Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

  1. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions

    I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern. That standard was introduced when I was Health Secretary. This could have been the Budget in which the Chancellor announced we would speed up treatment for people with mental illness and not park them on welfare. This could have been the Budget that said that we will eliminate fraud by stopping completely benefit applications by phone. It could have been the Budget that said that instead of relying on migration to help firms expand, we will make sure that people at home are fit to join the workforce. Instead, the welfare bill is going up by around £14 billion, not least because of the totally unfair abolition of the two-child cap, which I fear will see more children, not fewer, living in the structural poverty caused when there are no adults in the household at work.

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions

    I recognise that the hon. Gentleman’s concern about child poverty is sincere; I just have a totally different view as to how to reduce child poverty in this country. I think financing people to have ever larger families will mean more children growing up in poverty, not fewer. The evidence for that is that under the previous Conservative Government, we had a million fewer children growing up in workless households, and child poverty in absolute terms fell. The hon. Gentleman needs to look at that evidence. The price we are paying for this mushrooming welfare bill is rising taxes which are already starting to destroy growth: 180,000 fewer payroll jobs in the last year; unemployment up, inflation up and interest rates higher than they would have been. The tragedy is that absolute poverty—which, as I said, fell under the previous Conservative Government—is now likely to rise under Labour as jobs vanish and welfare rolls soar.

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions

    I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I profoundly disagree on the way the Government are choosing to do that. By expanding the welfare bill and expanding the number of large families living in poverty, they are making the root causes of poverty worse and not better. The Chancellor says that there is a growth plan, but it was very difficult to discern it at all in today’s Budget. We know, for example, that raising public sector productivity to private sector levels would add 0.4% to annual GDP growth. We know that proper planning reforms would add 0.4%, that proper welfare reform would add 0.3% and that getting energy bills down properly would add 0.3%. We know that AI could dwarf all that, according to Microsoft and Accenture, potentially adding 1% a year. We got none of that today. Instead, we had a Government arriving in office saying that they wanted “Growth, growth, growth” without knowing how they were going to get there. Growth needs a plan, not a soundbite, and it is that lack of a plan—or even a guiding philosophy—that has resulted today in a Budget that damages growth, damages investment, damages jobs and, most tragically of all, damages opportunities for young people, of whom there will shortly be a million not in employment, education or training.

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we should look at the facts, which are very clear: the OBR upgraded growth for this year, and then downgraded it for every single year of the forecast thereafter. The overall size of the economy is shrinking as a result of the measures taken by the Chancellor in the previous Budget—and, I am afraid, made much worse in this Budget. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to go further on planning reform, but I do not think we have had any plan from the Government for the really substantive changes that would align incentives between local communities and national Government when it gets to things like planning approval for big infrastructure projects. I would cheer from the rafters if we heard that from the Chancellor, because it is urgently needed. Can the Government please not tell us that everything is going to be fine just because they are not the evil Tories? That is what I think is most disappointing of all, because those terrible Tories got inflation down from 11% to 2% and saw 4 million new jobs in the economy, as opposed to nearly 200,000 fewer. They grew the economy faster than France, Germany, Italy or Japan, and they attracted more greenfield foreign direct investment than anywhere in the world apart from China and the United States.

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions

    I would be happy to tell the hon. Lady which Government were responsible for 11% inflation: the Russian Government were responsible for 11% inflation. I will happily look in the eye the 200,000 fewer children in absolute poverty after a succession of Conservative Governments because of the 4 million jobs created on our watch. Let me say this. Those dreadful Tories also increased the number of doctors and nurses in the NHS by a third, and those posh Tories increased standards in state schools to have the highest reading standards in the western world. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is because progressive instincts do not pay the bill for good public services—a strong economy does.

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Chancellor makes a great play of fiscal responsibility—incidentally, I hope she will correct the record, because she said that she was reducing debt, when the OBR’s economic and financial outlook says that it is going up from 95% of GDP to 96% of GDP. On my hon. Friend’s point, yes: when the previous Conservative Government came into office, the Government were borrowing nearly £1 in every £4 that we were spending on public services, and we reduced that deficit from 10% to 2%, and Labour opposed us every single step of the way.

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions

    I will give way one last time to my right hon. Friend.

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions

    Labour Members might find that hard to hear from a former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister, but they might want to listen to the Resolution Foundation, which has been saying exactly the same thing on the airwaves today. No one disputes the progressive credentials of the Resolution Foundation. It has been warning against this rise in the minimum wage and all the extra workers’ rights, which it says could lead to a crisis in youth unemployment.

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions

    I do not want to leave the hon. Lady out, but I promise that this will be my last intervention.

