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

1. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and to take part in this debate about the national scheme of delegation. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. I know that my right hon. Friend always fights to protect the green belt in her constituency. I was sitting here reflecting on what Members have said, and I do not think that there is much that I disagree with. I know that a number of Members from across the Chamber were on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, and it took me back to some of the arguments we thrashed out during those debates. When I speak to constituents right across Broxbourne, planning is one of the biggest issues that comes up, door after door, election after election. We know from hearing the accounts from Members from across the House today that that is also the case elsewhere across the United Kingdom—right from Aldridge-Brownhills to Hamble Valley, to name a few. The Government would love for everyone to think that local councillors are the main barrier to house building. They want to move to a system where new applications all over the green belt are rubber-stamped by officials instead. The truth of the matter, as has already been said, is that the vast majority of planning decisions are already made by officers—as many as 96%, according to the Government’s own figures. The national scheme of delegation will not magically fix the Secretary of State’s failure to build the 1.5 million new homes that she promised. What these measures will do is undermine local government and expand the state even more. Unfortunately, we see it time and time again. The same developer comes along with a plan that is entirely inappropriate for the local area. Perhaps there are vague promises for a school or a park that we know will never get built. The local community then makes its view very clear that it does not want to see the plans happen. Even when the council’s planning committee votes against them, it gets overruled by the Planning Inspectorate as it decides that some bit of land is grey rather than green belt—often, as has already been said, without even visiting the site. That is just not right. The Labour Government are forcing massive new housing developments on areas such as Goffs Oak in my constituency, while reducing targets in London to cover up Sadiq Khan’s failings. This is at the same time that we have a Prime Minister going on and on about devolution and how local leaders are the ones best placed to make local decisions. That is so inconsistent.

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. She is right to mention the duty to co-operate. Local leaders must step up to the plate. That is what they are elected to do, and that is what their residents expect. Residents expect their local councillors to represent them, not to hide behind the duty to co-operate. They must co-operate across borders. They do not need powers taken away from them and given to unaccountable bureaucrats in distant council headquarters. Under the national scheme of delegation, proposals for under 10 properties will only be looked at by planning officers. This means that only in very limited circumstances will there be a way for local councillors to bring those decisions before a planning committee. Planning officers are not elected and are not accountable to voters. Everyone knows that sometimes planning officers get things wrong and the decisions need to be overturned. I have seen it. I have served on a planning committee and the trouble is that, once a planning application gets approval and gets built, it is there for a very long time. It is very difficult to rectify it once it goes wrong. Do the Government really think that unelected officials are better placed to make decisions on local issues than elected councillors? People vote for their councillors to represent them on planning issues and can hold their councillors accountable at the ballot box. However, it is not just planning that is at stake, but trust in politics as a whole. Removing powers from elected representatives is an attack on British democracy, and the British people can see right through it. Local action groups such as Goffs Oak Community Association are already fighting tooth and nail to stop their towns and villages being wrecked by inappropriate developments, which are often proposed without any sort of adequate infrastructure. The Government clearly do not care about their views, otherwise they would not be bringing in this national scheme of delegation. These changes also ignore the fact that planning committees are not just there to approve or deny applications. Councillors talk with local people and can address their concerns by putting conditions on development.

   Hansard source
3. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If local people—including local councillors with input from the local community and MPs—do not have a say over planning applications, development will not come forward with the appropriate infrastructure. That is what our constituents right across the country expect. I am pleased to say that my party has firmly stood against these proposals from the start. If the Minister really wants to deliver on the Government’s promise to devolve power to every postcode across the United Kingdom, she will stop this attack on local democracy and bin this scheme once and for all.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   I did not want to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but she said that planning officers are there to serve their community. Could she explain what the community can do if it is not happy with the decisions that the planning officer makes?

   Hansard source
5. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), although she will not be surprised to hear that she and I have very different views about the Budget. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a business owner and, frankly, to my interest as a father, although that is not because I think I am going to be particularly affected—I do not think anybody will be particularly affected by this rather bland bowl of muesli of a Budget from a Chancellor who was quite obviously decaffeinated this morning. I am quite exercised about the Budget because, while a number of colleagues have said it is a missed opportunity, I think it is a lot worse than that. In many ways it is profoundly negligent of a Government to produce such a Budget in the face of three distinct emergencies—three distinct fires burning in the basement of the British economy—some of which have been made worse and are forecast to be worse because of the Budget. The first of those, which a number of hon. Members have raised, is our debt. It is worth remarking, as some have, that the OBR has said that we will borrow even more in every year of the forecast—particularly next year. Combined with the massive downgrade of growth for next year, that is alarming. It is worth colleagues remembering that the OBR has quite a poor record in medium-term forecasting—it is generally optimistic. We can broadly agree that it gets the year 1 forecast right, plus or minus, but after that it is wildly optimistic, and every year it get the forecast completely wrong, particularly on debt. That matters, because the country is effectively running a structural deficit at the moment, and because of some of the measures in this Budget and the previous two, the public sector is basically eating the private sector every year we proceed. The private sector’s ability to support the public sector is reduced as a result, and we find ourselves caught in a weird kind of vice, exacerbated by the second emergency, which I will come to.<span id="386" class="column-number" data-column-number="386"></span> Even in some of the measures today, there seems to be no contemplation of that problem. Who does the Chancellor think will pay the bank levy—this 3% extra on corporation tax? Certainly not the international banks—they will manage to retain their return on capital. It will be the businesses, and the consumers who bank with them, who will see higher mortgage rates and higher interest rates on their loans. That money will be extracted from the private sector and sent directly to the public sector to be spent. If we continue on this path, I am afraid that the IMF has forecast that by 2050, well over half our GDP will be spent by the Government. That is a disaster, because once in that vortex it is hard to come out of it. The second emergency, which is exacerbating the first—there was no talk of it today and, in fact, there were no measures to try to help with it—is our demographic problem. I am afraid we are not having enough children in this country. We are now down to 1.39 children born to every mother, which is below replacement rate, so we have a shrinking body of workers who are having more and more difficulty supporting an expanding body of retirees. The pyramid is inverting, as we have seen in other countries, such as Japan, to disastrous effect. If the public sector and the retired sector suck more and more money out of the private sector, we will find ourselves in a downward spiral, which will be much to our detriment. The third emergency is one of capital. The Chancellor raised the issue of capital and spoke of trying to set entrepreneurs free. I have been a moderately successful entrepreneur during my life, and I can tell hon. Members that nothing in the Budget has done anything to reverse the assault on the return on risk that, sadly, has taken place over the last 20 years under Governments of all stripes.

