with the National Union of Mineworkers and we will come up with a deal that will be satisfactory to all sides. I want to say to all those ex-miners who live in my constituency: we are on your side, we hear what you are saying and we will continue fighting for you until you get the justice you deserve. Finally, in the last couple of seconds, I want to talk about defence. It is all very nice and warm to say, “Let’s hit 3.5% of GDP by 2030”, but that only scratches the surface. I am looking at the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who was a Defence Minister; he will know the same things that I know. The Ministry of Defence is a uniquely failing Ministry. It is wasting money. If we want an example, let us look at Ajax. The MOD has already spent £5.5 billion on an armoured vehicle that is still not in service. That £5.5 billion could have been used on other things such as training exercises or equipment. I make this appeal to the Chancellor. When he was the shadow Secretary of State for Defence and I was the shadow Defence Procurement Minister, we came up with a policy that said that the Comptroller had to look at the way the Ministry of Defence spent its money. I hope he resurrects that idea and sends the National Audit Office in to make sure that every penny piece is accounted for, because that is the only way forward.<span id="389" class="column-number" data-column-number="389"></span>
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the mutual sector. Does he agree that credit unions should be part of that, and that managing credit unions to become building societies would be a way of rebuilding our mutual sector in this country?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). There is much to be welcomed in today’s Budget speech. For me, it was solid but not flashy—it was from the man who has HP Sauce on his sandwich, rather than pesto alla Genovese or tapenade aux olives. It is a really good Budget for the everyday, supporting households, helping small business and doing all it can for our fantastic start-ups. Today’s debate takes place in the context of the IMF having said that the fundamentals of the UK economy are solid: unemployment is down by 26,000 among the working-age population and productivity has improved. However, the cost of a barrel of oil today is $114. I do not think any other Budget over the past few years has faced that sort of impact on every single thing we consume as a country, so the timeliness, tone, careful presentation and panache with which it was delivered were a real pleasure. In my speech on the Budget last year, I reflected on Attlee’s 1945 Labour Government. Labour rebuilt the country, built the welfare state, built the NHS and built <span id="353" class="column-number" data-column-number="353"></span>council homes up and down the country, but this year, the more appropriate leader to reflect on is the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson. He once said: “I want to show that as a government we are sensitive to little points which may be trivial in the context of government policy but carry a disproportionate weight in people’s minds.” That is the paternity cover for white-van employees that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) mentioned. It is the help that the children at Coppetts Wood primary school are getting with their breakfast clubs, on top of the school meals provided by the Mayor of London and Barnet council. It is also the use of empty office buildings. Harold Wilson once proposed the nationalisation London’s Centre Point; that building ultimately gave its name to the homelessness charity Centrepoint, which is still going from strength to strength today. What price can we put on bringing somebody in from the cold to be given a night away from those freezing temperatures and served by people in our constituencies? Those people do not necessarily work for the council; they may be from the Museum of Homelessness in Finsbury Park in my constituency, the Muswell Hill community kitchen or the street kitchen on the Harringay ladder. All those volunteers do brilliant work with those experiencing street homelessness, and they have been in touch to say how much they like the style of our Prime Minister and the solid style of our Chancellor. I am pleased to see that £39 billion has been earmarked to deliver 300,000 homes from 2026 to 2036. I know that there is a bit of gloom around the Chamber, but we can be positive about the fact that when the cost of a barrel of oil was down at $70 a barrel just six months ago, things felt a bit more hopeful. One of the things that is implied in this Budget is the redoubling of effort by the Foreign Secretary to use our might abroad to bring people around the table to talk about the link between conflict and household budgets. Even if we did not see a total cessation of violence, but at least people were talking to each other, we might move towards $70 a barrel again, as compared with $114 today. That would see things turn around, as the fundamentals of our economy are strong. I welcome the Your First Home scheme, backed by £4.7 billion. Both Haringey and Barnet councils will be pulling out all the stops to ensure that everyone has a safe, secure and affordable home, and they will be working on those ever longer lists of homeless individuals. I also welcome the statements about assisting councils with the fiscal devolution road map, as it is being called. I look forward to Dame Louise Casey coming forward with her plan. I hope that councils will be pump-priming their adult social care departments so that, together with the NHS and social care partnerships, we can see that national care service become a reality much more quickly. Barnet’s Labour-run council earned dementia-friendly status and has worked with residents on an engagement and co-production charter for adult social care, working closely with Unison and other trade unions. That is the sort of co-operation we want to see. I have talked about why we need good housing and good social care. The final piece of the puzzle is good, well-paid jobs. I am incredibly pleased to hear that the minimum wage is set to increase once again under a Labour Government for 2.3 million of our lowest-paid <span id="354" class="column-number" data-column-number="354"></span>workers. We often hear in the media, from different quarters, about the damage that the minimum wage or the London living wage are doing. We rarely hear from people who have had a pay rise, who think, “That really helped me this week.” I welcome that rise, particularly for people in entry-level jobs. They might have hoped to get on a career ladder, but through a twist of fate in their own lives, are on the minimum wage or the London living wage for their entire career until they retire. For those workers, these increases are crucial. In 1967, Harold Wilson applied for Britain to join the European Economic Community. In my constituency, 81% of people voted to remain in the European Union, and they want me to point out how important it is to the UK economy that we get closer to Europe. We know that Brexit hit our economy, making it 6% smaller, and we all know the importance of allowing the Prime Minister to go to Brussels next month with as free a hand as possible. Let us not hold Britain back. What about our children and young people who want to look forward to travelling abroad and having experiences where they learn a language and meet other people in their region? They will then get to know the difficulties in Europe and understand what it means to defend Europe, and they will appreciate the opportunities that are out there. For our future prosperity and for our children, we need to be at the heart of that European debate. Finally, today’s Budget speech laid out timely, carefully presented interventions, with families and small business at their heart. I like the style of the Chancellor. It felt safe and it felt like the right thing for today. As we see, I hope, an improvement in the international conflict picture, we will see an improvement due to the good fundamentals that this Labour Government have produced since 2024.