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions

    I am proud that I dealt with a real black hole of £72 billion, not a fake one of £22 billion, in my fiscal events, and I met the fiscal rules every time. If the hon. Lady is really concerned about that low headroom, why did the shadow Chancellor at the time—now the current Chancellor—not object once to the fact that headroom was reduced to that level? I will tell the House why she did not object: because if I had left headroom any higher, I would have had to cut spending more or increase taxes more, and that would have made the recession we were heading into deeper and worse, with more unemployment, fewer jobs and more poverty. That is why I am proud that I took the right decision. Even now, it may not be too late, because a Government who try to do the right thing with the time they have left are more likely to earn the trust of the British people than a Government who have given up. Please do not treat government as an exercise in survival. That would be a betrayal of the Government’s mandate. People with the broadest shoulders, as the Chancellor described them, will be rightly angry today. But it is the people who depend on public services, who are looking for a job and who are on the poverty line, who need a strong economy more than anyone else, and they will finish today feeling more scared than ever about their prospects.

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentSir Iain Duncan Smith

    Driving Test Availability: South-east

    It is always a welcome thing to be in the same room as you, Mrs Harris, let alone to be chaired by you. I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this debate on a much bigger issue than people might think at first glance. I personally got into a bit of difficulty over this when I decided to take up motorcycling again a few years ago—the House of Commons just wasn’t risky enough. I got within about three days of being able to take my test, because the theory test was about to run out, and I would have had to repeat the whole thing because I was not able to book the test. So I understand at first hand the problems others have had. When I mentioned this debate, I was flooded by my constituents’ comments, which brought home to me the fact that this is an ever-present and timely debate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on securing it. The reality is that there has been a lot of talk about this issue under both Governments but, as yet, no great move to make changes. I want to read out a couple of the huge number of comments that came in from constituents. Mark simply calls the inability to get driving tests properly “shameful”. He also talks about the bots; I accept that the Government have said they are going to deal with them, but it is a complex issue. The sooner they deal with it, the better, because, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) said, the bots get the tests and then resell them at much higher prices, which makes it difficult for people who are on a low income to even afford a test. They then queue up and if they are too late on the telephone, it is hopeless. The other comment is from Theresa, who said: “For over a year, my son has been attempting to secure a practical driving test, but available dates are extremely limited, and any cancellations are immediately taken. This prolonged delay is causing significant disruption to his career. Driving is essential for his work, as he needs to travel between multiple job sites. The inability to obtain a test date is preventing him from taking on assignments, limiting his earning potential” and causing him particular difficulty and professional and financial strain. It is, then, a human problem. The idea that getting a test is a good thing is not just a technical one; for lots of people, it is about their earnings and their ability to improve their lives, which is what we should all be concerned about. When I put the matter to local driving instructors, I was completely overwhelmed by their fury and anger about what is going on. I will not quote everything they said, because some of it is not quotable here in the Chamber. I suppose I probably could among friends, but I do not think I will—I will restrict myself to spare myself your fury, Mrs Harris, and just talk about the generalities of what they said.

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentSir Iain Duncan Smith

    Driving Test Availability: South-east

    I will write to you all. The main thing was that someone learning to be an instructor has two years after passing the part 1 test, which is the theory, to complete part 2, the extended driving test, and part 3, the teaching ability test. The limited availability of parts 2 and 3 causes massive problems and means that trainees abandon the course, losing thousands of pounds. We should make it easier for them to get through because we need more examiners —we need more people to train people to learn to drive. If we choke off that supply, there is no chance of anybody getting tests because there will be no people to carry them out. There is also the misleading test availability. One pupil was sent a DVSA link to book a practical test after passing the theory test, but no available slots were shown in her area for two years, despite weekly test slot releases. I have already mentioned the bulk buying, and there is another issue. In April 2015, the average waiting time in Chingford and Woodford Green was 6.3 weeks—I think that is too long, but there it is. By September 2024, the average waiting time was 24 weeks and rising, and it has gone up since then. So this has become a massive issue. It is a massive issue in respect of people’s ability to earn a living and a massive issue for people who have a personal need to drive—perhaps because they look after somebody with disabilities or other problems. All this impacts hugely on their ability to live full and complete lives. At the end of the day, why are driving test slots so limited across the UK right now? Why are we not training more people? Why are we not making more slots available? Why are we not acting now to get rid of the business of bulk buying and then resale? We should be tackling that straight away. I simply say, on behalf of my constituents and those who have been training to become instructors and testers, that their exasperation, which I am sure others here today have felt, is remarkable. This issue is affecting all of their lives, and we should make it a priority. Too often it has been shunted into the background by successive Governments, on both sides of the fence. Now is the time to act, and I urge the Minister to give us a clear timetable for when he will act and how the Government will sort out this problem.

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentSir Iain Duncan Smith

    Driving Test Availability: South-east

    I do not wish to delay the Minister, but there is a concurrent theme throughout, which is the sheer incompetence of the DVSA over a long period. Does the Minister think that it would be better to have an inquiry into what is wrong with the DVSA and its failure to deal with these issues? It should not be left just to politicians; it should have tackled those issues. Will he commit to having a serious look at the functionality—the bureaucratic dysfunctionality—of the DVSA?

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentSir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    New Nuclear Sites

    14. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on the potential for new nuclear power sites in Scotland.

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentSir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    New Nuclear Sites

    Would the Secretary of State not agree that connecting renewables to the grid requires considerable expense, and would not the former nuclear sites of Hunterston, Torness and Dounreay make very suitable sites for new nuclear power stations, from which the Scottish people have benefited hugely in the past?