   Hansard source
6. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. If he looks at the founders’ relief in the scorecard and puts it against the reduction in business asset disposal relief, he will see that effectively there has been a straight transfer of value from family businesses, high street shops and smaller businesses to the tech bros who are going to benefit from founders’ relief. We have yet to see the detail on that relief, but the scorecard shows a net cost to the Government of about £200 million. That is negligible in the face of an economy the size of ours. That is a real problem, because we are standing at the bottom of the ellipse of human achievement, the like of which we have not seen since the industrial revolution. This country has got its capitalism wrong in the past. We missed the IT revolution of the ’80s and ’90s because we were too busy worrying about house prices. British capital has kind of stultified and failed to take advantage of these massive advances in technology, much to our detriment in terms of national wealth. We still live off, to a certain extent, the wealth that was created during the Victorian era. Many of our largest companies came about because of British <span id="387" class="column-number" data-column-number="387"></span>capitalism—naked capitalism—during that era. The palaces we live in, the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, King’s College, Cambridge, and the NHS—all of that built from the profits of British capitalism. We have neglected it over the last 20 years or so, particularly by attacking the return on risk. The rise in taxation on dividends, the rises in capital gains tax, the reduction in any kind of relief for entrepreneurs, and the complexity of the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme—all that is a massive deterrent to anybody who wants to start a business and take a risk. Until we realise that we will not get growth until we set capital free, we will continue to be trapped in this vortex of a demographic pyramid inversion and ever-mounting debts as the public sector consumes the private sector. The last thing I want to raise is the new powers that are being granted to the Revenue. All Members should beware of what is hidden in the detail of those new powers. We are getting to a situation where our economy is existing to support the Revenue rather than the other way around.

   Hansard source
7. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·John Glen

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   It is a pleasure to be able to contribute so early in this debate. I speak as a former Treasury Minister in the previous Government who sat behind four Chancellors in different scenarios. I acknowledge the enormous challenge that every Chancellor faces in trying to reconcile so many competing pressures, but when I reflect on my experience of listening to this Budget, I am left with a great sense that it has been a Budget of missed opportunities. It has 98 measures where the value of each individual measure is at a record low. It is a Budget that has not taken the opportunity that is necessary for our economy. All Governments face different circumstances. I was in the Treasury when covid occurred, and we had to make interventions on a scale that had never been seen before, and that obviously resulted in significant scarring to the economy. This Government face different challenges in terms of energy security as well as a fundamentally transformed context when it comes to national security risks. I was left feeling that, as Helen Miller of the IFS <span id="346" class="column-number" data-column-number="346"></span>says, there has been a lack of a “coherent vision”. It is as if everything has been kicked further down the road. That leads me to conclude that we are warming up for a general election, which will be framed around the need for more taxes to reset the economy. For a Chancellor to come in with a new Prime Minister and make 98 measures, all of which have a record low level of impact, speaks to a lack of ambition, while a position is held—on the back of £66 billion of tax rises—so that more can be done on the basis of whatever comes out of the summit with the EU next week. That is what I am anticipating. Of course, some of these small measures will be welcome, but when the effects of the tariff changes amount to 40p a week, for most people they will not be significant. I want to look at some of the tax measures. The increase in tax on savings is not a good thing. That higher level of tax take will risk incentives within the system, constraining economic activity by more than expected. That is what people are saying about this Budget. There is the renter tax—it has been determined that measures in the Budget collectively risk leading to a steady rise in rents, building on the additional taxes of last year. I take a close interest in financial services, having had some experience in that sector as the Minister. I note what the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), said about the rise in some share prices this morning. I think those services probably anticipated a larger increase in the surcharge, back up to 8%; the increase to 6%, therefore, and its time-limited nature, were reflected in a bump, as it was felt that that was not as bad as it could have been. However, looking at what UK Finance says about the implications of this change, I note that we need only a modest change—that is, if 7.4% of internationally mobile banking were to leave the UK—for the tax increase to generate zero net revenue. This is not some insignificant industry that is wholly located in London; it is an industry that provides the infrastructure for the wider economy. We will see the impact of that decision on interest and saving rates. When I was the Minister in this area, I used to have conversations with the CEOs of global banks, and they pointed out the aggregate tax rate—looking at corporation tax, the surcharge, the levy and the national insurance rate—and then compared our situation with others internationally. Our aggregate rate is now going to look really bad, after what has already happened with the national insurance increases. I want to reflect on what the Budget has not done for small businesses in my Salisbury constituency. I have been particularly impressed by one small businessman who I have got to know over the last few years, Ethan Davids. He is very young—in his early 30s—and has 15 hospitality venues, which are growing rapidly. He says to me that the combined effect of the increase on employer national insurance, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the previously above-inflation increases in the national living wage, alongside the challenges of a reliable outcome from the planning process, actively discourages him from making investments. I fail to see anything in this Budget that has made a significant impact on the context in which his business operates and on the decisions he will make.