- Hansard source
Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I want to raise the really sad case of Sophie Brimble, which was brought to me by her sister. Sophie was killed as a passenger in a car with her boyfriend, who was driving at three times the speed limit. The driver was found unfit to plead and therefore walked out of court without having to face justice. The unfit to plead law dates back to 1836. Does my hon. Friend agree that reforming it is long overdue?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and to speak again in a Budget debate. Often in debates on the Budget, I have heard announcements, as a Lancashire MP, about pots of money that my area has not been eligible for because we do not have a devolution deal, so I was really pleased to see in today’s Budget that we are now in the final stages of agreeing a devolution deal in Lancashire for a mayoral strategic authority. That opens up the opportunity for my constituents to have the same options as the rest of the north of England, which already has these deals. The indication is that Lancashire will now be able to access good growth funding worth £7.27 million, which will unlock prosperity in my constituency and right across the red rose county.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I wish her well in Stafford with the situation at her local council. I urge local leaders in Lancashire to get this deal over the line. I hold my hands up and confess that I was perhaps the least enthusiastic of the Lancashire MPs when it came to the prospect of having a mayor, but I recognise that, without that, my constituents will be left behind. Therefore, we all need to work together in Lancashire to make sure we can access this funding. The biggest issue my constituents raise with me— I was recently out doing street surgeries in Scale Hall in my constituency and was approached by several people who raised this same issue—is energy bills, so I suspect my Scale Hall constituents will be particularly pleased to see the £100 energy support payments, which should benefit over 37,000 households across Lancaster and Wyre in council tax bands A to D. On top of the extension of the 0% VAT on electricity bills until June next year and the abolition of the standing charges on gas, that will come as welcome relief to families right across my Lancashire constituency. I regularly meet the business community, and recently met representatives from the Lancaster business improvement district, who made the case to me about <span id="381" class="column-number" data-column-number="381"></span>the challenges facing the retail and hospitality sector. I am pleased to see the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates freeze, which is estimated to benefit 638 properties in Lancaster and 640 properties in the Wyre council area of my constituency—hundreds of businesses in my constituency will benefit. Constituents have also raised with me the challenges on the high street. Increasing small business thresholds and removing eligibility for vape shops and adult gaming centres will go down really well with my constituents. I welcome that; it will mean that high streets, like those in Garstang and Lancaster, will thrive and be places where people want to spend time and money supporting our great local businesses. There were also announcements in the Budget to cut fertiliser tariffs to give farming businesses more room to breathe. That will certainly go down well with my farming constituents. The rise in fuel prices is disproportionately affecting users of red diesel, so Lancaster and Wyre farmers will welcome the extension of the 3.7p cut to duty on red diesel for a further six months. That keeps the rate at its lowest level for 20 years. My final contribution to this debate is about a missed opportunity. The economic cost of alcohol harm in England is estimated to cost us £27.4 billion annually. That includes costs to the NHS, the justice system, the wider economy and social services. The financial burden on the NHS alone stands at £4.9 billion, which is enough to pay the salaries of almost half the nurses in England. The culprit is the very strong, very cheap alcohol that is available everywhere in this country, from supermarkets to corner shops—and increasingly from the delivery services that will deliver it to the door, day and night. This situation often makes vulnerable people drink far more than is safe and creates the ideal conditions for escalating alcohol harm. That harm that can be reduced by introducing minimum unit pricing—something that is already in place in Wales and Scotland, and has seen reductions in harm there. Millions of people are consuming alcohol at levels that increase their risk of serious health conditions. The severity of harm rises as alcohol consumption increases, and cheap alcohol drives higher consumption. At a time when the NHS is under immense pressure and health inequalities continue to widen, there was a significant opportunity today for the Government to have taken an evidence-based approach to tackle alcohol harms. That approach makes economic sense and would rapidly improve public health and save lives. I want to stress that minimum unit pricing does not damage pubs, restaurants or the wider hospitality sector. It is specifically designed to target the cheapest, strongest alcohol sold through supermarkets and off-licences—the products most associated with serious alcohol harm. We have to remember that alcohol-related deaths have remained high since the pandemic; they have not been coming down. I believe that we need to take radical action. Introducing minimum unit pricing would benefit the economy and save lives. The measure has support across the hospitality sector, which recognises the distinction and sees cheap off-trade alcohol as a broader market concern. I leave the Front Bench with the concerns that I have around not addressing alcohol harms, and the benefit that minimum unit pricing could have for the economy <span id="382" class="column-number" data-column-number="382"></span>and public health. I welcome the Budget overall. It offers breathing space for my constituents in Lancaster and Wyre.