5,575 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

   Passenger Rail Services

   Labour promised that nationalisation would deliver a more reliable railway. Two years on, it is getting worse. Between April and June, all Government-run operators saw cancellations rise or punctuality fall. Ministers say that Great British Railways will turn that around when it launches next year. They promised its implementation timetable and draft licence consultation this autumn. On this last sitting day of October, neither has yet appeared. When will they, and when will passengers see the improvements they were promised?

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   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?

   Hansard source
3. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   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?<span id="12" class="column-number" data-column-number="12"></span>

   Hansard source
4. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   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.

   Hansard source
5. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   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?

   Hansard source
6. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   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.

   Hansard source
7. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   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.<span id="201WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="201WH"></span> 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?

   Hansard source
8. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   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.

   Hansard source
9. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   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 <span id="203WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="203WH"></span>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, <span id="204WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="204WH"></span>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.

   Hansard source
10. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    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.

    Hansard source
11. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    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.

    Hansard source
12. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    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.

    Hansard source
13. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    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.

    Hansard source
14. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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.

    Hansard source
15. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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?

    Hansard source
16. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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.

    Hansard source
17. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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.

    Hansard source
18. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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 <span id="383" class="column-number" data-column-number="383"></span>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.

    Hansard source
19. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> It is! It is on page 145. Look at the in-year cuts. Look at the defence industry’s response to the Budget.

    Hansard source
20. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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 <span id="384" class="column-number" data-column-number="384"></span>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.

    Hansard source
21. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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.

    Hansard source
22. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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.

    Hansard source
23. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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 <span id="334" class="column-number" data-column-number="334"></span>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.

    Hansard source
24. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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.<span id="335" class="column-number" data-column-number="335"></span> 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.

    Hansard source
25. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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.

    Hansard source
26. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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.

    Hansard source
27. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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.

    Hansard source
28. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

    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.

    Hansard source
29. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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 <span id="342" class="column-number" data-column-number="342"></span>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 <span id="343" class="column-number" data-column-number="343"></span>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.

    Hansard source
30. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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?

    Hansard source
31. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    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.

    Hansard source
32. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will certainly address the hon. Gentleman’s question. This Budget is certainly not popular with me—I have interests, which are set out in the register. The difficulty is that, in the absence of the spending review and any clear appetite to deal with the £3 trillion debt, the burgeoning growth of debt and, of course, our lack of productivity, this Budget lacks any credibility. It is the “Try not to upset too many people” Budget, to get us through to the spring with the Government unscathed. That is the meaning of the “breathing space”—breathing space to get this Government to a position where they can call an election decently, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister assured the people of <span id="355" class="column-number" data-column-number="355"></span>Makerfield, and indeed has said in terms since, that he has no such intention. That is the reality we are dealing with. The problem that we have at the centre of our economy at the moment was defined—brilliantly and very candidly, I think—by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he said that, in all the meetings he has, the question he is asked is, “Who can we tax in order to give benefits to others?” That is essentially the issue we are having to deal with. The Chancellor has decided not to address that question. He has made a calculation. He calculates that the pain for the Labour party in addressing that issue is greater than the medium-term financial damage of not addressing it. Of course, the financial damage of not addressing it is that we will all pay higher mortgages and endure higher costs, but his calculation is that he can get to the spring before those particular chickens come home to roost. That is the strategy of this Budget: not to do too much, but to have a few things that make it, in the estimation of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), “popular”. The reality, however, is that there is going to be an election, and we are going to have to face the huge question of the enormous costs that the Prime Minister has pointed to in his ambitions, and how that will have to be addressed. He said today that he is going to soak the banks. Now, that has implications for us all, because it affects the cost of everything. It will affect the cost of our mortgages, it will affect prices and, of course, it affects investment. What a signal to send to investors! “If you’re successful, if you’re doing well, we’re coming for you.” That is the message that investors receive. Little wonder that we are haemorrhaging wealthy taxpayers. According to Bloomberg data, we have lost half the billionaire wealth since 2024, either because it has left the United Kingdom or because its exposure here has been reduced. We might ask ourselves why. Well, it comes back exactly to the issue raised by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have terrified those people with mansion taxes and with the international reach of inheritance tax on all their assets, and by merely talking about the prospect of raising capital gains tax. I am very glad that we have not raised capital gains tax, but they can read the runes. Then, of course, we expedite their exit by talking about an exit tax. All those things have consequences. Into this milieu of burgeoning debt and surging unemployment, the Prime Minister hurls his latest grenade: talk of rejoining free movement within the EU. Nothing could be more calculated to be devastating for the prospects of our young people languishing in unemployment than to suck in European labour. So I say we have that election. Let us go for the election that the Government are clearly building themselves towards, because at least that will give the British people the opportunity to get off this road to penury.

