Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

   Proposed Solar Development in Wisborough Green

   No place is more inappropriate for a 25-hectare solar farm than the nature-rich farmland in Loxwood and Wisborough Green. One hundred and seventy-four residents and four separate parish councils have objected to the proposal. Solar on this scale is better off on supermarket roofs above car parks and on brownfield sites. I am sad to say that the local Liberal Democrats have failed to take a stand, demonstrating that no green field in Sussex is safe. The petitioners “therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with local residents’ groups and to encourage Chichester District Council to refuse planning permission for the proposed 20MW solar farm in Wisborough Green. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Arundel and South Downs, Declares that the proposed site on land to the south, south-west and north-west of Malham Farm and north-west of Oakwood Farm, Wisborough Green is inappropriate for the construction of a 20MW solar farm by Renewable Connections, due to its scale, location, and associated impacts on the rural setting and residents; further declares that there are no exceptional circumstances that require a solar farm to be built there, and that the local harms far outweigh the merits of this proposal. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with local residents’ groups and to encourage Chichester District Council to refuse planning permission for the proposed 20MW solar farm in Wisborough Green. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003140]

   Hansard source
2. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

   It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Alec. Congratulations on your appointment to the Panel of Chairs. This statutory instrument amends The Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations, building on the commitments made in part 8 of the Energy Act 2023—what an Act that was. Heat networks are largely unregulated, leaving consumers vulnerable to expensive heat network contracts with little to no control, since the decentralised heat and water networks are not governed by the same regulation as other utilities. The remaining components of those regulations come into force in January 2026, and along with the Energy Act 2023—with which I am incredibly familiar, having spent hours, weeks and months of my life as the Bill Minister for that legislation—they create the foundation of a regulatory framework. The statutory instrument establishes a special administration regime for protected heat network companies, designed to maintain essential heating services to ensure continuity of service if a heat network operator becomes insolvent. It mirrors similar arrangements in other regulated sectors, such as electricity and gas. As the Minister said, the statutory instrument also gives Ofgem the powers to investigate disproportionate pricing on heat networks. What guarantee can the Minister give that that will adequately protect the 500,000 homes across the country, including some in my own constituency, that have very little power over the price they pay to be connected to a specific heat network? The lack of regulation for heat networks has created challenges for consumers. The Energy Act addressed that by introducing a comprehensive regulatory framework for heat networks. Under that Act, Ofgem will become the statutory regulator for heat networks from January 2026. The Act also provided for the appointment of consumer advocacy bodies and ombudsman services, which began earlier this year, and it sets out a staged implementation timeline. From 27 January 2026, the full authorisation regime and special administration permissions will come into effect, marking a significant step towards a regulated market—something that we very much welcome. Although the statutory instrument is a necessary step towards the regulation of heat networks as set out in the Energy Act, I take this opportunity to reiterate the genuinely desperate situations some of our constituents find themselves in as a result of unregulated decentralised heating, paying extortionate fees with no way out. There have been well-documented cases of consumers facing high cost and limited options under existing arrangements. With the new framework live at the end of January, it is essential that Ofgem and the Government are fully prepared to deliver effective protections for consumers. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed what steps are being taken to ensure that the special administration regime will effectively protect consumers, and that the amendments introduced by this statutory instrument are sufficient to ensure fairness. We do not, of course, intend to oppose the regulations, but I emphasise the need for robust implementation to ensure that heat network consumers receive the protections promised under the Energy Act.

   Hansard source
3. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Topical Questions

   A game of strategy, tactics and sometimes outright brinkmanship might sound familiar to the Cabinet at the moment, but I am actually talking about chess. Meadow View primary school in my constituency has qualified for the London chess classic, which takes place tomorrow. Will the Education Secretary join me in congratulating the pupils on getting so far and wishing them luck?

   Hansard source
4. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

   It is deeply damaging and, dare I say, unprecedented that we find ourselves here today, listening to this statement about OBR forecasts, midway through the debate on the Budget. It raises more questions, not least because the Chancellor chose not to be here today to answer those questions. Why?

   Hansard source
5. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Budget Resolutions

   Will the Secretary of State give way?

   Hansard source
6. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Budget Resolutions

   If the policy is so good, how will the Secretary of State explain to working people that they will be £18,000 worse off than those on benefits? How can that be fair?

   Hansard source
7. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Budget Resolutions

   Is it not the truth that we have in front of us not the Budget of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, but the Budget of the Back Benchers?