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Budget Resolutions

    The benefit bill is now unsustainable in this country. Really, the main reason I will say what I want to say today is that I hope we can create some consensus in the House to try to deal with this problem, which is imposing a massive level of debt on families. I am absolutely sure that the Government accept that this burden is unsustainable, and I am absolutely certain that if they came to the House with sensible proposals to try to get people off benefit, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition would support them in that endeavour. The Government ducked the challenge earlier in the year to cut benefits and thereby encourage more people into work. We said at the time that we were prepared to support the Government to try to deliver those cuts, and I am sure that those on the Conservative Front Bench would repeat that promise.

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Budget Resolutions

    I was not actually making that point. What we were discussing earlier in the year was people seeking work, and trying to encourage people to get back into work. I can understand the political imperative of what the Chancellor has done today—to sustain her position with her Back Benchers—but the problem is that the Government will create a perverse incentive for people on benefit with larger families to stay out of work. I am not sure that is good for their morale or the economy. It is not good for anybody. It seems a very easy hit for the Chancellor today, but I think it will have perverse results. As a Member representing a rural constituency, I want to say a word about the family farm tax. The Budget’s extension of inheritance tax for business assets over £1 million has, as we know, imposed a major new burden on long-established family farms in my constituency and elsewhere. Although I could understand the Government targeting larger estates and people who were acquiring estates to avoid inheritance tax, the new family farm tax affects not just large landed estates but ordinary farms worked by generations of the same families. I recently visited a tenant farmer in my constituency. He is affected because his tenancy—he does not own the and—is a capital asset, and he will be taxed perhaps as much as £300,000 on it, which affects the family’s ability to stay in farming. As we know, many family farmers lack liquid assets, which forces them to hold cash back, restructure, borrow or consider selling part of their business. Because the dividends used to pay inheritance tax are themselves taxed, these family farms face an effective tax rate of about 33%. The measure affects a significant share of medium-sized, long-standing firms even though it raises less than £500 million annually. It achieves maximum social and economic destruction for minimal financial reward. The policy also discourages business growth, because expanding a family firm increases future tax liabilities on heirs. Some advisers are recommending that owners sell businesses outright to avoid future tax complications. A climate of unpredictable tax changes creates fear among owners and undermines long-term planning. The uncertainty over succession planning is freezing investment and expansion across affected businesses. The arguments can be repeated, but I appeal to the Government to listen to the National Farmers Union, which has come up with sensible compromises that would keep family farms in business and achieve the Government’s objective. Let me say a bit about the benefits bill. Four million universal credit claimants are now excused from even looking for a job. This is a disaster in terms of self-reliance, the economy and much else. We know that the numbers have grown sharply since the pandemic. A surge in reported illnesses—particularly mental health conditions—is the main driver. Two thirds of recent work capability assessments cite mental or behavioural disorders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has blamed the collapse in the assessment process for the rise in successful claims, with remote and paper-based assessments introduced during covid having weakened checks on eligibility. That, again, is something on which we could co-operate across the House. It is a question not just of cutting benefits but of summoning people in, helping them and giving them confidence to try to get back into the workplace. Unless we do that and tackle the perverse incentives in the whole benefits system that discourage people from working, we will fail as a nation.

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Budget Resolutions

    I am careful, actually, to look at the data and constantly refer to facts that are accepted by the OBR and the Government. These facts are not challenged. We have 300,000 people currently waiting to undergo a work capability assessment. We need emergency measures to clear the backlog. I am surprised that anybody could disagree with what I am saying. The lack of in-person assessments has created a feedback loop where dependency grows and work expectations diminish. The longer that is allowed to continue, the harder it becomes for people to reintegrate into society. This is a system that writes people off rather than helping them back into employment. I would have thought we could all agree on that. We must not abandon these people; this is about human dignity. Getting people off long-term benefits and into employment brings significant mental health benefits. It also helps our straitened finances. The cost of sickness and disability benefits is projected to reach £100 billion annually by the end of the decade. Some households receive more than £30,000 a year in universal credit alone, with disability benefit payments pushing support well above that. The current system financially incentivises individuals to demonstrate incapacity rather than engage with work. I agree that the Government have redeployed work coaches to re-engage long-term inactive claimants, but systematic incentives remain unchanged. Failure to tackle long-term benefit dependency impoverishes the nation by increasing fiscal burdens and reducing labour force participation. The Office for Budget Responsibility reported that the working-age incapacity benefit caseload reached 7% in 2023-24 and is forecast to hit 7.9% by 2028-29. We must stop paying full benefits to young people who are neither working nor studying. Those young people should be working or studying.

