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 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I was in the south-west, in Cornwall, in the summer to announce the funding for on-farm reservoir development, and I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady today that the application system will open very shortly. I hope that farmers in her constituency will benefit.
It is the case, in all the terrible situations that my hon. Friend mentioned, that people suffered unacceptable intrusion into their private lives. I understand why he is raising this issue today, and I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.
What we are trying to do is build up from where we are. That was the whole thrust of the answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition at the start. The hon. Gentleman sounds slightly more constructive, so I am happy to work with him on that. I hope that he will work with us to get backing for the British position at the forthcoming UK-EU summit.
This is a Budget that supports those who need it most through the winter and that ask the banks, which are on course to make record profits, to make a greater contribution. Crucially, it backs young people with the ambition to own their own home and to build a business. There is lots to reflect on. As the newest member of the Treasury Committee, I intend to get into the detail in the weeks to come, but I will start with the international context. It is crucial that we have an honest debate in this House and in the country about the impact that context has on all of us. It is true that we are spending billions more on debt interest than was projected just a few months ago, but that is not because of extra borrowing by this Government; it is because of the global spike in inflation caused by the war in the middle east. It is also the case that the IMF has praised our Government for taking decisive action on deficit reduction. However, in the 21st century no country and no economy can stand alone.
It is news to me that I will be writing the manifesto, but I am always open to a promotion. Our spending review will cover all elements of spending on public services, but this is a Government who have backed public services, unlike the Conservative party. In a more uncertain world, it is imperative that the UK lives by our values. I have been going through the Red Book, and—this is on page 103—the single biggest increase in investment announced today is in our defence, to fund the defence investment plan. That is a very important statement of intent at such an uncertain time for our country, Europe and the world, which is further demonstrated by the package of £10 billion for additional support in loans to Ukraine. Before the Budget speech, I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister reassert how important it is to him that we have a stronger economic trading relationship with the European Union. Also—I will be honest—I am slightly pleased by how much it upset the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), because that means we are going in the right direction. It is a sad state of affairs that the Conservative Party has drifted so far away from mainstream business opinion that they are saying they will not countenance any improvement in our deal with the European Union. That is why people in areas such as mine, Welwyn Hatfield in Hertfordshire, are no longer voting Conservative.
I think the right hon. Member is talking about the issue of the Chagos Islands, which has absolutely no bearing on the speech that I am making today, but if the Conservative party wants to hold to its position that the current deal with the EU is a good one, I will take that debate any day of the week.
I will not give way now, but I may do so later. [Interruption.] I am keen to make some progress. Closer to home, in Welwyn Hatfield, 35,000 households will benefit from the £100 direct payment to help with energy bills this winter. The ending of standing charges on gas bills will particularly help those in smaller homes and flats, and it is unquestionably the right thing to do. I was also pleased, earlier in the week, to see the announcement about the warm homes plan, with low and zero interest rate loans for people who are able to make energy improvements to their properties, and cheaper public charging for electric vehicles. That is an all-round energy package that I believe we can support. Let me now say a little about the national health service, which has not featured in the debate as much as it might have. Waiting lists have fallen sharply since the election of this Government, and ambulance response times in my region in the east of England have improved markedly in the last year. There is a great deal more work to do—there is no question about that—but this improvement has only been possible because of the investment made in this and previous Budgets. It is striking that £37 billion more is being spent on the NHS under this Government than was spent by the Conservatives.
Mental health support is hugely important—I absolutely recognise that. One of the things that this Government are doing is introducing mental health professionals in every school. I am sure that Members from across the House have had conversations with constituents and seen young people struggling terribly. There is more to do, but we are making progress.
I am going to make some progress. Today the Chancellor has asked the banks to contribute more via a surcharge, and it is really important that we look at the context in which we are having this discussion. I looked at the figures, and all the major banks that operate in the UK are on course for record multibillion-pound profits. That often happens in cycles in which there are high interest rates, so it is the case that banks can make a contribution via the surcharge and still have an exceptionally good year. I have to say that I am surprised by the Conservatives. If they want to have an election, whenever it may come, in which they go around saying, “We oppose a slight increase in the surcharge on the banks,” they will find themselves on the losing side of that argument. In the years to come, we need our entrepreneurs and young people to succeed, which is why I was so pleased to learn of the founders’ relief scheme for British entrepreneurs this afternoon. It is a statement that we will back people with the vision and ambition to build a business here. I will let you in on a secret, Madam Deputy Speaker: the first conversation that I had with our new Prime Minister in Parliament—actually, the first one was about cricket, but the second was more substantive—was about housing and home ownership. I said to him directly that it is so important that we as a Government make the case for giving people the opportunity to get on the housing ladder, especially those who cannot rely on support from the bank of mum and dad. That is why I am so pleased by the announcement of the Your First Home equity loan scheme this afternoon. It has the potential to change thousands of lives in my constituency and many more across the country. The introduction of a 2.5% deposit means that people living in Hatfield or Welwyn Garden City have a chance of getting on the housing ladder with a deposit well under £10,000, bringing it into reach for many more people.