   Hansard source
8. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Budget Resolutions

   The Budget is built on fantasy. The Chancellor claimed that there was a fiscal black hole so deep that she had no choice but to hammer working families with the highest tax burden since the war, but we now know the truth: the OBR told her in October that the so-called black hole did not exist. She actually had a surplus, but she deliberately told the public the opposite. This is now a political crisis of the Chancellor’s own making. Even a Cabinet Minister has said: “At no point were the Cabinet told about the reality of the OBR forecasts”, and called this Budget “a disaster from start to finish”. The Chancellor promised the country that she had “wiped the slate clean” and would not “come back for more”, but we now know how wrong she was. Labour Members can dress it up however they like, but this is the “Benefits Street” Budget—tax hikes to fund a welfare splurge, paid for by ordinary, hard-working people who get up, go to work and do the right thing. Labour promised not to raise taxes on working people. That was printed in its manifesto, but within weeks of coming to power it did exactly that. A Chancellor who breaks her word cannot expect to command the public’s trust. She must come to this House and explain herself, and I hope she does the winding-up speech tomorrow evening at the close of the debate. While this Government play politics with the public finances, it is working families in my constituency, and others up and down the country, who are paying the price. In Aldridge-Brownhills, families who have never been higher rate taxpayers in their lives will now find themselves pushed into a higher band, with no increase in real pay. That is not fairness; it is failure. Businesses reached their verdict within hours. The Institute of Directors found that 80% of business leaders felt negative about the Budget. They know that Labour Members do not understand what business is. Labour’s job tax has hit employers hard. On Friday, businesses in my constituency told me that they have frozen recruitment and investment, that they have no choice but to pass costs on to customers, and that in some cases they are beginning to think about redundancies. Small businesses—the backbone of our economy—were forgotten entirely in this Budget, and the Federation of Small Businesses has said that dividend tax hikes punish people for investing in their own companies. New employer charges are a bad idea, and the business rate measures fall far short. Small Business Saturday is on this coming weekend, and I am sure that many Conservative Members will be going out and supporting small businesses in their constituencies. Why? Because we understand what business is.

   Hansard source
9. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Budget Resolutions

   I am sorry—I do not have time. Connectivity drives growth too, yet we see reheated announcements. The midlands rail hub is crucial for our region, but we do not know whether this is new money or recycled rhetoric. There was no reinstatement in the Budget of the £27 million for Aldridge train station—money that was siphoned away by the Labour mayor—and my constituents deserve better. Let us be clear: households are being squeezed, food price inflation is running high at nearly 5%, and our farmers are still being hit by the Government’s decisions. This Budget raises taxes, weakens growth, ignores business, hits farmers, sidelines communities and breaks promises. Above all, it is built on fantasy—a black hole that did not exist. My constituents, and this country, deserve better.

   Hansard source
10. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Attainment in Schools

    I welcome the ambition for greater attainment, but does the Minister agree that cancelling the large programme uplift funding for schools offering the international baccalaureate, as the Government have recently done, has left year 11 students, particularly at schools like Tonbridge grammar school, which I have the privilege to represent, somewhat lost and therefore struggling to achieve the attainment of which she speaks?

    Hansard source
11. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    Mr Speaker, you described the chaos and leaks in the run-up to the Budget as a “hokey-cokey”. Just today, the House had to be suspended because the statement arrived so late, on a Budget that was delivered so early that the Chancellor had not actually given it. That was a few hours after the Prime Minister had had to do a second launch to try to explain the Budget, a day after the Chancellor had toured the studios trying to say that she did not mislead people over it. Would it not have been clearer for the Prime Minister just to say that he was hiking tax to put up welfare?

    Hansard source
12. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Budget Resolutions