   Hansard source
8. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·John Glen

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   Yes, a small measure like that will make some impact, but we need to look at the context—at what we have seen previously. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the manifesto he stood on two years ago implied a modest increase in taxes of about £7 billion, and we actually had increases of £66 billion. The scale of the burden placed on those businesses means they are disinclined to continue to invest. I want to say a few words about defence. It is a massive part of the world in Wiltshire, including in south Wiltshire. Again, the context is changing, and it is doing so rapidly. The commitment given so far to raise defence expenditure is, of course, welcome, but in June the departing Defence Secretary was pretty explicit in insisting that a date be given by which 3% of GDP would be secured. A date has not been given today. I accept that there is a pathway to 3.5% and that a taskforce to get to 3% has been announced, but that is very different. I think that we, in this country, are rather complacent about the nature of the risks we face. Just over two years ago, I visited the Nordics in one of my last months as a Minister. In Sweden and Norway, I was struck by the sense of anxiety and readiness over what Russia was capable of doing and how imminent the threat was. Of course I acknowledge the progress made, but the urgency and reality of the situation in which we now find ourselves necessitates a step change in the urgency of the Government’s response.

   Hansard source
9. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·John Glen

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   Of course I recognise the mistakes and choices made in previous Governments, but as I was trying to indicate, the world has materially changed since the general election—I think that is pretty obvious to most people, given what is happening in geopolitics—and that necessitates a suitable response from the Government. Indeed the Chancellor insisted on that when he left his position as Defence Secretary. In conclusion, if a party comes into government and secures the massive majority that this Government secured, it is pretty painful for the country to see the lack of ambition in the choices made in the three Budgets so far. The downgrade from 1.6% to 1% growth next year is massive, and it still implies a 2.6% per year spending cut in unprotected Departments from 2028-29 to 2031-32. I do not see that as politically realistic for the Labour party, and that is why I anticipate that the next step after the summit next month will be the call for a general election.

   Hansard source
10. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    <Question HRSContentId="{F50F32DD-E4E8-48F7-AE84-35006ACD2DC7}">7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{9C1065C6-9D31-4AAC-BD17-AFA7A83033D7}">What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on levels of employment in the oil and gas sector in Scotland.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
11. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    <Question HRSContentId="{0BC82081-7CDA-4AFE-84BB-47D51C889F99}">14. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{34B42D6C-FBF7-4B4F-BA07-61482986AD51}">What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on levels of employment in the oil and gas sector in Scotland.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
12. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    The Government spent two and a half years virtue signalling about the North sea. They said there was no future for oil and gas and had a ban on licences, as well as increasing taxation. The result has been 25,000 job losses—1,000 every month and counting—not because of an external shock, but because of a crisis 100% caused by Government policy. When will this Government leave their student politics behind, back British business and get us drilling again?

    Hansard source
13. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    My hon. Friend is making a very good point. I wonder whether he is aware that since the last election, the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds has risen by 30.1%, which is coincident with youth unemployment rising by 54,000. Does he think there is a link?

    Hansard source
14. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will go out on a limb and say that this is a terrible Budget. It is not just a “steady as it goes” Budget, because everyone in this Chamber knows that we have got some serious problems that have to be addressed by this country, both politically and economically. This will be known as the “kick it down the road” Budget. It has its eyes covered and its fingers in its ears, pretending that these problems are not real and are not now, and that we can afford to push them all down for another 12 to 18 months. Look at national debt. We have already peaked above £3 trillion of national debt in the past couple of weeks, yet this Parliament is now on course to increase borrowing above what was planned in 2024 by £308 billion. That is an increase of more than a quarter of a trillion pounds in borrowing, with no plan to get it down and no credible plan to reduce welfare spending, which is the next major issue that we have to address. Welfare dependency now makes it reasonable for 1,000 people a day to apply for the personal independence payment, because they know that they will get paid more on benefits than if they got a job. The Government recognised that needs to change and tried to make a very modest change last year, but that was voted down by Government Members, and it led to the defeat of the previous Prime Minister. What was the Government’s answer? The Timms report, which was created out of the failure of the debate last time round, and part of its objective is not to reduce spending—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I would be grateful if Members listened to the speech being made, rather than making their own from the Government Front Bench.<span id="398" class="column-number" data-column-number="398"></span> Welfare dependency has to be addressed, yet we are waiting for a report, and then a response from the Government, and then a White Paper sometime next year, apparently. Then, after that, there will potentially be legislation to go through this House. That is no way to address this issue. This country faces a key and present economic, social and moral danger, and this Government are pretending that it is not there. Then we come to defence. We are told by this Government that we must prepare for a war within 1,000 days, but do we have a plan to get to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030? Not a bit of it. We have a plan for next year, so we are supposed to be satisfied with a plan to get to a plan. This is ridiculous. We have Ministers telling us that we have to stockpile food, but we have capital expenditure that is due to take place after that 1,000-day period. This is back-to-front government, and it is a negligent Treasury that is imposing this on our defence sector. We have a plan that reduces next year’s economic growth from 1.6%, which is pretty anaemic, down to 1%, and at no point during the forecast period does it get as far as 2%. This is outrageous.

