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
The Minister said the purpose of sanctions was to deter, disrupt and demonstrate. Would he like to give the Committee the two best examples he has come across of who the parties were and what they were deterred from doing, and who the parties were and what they were disrupted from doing?
I, too, support these sanctions. They seem sensible to me, and I would imagine that any patriot would support something that seeks to make us more powerful in the world in pursuit of not only our national interests, but our national values, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East said. I know she said that we often talk about technical questions; I do, though, have three short technical questions for the Minister. First, the regulations seek to differentiate between citizens of the rest of the world and those of the United States, European Union, Australia and Canada. Could the Minister explain why those territories or countries get special treatment compared with everybody else? The second issue is about transparency of consideration. The Minister will know that one of the frustrations that the House has expressed on many occasions over the past three or four years is the unwillingness of the Government to share their legal advice in consideration of their position under lots of international treaties and agreements. If, say, a Member of Parliament—or anybody else, frankly—was to bring a particularly egregious case for consideration under these designation sanctions, how would that person understand how the Government had reached their conclusion, either for or against? Obviously, there is a huge amount of discretion with regard to the Secretary of State’s powers, but the credibility of these sanctions and their deployment stands very much on the contemplation of how those decisions are reached. The Government may have to fess up to the fact that they are making decisions on basic politics—that is to say, there is somebody whom, under any other guise, we would love to designate, but there is also something else, which we are getting round the back from them, that we need to be cognisant of. I think the Government lose credibility if they start to take inconsistent decisions without that being illustrated. My final question is: when can we expect the first wave of sanctions, assuming that this measure goes through today?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I would like the Minister to know from the outset that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not oppose the Regulations. It is right that the Government should have the power to sanction individuals, groups and companies responsible for serious human rights abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law; the regulations provide it, but asset freezes, director disqualifications and travel bans are serious measures, and the regulations considerably widen the range of conduct for which they can be imposed. Such powers must be used fairly, consistently and on the basis of sound evidence. I therefore request clarification from the Minister in four areas—I also thank him for his in-depth opening remarks. First, on the scope, the regulations add three new grounds for designation: serious violation of the right to liberty and security of person, serious violation of international humanitarian law, and obstruction of humanitarian assistance. How do the Government intend to apply those grounds, and what process will govern their use and review? In particular, how will the powers interact with the separate settlements regime that the Government announced in September? Secondly, on safeguards, in areas of humanitarian crisis, legitimate commercial and humanitarian activity can sit close to conduct that might trigger designation. Under regulation 8, anyone who provides finance or goods to a person responsible for abuses can be treated as “involved”, and that limb contains no requirement of knowledge. What protections will there be for British people and businesses acting legitimately and in good faith? Thirdly, on the impact, I understand that no specific consultation or formal impact assessment was carried out. Given that British nationals and companies are bound by the regulations wherever they operate, what assessment have the Government made of the consequences for British businesses, and what guidance will the Government provide? Fourthly, on consistency, designation requires only “reasonable grounds to suspect”. What evidence will the Government require in practice, particularly for designations “by description”, whereby a whole class of people can be designated at once? How will the Minister ensure that those standards are applied consistently across different conflicts and countries? As I stated, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not oppose the regulations. We ask only that Ministers put on record how the powers will be used, where their limits lie and what safeguards will protect legitimate activity and ensure consistency.
The regulations before us expand the scope quite significantly. Will the FCDO be using existing frameworks to ensure consistency or will those be expanded to reflect the expanded powers?
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this debate. Britain has a proud tradition of higher education. Our historic universities, our culture of learning and discovery and the world-class research carried out in this country have earned us a reputation that is recognised around the world. It is an asset that we must celebrate and that we must protect, because that tradition belongs to all of us. Higher education is so much broader than a three-year degree. Higher technical qualifications, foundation degrees, degree apprenticeships and lifelong learning all have a vital role to play alongside academic study. I left school at 16 and built a career as a plumber and gas engineer through vocational training at Bolton college and, later, apprenticeships, including the Prince’s Trust’s brilliant enterprise programme. I raise this because too often the voices of working people, tradespeople and people who maybe did not get on with school or who just prefer steel-toe cap boots to suits are missing from the debates and decisions that shape higher education. In the areas I represent, there is no shortage of ambition or of people willing to graft to make something of themselves, but far too many people struggle, through no fault of their own, to see a clear route into secure, well-paid work and a decent life. A strong and accessible higher education system should be part of that route. That system is clearly now at breaking point. Across the country, higher education institutions are facing a deepening financial crisis, driven by years of under-investment and a funding model that is no longer fit for purpose. Universities, specialist colleges and other higher education providers are grappling with a multibillion-pound funding gap, as tuition fee income and public funding have failed to keep pace with their rising costs. Yesterday, more than 400 students graduated from UCEN Manchester. Many of them were the first in their family to enter higher education, while others were mature learners who had returned to education. Yet providers such as UCEN that specialise in widening participation are increasingly being asked to do more with less, with their funding being steadily eroded. The consequences of that underfunding are already painfully clear: courses closing, experienced staff being forced out and departments having to make severe cuts just to make ends meet. At the same time, working conditions have worsened for all staff members, with growing workloads, stagnant pay and increasing job insecurity. In vocational education, things have got so bad that institutions cannot persuade people to leave industries like plastering to take up teaching the next generation, because the wages are far below what they are already earning. Students are facing exorbitant fees and the prospect of being burdened by decades of debt. If we are serious about equal opportunity, we must recognise that higher education is a long-term investment in our people, in our communities and in our country. The inventions and discoveries made by higher education researchers, like the covid-19 vaccines or the development of famine-resistant crops, have the potential to benefit all of us. The Government face a choice in today’s Budget; they can continue papering over the cracks or they can finally make a long-term investment in Britain’s future. The Green party’s position is clear. Higher education should be free, and students should be provided with adequate maintenance support funded through public investment, not private debt. A 1% tax on wealth above £10 million would raise around £15 billion a year—money that would more than cover the cost of scrapping tuition fees and would give our higher education institutions a vital injection of cash. Higher education policy must focus on spreading opportunity and investment more fairly across the country in areas like Gorton, Denton, Abbey Hey, Burnage, Longsight and Levenshulme. People from those places have never, ever lacked talent or drive. We must stop wasting it, by properly funding higher education and finally recognising learning for the national asset it is.