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Budget Resolutions

    I will make some progress, if I may. The Centre for Social Justice estimates that by 2026 there will be a gap of over £2,500 between earnings and combined benefit income for under-25s. I could go on making those arguments, but I will proceed to the next part of my speech, on immigration. I accept that the greatest failure of our last Government was immigration. I admit, and I apologise on behalf of my Government, that the 2021 to 2024 Boriswave allowed—[Interruption.] Why should I not apologise? Why should I not be honest? It allowed over 4 million non-UK migrants into the country. Many of them will soon qualify for indefinite leave to remain. ILR’s granting of access to benefits and public services on the same basis as citizens is destroying financial incentives. The scale of it is financially significant. I agree that the Home Secretary has announced some sensible moves. I supported her when, for example, she came to the House to extend the standard qualifying period for ILR from five years to 10. As Karl Williams of the Centre for Policy Studies has noted, policymakers cannot say with confidence how many migrants currently hold ILR or what their economic circumstances are. Experimental DWP data shows that about 211,000 ILR holders receive universal credit—that is completely unsustainable. If Migration Observatory estimates are correct, between 27% and 37% of ILR holders receive universal credit. This is a worrying problem that needs resolution. I turn next to increasing tax. I have long argued for a much simpler tax system where we close loopholes but keep taxes low, especially for married families. Corporate tax complexity creates an inherent bias towards huge multinationals who can hire departments of accountants to reduce their liabilities. A free market relies on everyone paying their fair share. We need creative ways of ensuring that companies like Amazon and Starbucks can operate freely—we all use them—while paying a fair contribution. Then we can help lighten the burden on family farms, working people and small firms. Increasing taxes on working people risks undermining growth by reducing take home-pay and incentives. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that direct taxes reduced income inequality by only 4.4 percentage points: limited redistribution for a heavy burden. Higher taxes on the wealthy simply encourage them to leave. Data from the Henley & Partners 2025 migration report suggests that the UK may lose 16,500 millionaires this year. What is the point of it? Why are we driving these wealth creators out of the country? [Interruption.] There is so much to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I know that I will weary the House if I go on too long. May I end on one point? It is quite controversial and difficult to say. I know I am going to get into trouble for saying it, but I have got to say the truth as I believe it. We all know that the triple lock is unsustainable. We cannot have a situation where people of my generation are consuming an ever greater proportion of national wealth through the state pension. Frankly, our Government never dared tackle it, having brought it in, because they knew that the Labour party would crucify them at the ballot box. Now, the Labour party is caught in the same bind. The fact is that it is completely unfair on younger people if the burden of older people, through the triple lock, increases year by year. We laugh at the French because of their failure to achieve sensible pension reform, but we ourselves have got to have the courage, frankly, to end the triple lock—and I think this will only be done with consensus between the two parties. I am absolutely sure that the Government could come to the Leader of the Opposition and say, “This is unsustainable. Will you share this burden with us?” That may seem very unpopular, but actually many older people—people of my generation—all have children and we all have grandchildren, and we all see our children struggling to get into the housing market. If the Government and the Opposition were prepared to have the courage to deal with the triple lock, I am not sure that it would be as unpopular with older people as is sometimes maintained. After all, we could always relieve the burden on those on pension credit and find ways of helping people who really could not afford to live. But the triple lock must go. That is not a popular policy, but in our hearts, I think we know that it is the right one.

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne

    Budget Resolutions

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She caught my eye earlier when she was cheering the Chancellor with great enthusiasm, even more so than her colleagues who were making a pretty good fist of it. I recall cheering a Chancellor during a Budget speech—

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne

    Budget Resolutions

    Notwithstanding the misgivings that I had, I cheered with gusto. Somewhat later, I found myself on a train to Oxford to defend the Government in the annual Oxford Union debate of no confidence. While on the train, I received the news that the Chancellor who I had been cheering had been sacked—not a particularly good wicket to go out to bat on. I am confident that those hon. Members who cheered today will fare no better, because the economy is still reeling from the last Budget that the Chancellor delivered, with her wholesale assault on enterprise, family undertakings, initiative and every employer in the land. In fact, business confidence had collapsed significantly before that Budget. It had collapsed in the summer, when the Government warned everyone that things were so bad that they were going to have to get very, very much worse. As a consequence, when the Budget was delivered, we discovered that things were even worse than we had imagined. The Government then announced after that Budget that they had stabilised the economy. It was over; they were not coming back for any more. They trumpeted throughout the past year the fact that we had the highest growth rate in the G7. That is what they inherited, but as their monstrous regiment has proceeded, that growth rate has become more and more anaemic. There is no getting away from the fact that last month the economy shrank. This summer, the Government repeated the mistake. All we got throughout the summer was horror story after horror story and kites being flown about ghastly taxes that might be imposed on us. That was most unwelcome for businesses planning investment and for anyone planning to take on workers; these interventions move some markets and make others absolutely sclerotic. It is a disaster. When I challenged the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week with the example of Hugh Dalton, who properly resigned over a Budget leak, I was astounded that he admitted at the Dispatch Box that he had no idea what I was talking about. That is extraordinary. Against that background, there is always the chilling presence of the huge increase in trade union power that is part of the Employment Rights Bill currently before Parliament. However, the Government’s anti-growth agenda is only half the story. The other half of the problem was expounded excellently by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The Government’s bloated expenditure plans have overshot by 4%, and we have this enormous, growing benefits bill. The disaster was that the Government withdrew from their attempts to provide some mild or modest restraint to the growth of that bill, and as my right hon. Friend said, we now face a bill that is running annually at £300 billion—£212 billion of which is for the economic inactivity of 4.3 million people who are under no obligation to work. That number of people is growing at a rate of 130,000 per month. That is completely unsustainable, and it is to be paid for by increasing taxes that disproportionately attack those people who are already contributing the most—the entrepreneurs, the investors and the very people who can take their investment, vision, skills and employment to where the business environment is rather more friendly. They are doing that in droves and to such an extent that even the Business Secretary has remarked on and spotted it. We increasingly face a situation in which fewer and fewer people will be able to pay for the bills of the increasing burden of people who are economically inactive. As we approach—