    Hansard source
15. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will not. I have only a minute left. We have tax rises being imposed on savers. What a weird argument that is—that increased taxes should be imposed on people who are doing the right thing. As for banks, which are the funders of growth, the CEO of one UK bank is reported to have said: “Taxing the engines of growth to reduce VAT on gherkins is end-of-Rome level of stupidity.” It is hard to disagree, is it not? We have four really serious issues for our country, and a Budget that pretends they are not there. It is a Budget that kicks the can down the road. It is a Budget that says “steady as she goes” is the right answer. I could not disagree more.

    Hansard source
16. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    I thank my right hon. Friend for her important speech. Recently, a development in my constituency for 8,500 homes that was due to go to the local planning committee was suddenly taken away from it, having been called in by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna). The decision now sits with the Secretary of State, taking this important decision, which will have a huge impact on the area, out of local hands. This is clearly denying local democracy, given that we have locally elected councillors who know the impact this development will have on my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is completely wrong to take those powers to influence local planning decisions away from local councillors, and that it is absurd that a Government who talk about increasing devolution are the ones taking these powers away from local councillors?

    Hansard source
17. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Devolution

    Almost two weeks ago, the Prime Minister gave a speech about devolution in Scotland. Since then, the Government have not clarified anything. Is the Prime Minister suggesting more powers to Scotland, or does he think that just by asking nicely the SNP will stop hoarding so many powers at Holyrood? Holyrood is already one of the world’s most devolved Parliaments; the issue is not the powers but the party in power there that has created Europe’s most centralised Government. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Labour Government will not devolve any further powers to the Scottish Parliament?

    Hansard source
18. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    Last week, the Government finally approved Jackdaw. The Secretary of State called that “a win for Aberdeen, a win for Scottish workers and a win for Britain’s energy security.” But there can be many more wins: Rosebank and other fields can also protect jobs and supply chains, secure investment and tax returns, and boost our energy security. Based on his own logic from last week, will he confirm that he fully supports approving Rosebank and ending Labour’s ban on new licensing?

    Hansard source
19. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    Oil and gas workers are fed up with the Government skirting around this. Some 25,000 linked oil and gas jobs have been lost since the general election. The Government know that new fields support jobs—they said that last week—and they know that UK production supports UK businesses. Last month, they signed off on new oil in the Falklands, but are too squeamish to do it in UK waters. The Secretary of State knows more is needed. When are the Government going to wake up to the damage they are doing to our crucial oil and gas industry?

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

    Steel Industry

    The present Foreign Secretary’s ridiculous policy on oil and gas has now been overturned, so will the Minister, in a similar vein, ensure that the right hon. Gentleman’s equally absurd refusal to allow localised electricity pricing can also be overturned, so that businesses, such as those in steel in Scotland, can enjoy the competitive energy prices that the considerable generation in that country deserves?

    Hansard source
21. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    The hon. Lady is making a typically powerful speech, but, in my 21 years in the House, I have normally found that the person who holds her position gives a somewhat less partisan critique of the Budget, recognising that the primary role of all of us as Back Benchers is to hold the Executive—the Government of the day—to account, rather than just playing to our party political base.

    Hansard source
22. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I received a card from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation yesterday—I do not know whether my right hon. Friend also received one—suggesting that every family in Beverley and Holderness will be at least £440 a year worse off at the end of this Parliament. But today, on top of the points that he has already made, we are going to see not only disposable income being constrained, but debt going up in each of the next five years by more than was previously suggested.

    Hansard source
23. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman just said about the need to focus on growth. The question is: how do we get it? It seems that too many on the Labour Benches believe that it is by Government intervention rather than reducing the taxes that create disincentives for business. Is he as alarmed as I am at the more than £2.2 billion increase in taxes on business today—from writing down allowances to company distributions and business asset disposal relief, as well as the probable more than £6 billion reduction in lending that will result from the £1.5 billion bank tax?

    Hansard source
24. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    We have had devolution since the Blair Government, and Wales has become one of the poorest parts of the whole of Europe, although it has had serious and real fiscal devolution. If it has been so spectacularly painful for the residents of Wales to have such devolution, why does the hon. Lady think it will be so marvellous for people in other parts of the United Kingdom?

    Hansard source
25. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    It is a pleasure to take part in this Budget debate and to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). Like him, I tend to think that this Budget reflects the seriousness and the vision of the Chancellor, but unlike him, I do not conclude from that that the Chancellor has a deep and serious vision of the future for this country. On the contrary, he, alongside the Prime Minister, has come up with a whole series of small measures. In fact, there are more measures in this Budget than in any previous Budget, and their average value is lower than in any previous Budget. In other words, the Chancellor is fiddling. He is playing with little gifts that he can highlight and say, “We are doing this for business. Look, we are we are taking 70,000 businesses out of business rates.” Of course I welcome that, but it is inadequate in a high street that is falling and losing. The Conservatives have a leader and a shadow Chancellor with a vision, and that is why our policy would take 250,000 high street companies out of business rates so that we can have the shops, the cafés, the pubs and all the other businesses that give chances to young people and give them that first job so that they can learn how to talk to a boss, how to engage with customers, and how to understand tills and money. That first job gives them a chance, whether it is a Saturday job or whatever. I know that Labour Members did not mean to do it, but that door has been slammed in young people’s faces by this Labour Government. That is why we have seen youth unemployment go up.