Not long after my election in 2024, I received an email from a father of three whose home had been flooded for the second time in five years. He wrote: “The increasing uncertainty in the weather caused by global warming only increases the flood risk in the immediacy—and in future, we fear we won’t be able to secure insurance on the property. And we live in constant fear of repeat situations for something that, in theory, can be resolved.” His words stayed with me, because they capture exactly what I hear across North Herefordshire, and what I am sure colleagues hear across the country. Flooding is no longer something that people talk about as a freak event or a piece of bad luck; increasingly, they expect it to happen again. As our climate changes, flooding is becoming something that communities now must plan around. We recently marked Flood Action Week, and I pay huge tribute to everyone, from local volunteers to emergency responders, who worked tirelessly to help communities prepare. But for many, flooding is no longer an occasional emergency; it is becoming a part of life. We have already seen unprecedentedly deadly climate impacts this summer. The climate crisis is no longer a future threat; it is here now, and affecting homes, farms, businesses and critical infrastructure across the country. As we head into winter, scientists are warning that a powerful supercharged El Niño could contribute to much wetter and stormier conditions during parts of this winter. We know that the risks are growing and that the cost of failing to prepare will be borne by our communities.
Absolutely, and that is a point I will return to later in my speech. There is a huge benefit-cost ratio for early investment in flood resilience—it pays back many times over. Let us recognise the scale of the challenge that we face: 6.3 million properties across the UK are already at risk of flooding. The Climate Change Committee estimates that flooding has already cost the UK around £3.3 billion every year and warns that annual damages could increase to about £4.5 billion a year by the middle of the century if we fail to adapt. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, it would be much cheaper to invest now to ensure that we are protected against that. The costs are measured not only in pounds, but in the strain placed on families trying to rebuild their lives. The bill for flooding is already here; the question is whether we invest now to reduce those costs or pay far more later.
Once again, the hon. Member’s point is that as we face increasing frequency and severity of floods, existing problems are going to become worse, so we need to invest to protect communities against that. Investment early is going to be cheaper than paying the costs in the long run.
The hon. Member makes an excellent point that I was about to make myself. Natural flood management has got to be a core element of our response to flood risk. I have met families who have gone through the ordeal of seeing their homes flooded time and again. I have met farmers who have watched valuable topsoil disappear from fields that they have worked for decades. I have met parents whose children cannot get to school because roads have become impassable. I have met business owners wondering how they will cope when the next storm comes. For all of those people, flood resilience is not an abstract issue; it is about whether they can live, work, study and plan with confidence.
The hon. Gentleman’s point about co-ordination between agencies is absolutely crucial; it is another point that I will be coming to in my speech. This is an issue that crosses boundaries, because river catchments do not respect administrative or sectoral boundaries. We need to have a fully joined-up approach. Herefordians know what severe flooding looks like. In 2020, Herefordshire experienced the worst flooding in more than 200 years of recorded history. Storm Dennis was absolutely devastating for many families and businesses. Six years on, residents tell me that it is not only the severity of flooding that worries them, but the frequency. The Minister may remember that I raised this issue basically every single month of my first few months in this Chamber because we were facing floods that frequently. Communities that have barely recovered from one flood are increasingly finding themselves preparing for the next. I hope that the Minister will be able to set out today exactly what action the Government are taking to better prevent, prepare for and respond to flooding. Flooding means different things in different places. In Lyonshall, in my constituency, it means the worry that a new development may not have been built with the infrastructure needed to manage water safely. In Eardisland it means anxiety about whether support will be available when the next flood comes. One issue repeatedly raised with me by residents in Eardisland is the flood recovery framework. Following Storm Bert in late 2024, I attended a public meeting with more than 100 local residents—as ever, the people closest to the problem already knew what needed to be done. After those conversations, I wrote to Ministers to ask whether responsibility for activating the flood recovery framework should rest more with local authorities. From the perspective of someone whose home is flooded, distinctions about national thresholds make very little sense. Local people and local councils understand the impacts better than anyone else.