    Hansard source
33. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Let me respond to the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) in one respect. Harwich and North Essex is a very rural constituency, and any restraints applied to gas or electricity have limited effect, because a lot of my constituents in rural areas are on kerosene and heating oil—I confess that I am on heating oil. The Government have not even removed VAT on domestic heating oil. Why are the Government doing this pre-election council band A to D manoeuvre, which will benefit mostly their voters, but completely ignoring the interests of rural voters? Forgive me if I detain the House a little on defence. We are in exactly the same position that we were in when the previous Defence Secretary resigned under Keir Starmer. In fact, the Chancellor said that he set a target date of 2030 for 3%. That is the same target as when the then Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee. The Chancellor said that “I am getting work under way to get there in a fiscally sustainable way.” That was the reason the now Chancellor resigned from the Government, so what was that all about? It was obviously not about defence, because nobody can make any plans until the Treasury has signed off figures for increased defence spending, and it has not done so. It is still not going to sign them off until the public spending review, which may be after the next general election. I am sure that Labour Members know that the next general election is going to be pretty tough for them. Their very large majority was a bit of an electoral accident, so many of them will lose their seats, but they can trust the Prime Minister, because he said on 25 September, “Don’t worry, the election will be in 2029”—just as he said, “We’re not going to reopen all the arguments about rejoining the EU” and, “We’re not going to reopen the argument about free movement.” Hon. Ladies and Gentlemen in difficult seats facing a difficult election next spring can absolutely trust the Prime Minister; he is not going to do that to them. Trust is rather important in a political party. I hope it is not getting too bad within Labour. Let me say what I really think about this Budget. It is a non-Budget, exactly as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others have said. It is a breathing space. Another £2.2 billion of new taxes on <span id="373" class="column-number" data-column-number="373"></span>business is by far its biggest effect, and the impact of the two previous, absolutely catastrophic Budgets remains embedded in Government policy. They hammered sectors such as hospitality, and businesses that used to enjoy employing a lot of young people can no longer afford to do so. Take Rix, a farm business in my constituency that is the leading supplier of potatoes and onions to Tesco. It employs mostly low-paid workers—a lot of young people—and its costs have rocketed as a result of the change to national insurance contributions. Take the Cricketers in Eight Ash Green, a pub that has been virtually driven out of business by the increase in national insurance costs and business rates. By the way, there has been no cut in business rates—this Government put them up. I am very pleased that they have responded to the Conservative campaign to increase the exemption, but as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), it is a very slight change. As has also been pointed out, all of these 59 micro-measures are minute. What the OBR actually says about national insurance contributions is that “Sharper falls in employment among lower-paid sectors are consistent with our judgement that these firms would be most affected by the” increase in national insurance contributions. That is the truth, and the Government have not faced up to it. On the question of the real public expenditure outlook, let us look at the section in the OBR’s outlook that deals with welfare spending—the Chancellor is announcing £100 million here, £200 million here or £10 million here, but this is the real problem. Paragraph 5.21 says: “Welfare spending is forecast to rise…by £19 billion (5.7 per cent) to £353 billion or 11.1 per cent of GDP… It is then forecast to rise in nominal terms by an average of £16 billion (4.4 per cent) a year over the rest of the forecast period”. That utterly dwarfs any other figures that the Government have been talking about. “This would be 1.3 per cent of GDP higher than its pre-pandemic level of 10.1 per cent of GDP in 2019-20, with 0.5 per cent of GDP of this increase occurring between 2025-26 and 2031-32.” The Government are still spending on welfare, and they are not committing to spend on defence. That is the reality of this Budget.