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne

    Budget Resolutions

    I do wish the hon. Gentleman would be quiet. He is insufferable. As we approach Government activity accounting for 45% of the economy—

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne

    Budget Resolutions

    I will not give way; I have reached my peroration. I have always thought that the result of that would be the totalitarian hand clenched in anger. I have read “The Road to Serfdom”, and things have actually turned out very differently. It is not the totalitarian hand clenched in anger; it is the Minister’s hand, open, dishing out largesse. It has turned out to be not so much the road to serfdom as the road to penury.

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentSir Bernard Jenkin

    Budget Resolutions

    It gives me a certain pleasure to share some agreement about the need for more resource in defence and resilience with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). For all the Government’s talk of increasing spending on defence, the vast bulk of the promise they have made is after this spending period, and the small increase that has been allowed for in these spending plans is not even sufficient to make up for the problems that the Ministry of Defence has managing its own programmes. There is now a huge row going on there about what it is going to have to cut in order to stay within the spending envelop set by the Treasury. It is not a new problem, but it is a significant one, and it is one that underlines the need for the Ministry of Defence to adapt to a very different climate—a much more warlike and adaptive system for acquiring military kit. The great theme of this Budget and the last, to which the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington referred, is growth. I think we need to be realistic that the growth rate was flattened by the global financial crisis of 2008-09, and our productivity rate never recovered from that period. It is a puzzle. It is partly because our economy is more and more service orientated, which is labour intensive, but I think it is also because we have expanded the public sector so dramatically in recent years. Public sector productivity is way below what it was before covid—it has not recovered. The productivity of the national health service is lamentable. These are issues of leadership, organisation and efficiency. The Government need to look at getting much better value for money for what we are spending, given that this country now has the highest ever peacetime levels of public expenditure.

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentSir Bernard Jenkin

    Budget Resolutions

    I am tempted not to be drawn into the rather silly Brexit debate that seems to go on. It was notable that the Government spoofed towards the idea that they would make Brexit the scapegoat for the economy, but actually very little has come out from them on that. The Liberal Democrats may think, “Oh, if only we had a customs union to deal with the European Union, we would be £90 billion better off,” but that is fantasy economics. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Treasury is not saying that? Because it is not true—it is complete rubbish. The idea that we have lost 4% of GDP as a result of Brexit is based on a very flimsy piece of evidence: a report put together from 13 forecasts made in 2016 and 2017, all before the Brexit deal was completed and we had a free trade agreement. It has never come to pass. In fact, a respected commentator, Wolfgang Münchau, said that we were approximating along growth rates in line with France and Germany before we left the European Union, and that our leaving the European Union was the “economic non-event” of the century. We have been approximating along at about the same growth rates. The very dire forecasts were based on the idea that there was going to be a 25% decline in our trade—that has not happened. There has been a marginal decline in our trade with the EU—[Interruption.]

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentSir Bernard Jenkin

    Budget Resolutions

    I am very sorry that those on the Front Bench do not like hearing this, but there is no “get out of jail free” card through realigning with the European Union. It looks as though the European Union wants to charge us money for the Brexit reset. In fact, the expenditure line—what we make in net contributions to the EU since we left—has absolutely crashed. We are now contributing very little, and that money is available to the Exchequer. If we rejoined the European Union, we would have to find another £20 billion for contributions to the European budget—no thank you very much. The real point about a Budget is that it is when the country hears from the Government about their judgment. It is not about lots of little schemes—the £400 million extra being raised from council tax does not even cover the margin for error on annual public spending each year. It is almost irrelevant; it is a window dressing about punishing the rich. Incidentally, if we go on every Budget making sure that the top deciles contribute far more than the bottom deciles, we will finish up with a more and more punitive tax and benefit system that will be more and more damaging for economic growth. The question is: did the Government get the judgment right last time? The answer was obviously no; they said that those tax increases would be a one-off but they have had to come back for much more, because the effect of their measures has damaged economic growth. What we are missing from this conversation is a real discussion about the long-term growth of public expenditure and what we can afford. The “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report, produced by the OBR in the summer, was a sort of two-day wonder in the public debate. We then went back to discussing the very narrow question of how much headroom we should have in just one year—as though aiming for that little hole is the answer for the long-term economic viability of this country. What a ludicrous way to run a country! It is about as un-strategic as you can get. As a consequence, we are living in a fool’s paradise. The Government have repeated their errors. They are punishing wealth creators and padding out the welfare system, which is decreasing incentives for work. The tragedy of the nearly 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training is getting bigger. The national minimum wage will reduce opportunities for young people, because it will no longer be worth pubs and hotels recruiting young people, given that there is no cost advantage to recruiting students as opposed to full-timers. Perhaps that is what the Government want, but it will not be good for employment for young people, nor good for growth and enterprise.