I am always in favour of Government making it easier for local authorities to unlock funding, as well as Government providing more funding to enable the good things, like natural flood management, to happen. To finish my point on the flood recovery framework, will the Minister look again at whether local authorities should have a greater role in activating support under that framework. Many of the flooding incidents that affect my constituency are caused not by rivers bursting their banks, but by heavy rainfall overwhelming surface drainage systems. As surface water flooding is becoming a greater risk, our planning system and development standards must catch up. Many colleagues across the House have called on the Government to commence schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and finally make sustainable drainage systems standard practice. Will the Minister therefore set out whether and when the Government will commence schedule 3 and make sustainable drainage systems standard in new developments? Better planning must also be part of the solution. People understand that new homes are needed, but they expect flood risk to be properly reflected in planning decisions. This is at the core of the Green party’s policy of having the right homes in the right place at the right price. I have seen this in my own constituency, when a constituent from Canon Pyon came to see me in my surgery a while back. They had moved into a new development relatively recently, and their neighbour had been flooded out of their house six weeks after moving in because the surface drainage provisions were inadequate—this was in a newly built development. I raised it with the council subsequently. This just highlights that we must integrate flood resilience into development, because we cannot be building developments that are going to flood so shortly after they are built. We need to have it much more clearly specified in the planning process and have much clearer follow-up to ensure that conditions placed on planning applications are actually followed through. Flood resilience must also be better integrated into how we manage land. One of the absolutely lovely parts of my job is meeting farmers across North Herefordshire. They understand better than most that all of these strands are interconnected. Soil health affects water retention. Water affects crop yields. What happens upstream affects communities downstream, and what happens on one farm can affect flood risk miles away. That is why I am so impressed by schemes such as Wyescapes, which involves farmers working together to hold more water in the landscape to improve soil health, reduce pollution, restore nature and strengthen resilience, including flood resilience, across the whole catchment.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Government have a crucial role to play in supporting farmers to put in place the measures that are so helpful for our long-term resilience and have many wider community benefits too. This work is key because healthy soils, healthy rivers and resilient landscapes are key to long-term food security. As the National Farmers’ Union points out, 58% of England’s highest quality agricultural land lies within floodplains, underlining the fact that flood resilience is not just an environmental issue but a food security issue. I know many farmers whose land has been at times completely under water, which has devastating impacts on their livelihood. Farmers are increasingly having to manage both floods and drought as part of normal business planning. They want to be part of the solution, but they need the certainty and support to make long-term investments in managing water, improving soil health and restoring nature. Indeed, I met with the Herefordshire Rural Hub to discuss the local farmers’ water action group, which is looking exactly at how they can manage having excess water in the winter and not enough water in the summer, and connecting those two together to support our communities. When farmers hold on to water on their land to protect homes and infrastructure downstream, they are providing a much wider public benefit. Does the Minister agree that farmers who help to reduce flood risk in this way should be properly recognised and fairly rewarded for the role they play? More broadly, we need to invest much more in natural flood management, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) said. Restoring wetland, improving soil health, reconnecting rivers with their floodplains, planting trees, restoring hedgerows—all these things help to slow the flow of water through the landscape. Every drop of water held upstream is a drop that does not have to be managed in an emergency downstream. As has been noted, rivers do not recognise administrative boundaries, and neither does floodwater. What happens upstream affects communities downstream, often many miles away, so what are the Government doing to improve co-ordination and co-operation between local authorities, farmers, the drainage boards, regulators and water companies across the whole catchment? Flooding and drought are two sides of the same coin. I welcome the establishment of the new flood and drought resilience taskforce, which is currently looking at community engagement, water resilience and property flood resilience. Let me pay tribute to Flood Mary—one of my constituents—who has played a crucial role over many years in encouraging the adoption of property flood resilience. The test for me is how the work of the flood and drought resilience taskforce will translate into practical action on the ground for communities such as those in North Herefordshire. Met Office data shows that the winter of 2025-26 was the eighth wettest in England since records began, yet by August this year 71% of England had entered drought status. These are the extremes of flood and drought writ large, in our faces right now. It perfectly illustrates why flooding and drought can no longer be treated as separate challenges. What plans do the Government have to increase water storage, including new reservoirs, so that excess winter water can help tackle flooding while also improving resilience to summer droughts? The case for action is overwhelming. Flooding threatens homes, food production, local economies and the long-term viability of communities. We know that investing now is far cheaper than paying for the damage later. In fact, the Climate Change Committee estimates benefit-cost ratios of 3:1 to 5:1 for natural flood management, 5:1 for property flood resilience, and 5:1 for other approaches to flood risk management. This is great value for money and a fantastic return on investment. We know what works: better planning, better maintenance, stronger protection for homes, support for farmers and approaches that work with nature rather than against it. Indeed, I saw lots of that in action when I visited the Netherlands a couple of years ago with the Environmental Audit Committee. What was striking is that there they work out what needs to be done to protect communities, what the most cost-effective investments are and then how they are going to mobilise the funding. But in this country we seem to fight with the Treasury for a little pot of money, with everybody having to get their elbows out to engage in a bunfight about what resources can be secured for different places. We need a much more holistic approach. That requires more investment up front, but it will pay back many times over.