    Hansard source
26. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am sure that, when he meets young people in his constituency, he is exactly the same as me. I am sure he meets more and more young people who feel a sense of hopelessness. They feel that they are further than ever before from getting on the housing market, and some of them cannot even look that far because they are struggling to get that first job—that first opportunity. Today’s Budget shows that this Government still do not get it, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman does. Perhaps we can finally hear a non-partisan Labour intervention from someone who takes deeply seriously the need to get business going in this country.

    Hansard source
27. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I think—I am not an expert on this, let alone on all those jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s region—that most are already outside of that system and are therefore not being lifted out. UKHospitality has suggested that as few as 10% of these businesses will be affected by the measure. That is my point to the hon. Gentleman, who I know is sincere and wants to properly reflect the serious challenges facing his constituents and his part of the country. This Government do not get it. Instead of the bold measure we should have had—250,000 businesses being brought out to bring life, dynamism and hope back to his high street and mine—we have a timid Government playing on the margins. That of course is the central problem of today’s Budget, as was laid out far more eloquently and—as Labour colleagues would doubtless say—more reasonably than I ever could by the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). The Leader of the Opposition said that the Chancellor had received a hospital pass on inheriting the economic situation from his predecessor, but I remember someone once saying to me, “Do you know what the best thing you can ever have in life is, Graham?” I said, “No, I don’t. What is it?” They said, “A lousy predecessor.” On that measure, the Chancellor has been quite fortunate. And yet he comes forward with something this timid, this pallid and this lacking in inspiration, and gives a speech that entirely aligns with those qualities, and he is met with a near rapturous reception from Labour Members who have had to put up with the two previous Budgets, with their disastrous impact on the UK economy. Why were those Budgets so disastrous? I can tell the House: it is because growth and wealth, which the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), spoke about so eloquently earlier, come from the private sector. They do not come from a mission-led Government having a tight deadline to go and help rearrange governmental boards and improve the quality of people on them—that is peripheral. It is private business that creates them, but what did the former Chancellor do? She raised taxes on business by £60 billion. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> More than £60 billion, I am told. The small businesses that I meet in Beverley, Hedon, Skirlaugh, Withernsea and across my constituency really want to grow and have customers who want to come in, but the tax position has meant that they cannot offer jobs to the young people I also meet outside those shops, standing around listlessly, who want those jobs. That gap has been widened by the £60 billion in taxes. According to Government Members today, that gap has been narrowed because of this business rates reduction for 70,000 businesses. But that is not telling the whole story, is it? It is a sleight-of-hand Budget as well, which is why I think it is a disappointment. Business taxes have not gone up by another £60 billion—praise the Lord—but they have gone up by over £2 billion through fiddly measures. On top of that, there is the ever-popular call of, “Let’s attack the banks to feed the Labour Back Benchers,” who are so divorced from economic reality. The banks will be paying £1.6 billion in 15 months—that is if we believe that in 15 months, the Chancellor will say to this particular set of Back-Bench Labour MPs, “Oh, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s look forward to the day we take the tax off the banks.” I rather fear that the <span id="368" class="column-number" data-column-number="368"></span>15 months will be extended because of those people who have done so much damage before by leaning on their Front Benchers. Anyway, let us assume that it is real and it only lasts 15 months: £1.5 billion or £1.6 billion will be taken out of the banks. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, being a long-standing and experienced Member of this House, that the capital of banks has a big multiplier attached to it. When the Government take £1.5 billion or £1.6 billion away from the banks, they are not hitting the rich and helping the poor; they are actually massively reducing the pool of funding available for the very businesses that, if only the Government started to get some of their policies right, might get to a position, as they profoundly want to, where they can offer a job to that young person outside who cannot get one today.

    Hansard source
28. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I am delighted. Only one thing is worse than fat, greedy, complacent, lazy banks—if that is how the hon. Member wants to characterise them—and that is broke ones, because once we have a bust banking system, the whole of society is stuffed. People cannot get on the housing ladder, start a small shop or get anywhere. That is why I plead with Labour Members, who I know have had little to do with private businesses—they have come from their charities, social work and trade unions, and have no understanding of business. It seems a populist thing to do to attack the banks, but in fact it hurts ordinary people and means that that small shop on the high street cannot take on the unemployed youngster outside.

    Hansard source
29. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will not give way if the hon. Member will allow me. What is happening to business investment next year? According to the Government’s own figures, it is falling. What is happening to the debt of the nation as a result of today’s Budget, compared with the position earlier in the year? It goes up in every year of the forecast—five years of additional debt, and it was already scary. Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), whom I respect a great deal, and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) have been trying to say that this is a great Budget for entrepreneurs, but it is not. It is a Budget that allows a listing ship of state and the economy of this country to drift ever closer to the rocks. Year by year we will see debt going up, taxes going up and incentives going down, and without those incentives, those businesses in Beverley, Withernsea, Hedon and Skirlaugh, or wherever they are in my constituency, just cannot offer that job to that person. To look at the specifics of the Budget, how is some of this being funded? The Chancellor skated over it as best he could, but he is going to tax amusement arcades. As if coastal towns such as Withernsea and Hornsea up the coast are not hurting enough, he is going put up tax on the entertainment of ordinary people going to the amusement arcade. He is an enemy of fun.