    The Secretary of State opened this debate by saying that we should look at the backdrop of the general election, which was a surprising way for him to open discussion on the Budget, not least because a central theme of the Budget is Labour doing the very opposite of what it said it would do at the general election. That can be seen first and foremost with the £26 billion of additional tax—on top of the £40 billion in tax in the Government’s first Budget—when Labour said at the general election that it had fully costed proposals and that it would not need to tax working people. Indeed, Labour said at the general election that growth was its No. 1 policy objective, and yet what do we see in the official documents from the OBR? We see growth forecasts down every year of the forecast. Even the topic of this debate—“bearing down on inflation”—is the opposite of what the OBR says is happening, with inflation staying higher for longer as a result of the measures the Government have taken. Labour inherited inflation at 2%, and yet it is now forecast to stay at 3.5% next year and to be at 2.5% the year after. Indeed, on the topic of the cost of living, nothing hurts people’s incomes more than inflation, which pushes up bills and the cost of food and erodes people’s income. The Government also promised to deliver jobs, but we can see the consequences of their first Budget: the changes to national insurance—the jobs tax—have meant that unemployment has been up every month that the Government have been in office, and the graduate recruitment situation is the worst on record. In response to this Budget, the OBR forecasts that unemployment will be at 4.9% in 2026-27. This Budget is supposed to be “bearing down on inflation”, but inflation is up. The Government talk about addressing the cost of living, but people are being taxed more, and more people are unable to get a job. Graduates in particular are being hit. We can see the difference between what Labour said at the general election and what it is delivering. That all matters, because away from the big numbers—the billions that get quoted in Budget documents—are a whole series of individual measures that will bear down on people’s incomes and prospects. The Government’s measures will bear down on the small business owner who does not have the same security as a big public sector organisation, and who has put their own capital at risk; they will see a 2% increase in the dividend tax, on top of the corporation tax that they already pay. The measures will bear down on the pension saver, through the changes being made to salary sacrifice. The Government are also freezing income thresholds. It is interesting that Labour Members cheered a Budget in which the Chancellor did the opposite of what she said last year that she would do. Last year, she said that it would be a breach of the manifesto to extend tax threshold freezes, and that is exactly what she did this time. It is worth looking behind the headlines, and bearing in mind what the official data says this will cost: in today’s prices, by 2030, the measure will cost a higher-rate taxpayer £600 extra, and a basic-rate taxpayer £220 extra. Those decisions will have real consequences on people’s take-home pay. I represent a rural constituency, but this Government seem to dislike rural communities. We saw that last year with the family farm tax, and we are seeing it with the electric car mileage scheme, which disproportionately penalises rural communities. Again, that change was not in their manifesto. Looking at the consequences of the last Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that national insurance changes are costing the average worker £900. These policies have real costs. The tax changes are being sold as raising more money for, among others, the NHS. At the general election, the Government said that they would end the resident doctors’ strikes, but another one has been announced today. The NHS Confederation has said that this is not a Budget for the NHS, and under the Budget, an estimated £3 billion extra in drug prices will have to be absorbed. An announcement has been made that standards may be changed so that real mental health funding is flat, and just goes up in line with inflation, which is not the change that the Government promised.

    Hansard source
13. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Budget Resolutions

    I am happy to; perhaps the hon. Member wants to come in on the Government’s pay offer.

    Hansard source
14. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Budget Resolutions

    Clearly the hon. Member has just had a text message from the Whips Office. The reality is that the Government inherited inflation at 2%, and it is currently at 3.6%, and the OBR—the independent forecaster—forecasts it to be 3.5% next year. It takes a certain genius to intervene to show that the Government are going in the wrong direction. This Budget is presented as being transformative for the NHS and for other services, but take community services; community health services in all our constituencies are hugely important. Waiting lists have been at about 90,000 since the general election, particularly for children, but we do not hear too much about that from the Government. We have heard very little in this debate about productivity, so let me close with one example. Last month, the Health Foundation said that there was only a one in six chance of the Government achieving the 2% annual productivity growth target that they set. Members might wonder why that matters. If productivity growth is at 1%, it will cost an extra £9 billion a year for the NHS. There is only a one in six chance of delivery, but if the Government do not deliver, there will be a very significant cost to the NHS. This Budget puts up tax on working people in order to pay more in welfare. We can see that in a whole series of measures. We can also see the gulf between what the Government said at the general election and what the Chancellor has delivered. She has not even been consistent with what she said in her Budget last year.

    Hansard source
15. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Topical Questions

    T6. I think I must have missed something in the answers the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) and the shadow Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). Schools in my constituency do not have enough money to pay for SEND pupils. It is no good the Secretary of State talking about capital expenditure with more on this and more on that—we need to know where the money is coming from to pay the revenue costs incurred by SEND pupils.