I am sorry, but I am going to finish as we are short of time. The responsibility of Government is not simply to respond to flooding after it happens, but to build the resilience our communities will need in a rapidly warming climate. The question is whether the Government are ready to act at the scale that the challenge of flood resilience demands.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. In constituencies that are vulnerable to flooding, such as Waveney Valley, farmers are indeed essential to managing water in a way that stores it on land and protects communities downstream. Countryside stewardship higher tier payments fund the work that creates wetlands, restores floodplains and plants woodland, but agreements are slow to reach farmers who are ready to mobilise, delaying essential work ahead of periods of heightened flood risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that DEFRA must properly resource both the budgets and capacity of Natural England and the Rural Payments Agency so that we can expand higher tier faster?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. From Saturday, councillors across England will lose powers—powers to bring planning applications before elected committees. For communities like mine in Aldridge-Brownhills, which are already facing huge speculative development, this is a serious loss of accountability. My residents have faced an onslaught of applications in relation to green-belt sites, including York’s Bridge for 330 houses, Queslett Road East for 850, Barns Lane for 77, Longwood Lane for 78 and Bosty Lane for 550. Those are just some of them. These applications have brought the debate about the future of our countryside very close to people’s doors. These green spaces help to give our communities their identity. Residents want to know what development will mean for their already busy roads, school places and GP access. They are right to expect those questions to be properly considered before Ministers introduce sweeping changes, yet here we are, just days before the new rules take effect, still looking for answers. It seems that of the outstanding applications for 2,350 homes across my constituency, 80% will be determined under the new rules and behind closed doors. Residents and councillors will not easily be able to ask questions of the developers or raise issues in open committee. Of course, we agree on the need for homes that local people can afford. I want brownfield sites brought back into use, with supporting infrastructure. As I have said time and again in this place and will probably keep saying, once agricultural land is built on, it is gone, and it is gone forever. I want to see planning consents built, not banked. That brings me to the current consultation on Walsall borough’s local plan.
I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he always makes useful contributions in Westminster Hall that allow us to reflect on and share our different experiences. To me, the fundamental thing is making sure that our communities feel that their councillors have a voice, rather than the democratic deficit that we are faced with. I thank him for his intervention. Our local plan consultation closes on Monday, and over the last six weeks I have been encouraging residents to respond. I have been holding public meetings, helping with objections and making it clear to them that their views, whatever they are, matter, including when the plan goes before an independent inspector. But what message are the new regulations sending? Residents take the time to go through the documents, attend the meetings and help shape their area’s future, while the Government restrict their councillors’ ability to secure full and public scrutiny when an application arrives. That is not democracy in action—it is neither scrutiny nor accountability—so what is the point of asking communities to invest their time in a local plan if contentious decisions about its application are then to be taken behind closed doors?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he is not upsetting me with those comments—far from it. His point, that local democracy and local accountability matter, is exactly the one I am making. It is so important that we include local voices, because it is local voices that have local knowledge that can help to shape the community. If we want truly cohesive communities that work together, we need to make sure that their voices are heard—and that they do not have targets and housing imposed upon them.
My hon. Friend is right. For a long time, it has concerned me that turnout at elections, particularly local elections, has been falling, and I do not believe the answer is simply to lower the voting age. Rather, we should be seeking to engage with people and communities on a cross-party basis. What we are seeing now is a Government who impose top-down targets, say it is all about devolution and go through the mayors, but when it comes to accountability and scrutiny, I cannot scrutinise the Mayor of the West Midlands. He does not even reply to my letters, yet he is getting more powers. These planning measures come down to local councils, and once again, local councillors are losing their voice—our communities are losing their voices. How can we say that we want to engage with communities? How do we shape the future of our country and our communities if we are taking away transparency and accountability, which are the very foundations of good, strong democracy? Delegation is a familiar concept. In fact, the Government’s own paper said that officers made 96% of planning decisions in the second quarter of 2024, but that cannot become how every application is determined. Where is the evidence about delays as a result of planning committee call-ins? How much delay arises from waiting for the committee, and how much from staffing shortages, outstanding technical advice or the complexity of the process? Under the new rules, ordinary applications for up to nine houses on sites smaller than half a hectare must be decided by officers. Larger applications are not guaranteed a hearing either. Referral requires that the nominated officer and the chair of the planning committee agree and that a test of significance is met; if they disagree, the decision stays with officers. Even reserved matters for a purely residential scheme of several hundred homes can be subject to mandatory delegation, so why exclude councillors from details that materially change the make-up of their own community? A ward councillor will know exactly why a proposal matters locally, but under the new rules they cannot make sure it is heard at committee. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline how the Government will ensure that the significance test is applied consistently. What can a councillor do when a well-founded referral request is rejected? How can it be that an application concerning a protected tree can still be eligible for committee consideration while an application for nine houses can be excluded? What principle explains that distinction? Why should councils be able to consider the future of a single tree—I am not saying that trees are not important—but not the circumstances of a housing development? We then come to the issue of transparency. Will reasons for refusing to refer an application to committee be published before the application is decided, allowing time to raise an error? Reporting afterwards will give no comfort to concerned residents if permission has already been granted. As the Minister is undoubtedly aware—and I appreciate this topic is not entirely in her brief—some councils are seeking to preserve democratic oversight through informal councillor panels advising on planning applications. What assessment has the Department made of the risk of developers alleging predetermination when councillors express a view through those panels and subsequently participate in the gateway decision or determine the application at committee? Could the resulting legal challenges and delays undermine the very house building targets that the regulations are intended to support? I would be grateful if the Department published clear guidance so that councils can retain meaningful elected involvement without creating further uncertainty. There is also the question of neighbourhood plans. One council leader told me their council has called for applications that conflict with an adopted neighbourhood plan policy to be eligible for committee consideration. Communities spend years and thousands of pounds preparing these plans before residents endorse them in a referendum. They deserve a route to elected scrutiny when an application conflicts with those policies. Will the Minister provide that safeguard, including for applications otherwise subject to mandatory delegation? There is a similar concern about houses in multiple occupation, which are used all too often to house those decanted from asylum hotels. Councils introduced article 4 directions because they identified a need for greater control over conversions in particular neighbourhoods, yet applications brought into the planning system by those directions can fall within schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026, preventing elected members from determining them. Will the Minister clarify exactly which HMO applications must be delegated, and explain why an article 4 direction provides no exception? Where an application raises significant concerns about the concentration of HMOs, such as about parking or the loss of family housing, will the Government allow councillors to secure a committee hearing? Let us not forget planning officers. They also deserve protection. They undertake difficult professional work, often with very limited resources. Moving contentious decisions away from committees has a real risk of leaving officers personally exposed. Councils are rightly asking what safeguards will protect officers from undue influence or pressure from developers, applicants and other interested parties. Will there be requirements to record substantive discussions, declare conflicts of interest and obtain a second opinion in contentious cases? What independent route will officers have to report improper pressure? Officers must act impartially, so how will the Minister prevent them from becoming a lightning rod for political criticism when elected council members have lost their decision-making role? The Royal Town Planning Institute has warned of the risk of increased abuse and public pressure. What support will be funded to protect staff and to help councils retain those important experienced planners? Transparency protects officers and residents alike. People should be able to follow the evidence and understand who decided and why. Accessibility matters, too. Developers often have a planning consultant and a legal team, whereas residents concerned about an application only have the option to open the planning portal for the very first time. They should not need professional help to find out whether an application will reach committee, how to ask for scrutiny or whether their concerns have been considered. Will Ministers engage in a publicity campaign to update people on those changes and ensure that each authority has an easily understandable explanation of the new process on its website, including how residents can put their case where there is no committee meeting? The Planning Inspectorate also has an important role. An inspector will examine whether the proposed local plan in my constituency meets legal requirements and is sound. Separately, inspectors determine many planning appeals, but how will local evidence about infrastructure and cumulative green-belt loss be considered through these processes? On another point of fairness, or rather the lack of it, applicants can appeal refusals, but objecting residents have no equivalent appeal on planning merits. Given that imbalance, why weaken scrutiny before the decision? What affordable option will residents realistically have if an application is wrongly kept away from the committee? A separate part of this new scheme requires councils to consult the Secretary of State before refusing applications for 150 or more homes. How will that operate transparently? How can residents make representations? Ministers are creating an additional opportunity for Whitehall interference and involvement while restricting elected local councillors. That undoubtedly creates a democratic deficit. How does that sit with the Prime Minister’s promises on devolution and community empowerment? I do not see how it does. The Local Government Association’s Conservative group has organised a letter from more than 1,500 Conservative councillors calling for this scheme of delegation to be repealed; I put on record my thanks to them for that. Let us hope that the Prime Minister gives it his urgent attention when it is delivered to him at No. 10 tomorrow. We all know that councils must comply with the law, but we must remember that agreeing to update their constitutions does not mean that they consent to these regulations or believe that they serve their communities. A Government talking about devolution should trust local representatives and communities. I hope that the Minister will reconsider these regulations. At the very least, the Government should restore an effective route to committee for contentious applications to protect neighbourhood plans and article 4 directions and provide clear safeguards for officers. Before the scheme takes effect on Saturday, will the Minister commit to those changes and to publishing an assessment of the scheme’s impact ahead of the statutory review in 2028? My constituents are being asked to engage with their local plan by Monday. I want to be able to tell them that doing so will make a difference and that their elected councillors will still have a meaningful role when decisions are taken. That is the assurance that I am seeking.
I would be delighted if the Minister came to Aldridge-Brownhills to see the impact that 20,000 homes will have across the borough, where we have a lack of infrastructure. I am still waiting for the funding for Aldridge railway station.
On that point about local leaders making decisions and showing leadership, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we actually see that? In areas such as Walsall, what we do not see from the new leadership there—the Reform council—is strong leadership on this. One area that needs more pushback is the duty to co-operate with other areas. In our area, Birmingham’s housing target has gone down and ours has gone up. There are some towns and cities in neighbouring counties that actually want more housing and have more brownfield sites.
I can assure the Minister that I will not persistently intervene. But on her last point, can she reassure me that if she is unable to answer questions that were asked today—I appreciate that this is not in her portfolio—she will ensure that the Minister for Housing and Planning responds to Members in this Chamber and the public in writing before the regulations come into force on Saturday? It is absolutely critical that Members here, and councillors across the country, fully understand their implications.
I thank all Members across the House for their contributions. It is clear that there is a lot of cross-party support, but it is noticeable that some of those who protesteth about saving the green belt—namely, our Reform colleagues—are nowhere to be seen in Westminster Hall. I know who is fighting for residents and standing up to protect the green belt.