    Hansard source
30. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Coastal communities are losing out, and savers are being hit by a £500 million increase in tax—again, I do not think that has come through clearly. Some Members talk about this being good for pensioners, but it is not. Those who have saved and put money away for the future are going to be taxed again and again. We will see tax reach a new peak of 37.9% next year, and according to the Government what is going to happen? It is going to go up again. We will have sky-high borrowing and sky-high tax. One would have thought that the central challenge for this Chancellor would have been to ensure we had a firm plan for defence spending to reach 3% by 2030. Did he deliver that? No he did not, which suggests that he resigned more to get the job than to do the right thing by defence.

    Hansard source
31. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    It is not that we do not wish to see a better deal with the EU. After we left, every day in government was about trying to get the EU to be more reasonable, and that is always a good endeavour. I think the fear—the hon. Gentleman would probably recognise this—is that we have a Government who thought it was a good idea to negotiate the giving away of British sovereign territory somewhere far away and then pay <span id="376" class="column-number" data-column-number="376"></span>tens of billions of pounds for the privilege. They are not the people we want representing us in Brussels, are they?

    Hansard source
32. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·George Freeman

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Like me, my right hon. Friend represents a very rural constituency. Was he shocked to hear the lack of any relief for rural areas, which are being hammered by disproportionately high energy costs? The Treasury’s own figures show that the risk of fuel poverty in rural areas is 150% higher than in cities. We heard about money for cities, but nothing for our rural areas and rural businesses, which are being hammered, and where we are seeing stagflation and inflation and taxes and interest rates going up. There was nothing for rural areas.

    Hansard source
33. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart—in this case, I think it is my first time. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made in this debate. I also welcome this opportunity to address the regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. A fair, honest and accountable private rented sector is important for landlords, agents and tenants alike—I think there is no dispute on that. Indeed, any system concerning <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>people’s homes and property must be transparent. From what I have heard, providers in the private rented sector are broadly united in agreement on that point. The National Residential Landlords Association said, “If designed well, the Database should make it easy for landlords to demonstrate compliance with their obligations…whilst empowering tenants to distinguish between the responsible majority and the rogue and criminal minority of landlords.” The Large Agents Representation Group said: “With the correct design, it would make compliance easier to demonstrate for landlords and their agents…give tenants greater confidence about the homes they rent and provide local authorities with better information to target enforcement against those who fail to meet the required standards.” However, the NRLA has described these regulations as “a costly mess”. The idea of a national register is not in itself disagreeable, but the proposed implementation and structure of this database is alien to any common-sense approach. First, and most strikingly, the Government have designed the database with barely a fifth of the providers in mind. Landlords with a single property are responsible for just 21% of tenancies in England, according to the 2024 English private landlord survey. The other roughly four fifths of tenancies are managed by landlords with more than one property, including some with thousands. Indeed, around one in five landlords hold nearly half of all tenancies. It is 2026. Advanced technology is available, yet the Government’s proposals envisage the manual uploading of each individual property. The regulations as they stand make no provision for bulk uploads, forcing landlords to upload properties one by one—Noah processed more animals on to the ark at a time than that. Each property requires around 70 data points, so that is an awful lot of admin with huge time implications, and much of the information required is already submitted to councils through existing licensing schemes. The Large Agents Representation Group, which represents some of the largest portfolios in the country through clients such as Chestertons, Hamptons, Knight Frank, Savills and Foxtons, calculates that if it takes 10 minutes to register an individual property, as the Government’s estimate apparently shows, that means over 1,600 staff hours for a 10,000 property portfolio—or about 3,300 hours for the 20 minutes it actually expects it to take. On that point, larger providers disagree with the Government’s estimate of the time it will take to upload data, so the associated costs of uploading per property could be even higher. Assuming that it takes 30 minutes per property and there are seven productive working hours in a day, that amounts to 214 working days for a 3,000 property portfolio and 714 days for a 10,000 property portfolio. That is a long way from being the only problem with the proposed database. The regulations stipulate that landlords must start and end the registration themselves, and agents can supply only certain information. That directly contradicts the Government’s impact assessment, which assumed that agents would register on the landlord’s behalf. Then there is the lack of an audit trail. Because of the system favoured by the Government, landlords have no ability to verify and validate data on a portfolio basis. They have no access controls nor an audit trail for data uploads, changes or deletions. The consequence of that <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>is obvious: a heightened risk of exposure to administrative errors, consequent fines, which can range from £7,000 to £40,000, and a host of compliance and audit risks. Then we come to the subject of cost. The Renters’ Rights Act included in its impact assessment an estimated data registration fee of £28.85 per property every three years. Now the Government have confirmed a fee of £65 per property every single year, as the regulations require entries to be renewed every 12 months. For the 80% of landlords in the market who care for more than one property, that represents a significant and unplanned recurring cost, and no one in the sector knows where the £65 figure came from nor how it can be justified. Perhaps the Minister can provide a clear explanation in his closing remarks of how that £65 has been calculated. Although the providers in the private rented sector are in broad agreement with the concept of a database, they are also united in viewing the approach of this Government as a total disaster. None of the concerns that I have outlined should come as news to the Government, because they have all been raised directly with Government officials by industry representatives. Many of those who I have spoken to thought that the Government had heard their concerns and were making adjustments, only to discover later that they had been ignored entirely. How do the Government expect to earn or maintain the trust of the whole sector when they ignore its concerns and blindside it with extra financial and labour costs? The Large Agents Representation Group has summed up the Government’s proposals: “Instead of making best use of data already held across Government and other established systems…the proposed approach required landlords and agents to manually and repeatedly input and maintain information that in most cases is already available elsewhere…creating unnecessary duplication, administrative burden and risk of inaccuracy for all stakeholders. The decisions being made now about its underlying architecture risk embedding unnecessary bureaucracy and practical problems from the outset. This is concerning when significant fees are being imposed and non-compliance carries substantial and lasting penalties.” The significant additional costs and administrative burdens imposed by this approach are likely to have damaging repercussions. Voices in the build-to-rent sector, a sector vital to assisting in the delivery of new homes, have said “This will inevitably deter much-needed investment in new homes…particularly at this time of ‘viability crisis.’” These are just a few of the significant issues shared with me by industry. The database, as proposed by the Government, is not fit for purpose. It is not good enough to impose something that everyone knows is not going to work just so that the Government can claim that they are taking action. The regulations represent the very worst of a Government hellbent on regulating first and worrying about the consequences later. Empty promises of continuing improvements do not cut the mustard. The sector, already saddled by over-regulation and tax hikes, needs efficiencies, not even more constraints. I implore the Minister to pause the impending roll-out of the regulations, which are due for implementation in just a couple of weeks’ time, scrap the current proposals and produce new ones after proper consultation with industry. I say that more in hope than expectation, so the Opposition will seek to divide and vote against the measures.<span id="7" class="column-number" data-column-number="7"></span>