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentSir Bernard Jenkin

    Budget Resolutions

    I will not be thanking the Chancellor and her Government on behalf of all the young people who thought they would be able to get jobs in the hospitality sector, but now will not get them. Students will not get those part-time jobs to help to pay off their student loans. These issues have to be balanced—[Interruption.] I am not going to give way again. The point is that this Budget will prove, once again, that higher spending, higher borrowing—the debt is still going up, by the way—and higher taxes are not a route to growth, prosperity, employment, happiness and security. This is a Government proving, once again, that socialism does not work. We are heading for a terrible reckoning on the basis of the long-term fiscal forecasts produced by the OBR. There is going to be a crunch. Last year the Government sent the gilt rates rising. This year the gilt rates are way above the level that was provoked by the Liz Truss Budget. These two Budgets are much worse than the Liz Truss episode, and they have raised—[Interruption.] The Liz Truss episode was short-lived; this is permanent. It is Government policy to inflict higher borrowing costs, higher debt, higher taxation and lower growth on our country—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if those on the Front Bench could contain themselves. This Government have made permanent a fiscal and growth crisis, and we will rue the day that we elected them, because once again they will prove that Labour Governments always trash the economy permanently.

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentSir Bernard Jenkin

    Budget Resolutions

    Obviously, the Labour briefing says how much the previous Conservative Government borrowed over their period in office, but given that we inherited a situation where £1 in every £4 of public spending was being borrowed, it took a considerable period of austerity to get annual borrowing down. During that borrowing, we accumulated a lot of extra debt.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentSimon Hoare

    Budget Resolutions

    My right hon. Friend is making a characteristically excellent speech. Would he agree that we are at a tipping point at which the welfare state is ceasing to be what we have always wanted it to be—a safety net below which nobody can fall—and is instead becoming a cocoon that will trap a whole generation in dependency, and kill off aspiration and social mobility?

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentSimon Hoare

    Budget Resolutions

    Oh, it is nothing as contemporary as covid—don’t worry about that. I just wondered how much money the right hon. Member left in the coffers when he was Chief Secretary in 2010.

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentRobbie Moore

    Budget Resolutions

    This Budget was dead on arrival. We were promised that the last autumn Budget was a once-in-a-generation event, but I suggest that the Chancellor may want to correct her record on that claim. Despite setting out to find growth, she has flatlined the economy and tanked employment. Indeed, we now know that Labour will raise taxes by more than any Parliament has raised them since the 1970s. All sectors are being impacted, not only those in hospitality but manufacturing and engineering—the sectors, and the organisations, that grow growth. Our hospitality sector and high streets are the backbone of my constituency, but the cost of doing business is spiralling out of control, not helped by the previous Budget, which hiked employer national insurance contributions and significantly reduced business rate relief, and by an energy policy that is crippling everyone from manufacturers to those in hospitality. Rather than helping businesses—for example, by axing business rates on our high streets, as those of us on the Conservative Benches are committed to doing—the Chancellor has offered them absolutely no ladder at all to get out of the hole that she has created for our small businesses. A month or so ago, I held a roundtable at New Brook Street Deli in Ilkley in my constituency, when Ilkley Brewery, The Little Teahouse and many other businesses came along specifically to raise the challenges around increases in overheads, which they simply cannot pass on to their customers. This Budget does nothing at all to help them. Indeed, it almost seems like this Government look at those businesses as if they were separate from the families who work for them, but when we make it more expensive to employ someone, it is the workers who end up paying through lower wages, fewer hours or potentially having no job at all. Given that those in my area are subjected to council tax increasing by 10%, and that Labour-run Bradford council will increase it by a further 5% next year, there is less disposable income for people to spend. This Budget has ignored the pleas of businesses to let them get on with the job that they want to do and achieve the growth that they aspire to achieve. The Chancellor has slashed investment allowances and pushed up fuel duty for every hard-working Brit in this country, and that is not the way forward for growth. Of course, the increase in fuel duty will negatively impact rural areas much more than others, because there are further distances to travel. Then there is the challenge with inheritance tax, which has not really been addressed at all by the Chancellor today. Small family businesses, including family farms, got just one mention by the Chancellor today, despite the Government unleashing the most devastating tax changes in a generation on these businesses last year. The changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief are set to wreak havoc not only on big multinationals, but on small family businesses. Many farming businesses are going to be negatively impacted.