I agree with the right hon. Member that it would be great to grow the economy to achieve the 3.5% spend, but the Chancellor has today set out multibillion pound in-year cuts this year—we see that in particular in the resource departmental expenditure limit budget at about 0.5% next year—so as it stands there will be far less for training and operations. That is before we even look at whether, in three-plus years’ time, the Chancellor has achieved that growth or not.
I welcome the approach to move forward on defence, but since I have been elected I have even called my own Government out for not providing enough defence funding. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that today’s announcement on defence means that we are making in-year cuts for the next two years on defence because we cannot afford what we currently have in place?
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who started by talking about not having a mayor, and then how getting a mayor will open routes to funding. In South Shropshire, we do not have a mayor, and we are not looking to get one; most of what was said today excludes areas like mine that do not have local mayors. That is a big issue. I would categorise this Budget as one that fails rural communities and does not protect our nation, and I will back that up by outlining why. I will start with the gambling tax. Ludlow racecourse is in my constituency, which Members will obviously all agree is the best in the country; along with the point-to-points, like Bitterley and Eyton races, Ludlow is really going to suffer from the gambling tax. It will have a massive impact, and there is a whole ecosystem around racecourses. Let me turn to heating oil. As 53% of my constituents are not on mains gas, over half over my constituents will not benefit from those announcements in the Budget.
The price of heating oil is more than double what it was six months ago. I understand that that is because of international headwinds, and I believe that prices will probably go up significantly again because of what will happen over the next few weeks. However, 53% of my constituents do not feel that the support they are getting is comparable to what residents on gas are getting. Let us look at pubs. The 166 pubs and four great breweries in South Shropshire tell me that the various rate rises they have seen over the past few years are having a massive impact on them. The minimum wage makes it very hard for them to employ young people, whether to give them their first step on the jobs ladder or because they want to earn extra money while at university. It is getting very hard.
My hon. Friend raises a valid point. There is definitely a link; it is getting harder to employ people because businesses are not making a profit. In my high street survey, to which 4,500 residents contributed, businesses said that it is harder to make a profit on the high street. We have seen the rise of the internet alongside increases in taxes and the cost of employing people. Businesses are not investing—they are not taking the risk. Look at how hard the Government have made it for high streets. The Lib Dem council in South Shropshire decided to bring in what look to be catastrophic parking charges for Ludlow and Bridgnorth, and across the whole area. I stand firmly against those charges, because they are just another tax on my constituents.
I do not think the minimum wage should have gone up by 3.9% or 3.4%—whatever was announced today. I believe it should have been frozen for many years, or for several years. I definitely think we should have left it; I do not believe it should rise, because businesses cannot take it at the moment. We have to make firm decisions. Fewer young people will have work because of these rate rises. I will turn to farming. The Chancellor spoke for an hour and a half, and there was not one thing about agriculture. Some 25% of my constituents work in agriculture, and the failed SFI26 window was a serious issue. Rural communities really do feel left behind. We have seen an attack on our rural communities, from the shotgun consultation to trail hunting—all those issues are vital to my constituency. This is huge. I think my constituency has the second highest number of shotgun licences in the country. It is a serious sport that is undertaken widely. There is just a continual drip, drip, drip of these policies. I will finish on defence. The Chancellor resigned when he believed that defence was not funded well enough. In this year, there is a £3.5 billion cut, with a £1 billion cut in each of the next two years—that is in the RDEL figures on page 145 of the Red Book. That means that defence is now getting less funding than when the Chancellor resigned. The target to get to 3% by 2030—[Interruption.] It is! It is on page 145. Look at the in-year cuts. Look at the defence industry’s response to the Budget.
I will not take any more interventions— I have already taken two. Look at what the industry, from ADS across, is saying about these cuts. Last week, the House found out that two or three Boxer projects were cut. We found out that DragonFire might not be on the Type 45s next year, as planned. We found out that there are training cuts that happen to have an impact on operational capability. We found out that there is a cut to single living accommodation. Does anybody seriously think that we are funding defence? We are nowhere near doing so. When we were in government, I had many conversations saying, “This does not work,” and I publicly put it on record with the rest of the Defence Committee. We were facing serious issues, and we were not funding defence enough. I am very happy to say that. The strategic defence review set out almost 18 months ago that we face the most serious times since the cold war—though I believe it is since the second world war. Out of the NATO countries, only Iceland is rearming more slowly than us and it does not have a military. I travel a lot within NATO countries, and I have been called out to speak on behalf of the UK by other countries’ Defence Ministers. I fed that back to the now Chancellor and he said, “I know; it is embarrassing.” On the international stage, we are nowhere near where we should be. Our approach to defence is seriously failing. This Budget fails rural communities and it fails defence.
I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, like mine, relies very heavily on the tourist trade. That industry is on its knees gasping for air. It does not need breathing space; it needs help. There was nothing in the Budget for that industry.