    Hansard source
16. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    I begin with the matter of the report on the OBR leak. We will of course study that report in detail, but as the right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, “We will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands”, I seek immediate reassurance that this will not include scapegoating the OBR to distract from the serious questions surrounding the handling of the Budget by the Chancellor, Ministers, the Treasury and No. 10. Let me turn to the other matters that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury addressed in his statement. We expect those in positions of power to act with transparency, openness and integrity, but it is increasingly clear that, in recent weeks, the conduct of people in Government fell short of those standards. That is not just my view; indeed, a member of the Cabinet is quoted in today’s press as saying: “The handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish.” The impression has been given that there was a concerted attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of the public finances, designed to give political cover for policy decisions around increases in taxes and welfare spending. On 4 November, the Chancellor delivered a pre-Budget statement in Downing Street, in which she said that the OBR would be downgrading its productivity forecasts, meaning lower tax receipts. The Chancellor herself says that the statement was meant to set the context relating to the public finances and the need take difficult decisions on tax, but—this is the key point that the right hon. Gentleman did not address—she failed to mention that the net result, in the OBR’s review of the economy, was that there was an increase in tax revenues, not a black hole. To quote the OBR’s Budget report: “In isolation, the reduction in productivity growth could have lowered revenues by around £16 billion… However, the boost to receipts from higher inflation and changes to the composition of nominal GDP growth…more than offset this.” The Chief Secretary to the Treasury argues that there was a need to increase headroom, but that was not the justification for tax rises that was given before the Budget—although it is effectively an admission that the decision to leave such a small amount of headroom in the previous two fiscal events was irresponsible. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s argument fails to acknowledge that a significant proportion of the increase in taxes was used to fund policy decisions on spending, specifically on welfare. On 14 November, the media were briefed that income tax rates would not be increased, following the improved forecast from the OBR. We now know that that was simply false. As I pointed out in my letter to the OBR before the Budget, the finalised pre-measures forecast came weeks before that, on 31 October. Even after the Budget, in a Guardian interview, the Chancellor said that income tax rises had remained on the table well into November “because we didn’t know the size of the downgrade, the productivity”. That is not true. Since then, on Friday, the OBR took the unprecedented step of publishing its estimates for headroom in each of its pre-measures forecast rounds. As a result, we now know that at no point was there a deficit on the scale suggested to the media. Why did the Chancellor claim that she did not know the size of the headroom forecast by the OBR in November, when its final forecast was submitted on 31 October? At what point were the Cabinet informed that the forecast still showed a surplus, and why did the Chancellor suggest that the OBR’s review of the economy had led to a significant deterioration in the public finances? We now know that the briefings to the press were not just inappropriate but inaccurate. Those briefings can only have come from inside Government. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury finally give us a clear answer: was the Chancellor aware of those briefings, and did she authorise them—yes or no? Will he commit to a full investigation by both the permanent secretary and the Financial Conduct Authority into those briefings, and will he explain why the Chancellor chose to opine repeatedly on the OBR’s forecasts before the Budget, when those forecasts were provided to her in strictest confidence? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister claimed this morning that the OBR’s publication on Friday was simply responding to a request from the Select Committee, but the OBR’s report on Wednesday said that it had already planned to write that letter. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that it was, in fact, a proactive choice by the OBR to publish that information, which clearly suggests that the OBR was concerned that the record of who knew what, when, would otherwise be less than clear? It is a matter of profound regret that although the Chancellor chose to appear before the media yesterday, she did not see fit to appear here today. Her credibility is in tatters, and to the long list of her failings in respect of these matters should be added that of disrespecting this House.

    Hansard source
17. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    I have come along to genuinely learn more about this and to ask a question about the single identifier raised by my constituent Catherine. She points out that the General Medical Council, in particular, has advised against using the NHS number to supply an effective identifier and that it should not be used outside the Department of Health and Social Care. Does the Minister recognise people’s concerns about a possible loss of data? Does she accept that we do not want to be introducing a form of digital ID that might persist after the children become adults?

    Hansard source
18. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Topical Questions

    Despite the Secretary of State’s robust answer on Chinese influence on academia, dare I set her a little homework? If she would like to take a look at the relevant section of the non-partisan Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on China, published in July 2023, she would find a lot of interesting and worrying information in it.

    Hansard source
19. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    The Government will not apologise for this sorry and tangled affair, but will they at least learn a couple of lessons, such as the fact that there have always been very good reasons for observing total secrecy until Budget day and, secondly, when not in a financial black hole, do not start digging oneself into one?

    Hansard source
20. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    The demeanour of a good Chancellor should be somewhere between an undertaker and an oncologist—a reassuring presence and no words wasted—not a party entertainer trialling a few tricks before they go on stage, which is what this Chancellor did before the Budget. In seizing back control from the OBR—which is unaccountable and unelected, and should never have been set up in the first place—will the Minister recognise that, unless the Treasury and Ministers are straight with the public, no one will be trusted?

    Hansard source
21. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Budget Resolutions

    I endorse the point about automatic cars and Motability, and the very important point about banking hubs and the extension. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that when we add costs to businesses such as the retailer in my constituency that I visited recently, we pay the price in terms of the jobs that they might create, or otherwise? These are lost opportunities for constituents to get jobs in meaningful businesses, because business costs are rising as a result of this Government.

    Hansard source
22. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    I have been here a few years and have seen the run to different Budgets. In line with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), I have to say that this Budget has been utterly chaotic and appallingly dangerous. The reality is that the Minister said there was plenty of speculation in the media. It was not speculation; it was informed statements by the media of what they had been briefed from the Government. The Government know full well the damage that that has done to our reputation, and the unprecedented requirement of the OBR to publish its advice to them demonstrates the damage that they have done. Will the right hon. Gentleman come to the Dispatch Box in all decency and say, “The Government apologise for the mess that they have made”?

    Hansard source
23. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Universities: Chinese Influence

    5. What steps her Department is taking to help prevent Chinese influence in universities.

    Hansard source
24. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Universities: Chinese Influence

    I thank the Secretary of State for her answer; I know that she takes the issue of Chinese influence incredibly seriously. The free speech legislation brought forward by the previous Government required the monitoring of bodies that are supported by the Chinese or funded and supported by the Government of China. That was dropped. Will the Secretary of State look at bringing it back?