The housing crisis is a multifaceted problem. We have to build more homes of all tenures, but Your First Home is a really important part of driving demand, particularly because young people who are renting at the moment are paying more than they otherwise would if they could get a foot on the ladder. That is why the deposit scheme will make such a difference. If you need extra support with energy bills this winter, it is coming. If you run a small high street business, business rates are coming down. If you are an entrepreneur, risk will be rewarded and your tax bill will come down in the future. If you are striving to buy your first home, this Government are on your side. The world remains unstable and we are not immune to it, but this is a Budget that I believe can give confidence to people in Welwyn Hatfield and across the country.
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way during his discussion about banks. Is he aware that Barclays’ profits are up by 1.6%?
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, in his statement, the Chancellor he did commit to reaching 3% of GDP by 2030. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Conservatives reached 2.7% of GDP on defence?
A few people have mentioned heating oil in the debate. For those who have not looked at the detail of the Budget, there is a 4% reduction in heating oil tariffs among the announcements, and anyone who uses heating oil this winter will be getting £100. There is substantial support for people using heating oil; it is not just about gas.
I beg to move, That this House has considered higher education funding. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on students and for international students and a member of the all-party parliamentary university group, and representing a constituency with one of the largest concentrations of students, I know at first hand the enormous value of higher education and the growing challenges facing the sector. It is worth saying from the outset that I am applying for a separate Backbench Business debate specifically on students that will cover the cost of living, maintenance support and the wider student experience. Those are important issues in their own right, but today’s debate focuses on the foundations and long-term sustainability of higher education itself. My constituency is home to two outstanding universities: the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University. I have had the privilege of studying at both institutions and, like many people, I know personally the doors that higher education can open and the horizons it can broaden. We have a world-class higher education system whose institutions are often seen as a great equaliser, especially for working class communities. Walking into universities, we know right away why they are described as centres of innovation and industry. A good university acts as an anchor in our cities and is far more than just lecture halls and graduation ceremonies.
I agree with the hon. Member. He makes an excellent point. I will come on to talking about disadvantaged students and the role that universities play. Universities train the nurses and doctors who treat us. They train the teachers who educate our children, the engineers who build our infrastructure, and the researchers whose discoveries save lives. They support businesses, attract investment, create jobs and drive progress. In Sheffield we see that contribution every day. Sheffield Hallam University trains around 3,900 healthcare professionals and 2,800 teachers every year. In a single academic year, those healthcare students contributed more than 365,000 hours through NHS clinical placements. Meanwhile, the University of Sheffield generates an estimated £4.82 billion for the UK economy and supports 138 start-ups and spin-outs. Its research activity contributes billions more in economic value. Although those figures are impressive, behind them lies a fracture point. There is a growing disconnect between what we ask our universities to deliver and the resources that are available. We want universities to drive growth to boost productivity, tackle regional inequality and undertake world-leading research. We want them to support the NHS, public services and local economies, yet the sector faces a financial crisis that threatens its very survival. We have to recognise the failed funding experiments of the last 16 years and bring them to an end. I draw colleagues’ attention to the Education Committee’s comprehensive report from earlier this year, “Higher Education and Funding: Threat of Insolvency and International Students”, that identifies the real-terms cut in undergraduate tuition fees as a huge factor, though one of many, in financial instability. It is also widely recognised that the UK’s public education funding levels rank well below the OECD average of around 70%. Funding levels have fallen so far that funding direct to universities now makes up just £2 billion out of a total of £16 billion—the complete inverse of what it used to be. The majority of Government funding is spent on a bloated student loan system that is wildly out of control, while current repayment threshold freezes are punishing lower-earning graduates. Last year, the Office for Students forecast that up to 40% of higher education providers will be in deficit. Put simply, far too many institutions are being forced into a cycle of cuts just to temporarily balance the books.