    Hansard source
34. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

    Would it not, then, be better for the Minister to pause these regulations now, explore that fully and come back once he has adapted the system, so that that can be incorporated? This comes back to the point I was making about regulating now and trying to fiddle with it later. It is not going to work, as large landlords are telling the Minister. Why not pause, work it out and then come back?

    Hansard source
35. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing the debate, and for the way in which he spoke about his constituent Sian and her daughter Keely; he made their case powerfully. Preparing for the debate has given me the opportunity to read more <span id="182WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="182WH"></span>about Sian and her campaign, and about Keely. As the hon. Member described, Keely was just 15 years old when she was killed in May 2023, struck by a car while crossing the road. The driver was convicted of causing her death by careless driving and of causing death while uninsured. He was sentenced to 16 months in prison. In my work with victims and campaigners, I have got to know that until we speak to a person individually, we do not always know the ins and outs of a case, and I would not want to say anything incorrect. However, I can say confidently that a 15-year-old girl died, a family have been changed forever and the sentence was measured in months, not years. I know how I would feel if my similarly aged niece was killed in the same circumstances, given the criminal background of the individual concerned. I want to speak out for Sian and the way in which she has campaigned. More than 11,800 people have signed her petition calling for tougher sentences and for changes in the way such cases are handled. As other hon. Members have said, under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, introduced by the last Government, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving and for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs was raised from 14 years to life imprisonment. I know that those were not the exact same charges involved in Keely’s case, but that penalty demonstrates an attempt to recognise such offences and the impact they have. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described, maximum sentences are one thing and what judges give is another. I will talk about a family with whom I have worked directly and about whom I can speak more confidently. Glenn and Rebecca Youens lost their daughter, Violet-Grace, in March 2017 when she was four years old. She was walking with her grandmother in St Helens when a stolen car driven at 83 mph in a 30 mph zone hit them. Violet-Grace died and her grandmother was left with life-changing injuries. The driver fled the scene. He was later sentenced to nine years and four months, but because he pleaded guilty he received a reduction and was released after around four and a half years. As Glenn powerfully described, the driver spent less time in prison than his daughter was alive. I have been proud to support Glenn and his family. They are part of a group called Justice for Victims. In what I hope will be an inspiration to Sian, they also launched a petition and campaigned vociferously in their daughter’s memory, and they were a big part of why the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was increased. I also mention them because, like so many of those mentioned today, they really understand what it is to not get justice: they cared deeply and loved someone deeply, and they live in a country where they expected that if you do the right thing and someone does the wrong thing to you, the system will deliver justice for you. You cannot bring somebody back, but you do not want revenge; you want justice. The concerns in these and many other cases demonstrate that, for many decades—this is not about one Government or another—the justice system in this country has not been delivering justice anywhere near as often as it should have been, particularly for serious offences and serious offenders who commit crimes again and again. During our time in government, we took some steps to try to address that. We did so in a major way by rolling <span id="183WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="183WH"></span>back the automatic release point from halfway to two thirds of a sentence for some offenders. We have talked today about sentences, but we have to remember that the time someone spends in prison can be very different from the sentence that was passed down in court. Prior to that change, essentially everybody except those serving a life sentence served only half their sentence, so that was an important step. Since then, this Government have taken a sledgehammer to victims’ ability to get justice by introducing even earlier release, at the one-third point of a sentence, for offenders sent to prison for most crimes. Prior to the later changes that we managed to help secure, offenders just like the person who killed Sian’s daughter would have been asked to spend only a third of their sentence in prison. That was disgraceful, and the Government’s aim was to make the release point even earlier, not just for those responsible for causing death by dangerous driving, but for those committed of rape and a whole series of other very serious crimes—this Government attempted to let them out of prison earlier, too. The hon. Member for Cardiff West talked about whether Parliament listens enough. Very many MPs from different parties did listen to what people said about that and attempted to stop the Government doing it.