    Hansard source
25. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    We know that the Chief Secretary is a very thoughtful, intelligent man, and he will know that the press were being briefed extensively about what the Budget was going to say. They were not making it up. Where does the Chief Secretary believe that that briefing was coming from? Does he believe that it was coming from special advisers, does he believe that it was coming from Treasury officials, does he believe that it was coming from No. 10—or does he think that a Christmas elf had a hand in all this?

    Hansard source
26. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Budget Resolutions

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I say what a delight it is to see you in the Chair this evening? I was not going to start by saying this, but I agree with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, when—and I may misquote him slightly—he spoke about “decent jobs at decent wages.” I absolutely agree, and that is what we all want to see in every one of our constituencies right across the country. However, I do not believe that this Budget goes any way towards delivering those decent jobs at decent wages, and certainly not in Staffordshire. As we look at what is happening, we are seeing inflation rising. G7 comparisons are trotted out, but we will have the highest inflation in the G7 this year and also next year. The OBR has forecast that inflation will stay higher for longer, and why is that? It is because of the Chancellor’s last Budget. I am not sure whether this Budget will have helped reduce those pressures, but the initial indications certainly seem to be that it will not. This is a real problem because it is impacting people’s real lives. We are seeing food price inflation rising in 2025: it was 4.9% in October, up from 4.5% in September. This is having an impact on everyone’s lives—on their household incomes and how they get by. This is a very bad Budget for jobs in Staffordshire, because nothing is being done at all for the ceramics industry. It is not as large an employer as it used to be 30 years ago, but it is still an important employer, whether at Dunoon in my constituency, Steelite, Churchill or so many other great businesses producing pottery in Staffordshire. This Budget will make it more difficult for them to produce pottery in Staffordshire, because it will mean they have higher costs. Having spoken to some of those working in the ceramics industry only last week, I know that a third of everything they spend is on energy costs. To compare this with the United States or continental Europe, producers are looking at half the price of what Staffordshire businesses are paying for their energy costs. How are we able to compete on the global stage if we do not help those producing in this country to have energy costs that mean they are competitive? I appreciate that the Minister summing up is the Secretary of State for Transport, but I hope that she will be able to respond to that point. One of the most successful technology companies in this country is based not in London or Cambridgeshire, but in Stoke-on-Trent, and it is called bet365. It is the world’s leading technology company for betting. It employs 5,500 people in Stoke-on-Trent, and it is the single biggest private sector employer there. Those who work there live not just in Stoke-on-Trent, but right across Staffordshire, the north-west and the country. However, this Budget could destroy one of our most successful technology sectors, and for what? On the gambling tax increases, the OBR noted in its analysis: “The behavioural responses to these changes are uncertain but are estimated to reduce the yield by around one-third. We estimate that operators will seek to pass through around 90 per cent of the duty increases by increasing prices or reducing payouts, leading to a reduction in consumer demand which reduces the yield from the measure by £0.5 billion by 2029-30. The elasticities used to estimate the demand effect also capture potential substitution to the illicit market, and substitution between different forms of gambling due to the tax differentials introduced through this policy.” This will be a hammer blow to jobs in the city of Stoke-on-Trent and in Staffordshire.

    Hansard source
27. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Budget Resolutions

    This company operates internationally: bet365 is one of the most successful technology companies in this country, and it operates right across the globe. It is quite understandable why it does so, but the hon. Gentleman probably does not care about jobs in Staffordshire. He has probably not ever thought about jobs in Staffordshire, and he does not mind if they all move to Malta or some other jurisdiction. That is not for him to worry about, but it is for me to worry about, as it is for other Members who represent seats in Staffordshire. This Budget is an absolute hammer blow to an industry that is providing high-quality, well-paid jobs in Staffordshire and in a city that has seen the decline of coalmining, the decline of ceramics and so many job losses over so many decades, and bet365 has been one of the most responsible employers by investing in the local community, investing in charity and paying its taxes here in the United Kingdom. In fact, its owners are the highest payers of tax in the whole United Kingdom. This will see jobs being lost right across my county. It is destroying the old industries of Staffordshire while at the same time destroying the new industries in Staffordshire, making sure that the people of Staffordshire will be worse off and suffer as a result of this Budget.

    Hansard source
28. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure 2025 (HC 1454) Abuse Redress Measure 2025 (HC 1455)

    Does it have to be a point of order?

    Hansard source
29. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure 2025 (HC 1454) Abuse Redress Measure 2025 (HC 1455)

    On a point of order, Mr Mundell. I would just point out that systems are set up in good faith to redress problems that have arisen, but unless those systems are overseen and scrutinised, they very often fall into disrepute themselves and fail to deliver what the legislators intended. I am appealing to you, Mr Mundell, to make sure that we have the opportunity to make these points in order.