I agree with my hon. Friend; he makes an excellent point. Nottingham is seen as a university that needs support, and I think colleagues across the sector will look to see how Nottingham is supported alongside their own universities. As I was saying, far too many institutions are being forced into a cycle of cuts just to temporarily balance the books. Over recent months, I have spoken to university leaders, staff, representatives of trade unions including the University and College Union, students and employers. While they all have very different perspectives, they all present a common diagnosis: the current funding model for higher education does not work. That raises a fundamental question: if we recognise universities as national assets, as our rhetoric often does, why have we systematically stripped back public funding and left them to shoulder so much of the financial burden themselves?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Universities need to be supported, so that the financial burden is not purely left for them to deal with. I now want to come on to international students. International students should be welcomed as an enrichment of our campuses and strengtheners of Britain’s international ties. International students’ fee income has become an essential pillar, propping up our universities, cross-subsidising home students’ education and supporting research that would otherwise be cut, but universities did not become dependent on international fee income by choice. They have increasingly relied on it because domestic teaching and research funding has failed to keep pace with the real costs of delivery. I and many others remain concerned about using an international student levy to pay for maintenance grants. It is seen as little more than an additional tax on one of the UK’s most successful exports. At a time when global competition for talent is increasing, we should be asking how we can strengthen one of Britain’s greatest success stories, not how we can make it less attractive. A restructured maintenance support system for home students, separate from international fee income, would be a vastly more successful policy, and it is one that I will continue to support. Fundamentally, any solution to the sector’s funding crisis and support for the most disadvantaged home students should not further destabilise university finances. That is especially important in a context where universities are already cutting staff, courses and research programmes. Data from Universities UK shows that nearly eight in 10 universities have pursued voluntary redundancies in the last three years, and the same amount have frozen recruitment. The UCU estimates that 30,000 jobs have been lost over the last three years. That is devastating, and we should be clear about what it means: it means rising workloads and pay erosion for remaining staff, and it means staff who support students every day losing their livelihoods. In Sheffield Hallam University’s case, more than 1,200 posts have gone in just over two years. Having met staff representatives and UCU members, I know that these numbers are not abstract; they represent people who have mortgages to pay, families to support and bills to meet. I also hear from many talented academics who are moving from one short-term arrangement to another, with little certainty about their future. The consequences are felt by individuals and the community beyond the university gates, but there are also implications for the future of British research. A system increasingly characterised by insecurity will only drive talented people away. If universities are one of the UK’s greatest assets, why are they not considered to be involved in our economic growth? Although we speak of growth, skills and Britain’s future competitiveness, we see growing financial fragility across the very institutions that help to realise those ambitions. We cannot continue to expect universities to do more with less. Chasing efficiencies erodes capacity, and once capacity is lost, rebuilding it is neither quick nor easy. I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, what is the Government’s long-term vision for higher education? I want to know not simply how individual institutions will survive the next financial year, but how universities will fit into a national strategy for growth, skills, research and regional development. Secondly, does the Minister recognise that the current funding model has become overly reliant on international student income, mainly because teaching and research funding no longer meets the real cost that universities face? If the Government continue with the international student levy, what impact will it have, and how will fluctuations in student recruitment affect university finances? Does the Minister recognise that the institutions are likely to pass on those costs through higher fees, potentially making the UK a less attractive destination in the international student market? Thirdly, does the Minister believe that the current balance between public and private contributions to higher education funding is sustainable? The Government now contribute about 16p for every £1 spent on teaching. Does the Minister believe that that is a viable basis for the future funding of higher education? Will the Government examine how to move towards a fairer balance between the individual and state contributions in the long term in recognition of the enormous public benefit that universities provide? Fourthly, how are the Government assessing the economic impact of university job losses? We cannot call universities regional anchors while simultaneously accepting the loss of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the sector. Finally, where do universities sit within the Government’s growth mission? If they are engines of growth, they should be treated as such, and they need a funding framework that recognises the enormous contributions that they make to our economy, our public services and our communities. I want young people in Sheffield to have the opportunities that education gave me. I want our universities to continue training the nurses, teachers, engineers and researchers that our country desperately needs, and I want Britain to remain a world leader in higher education and research. If we want our institutions to survive, we have to stop treating them as an afterthought.
People desperately need support with the cost of living. They do not need brown sauce, gherkins or marmalade; they need help with the cost of living. If we look at the documents the Chancellor produced today, he is less likely to hit his fiscal rules than the previous Chancellor was. That is what the back of the OBR book tells us. Real household disposable income is going to drop in the short term. Labour Members will be standing on an election platform saying “vote for us” when household disposable income, a fairly reasonable measure of living standards, is going to drop in the short term. It will rise again only if gas and energy prices do what the OBR hopes they do—the OBR has been very clear that that is not by any means set—but who would like to predict what Donald Trump is going to do next? I certainly wouldn’t. We do not know what will happen. The only way in which people’s living standards will increase is if the international energy markets reduce the price of gas and oil. That is what the Chancellor is pinning his hopes on. The Chancellor is giving people £100 in this Budget, despite the fact that, as of January, energy bills will