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentRobbie Moore

    Budget Resolutions

    I absolutely agree. The fact that the Met police cancelled today’s pre-organised Budget day protest and rally at the last minute is an absolute disgrace. I was proud to be out on Whitehall today with many of our farming community and my Conservative colleagues. We share their anxiety and concern that the changes to inheritance tax that this Labour Government are imposing will have a negative impact not only on our farming businesses, but on the wider supply chain. It is absolutely catastrophic. However, it is not only our farming businesses that are being impacted but many family businesses, such as Fibreline in Keighley, which employs about 200 people. It has already worked out that its BPR liability will be in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. The options that many of these businesses have are to sell plants or machinery, or to lose control of the business for which they have worked for generations by selling shares. That is not progressive, and it does not give any hope to our family businesses. That is why it is absolutely devastating to see that the Chancellor could not even be bothered to engage with family businesses in the run-up to this Budget over the last year, so that they could get their viewpoints across. Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) that it was a disgrace that not one Labour MP was out in Whitehall today to stand side by side with the farming businesses that Labour Members claim to be representing. Many of them represent rural constituencies. Today’s Budget is heartless. After a year of anxiety, uncertainty and desperate pleas, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have shown pure ignorance today, and this while the Government are yet set to spend £1.8 billion on a digital ID policy that nobody I have ever spoken to wants. When it comes to aspiration, why on earth would any young entrepreneur looking at this Budget want to stay in this country, and create the growth that the Chancellor is after and the local economic activity that we desperately need across areas such as Keighley and Ilkley? The message we have heard loud and clear from this Labour Government today is, “Don’t save for your future or for your pension, because Labour will tax it; don’t bother working hard to get that pay rise, because Labour will tax it; don’t take the leap of setting up your own independent business, because Labour will tax it; and don’t you dare die holding assets, because Labour will tax them.” In fact, just about the only thing this Budget does positively is not incentivise anyone to work, but how does that deliver for the economy? Given the crippling, tax-raising Budget that has been put before us, how on earth is the Chancellor aiming to create growth? She still has not addressed the key issues that many of our constituents have been raising with this Labour Government. Last year’s Budget, delivered by this Labour Chancellor, walked the country up the fiscal plank, which was cheered on by many Labour MPs on the Government Benches. I fear that today’s Budget, again cheered on by many Labour MPs, will leave the whole country sinking into the sea.

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentRebecca Smith

    Budget Resolutions

    It is important that we take account of the hard-working families who will be affected by Labour’s economic mismanagement, and that their voices are not drowned out by the political drama surrounding the Budget. To ensure that I heard directly from those I represent in South West Devon, I launched a survey ahead of the Budget to gather at first hand the views of as many constituents as possible. Almost 90% of those who responded told me that they were worried about Labour’s Budget, and it turns out that they had good reason. The 3,000-plus small businesses in South West Devon are suffering under the strain of Labour’s job-killing policies. The Resolution Foundation has warned that Labour’s hikes to national insurance contributions and the minimum wage will drive up the cost of employing a part-time, low-paid worker by 14%—the biggest jump on record. Increasing taxes without real spending cuts will undermine growth. I have heard in recent weeks that many people’s experience is that increased wages and national insurance, on top of higher costs, are choking SMEs in my constituency. That is why 75% of those I surveyed supported the Conservative policy of scrapping business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. What a shame that policy did not feature in the Budget today. Indeed, 63.8% of my constituents want lower taxes, even if it means less Government spending—again, we did not see that today. It is almost a year to the day since the Chancellor promised that she would not come back to the House with announcements of more borrowing or taxes, yet my constituents repeatedly expressed concerns that Labour would do exactly that. They did not believe the Chancellor’s hollow words, because they knew that Labour has never met a tax that it did not want to raise. Today, their concerns have been realised. Let me be clear: the Chancellor’s fiscal mess is not a result of Brexit, covid, the Ukraine war, the fall of the Berlin wall or any other historical event; it stems from the Prime Minister and Chancellor’s inability to stand up to their Back Benchers. Spending on health and disability benefits alone is on track to hit £100 billion by 2030. My constituents know that the country cannot afford that. The Government have abandoned any meaningful reforms after a humiliating climbdown on their flagship welfare Bill. The Chancellor’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap is not a result of some newfound passion to tackle child poverty; plainly, it serves to throw some happy sweeteners to the Back Benchers who tore apart that flagship welfare Bill just a few short months ago. It has been clear from this debate—I have sat through almost the entire thing—that the policy is pretty much the only thing that Labour Members are excited about. My constituents do not want to lift the cap, nor does the country at large, but yet again it is party before country for Labour, and it is hard-working families who will pay. The Resolution Foundation has estimated that removing the cap in full will cost up to £3.5 billion in this Parliament. The country is in a fiscal black hole, and Labour keeps on digging, expecting hard-working families to fill that hole. I will briefly comment on statistics on the two-child benefit cap. We have heard about its negatives, but there are a lot of statistics that those on the Government Benches have not mentioned. For example, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that 70% of the poorest households subject to the two-child limit would see the gains from its reversal partially or fully wiped out by the household benefit cap. We have heard nothing about that. This flagship policy is not necessarily going to help the families who the Government seem to think it will. The introduction of the two-child limit has had no significant effect on the proportion of third and subsequent children in England achieving a good level of development at age five, which is the cornerstone metric of the Government’s opportunity mission. Instead, the alternative side of that argument has been presented today. The IFS has also said that lifting the two-child limit is not a magic bullet, and other measures, such as supporting parents into quality jobs, are vital for reducing poverty in the long run. For half of those affected, the two-child limit significantly improves work incentives, so just removing the cap, as has been done today, does not actually help those whom we are seeking to support. I represent a constituency in which defence is a really important part of the ecosystem. It is the future of our area, given what we are trying to do with Team Plymouth. However, we have still not seen the defence investment plan; it was due in the autumn, but we are rapidly approaching the winter. Big figures were announced, but I am waiting to see how amounts will be distributed. Plymouth was mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech today, but if one does a ctrl+f on the Budget document, it is not in there—except on something to do with place-based development. On ISAs, I understand why the Government seek to push people towards stocks and shares, and there are compelling reasons to do with how much more money can be saved in that way. However, it is clear that this policy will result in a need for increased financial education. When the Opposition tried to get the Government to take financial education seriously during consideration of the Pension Schemes Bill, so that we can help people understand fully how to invest for their future, they were not interested in accepting our amendments. I hope that the Government will not assume that it is down to banks to educate everybody on the difference between a stocks and shares ISA and a cash ISA. I like to think of myself as fairly financially literate, but even I struggled to put the effort into finding that out; as much as anything else, I struggled to find the time. I would love to make more money on my savings, but an advert on a bank website is not going to be good enough. I am interested to see what the Government will do to ensure that more people can benefit.