The Budget was a whirl of little things. I picked up a road map, a taskforce, a few bob scattered around various organisations, and even a few pence off a jar of gherkins. But it is a missed opportunity. It smacks of managerial incrementalism, rather than the bold and radical reforms that our economy needs if it is to meet the challenges of the future. Those challenges include intergenerational unfairness, an ageing population and—heavens above—the menace presented by Vladimir Putin. The Budget is based on the somewhat smug false premise that somehow the economy is going broadly in the right direction. It is not. The Chancellor prayed in aid the comments of the IMF on near-term growth and fiscal consolidation. However, the reality is that that should not be the benchmark. We should not be looking at France, which has had so much civil, economic and political unrest that it is heading towards a potential bond crisis. We should be asking a fundamental question: what level of growth does the economy need to address the challenges that I have just set out? The answer is that we need to at least get back to the growth trends that we had before the global financial crisis—at least 2% to 3% per year. We are a very long way from that. The Chancellor lauded the fact that growth has been revised up for this year; he neglected to mention that from next year the position is very different indeed. He made no attempt to acknowledge the mistakes that this Government have made since they came to office. Huge mistakes by his predecessor, such as massive tax increases predominantly on businesses, have had the effect of lowering investment, raising unemployment, reducing output, and—because taxes are often passed on in higher prices—pushing up the rate of inflation. We are now in a position where, if my reading of the OBR document is correct, due to the inflationary effect that this Government have in part induced, fiscal drag alone will result in more than 200,000 average days’ work being destroyed. We are left with almost the highest level of unemployment in five years, high and sticky inflation, high interest rates, massive servicing costs on our national debt and huge levels of borrowing. In its document, the OBR sets out what is happening to real household disposable income across the forecast. If my reading is correct, it is lower now across every year within this set of forecasts than in the forecasts back in March. In other words, hard-working people up and down the country are getting poorer as a direct result of the actions taken by this Government.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That brings me to another point, which is that the Chancellor has taken a conscious decision to reduce the headroom, in the primary target, from around £24 billion to £15 billion. That is a mistake. If he had taken the radical measures necessary to get on top of public spending, particularly the welfare bill, he could have increased the headroom. He talks about the risks ahead—that is the very reason why we have the buffer of that headroom. If we have low headroom, we end up paying a premium on the debt servicing costs to which my right hon. Friend just referred. The average headroom that Chancellors have come forward with since the instigation of the OBR runs at about 1.4% of GDP. In today’s terms, that would be about £40 billion of headroom. We are now down to £15 billion. Members across the House should therefore not be surprised if the Chancellor comes back at a future date and tells us, just as was the case with his predecessor, that the headroom has entirely evaporated, once again, because of reasons beyond his control. This is a mañana Budget. This is a Budget kicks the can down the road. When the Chancellor resigned as Secretary of State for Defence, he made it very clear that his resignation from Government was nothing to do with the defenestration of the previous Prime Minister, and was instead a matter of principle: he did not believe that our country was going to be adequately protected as a result of not coming up with the money to fund the 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. He now has his hands on the levers, and he has failed to do even that on this occasion.
We will have to look very closely at the wording that the Chancellor used, because my recollection is that he said that the Government would be committed to the NATO target of 3.5% by 2035, with a target to reach 3% by the end of 2030. The word “target” is not the same as the word “commitment” when it comes to reaching that particular figure. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman looks closely at that. When it comes to this Chancellor and his principles, I am reminded of the late Groucho Marx, who said, “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well, I have others.” It seems to me that that is where we are on this particular matter. The Leader of the Opposition was perfectly correct in identifying the unrealistic expectations and assumptions contained within the numbers the OBR has had to work with. While the OBR sets out its assessment of what various interventions will mean for growth, inflation and so on, it has to take at face value the spending envelope that the Government come forward with, which was inherited from the Chancellor’s predecessor. As we know, that spending envelope sees a very strong squeeze in spending right at the end of the forecast period. In fact, if health spending increases in the spending review next year by 2.7% in real terms, as it did in the last review, and the 3% defence target is met, there will be a black hole of £20 billion in the figures that the Chancellor has just presented. We have seen the march of the PuFins—public financial institutions—in the Budget measures that have just been announced. We have seen £20.4 billion placed in the National Wealth Fund. Make no mistake: it should be clearly understood that this is additional borrowing. It does not matter whether it falls within the current definition of debt—the public sector net financial liabilities definition—and would have fallen outside the old definition of public sector net debt; the reality is that it is more money that this Government are borrowing.
The hon. Gentleman should join us on the Conservative Benches, because we are the party that is standing four-square behind North sea oil and gas extraction. We do that for a very important economic reason. It is right that the national minimum wage not going up by as much as it might otherwise have done will help business. The Leader of the Opposition welcomed that. We have also seen a lowering of business rates for some businesses. The mileage changes with HMRC will no doubt be slightly helpful, particularly for the self-employed. However, the Chancellor also came forward with a reduction in the business asset disposal relief—he has halved it, making it less of an incentive for people to set up businesses. I looked at the figures in the Red Book, and it seems that there are £5 billion-worth of additional taxes on businesses across this forecast—an increase of £2 billion in additional taxes across inward investment into our economy. In conclusion, the lights are flashing on the UK economy. We have huge challenges ahead, and it is not good enough simply to rely on saying that we can be steady as we go.
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The absence of anything about farmers in the statement was palpable. One might think that the Chancellor might at least have said something about the farm tax, which is still hanging around the necks of our farmers up and down the country.
I am just concluding now. When Members hear the Chancellor talking about being steady as we go, they should read into that complacency. When we hear him say that we need time to get things right, we should read into that kicking the can down the road. We face huge challenges as a country, and this Budget has been grossly complacent. It is a lost opportunity. It has failed our economy, and it has failed the British people.