be £1,000 higher than Labour promised they would be in their manifesto—£1,000 higher. We have a situation where every single major household bill has increased over the course of this Government—every single one. We are seeing people really struggling with the cost of living, and what does the Chancellor decide to do? He decides to reprioritise capital spending. He decides to pull money from the Acorn project in the north-east of Scotland, which supports hundreds of jobs for carbon capture and storage, and which the Climate Change Committee said was one of the projects needed to get us to meet our climate change ambitions. That is one of the things the Chancellor has chosen to do today. The other problem, for which the Conservatives have a significant responsibility for creating, is the fact that the UK has an incredible level of index-linked debt. I am pleased that the Chancellor is moving towards reducing the percentage of index-linked debt, but only three countries in the OECD have higher levels of index-linked debt: Mexico, Israel and Chile. Moving away from that legacy left by the Conservatives is really helpful in today’s financial climate. However, if the Government do not manage to make that, any slight change in the level of inflation or oil and gas prices could mean that the Chancellor massively misses his fiscal rules. The section on risk in the OBR’s Blue Book very clearly sets out how easily a very small percentage change could mean that the Chancellor will miss his rules. There is only about a 50% chance that is he going to hit the rules anyway—it is only about 52% in the back of the Blue Book. Therefore, given the volatility of the world, we should all be incredibly worried. We needed something dramatic. We needed something major to ensure that people can survive this cost of living crisis. We had the child poverty strategy earlier in this Parliament. It was deeply, deeply unambitious other than the removal of the two-child limit, which I fought for and entirely welcomed. Other than that, every single thing had already been introduced or announced. In Scotland, we have a much better child poverty strategy and, in fact, the most comprehensive cost of living package in the UK. People with children are looking at this Budget and thinking, “It does not help us.” Young graduates currently living with their parents up to the age of 25, which they have never done before, are looking at the student loans that they owe in England and thinking, “How can we possibly be paying our student loans until we’re 60, with no chance of a job?” Couples with children are looking at the fact that their parents could afford for one of them to work part time, could afford to have more children, and could still afford to go on an annual holiday. Couples now cannot afford that because they are poorer than the generations before. Folk in their 40s have no end in sight to their mortgage—whereas their parents had paid theirs off by then—because house prices have gone through the roof, and mortgage prices are even higher as a result of some of the decisions taken. What is the Chancellor doing? He is providing cheaper gherkins—great! Disabled people who are desperate to work, but currently subsisting on universal credit, know that they cannot afford the fuel needed to drive their car to a job. They cannot do that, but what has the Chancellor delivered? One hundred pounds. That is not going to cut it. We have pensioners who are living in terror of their next energy bill. They have lost trust in this Government thanks to the winter fuel cut that came with no warning and what was done to the WASPI women. The Chancellor has completely failed to recognise the huge number of people living in fear of the next bill dropping through the letterbox. He is living in a different reality from the rest of us. He is providing some changes around the edges. He says he is providing a little bit of breathing space, but it is not going to get people through this winter, never mind to the spending review or the Prime Minister’s wonderful 10-year plan that is supposed to be coming. We have made different choices in Scotland. We provided the baby box. We provided a cost-of-living package that is the most comprehensive in the UK. We provided no prescription charges. We provided free university tuition. We do not have access to all the levers. We do not have the ability to do what we asked of the Chancellor, which was to cut energy bills by at least £300—not even close to the manifesto pledge but getting there. We asked the Chancellor to make a difference so that people can afford to get through this winter. We asked for the removal of VAT on various things, including petrol and diesel for the duration. We are pleased to hear the changes that have been announced on fuel, particularly on mileage, which makes a massive difference. A couple of weeks ago when Jackdaw was announced, the Government talked about removing the gas standing charges. We know that this is going to put up the energy bills for those people who use the higher levels of gas. We know that people in Scotland have significantly colder properties because it is colder in Scotland than it is here. What is the differential change? How many people in Scotland will be losing far more, given the extra that they will be spending? How many disabled or elderly people, who spend more time at home, will have to pay more on their gas bills because of the Chancellor’s choices? Has he actually looked at that? Is it in any way a progressive measure, or will it continue to screw over those people who are already screwed over by the current situation? The Chancellor needs to do better.
1. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the devolution of further powers to Scotland.
The Prime Minister was unequivocal last month when he told the House that “exactly the same situation” for a referendum applies in Scotland as in Northern Ireland. The legal mechanism for a referendum on Irish unification is detailed in the Northern Ireland Act 1988, but there is no equity across these islands for an equivalent law for Scotland. When will the Secretary of State deliver on the Prime Minister’s words, and bring forward legislation to amend the Scotland Act 1988 and enshrine the people of Scotland’s equal right to choose their own future?
There is real fear in Scotland this morning that the Labour party is about to embark on another big betrayal of Scotland’s energy. After abandoning Grangemouth and costing thousands of energy jobs in Scotland, the UK Government now seem set on withdrawing funding for Scotland’s carbon capture industry. Will the Minister take this opportunity to quash that rumour?
I note that the Minister has failed to quash the rumours about Acorn, so let me try another imminent Labour party betrayal of Scotland’s energy. At a time when bills are set to be £1,000 higher than the Labour party promised, the Chancellor is inexplicably going to increase the unit price of gas. We know that families in Scotland will be disproportionately hit by the Labour party gas price increase. The Minister says that she and her colleague the Secretary of State are Scotland’s people in the Cabinet. What is she going to do to protect people from the Chancellor’s gas price rise?
The hon. Lady may not have read the Budget Red Book, but GDP growth is forecast to reduce from 1.6% back in March to just 1% in 2027, and indeed GDP per capita is also forecast to reduce from 1.3% to 0.9%, so the numbers in the forecasts are actually getting worse, not better.