    Hansard source
36. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    Yes, I will go on to speak about that in detail. It is important for people watching and listening to the debate to know when the Minister gets up and gives us lots of warm words that he is the Minister who argued specifically to let people just like the gentleman involved in this case get out of prison after serving just a third of their sentence. It was only as a result of campaigners like Sian and the person that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned, who fought the Government and had to tell their stories again and again in public, which I am sure Members know is a deeply traumatic thing to have to do, that the Government were forced into U-turning. All this was based on a set of plans for an independent review that did absolutely nothing to engage with what victims actually want from sentencing policy when it comes to justice. As I said, this issue has gone on for decades. There was an opportunity to grapple with it properly and seek to understand why there is such a big gap and why we see these campaigns again and again, in relation to not just driving offences but a whole series of offences where victims feel so badly let down. Nothing was done to engage with what victims actually want from sentencing. Even today, the Government describe those early releases as “earned releases” when in fact they are automatic. These people automatically walk away from prison even earlier. Thank goodness that because of the campaigners, that does not apply to those more serious offences. I welcome that.<span id="184WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="184WH"></span> It is not only on this issue that Parliament sought to improve the situation. A new clause tabled during the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026 would have provided for automatic disqualification of those convicted of causing death by careless or dangerous driving. Hundreds of MPs clubbed together to defeat that amendment, including, I am afraid, some of those who have spoken in this debate in support of the people who have been affected by these sorts of cases. I understand that the hon. Member for Cardiff West actually did not oppose that measure and saw the sense in it that many other MPs saw. I congratulate him on that. The Minister has to answer some basic questions. Do the Government believe that the current sentencing framework and the way it has been applied properly reflect the seriousness of causing somebody’s death through dangerous or careless driving? If the answer is yes, the Minister must explain why so many families and members of the public believe otherwise; if the answer is no, he needs to tell us what the Government intend to do about it. Other Members have described things that the Government could do in the short term that we support. The ULS should absolutely be extended to those who cause death by careless driving—surely, if an offence was so serious that it led to the death of a person, it should be eligible. We continue to want to see automatic disqualification of those convicted of causing death by careless or dangerous driving. There is absolutely merit in providing the police, for example, with an opportunity to ensure that someone’s licence is temporarily revoked as they consider the facts on the ground. The police seek bail conditions to restrict what suspects can do prior to conviction all the time, and I see no reason why that should not also be applied in this case. There is a broader question that this Government and previous Governments have failed to grip and sort out. With these serious offences, there is a massive, yawning gap between the justice that the public, and victims and their family members, just like Sian, want to see, and the justice that they actually get in court. The Opposition have committed to seeking to address that if we get back into government, but whichever party is in government, we have to finally grip this—even if it is difficult or expensive—so that we do not see victims of serious crime deeply let down, again and again, by a system that they expect to be there for them.

    Hansard source
37. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    Just so the public can understand, there is a sentencing framework and judges have a role in applying that framework, but it would be totally within Parliament’s remit to make a ban mandatory—to make <span id="188WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="188WH"></span>it automatic. We could do that. Indeed, a number of MPs voted for that last year, but it was blocked by the Government.

    Hansard source
38. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    Will the Minister write to the Law Commission and ask it to ensure that it considers that issue as part of its review?

    Hansard source
39. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    On my central question, as does he, as a Justice Minister, think that the justice system is consistently delivering justice for victims of these and other serious offences?

    Hansard source
40. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    Sadly, this Budget does not tackle the critical national issues that we face. It does not have a plan to reduce spending on welfare. It does not have a plan to increase spending on defence. It does not have definitive interventions to improve growth, tackle our spiralling debt or deal with the record high taxes all of us currently face. What about locally? How does the Budget score for my constituents in Runnymede and Weybridge? Does it keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving? Well, there is nothing on level crossings and not much on rail or roads. On backing jobs and local businesses, it does not do anything about the catastrophic employer national insurance contributions. What about defending our green belt and our natural environment? There is nothing on the Environment Agency. On protection from flooding—I am glad that the Minister with responsibility flooding is on the Front Bench—there is no mention of the River Thames scheme in the Budget. The largest infrastructure scheme put forward by the Environment Agency is notably absent, which is deeply, deeply concerning. How about supporting children and families? Again, there is nothing on special educational needs and disabilities or on childcare. The scorecard from Runnymede and Weybridge on keeping my constituency moving is nil, nil, nil, nil, nil. Why is that? It is because this Budget is a tomorrow Budget. It is a future Budget, with all the key decisions left until after a review or until this Parliament is over. I have some news for those on the Government Benches and those on the Opposition Benches to the left of me. We know what that means. The fact that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister would rather have a non-Budget and call a general election than make the hard decisions today tells us everything we need to know about this Labour Government. There is another way with the Conservatives, and I am looking forward to it and so are my constituents. <em>Ordered</em>, That the debate be now adjourned.<em>—(Michael Wheeler.)</em> <em>Debate to be resumed tomorrow.</em>

    Hansard source