I will not detain the Committee for long. I just want to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has made some excellent points drawing on some of the information supplied by the organisations representing landlords with multiple premises, as has the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I would like to declare that I am a landlord of a single small one-bedroom flat in Westminster. It already falls within the Westminster city council selective property licensing scheme, which costs in the order of £1,000 and requires me to upload a great deal of information, all of which, as I understand it, is now going to be duplicated in this system. I would like the Minister to explain how that will provide additional information to tenants in areas where it is already available through the local authority. The Liberal Democrat spokesman referred to the effect of the Renters’ Rights Act, which I think has already increased the disincentives for landlords to go into the private rented sector. I have just listened to the Chancellor explain to us at some length why he is going to bring in better regulation, and at the same time commit to getting rid of homelessness, both of which are admirable objectives that I share, but I am not sure this measure will help deliver either of them.
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), who was an excellent Business and Trade Secretary and a great loss to the Government when he stepped down. Like him, I have been writing about economic growth—he wrote an essay; I wrote a book. I have absolute confidence that all Members were poring over every word in my book over the summer. The book happens to be called “Can We Be Rich Again?”, in case anyone was interested. I want to say, in a brief contribution, that doing a Budget since 2022 has become much harder because the invasion of Ukraine caused a spike in energy prices and inflation, which brought to an end over a decade of near-zero interest rates. In that context, rule No. 1 is not to upset the markets. Today they are calm and long may that last. Rule No. 2 is to do no harm. Frankly, after two Budgets that put up taxes, mainly on business, by £66 billion, many will be relieved that today it is “just” a £2 billion tax rise on businesses. I am worried, however, that the bank tax will lead to higher mortgage rates, which will make the cost of living worse for ordinary families. My concern is about what I might call rule No. 3, which is never to waste a Budget. In the run-up to a Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, in some ways, the most powerful person in the country. They are sitting on top of the most powerful Government Department and they have the full support of No. 10 Downing Street, which needs Budgets to be successful. The OBR has just downgraded our growth next year to 1%, and there are still formidable impediments to getting back to that 2% to 3% growth that we all know is so important. Today could have been the Budget that set out plans to get 1 million young people off welfare and into work. We could have found out how it is going to happen, when it is going to happen, where the money is going to come from, and what the impact will be on national accounts. Today could have been the Budget that showed how we are going to enshrine AI into every part of our economy, helping us to become the world’s next silicon valley—that would have been an extraordinarily powerful opportunity for us. There were some things mentioned about bringing down energy prices, but it could have been the Budget that showed how, over three years, we are going to get energy prices for businesses, factories and data centres down to levels in France, where they are 35% less, and it could have shown how that was going to happen. It could have been the Budget, with Ukraine about to go into the most difficult winter, that showed how we are going to get defence spending up to 3% of GDP and how that is going to help our technology sector and our economic growth in the process. Instead, I fear the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have wasted their political capital by putting off difficult decisions. We are told that we will not hear what is going to happen with respect to those not in education, employment or training until the new year. We are not going to find out about defence spending and the spending review until the end of next year. That is a year away. The problem is that those decisions are going to be harder in a year’s time than they are today, and today could have been a Budget that did so much more. The Prime Minister likes talking about hope. Young people are leaving school and university with high levels of debt and fewer available jobs—particularly far fewer graduate jobs—and they are worried about their future. They are losing hope. We had lots of so-called breathing space measures and they are welcome in their own right, but they will be forgotten within a matter of months. To really give people hope, we have to be prepared to take difficult decisions. We need to be completely honest: reforming welfare is really difficult. It was difficult for the Conservatives and it is difficult for Labour—I understand that it is particularly difficult for a Labour party to reform welfare. Controlling public spending is difficult, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now the Economic Secretary, knows well, and it is very difficult for any Government to deal with the pressures on public spending. Dealing with the reforms that improve public sector productivity, bring down energy prices or sort out vocational education involve very difficult decisions, but today I feel none the wiser as to whether those difficult decisions are going to be taken. That is my worry. In the end, people need to have a sense of a Government that are prepared to grasp the nettle on all those difficult things. I am afraid that it is not enough to say, “It’s okay because we are not the Tories.” We got a lot of things right, and I am proud of the fact that 4 million jobs were created under 14 years of Conservative rule—that is 800 jobs a day, by the way, compared with 200 fewer jobs a day since Labour came to office—but we also made mistakes. Looking forward, we know that there are lots of difficult decisions that need to be taken. Until we have a Government that are prepared to grasp the nettle on those decisions, our economy will continue to be buffeted by international storms instead of being master of its own destiny.
The trend started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) when he was Chancellor of providing £3.5 billion to spend on AI and digital in order to make all Departments, but particularly the national health service, more efficient, was sadly lacking from this Budget. As Chair of the Treasury Committee, could she suggest how Government spending on digital and AI might improve Government productivity?
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West). I believe that this is the cut-and-run Budget. Indeed, I read in the papers this morning that the Liberal Democrats—currently occupying the two front Benches below the Gangway—have taken the hint as well and are preparing for a December election, such is the electioneering of this Budget. This is Hamlet without the prince.