Poorer—that is what every household in the country is, including in my constituency of Boston and Skegness. This year alone, real household disposable income is down 0.8%, and every single year between now and the end of this parliamentary term, the average household’s real disposable income is down compared to what the OBR forecast just six months ago. Let us look at the other main economic data: GDP growth for 2027 is forecast to be down once again—from 1.6% to 1%—under this failing Labour Government; and GDP growth per capita is forecast to be down from 1.3% to 0.9%. And let us just look at what is up, shall we? Government borrowing in this financial year alone is up almost £20 billion compared to what the OBR forecast just six months ago. Over the lifetime of this Budget book for the next five years, Government borrowing will be over £65 billion more than the OBR forecast just six months ago. This is a Government who are completely out of control in terms of spending. That is why the bond markets are applying what is known internationally as “the moron premium” to the United Kingdom under this Labour Government. Credit where credit is due, this Chancellor does know where the real problems are and he has tried to do a little bit. He understands that there is a crisis with energy bills, which are now forecast to go up by an extra £466 per household in January, and then by another £200 per household in April—all because of the madness of net zero and the rush to renewables, which is happening as we speak. Every single day, NESO is having to tweak and twiddle the dials and add balancing costs to the tune of some £50 million. That is ten times what it was just a few years ago. Next year, it will cost £200 per household for the balancing costs on the grid alone. This is completely out of control. The Chancellor has shuffled the cards in the pack. He has moved a bit from bills to general taxation, but he has not dealt with the real crux of the crisis, which is that the rush to renewables is driving up all our household energy bills at a catastrophically high rate. Now, I am constructive sort of guy, so I want to give credit where credit is due, so let me say that the Government have done the right thing in approving Jackdaw—but they need to go further. Ministers know in their heart of hearts that they need to approve the oilfield at Rosebank—the Prime Minister was tempted to confirm it at question time today—and grant many more licences in the North sea, because that is our energy treasure; that is where the jobs are and where the growth is. This Government are completely failing on growth. The energy crisis is getting worse, and everybody needs to understand that. If we use our energy treasure, the bills will come down. If we look at property and housing—again, credit where credit is due—the Chancellor has eased regulations to try to build more homes on brownfield sites. I think he might have read the teal paper I released in September on how to reduce the cost of construction and get more things built. He is right to remove the need for biodiversity requirements on brownfield sites, but there is so much more to do to reduce the construction cost of the new homes that I think we all agree we need to build. There is a £15,000 to £20,000 increase in the cost of homes because of unnecessary regulations, but again the Chancellor has not grasped the real opportunities to go for it and reduce the cost of building. That is what we need. We all agree that we need more affordable social housing, but to do that we have to reduce and remove unnecessary restrictions and the delays in getting planning consents. We now know that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has given up on her 1.5 million target. In reality, we will be lucky to get to half that number—750,000 homes instead of 1.5 million. These are the lost opportunities from a Government obsessed with regulation, obsessed with process and obsessed with bureaucracy. They cannot do the right thing to deregulate and get some growth.
Far from it—we are actually trying to build more houses on brownfield sites, because that is what we should do all over the country, including in the great town of Tunbridge Wells. We need to make it easier to build on brownfield sites. At the moment, house builders are giving up all over the country because the costs are too high. I think the Chancellor has been looking at some of our excellent Reform policies, but while he is right to lift the income tax threshold for pensioners, he could have gone much further and lifted it for everybody—up to our recommended level of £15,000—by being more dramatic about cutting the vast amount of wasteful spending on welfare and cutting foreign aid to overseas nations that do not need it. Those are the differences between the right things to do and the lost opportunities of this Government. I think the Chancellor has listened to another Reform policy, which is to lift the threshold on business rates, but he has not gone far enough. While the £18,000 threshold is better than £12,000, it needs to be much higher. That is another lost opportunity. We have a nation of voters, and every household who looks at this Budget book and listens to the Budget will say, “No, thanks. Every single year between now and 2030-31 we’re all getting poorer than the OBR forecast just six months ago.” People feel it and they sense it. They know that their money is being wasted on bureaucracy and unnecessary quangos—more taskforces and quangos have been set up during this Budget. It could have been so much better. I feel that this Chancellor has just not had the courage or the strength. He has not risen to the occasion. He has tried, but it is not good enough. We are facing a financial crisis and an energy crisis, and we need a Government who do the right thing—a Government who cut our bills. This Budget is a lost opportunity.
Q9. Ashfield district council is being run by criminals—criminals such as Councillor Tom Hollis, who is the vice-chairman of the council. Councillor Hollis, along with his family, keep putting in planning applications that are recommended for refusal by the planning officers, and then, as if by magic, they go to committee and they are planned, netting Councillor Hollis tens—if not hundreds— of thousands of pounds for him and his family. Will the Prime Minister please send in the commissioners to root out that corruption and put those people where they belong?
Q11. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Budget calculations assume the approval of the Rosebank gasfield, and, if so, has he told the Energy Secretary of this important development? If he is now taking back control of energy policy, will he approve more North sea exploration and, while he is at it, speed up the roll-out of nuclear as well?