    Hansard source
30. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Budget Resolutions

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Hansard source
31. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Budget Resolutions

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
32. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Budget Resolutions

    Last year, the Chancellor increased public spending by £72 billion, financed by £40 billion of extra taxes and £32 billion of extra borrowing. That was all justified, we were told, by a mysterious black hole that only the Labour Front-Bench team could see. The OBR certainly could not find it. These tax rises were so large that the Chancellor felt it necessary to reassure the country that “I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.” One year later, the Chancellor is back for more, raising Britain’s tax bill by a further £26 billion. These extra taxes will be paid by working people, like my constituent Rowena, who wrote to me after the Budget. She said: “I have worked in education for over 10 years and have only recently reached the top of the pay scale after years of dedication and hard work. I manage long hours, increasing responsibilities, and rising needs within schools, all while striving to maintain high standards for my students. I do this as I care deeply about educating future generations and also to pay my mortgage and support my three children. I do not claim any benefits, other than child benefit, and I have always taken pride in being financially independent. However, the changes announced today leave me questioning the value of this commitment. Under the new thresholds, I will be dragged into the 40% tax bracket, making additional work—such as examining during the summer—financially unviable. If I stop examining, students and schools will feel the impact. But what’s the point when 40% of that exam fee will disappear. Teachers are not high earners, yet these changes treat us as if we are. Calculators suggest I will be approximately £1,500 worse off annually. In fact, under the new rules, I would be financially better off and under less stress if I had two more children and claimed Universal Credit now that the two-child cap has been lifted. That is a deeply troubling message for hardworking professionals. I also want to share a personal perspective: my 15-year-old daughter is in Year 11 and about to take her GCSEs. I encourage her every day to work hard and aim for a successful career. But what is the purpose when she sees her parents struggling and effectively penalised for being hardworking? What message does this send to the next generation?” I hope that the Secretary of State will answer Rowena when she winds up. Twelve months ago, the Chancellor was opposed to removing the two-child benefit cap. It was too expensive and not the best way to tackle child poverty, and seven Labour MPs had the Whip removed when they voted against that. So what has changed? Well, nothing, except the collapse in the Prime Minister’s authority. He is buffeted by events because he has no principles and no vision for where he wants to lead our country. He is raising taxes on Rowena, and others like her, to increase benefits, because that is what Labour Back Benchers want. Devoid of any real purpose, his Government’s only guiding philosophy is to survive, so Labour is now doing what it has always done: taxing and spending, without thought for the consequences. Taxes on working people are rising to their highest level ever, all to pay for higher benefits for those who do not work. A Budget is about choices, and Labour has made its choices, because this is a Budget for “Benefits Street”.

    Hansard source
33. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    There has been too much obfuscation today between what the Office for Budget Responsibility did in leaking its report early and the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility told the Chancellor before she made her statement about there not being the fiscal black hole that she made out. There were leaks to the press, and Mr Speaker stood in this Chamber and admonished the Government for leaking. It was not speculation in the press; this has been nothing but “Jackanory”. How can this Government start to rebuild trust with the public when they are simply trying to do smoke and mirrors and not face up to the fact that they kept leaking to the press?

    Hansard source
34. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    I think it should be recognised that events such as these allow Ministers and the wider Government to reflect on current circumstances. I am not seeking to scapegoat the OBR, but it is not the messiah—sometimes, it can be a very naughty boy—and it does have to revise its predictions at all times. Is it too traditional to suggest to this Government that the Treasury should be the office of budget responsibility, and that there are good brains in the Bank that could be tapped into? Is now not a good opportunity to reflect on what advice the Government need, whether the OBR is fit for purpose, and whether it should be disbanded?

    Hansard source
35. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    If the Chancellor really takes the integrity of the Budget as seriously as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury says, she would not have leaked so much of it to the media beforehand. There is speculation and then there is being spoon-fed. The only principle guiding the Chancellor was keeping her Back Benchers happy and the only cuts were to confidence. Will the Chief Secretary set out exactly what steps the Chancellor will take to clear up this mess? Will she come back before this House, and will she refer herself to the Financial Conduct Authority?