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentRebecca Smith

    Budget Resolutions

    Absolutely. Of course financial education in schools is important, as is a whole lot of education about life, budgeting and other things, but I am talking specifically about financial education for people in their professional years—in their 20s, 30s and 40s—who will be affected by changes to the ISA rules. They will potentially need help to make sure that they can still save effectively. The last point I will talk about is the electric vehicle pay-per-mile policy, which will have a huge impact on rural communities, as has been said. It will also be a huge disincentive for any non-inner-city community. I represent an urban area on the outskirts of a city and the rural area around it, and a lot of my constituents—aside from the ones who have a drive and perhaps a detached house—are not able to have an electric vehicle. Pay-per-mile will disincentivise people to even aspire to have an electric vehicle in an area where it is a long drive to the supermarket, or to take their child to the swimming pool. I feel that pay-per-mile contradicts the Government’s obsession with electric vehicles. Perhaps they will speed up development of alternative fuels instead. I do not understand how they can dislike fossil fuels but at the same time disincentivise EV transition. This Budget is completely out of step with the public. They wanted lower personal taxes and welfare spending cut. They wanted to see work pay. They wanted to see stamp duty scrapped, business rates abolished for retail, leisure and hospitality, and a £5,000 first job bonus—policies that would have meant tax cuts, and rewarded hard-working men and women—not the increase in welfare spending and the tax increases we have seen today to prop up some nice little pet projects of the Labour Government.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Point of Order

    That is not a matter for the Chair. The Chancellor is about to make her Budget statement, and I expect that Members and their constituents wish to hear from the Chancellor directly. However, before I call the Chancellor to speak, I will make a short statement.

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Financial Statement and Budget Report

    Before I call the Chancellor, I will make a short statement. For a number of weeks, and yet again yesterday, there have been extensive briefings to the media on the Government’s fiscal policy and public finances. This disappointing trend in relation to Budget briefings has been growing for a number of years under successive Governments, but it appears to have reached an unprecedented high. Weeks ago, we saw the Chancellor delivering a speech in Downing Street setting the scene for the Budget, and specific policy announcements have been briefed out to the media in advance of today’s financial statement. [Interruption.] I do not need any help from Members. It seems that just a moment ago, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis appeared online. This all falls short of the standards that the House expects. The premature disclosure of the contents of the Budget has always been regarded as a supreme discourtesy to this House and to all the democratically elected Members, not to mention to Mr Speaker, and to me, the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Government’s own “Ministerial Code” cannot be clearer. Paragraph 9.1 states: “When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.” I have always upheld the right of this House and its Members to be treated with respect, and to be the first to hear major Government policy announcements on behalf of their constituents. As Chairman of Ways and Means, I have responsibility for overseeing the House’s consideration of the Budget statement and the ensuing resolutions; that is described in paragraph 36.33 of “Erskine May” as “the most important business of Ways and Means.” I want hon. Members on both sides of the House to have adequate opportunity to hold the Chancellor to account, rather than their hearing and reading about new policies daily in the media. Like many, I expected better. Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remind hon. Members that copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to them in the Vote Office in Members’ Lobby at the end of the statement, and online. I also remind hon. Members that interventions are not taken during the Chancellor’s statement, nor during replies from the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Financial Statement and Budget Report

    Order. There is far too much noise. I expected so much better from you, Dr Luke Evans; you are meant to be a leader in your community. Simmer down.

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Financial Statement and Budget Report

    Order. It is very hard to hear the Chancellor over all the shouting. Mr Holmes, you promised me yesterday that you would be on your top behaviour in the first few minutes. I call the Chancellor.

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Financial Statement and Budget Report

    Order. There is far too much noise, far too much excitement. People need to calm down a little.

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentMs Nusrat Ghani

    Financial Statement and Budget Report

    Order. It is so noisy in here we can barely hear the Chancellor. Everybody needs to calm down.

    Hansard source