This was Labour’s opportunity to show the people of Wales that it is listening, following the Senedd election last May. Instead, it has delivered one of the worst funding settlements for Wales in years. The £450 million over three years announced by the UK Government today is a real-terms cut to the Welsh budget. The Welsh Government needed a further £350 million in one year for a standstill budget. That means a cut to public services. In addition, the capital budget will be cut by 10% in real terms by the end of the decade, because of decisions made here in Westminster. This Budget should have begun to address the long-standing injustice of Welsh rail funding. Wales has around 10% of the UK rail network, yet it receives just 1% of the rail enhancement spending. To address that, we were promised a £14 billion rail pipeline, but today, Leeds gets £300 million for one station, and the entire Welsh rail network gets £30 million. The Government should go further to support investment. In north Wales, we are fortunate, and I thank the Labour Government for their decision on Gwyndod. Gwyndod has the potential to reindustrialise north Wales, strengthen our energy security and create thousands of high-quality jobs, but that will only happen if the Government ensure that the manufacturing jobs and supply chain investments from that project are created in Wales. Today’s announcement that the M-SParc science park on Ynys Môn will be supported is a step in the right direction when it comes to supporting economic growth, but we must make sure that Ynys Môn and north Wales benefit fully from Gwyndod.
I think those conversations will take place in every community where there is a grid connection, and it is respectful to have those conversations. Since being elected to this place, I have been having conversations about having a robust connection, which should include undergrounding, to respect our communities. Communities that are hosting nationally significant energy projects should also be getting energy transmission in a fairer way. Another measure that should have been announced today is energy support. Wales has some of the oldest and hardest to heat housing stock in western Europe, and official figures show that one in four households are living in fuel poverty. As has been mentioned today, many households across rural Wales remain off the gas grid—including 52% of those on Ynys Môn—with many of them reliant on heating oil. Businesses, too, remain exposed to volatile energy costs, without the protection of a price cap. The Chancellor announced that standing charges on gas will not be removed until the end of 2027, so households will not see the benefits of that decision this winter. The Government have not taken immediate steps to end unfair electricity standing charges, leaving households in north Wales paying the highest standing charges anywhere in the United Kingdom. The people of Wales deserve better—they deserve a Government prepared to match their rhetoric on fairness with meaningful action. We did not get that fair deal for Wales in this Budget.
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd. The Prime Minister believes that devolution is the key to unlock economic growth. He champions new powers for English mayors, while still refusing Wales many of the economic levers already held by Scotland. When he meets the First Minister at the National Economic Council on Friday, the key test will be how much power he is prepared to release from Westminster, because that is how he can make a difference. We will do our part to empower communities. Will he do his and give Wales the economic powers we need to prosper?
Scottish Government figures released yesterday show the lowest level of new house building in more than a decade. Ahead of the Budget, councils in England are expected to benefit from new investment to stimulate council house building and access low-interest borrowing. Will the Minister engage with her Scottish Government counterparts to encourage similar support in Scotland to help local councils to build more homes and, in turn, support local economic growth through construction?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing the debate, which will be so important to people in my constituency. I have spoken at length about large-scale developments being proposed with insufficient infrastructure and with new homes sitting empty, and I hope the Minister can pass back to the Secretary of State the message that I am still waiting for the meeting she promised me in the Chamber. However, today I want to focus on schedule 1 in the scheme of delegation. I accept that the vast majority of planning applications are rightly determined by professional officers, but when applications are controversial, when communities have legitimate concerns or when residents simply need confidence that their voices have been heard, planning committees play a vital role. They are there not to frustrate development, but to improve it. They bring together the three important sides of professional advice, local knowledge and public scrutiny, allowing elected representatives to listen to applicants, officers and residents and identify solutions to make development more acceptable to everyone. They are often the best of democracy, and they can be the closest that many of our constituents get to influencing the places where they live. Recent examples from my area, shared by Lib Dem councillors today, demonstrate that value. One application, which councillors considered today, was refused based on height, density and design, but they were able to debate how the proposal could better fit with the character of the area. In a case last month, members considered the impact on neighbours of three bungalows being squeezed on to a plot for one, and discussed the conditions that might make a future application more acceptable. Both applications were rejected today, and members expect them to come back—but better. That ability to shape development, rather than just approve or reject it, is a crucial part of the process. Supporters of the changes argue that community engagement should take place through local plans. I understand that, but local plans and planning committees serve different purposes and work to different timelines. As explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), local plans are often out of date, and when they are rewritten they create a bird’s eye view of a community; they do not see inside the window of a neighbour’s poorly placed extension. Local plans can allocate land, but they cannot say whether a particular design respects the character of a street, or whether a historic feature, such as the wall in my ward built by Italian prisoners of war, should be retained. That is something that only local councillors and local residents know. With the funding slashed for neighbourhood plans, which the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and