    Hansard source
36. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker, and to speak in this very important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his opening remarks, and Michelle Zaher and all 166,498 signatories of this important petition, including 250 of my constituents. The petition calls on the Education Secretary to withdraw the disastrous Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and states: “We believe the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is poorly drafted and does not stem from robust evidence. We feel the accompanying impact assessments are inadequate and may damage all children’s educational opportunities. We believe the Bill is silent on children’s voice and children’s right to education. We also feel part 2 undermines parental responsibility for education and school leaders from ensuring their educational settings can optimise children’s education and wellbeing.” I cannot fault that damning verdict, which summarises many of the huge inadequacies that are part of this woeful piece of legislation. I am clear that His Majesty’s official Opposition share no enthusiasm for the parts of this Bill relating to schools in particular. To put our views simply, this legislation will trample over two decades of cross-party consensus that has seen the quality of an English child’s schooling improve at a rate of knots. It is beyond question that the previous Government drove up school standards across the country, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made that point very eloquently. By the time the Conservatives left office in 2024, English schoolchildren were some of the best in the western world at English and maths. Moreover, 90% of our schools were rated good or outstanding, up from 68% when Labour were last in office. It is a record we are fiercely proud of, because those changes have benefited children across the country, have driven up social mobility and have given more young people the chance to succeed. This legacy is of enormous significance, but it is under great threat because of this woeful legislation. The overwhelming consensus over the past 20 years—started by Tony Blair and improved by Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb—has demonstrated the profound benefits of giving schools and local trusts greater autonomy. The political consensus that created free schools, a knowledge-rich curriculum and academisation has brought enormous benefits. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill ends that consensus. It is an act of pure educational vandalism that, tragically, is not backed up by any evidence that suggests it will improve school standards. In 2024, academies represented 80% of secondary schools and nearly 43% of primary schools. They have been at the heart of the cross-party effort over the past two decades to improve schooling. We know that headteachers are better equipped to design curricula that benefit their students and communities, and they should be empowered to do so. The fact the Government disagree with that, despite an abundance of evidence suggesting otherwise, speaks volumes. The petition challenges this educational vandalism. It makes it clear that the impact assessments are totally inadequate and fail to show how effectively removing academy status will improve school standards. Of course, the official Opposition are not alone in our objection to the Bill’s provisions to effectively end the academies project. The Confederation of School Trusts is very concerned about the provisions that seek to remove the academy freedoms that have so greatly improved our education system. Even Lord Harris of Haringey, a Labour peer, has raised his concerns. He is on the record as saying that he cannot express his disappointment at what the Government propose in the Bill, and that it will “undermine everything that so many people have fought so hard to achieve.” The Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, who is a former headteacher and the co-founder of the Inspiration multi-academy trust, has criticised the Bill, saying that Ministers are “legislating against the things we know work in schools”. As has been alluded to, even Amanda Spielman, a former head of Ofsted, has called on the Education Secretary to abandon her plans “before the damage is done”. Does the Minister take seriously those concerns, and the concerns of the 166,498 signatories? What will she do about them? Before the Education Secretary imposes her union-backed policies on English schoolchildren, I remind Members present about Labour’s record in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire made an excellent speech in which he highlighted Labour’s track record, which reinforces the importance of the petition we are debating. Children over the border are being let down by Labour-run Wales. Welsh children have been unable to experience the same revolution in school standards that we have seen in England. The Welsh education system is far behind the rest of the UK in the international league tables. As Onward’s “Devolved to Fail” report makes clear, Wales is a huge outlier. The UK is ranked 14th among OECD countries in the PISA tables, but were Wales to be ranked as an individual country, it would come just above Vietnam, in 34th place. England moved to a rich, knowledge-based curriculum, while Wales continued to use a skills-based one. England introduced academies; Wales resisted and paid the price. Attainment in Welsh schools has stagnated so much that the average Welsh pupil performs only as well as the most disadvantaged pupils in England. I also want to address the issue of homeschooling, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). As a parent, I believe in the liberty of parents to choose the best options for their children, but I also recognise that there is a balance to be struck, especially when it comes to safeguarding. The sad case of Sara Sharif has been raised; I draw the Minister’s attention to the amendment tabled by Baroness Barran in the other place, which states that if there is or has ever been a child protection plan, or if a child is in need, there must be local authority consent for them to be withdrawn from school. Will the Minister share her reflections on that amendment? I trust she is willing to work on a cross-party basis. I want to put on record my concerns about the proposed three-item cap on children’s school uniform, which is being advanced without due consideration of the harm it could cause to families, schools and businesses. As has been mentioned, it could actually inflate prices. The Government claim that the cap will make schools fairer, but the limit could also put pressure on pupils to wear the latest fashions, which often end up being much more expensive than a uniform. The practicalities are also significant, as has been raised in some of the meetings I have had on the issue, because the cap will cause nightmares for PE teachers and children playing sports. Will the Minister clarify the issues in respect of PE? In addition, the relevant part of the Bill will do significant damage to the specialist schoolwear sector, which has significant concerns. Let me present some of the constructive steps that the official Opposition have taken to improve the flawed Bill. We have tabled several amendments that are aimed at preventing harm and improving educational outcomes, including in respect of proposals to ban smartphones during the school day; to ensure automatic exclusions for the possession of a knife, for sexual assault or for the assault of a teacher; and to move pupils who are permanently excluded twice out of mainstream settings. Banning smartphones would help to address the behaviour issues we see in schools, including social media-driven knife crime and the impact on attainment. The Bill needs to be looked at again. There are some areas that the official Opposition can support, but overall, it is a wrecking ball that destroys 20 years of educational consensus and achievement. Today’s petition is therefore extremely important, and I thank all the people who signed it. I hope the Minister can do them justice and reflect on some of the arguments I have made today.