    Hansard source
34. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I beg the hon. Gentleman to listen to himself. What he is basically saying is that the reason there will be such gargantuan increases in welfare payments between now and 2031-32 is that it is all our fault—that it is because of what we did. [Hon. Members: “Yes!”] It is not. The Government have not begun to tackle the welfare state problem. We should have done; and they must do so, or we are heading for a fiscal crisis. It is interesting what the Red Book says about the forthcoming fiscal crisis.

    Hansard source
35. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    If the hon. Gentleman is saying, “If only we were not doing this later retirement thing, there would be more jobs for young people,” I have to say that managing the economy in that way is not very successful. It does not work. On the forecast, the Government set great store by what the IMF says about the UK’s deficit reduction programme. The Red Book states: “The IMF forecasts that the UK’s deficit reduction this year will be bigger than any other G20 country.” I am afraid that there are a lot of lemmings rushing over cliffs in that G20 bloc. It is not a good benchmark for success. In any case, the forecast is based on the forecast that the Government have given to the IMF, and the reduction has not been delivered yet. The Government have not started to deliver the debt reduction programme. The OBR says that debt rises from 95.5% of GDP this year to 97.3% in 2028-29. The headroom is just £15 billion in 2029-30, which is £7 billion less than at the last Budget. The OBR says there is only a 56% chance of meeting the rule. As the bond markets digest this Budget, I am not sure they will be quite as sanguine as they have been. I will end by responding to a point that we heard from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West). She talked about us getting back into the European Union and said that 60% of the economy is dependent upon trade with Europe. That is rubbish. What proportion of GDP do we export to the EU in goods? The single market is about goods. Incidentally, our record on services exports outside the EU is that there has been a dramatic, massive increase.

    Hansard source
36. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    No, I will not give away. Only 5.9% of the UK economy is goods exports to the EU. A much larger proportion goes outside the EU. Incidentally, during our period of membership, the proportion of GDP that we exported to the EU was in steady decline from 1992 to 2021. Other factors have led to the decline in our exports with the EU. Overall—this is the astonishing thing, and I will end on this point—our economy has outgrown France and Germany since 1992. Leaving the EU has not reversed that trend. I wonder whether Government Members do not understand the irony when they say, “We are the fastest-growing economy in the G7.” That has often been the case, because the EU is not a very efficient market and does not add much value to our economy. In fact, we have grown our exports to the rest of the world.

    Hansard source
37. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    No, I am not giving way; I have given way twice. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Members may shout me down, but they do not want to hear the facts. The fact is that our economy is now growing faster outside the EU than it would have done, because of two sectors: financial services, and tech and AI. They are not regulated by the EU. Employment in the City of London has doubled since 2016. All the doom-mongers who told us that the City was finished were wrong.<span id="375" class="column-number" data-column-number="375"></span>

    Hansard source
38. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

    In my constituency of Bridgwater in Somerset, there is a chronic shortage of rented accommodation. I am concerned that this expensive and cumbersome system will deter further private landlords from renting their properties. If the Minister does not have a system that can process bulk uploads, he should tell his officials to think again—to go out into the private market and get a system that works. He should scrap these regulations and tell his civil servants to think again.

    Hansard source
39. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

    I was formerly a commercial property lawyer, so I want to bring up a practical point about enforcement. The ambition behind the regulations—to make sure that everybody, including tenants, has the information that they need—is positive, but the practical reality is that if they cannot be enforced properly, it will cause problems and delays in the rental sector. I advocate for a pause—that is essential. If information needs to be gathered and uploaded for potentially up to 10,000 properties—an extremely large number—it will probably take a year or more to get that information up. Have we thought through the knock-on impacts? I encourage exercising caution, having seen the practical reality of being on the other side when I was a lawyer back in the day.

    Hansard source
40. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Higher Education Funding

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for tabling this important debate and all Members for their contributions this morning. I have to say that I did not expect to hear quite so much agreement for Margaret Thatcher’s education policies this morning. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for their positivity about that. Let me pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey). Although I think we are the same age, he started at Southampton University a year after me, but we have many mutual friends from our time at university. It is worth noting that the changes we experienced as the first cohort that had to pay fees and take on a loan were due entirely to the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, which was snuck through by the new Labour Government and then conveniently forgotten about, in a time where social media did not exist. I dread to think of the furore if today’s students realised that that was going to happen to them, but I for one, aged 16, thought I was going to university for free, but by the age of 18 that was not the case.

    Hansard source