I discussed when we were on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee, communities do not even have the opportunity to create new neighbourhood plans to get that much closer position. I will give another example that was shared with me today. A recommendation for an HMO in Poole was going to be approved. Had there not been local concern, it would not have gone to committee, where a mistake was discovered. The planning officer thought that nine additional properties were going to be created and therefore that housing capacity would be affected, when in fact an HMO does not create nine additional properties. If the case had not gone to a planning committee, that mistake would not have been able to be fixed, because the decision would have been published too late and the community would not have had its say. These people are not blockers; they are trying to make their communities better. While they recognise that a planning officer makes recommendations based on law and policy, they contextualise cases. Another issue that has not been covered is that many planning applications are now determined from afar. Since covid, we have had planning officers working from Northern Ireland and seeing the sites only on Google Maps. The councillors are the ones who can tell us the context of whether a site is overhanging another, not somebody who has been shipped in on a contract from afar. The Government frequently speak about devolution and empowering communities, but devolution should mean trusting local people and their elected representatives, not reducing their involvement in decisions that affect the places where they live. One Dorset resident today put it to me far better than I could: “If a community is going to feel that it’s been completely shafted by a decision, there should at least be a meaningful opportunity to secure measures that address its concerns and help rebuild trust in the process.” That is ultimately what planning committees provide: trust, transparency and democratic legitimacy. By removing that layer of local decision making, we may make some decisions faster, but we risk weakening public confidence in the planning system itself.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate. Moira from Tring asked me: “How we can take back our democracy which is being eroded at a shocking rate?”— and, yes, she is talking about planning and about this change. She had read that these planning decisions are being taken from the councillors she has elected. She is absolutely right. First, we had the Conservative Government with their top-down targets, and now we have this Labour Government, who just keep taking power away from local councils and therefore communities. There have been continual changes to the national planning policy framework, with more than 3,000 drafting changes, all taking power away. The introduction of grey belt has effectively opened our green belt to developers. Ever higher top-down targets mean that, after St Albans had adopted a housing plan, the Government are adding 9,000 more houses. For Dacorum, on the other side of my constituency, there are another 6,000, again after a local plan had just been secured. That is all while we are facing Luton airport expansion and Bedford Universal Studios, which impact infrastructure for local people. And now, from Saturday, this latest regulation means officers must decide householder applications and schemes of up to nine homes. Ward, town and parish councillors will lose the right to call those applications in, as has been reiterated across the Chamber today. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) eloquently highlighted that the scale and nature of planning applications does not necessarily imply they are not controversial or important; even small things have a massive impact on our communities. Just because they are within scope, that does not mean they do not deserve to be looked at more closely by a committee of democratically elected councillors. Lib Dem councillors from Dacorum and St Albans are horrified and share Moira’s concerns that their hands will be tied by this regulation and legal challenge, thanks to the Government. In the light of that, Liberal Democrat Dacorum borough council has voted to hold an extra meeting of its development management committee, so that as many called-in applications as possible can be heard before the changes take effect. However, that is no way to run our country or local councils. What is really needed are long-term changes to planning law that support the voices of local communities, whether Tring, Redbourn, Berkhamsted or Sandridge. All that communities want is to get planning right for the places where they live and to raise legitimate concerns about their everyday lives. They know that we need to build, and they want a say in the homes, buildings and infrastructure that will impact their lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) highlighted—the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills raised this too—Ministers have given the excuse that this change will speed up house building. In fact, a survey of 62 councils found that more than 200,000 homes with planning permission still have not started, so committees are not the bottleneck. If the Government truly believe in power in every postcode, and if they are going to walk the walk instead of just talk the talk, people will feel it in their planning. That is so vital. Will the Minister and the Government therefore stop taking powers from local communities and give them back the powers to get their homes and infrastructure right? Will they restore call-in powers for ward, town and parish councillors, and tackle the real problem of unbuilt homes with “use it or lose it” planning permission? Will they also look at wider reforms to bring our communities with us?
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, as always. Given that there is some underlying positivity, is she concerned that although there is ongoing support for people with their energy bills, there is nothing for the tens of thousands of people in Cumbria, and the hundreds of thousands across the country, who are off grid and who rely on heating oil? Does she think that the Chancellor had room for a formal cap on energy bills for people who are off grid, whose bills have gone up threefold in the last year?
I am so glad the hon. Gentleman has called this debate. I want to include the feeling of injustice that there is for those who suffer the loss of a family member. The person who killed the wife of one of my constituents with a car chose to give a “no comment” interview. There were only two vehicles involved: a bike ridden by my constituent’s wife, and a car. The perpetrator did not deny that she had done it, but she gave a “no comment” interview throughout the proceedings, which just added to the grief and injustice that that family feels.