    Hansard source
37. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    I am not trying to catch the Minister out here; perhaps she could write to me afterwards for clarity. She talks about a common-sense approach, but we are making it concrete in legislation. On the requirement for three branded items, would the school be in breach? Would the parents be in breach? What happens in that situation?

    Hansard source
38. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Evacuation Chairs: Schools and Colleges

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec, and may there be many more opportunities for me to do so. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for his opening remarks. I thought he spoke eloquently and raised some really pertinent questions. I will not repeat them all, but I do hope to support him. As we have heard, this debate is extremely important and timely, and I want to start by putting on record the thanks of His Majesty’s official Opposition to all Members who supported the petition. In particular, I thank the more than 104,000 signatories, including 266 of my own constituents in Meriden and Solihull East. This is the second consecutive debate that I have responded to. My constituents have been very busy, and long may that continue. I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for highlighting the good work of Evac+Chair. He is a formidable parliamentarian on this issue and many others. I want especially to thank Lucas Vezza-O’Brien, who started this important petition; I know he is in the Public Gallery. His poem gave me goosebumps, and his story is immensely moving and thought provoking, so I thank him for standing up on this issue. Last year, as has been said, at his school in Manchester he was forced to stay put during an evacuation, not through choice but because the school did not have adequate facilities to get him to safety. I can only imagine the fear, stress and anxiety that Lucas experienced. The fact that this happened is nothing short of unacceptable, and we should all try to rectify it. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say Lucas’s courage and bravery are absolutely commendable. He has shown immense resilience in bringing this petition forward so that others do not have to experience the same stress and anxiety that he did. I hope this debate has focused the Government on ensuring that people such as Lucas can remain safe and be evacuated from danger. Lucas has joined forces with the Emergency Group, a collective of emergency response companies dedicated to providing life-saving equipment, including evacuation chairs and defibrillators. The group donated four evacuation chairs to his school to ensure that this never happens again, and it is supporting his campaign for safer and more accessible schools. The Emergency Group has since made him an ambassador—a very wise decision. Between them, they are calling for policy changes to ensure that all schools have evacuation chairs for disabled students and proper emergency evacuation training, something that Members from all parts of the House are calling for. This petition asks the Government to make it a legal requirement for all schools and colleges to have evacuation chairs, and for all staff to be trained in using them. It is backed by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Health and Safety Executive, who emphasise the importance of having the right equipment to support mobility-impaired individuals during evacuation. Under the Equality Act 2010, schools and other educational premises have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where necessary for anyone with a disability. Moreover, under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, all UK educational establishments have a legal responsibility to ensure that every person on the premises can escape safely during an emergency. One of the key requirements of that legislation is that evacuation plans must take into account individuals with additional needs. That has come in the form of personal emergency evacuation plans—PEEPs—as has already been referred to. They play a crucial role in supporting group evacuations by providing clear guidance on how to respond quickly and safely. Could the Minister reflect on some of the points made around PEEPs and whether they are adequate? The legislation provides that failure to provide appropriate evacuation equipment, such as evacuation chairs, can result in enforcement notices, fines and reputational damage. It is important that all schools and education establishments comply with those regulations and guidelines. It is also essential that the Government ensure that, in cases where evacuation chairs for disabled people are not in place in schools or colleges, the institution acts immediately to meet its legal duties. To that end, I ask the Minister: what steps are the Government taking to ensure schools comply with this legislation? In addition, does the Minister have any consideration for strengthening it so that it is robust enough to keep everyone safe? It is important that this House understands that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute a breach of the Equality Act 2010 and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. More importantly, as His Majesty’s Opposition are making clear, failing to do so could place vulnerable individuals at significant risk during a fire or other emergency situation. We are very clear that where such provisions are not in place, the institution’s compliance should be reviewed and it should be held to account. Will the Minister confirm that those regulations will be enforced in full? Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to hold to account institutions that do not comply? To conclude, I once more thank all the signatories of this important petition. Again, I pay a special tribute to Lucas, who has led this petition and ensured that this House has considered its important message. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source
39. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    National Curriculum Reform

    Last month’s curriculum review demonstrated that the Government are fixated on watering down the curriculum, whether that is scrapping the English baccalaureate or changing Progress 8. These changes will lower standards for our children and harm them in the long term. The Minister thanked Professor Becky Francis, and she was right to do so, so why have the Government ignored the independent curriculum review and decided to change Progress 8 and lower outcomes for our children?

    Hansard source
40. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    SEND Pupils: Suspensions and Exclusions

    The Minister will be aware of the horrific case of Harvey Willgoose, who was stabbed to death by a fellow pupil who had previously brought an axe into school. Parents are rightly worried about such situations, so does the Minister agree that safety must come first and that any child who brings a knife into school must be expelled, regardless of their background—no ifs, no buts?

    Hansard source