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing this debate. To pick up on something that the hon. Gentleman said, driving is a privilege. Allowing somebody who has killed or caused serious injury to another person to be able to return to the road immediately seems particularly injurious. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the hon. Gentleman’s call for automatic license revocation. The current situation feels incredibly lenient, especially considering that people have to wait a very long time for court cases to come around. The perpetrator can carry on with the rest of their life while the family is suspended in utter grief. My sense is that suspended sentences are not appropriate either, particularly in the case I am thinking of, where somebody has given a “no comment” interview to the police and chosen not to speak. It just seems so desperately unfair. It has already been mentioned, but I also want to address the fact that there are people who are driving without insurance, tax or a valid MOT, but the police are so stretched that they cannot deal with those sorts of issue when they come along. Those “minor” infringements, as considered by those who commit them, only increase the likelihood of someone carrying on to behave more irresponsibly. I ask the Minister to look at what is happening in France and Ireland, our nearest neighbours, who take different views and actions. I am happy to send the Minister information on that. I want to talk about one other aspect: how to prevent dangerous behaviour before it results in even one more death. I will concentrate on speeding and racing, which is a serious concern in my constituency. Between 2019 and 2024, 204 people were killed or seriously injured: 29 lost their lives and 175 suffered serious injuries. I am thinking about accidents that happened in Dinder, just outside Wells; in Blackford; and recently in the village of Ston Easton. Those incidents are catastrophic, not just for the people who live nearby and the families but desperate for everyone involved. The people killed or seriously injured are not just statistics; they represent individuals, families and communities, whose lives are often changed for ever. I do not suggest that all those collisions involved speeding, but nationally excessive speed was a contributory factor in around one in five fatal collisions in 2024. That surely underlines why tackling excessive speeding must be central to any serious strategy to reduce road deaths. It is great that the Department for Transport has published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, but we have a Justice Minister here. I ask him to work with colleagues in the Department for Transport to address my straightforward question. The strategy includes a welcome ambition to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 65% by 2035, but where will that 65% reduction will come from? Many in the road safety community question whether the currently proposed measures are sufficient to achieve that ambition. The strategy is relatively light on specific measures to tackle serious and persistent speeding, despite recognising speeding as one of the fatal four causes of death or serious injury on our roads. Since that strategy was published back in January, there must be an urgent need to finalise the Government’s response to the consultations, set out a clear delivery plan and to begin implementing the measures that will save lives. I attended an event here in the Houses of Parliament where I was interested to see the intervening intelligent speed assistant, or IISA. I recognise that technology is fitted to new cars, but this feature can be fitted to cars that are already on the road. I have asked for some, as I drive 25,000 miles a year, going in and out of 20, 30 and 40 limits regularly, and I do not wish to get any points on my licence. I should declare an interest there. Unlike the intelligence speed assistance technology fitted to new cars, which can warn drivers when they exceed the speed limit but can be overridden or switched off—although it should not be—intervening technology can actively prevent a vehicle from accelerating beyond the legal limit. That is not a theoretical idea; it is already happening in Virginia in the United States. A programme was introduced this year that allows the courts to require certain speeding offenders to use vehicles that are fitted with speed-limiting technology, which is an advance. Transport for London has also demonstrated high levels of speed-limit compliance, using intervening technology in its bus fleet. Can this Minister get Transport Ministers to reassure us that the Secretary of State’s officials have examined the progress being made in other jurisdictions using IISA as part of offender management? Might he take a slightly different angle and just ask why we would not do that rather than why we would do it. It seems that it has been demonstrated to be effective and practical, and it has the potential to save lives, so I think that we should trial it at least. I return to the families whose experiences lie at the heart of today’s debate. They deserve justice. They also deserve to know that we are doing everything reasonably possible to prevent other families from suffering as they have suffered.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would say to the Minister that, even with all the optimism in the world that there might be another two lots of elections, that does not provide a reason not to act. This timetable really does need to be contracted. When such simple wins could be achieved, we should do things as quickly as we possibly can: 2035 does seem an awfully long way away. There is an ambitious target—I understand that—but we need the measures, the right timetable and determination. I ask the Minister to answer those questions that are relevant to him, and I ask him kindly to pass those that he will not be able to answer on to the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State in particular.
I regard this as a really serious matter. I hope the Minister will address potential suspension immediately after an accident, so that people are not driving around for a year, two years, three years, or four years while they await a court case. In the same way as a perpetrator of sexual abuse, domestic abuse or whatever has to say where they live, so that the local police know where they live, one could ensure that the local police are aware that person X is not permitted to drive for a period of five years, 10 years or even forever. The local police will be the people who pick that up.
I know that everybody has the right not to comment, but it is simply outrageous when that has no weight. It would be different if someone had had some sort of medical episode that meant that they were not able to remember what had happened, but where that is clearly not the case, and someone is advised by their solicitor not to comment throughout proceedings, it is really very tough on the families. Will the Minister consider that point and see if there is a way to put some weighting behind that? Will he also speak to the Victims Minister at the Ministry of Justice, because it happens repeatedly?
I do not want to whang on, but I know that the Minister’s Department has looked just recently at what happens to people who refuse to come to court to hear their sentence, so clearly there is the ability to intervene in the process. I entreat the Minister to do something more.