Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

   Budget Resolutions

   The real issue here is hiding in plain sight. It is on the annunciator. This is all about bearing down on inflation, because this Government have already catastrophically failed to keep it at 2%, where the Conservative party left it at the time of the general election. That is having an impact on the cost of living up and down the country. From every single business I visit, and every single person I meet on the street in Basildon and Billericay, I hear, “Since Labour got in, things have got worse.” Unemployment is up, as is inflation—it is now double what it was at the general election. It is the highest inflation in the G7, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said. Rents are up, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) said. Part-time jobs are being hammered, and as my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), have mentioned, taxes on employment are really hurting people. Growth is down, particularly in the North sea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said in her fantastic speech. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) said, energy prices are through the roof. That is hitting our ability to deliver growth for businesses, particularly our manufacturing sector. Right across the piece, this Government are hammering businesses; as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said, business rates for high-street firms are up by at least 40% since the general election, despite what we are constantly told by Ministers. Despite the election pledges, tax rises are hitting working people up and down the country. Under this Government, taxes are up by £66 billion a year, and alongside that, debt has risen by tens of billions of pounds. The real issue for the cost of living is Labour’s doom loop—higher taxes, higher prices, lower growth and more unemployment, followed by higher taxes, higher prices, lower growth and more unemployment—but this Government simply do not get it. They have apparently tried educating their Back Benchers, but their Back Benchers have made their position clear. Regarding welfare, one was quoted as saying, “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds”. Imagine how that is going down with those who have to lend us billions of pounds every year. The Government want us to believe that they are at least trying to help, but it is clear that this is a Janus-faced Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said, the costs have not come off people’s bills, because the Government are just moving those costs to their tax bills. That is true, is it not? We are told to be grateful that energy bills—which are already up—are being shifted to our tax bills. The electric car grant that is coming in is not actually helping anyone. It is not a result of energy prices having gone down; it is being paid for with pay per mile, despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) at Transport questions that that would not happen. There have been more questions today from Members right across the House about how on earth one could implement such a scheme. Let us have a look at the freeze on train fares. That is not being paid for through more efficient trains or more productivity; it is being paid for by tax rises. Fuel duty will rise by 5p next year, and bus fares are already up by 50%. That measure is fully funded—by taxpayers. It is funded by bus users and motorists up and down the country. That is the cost of this Government. When I saw the numbers in the Budget, I was quite astonished, because they totally contradict the figures that the Department for Transport has put out. The Department has said that the cost of this policy is £600 million, but the Budget says £150 million. When the Transport Secretary speaks, can we have some honesty and transparency about the cost? The issue does not stop there—it goes even further. Taxes on flights are up to £400 for a family holiday, and those taxes are going up next year, and the year after. The taxi tax is coming in, hammering our night-time economy and leaving women with a choice between paying 20% more for a private hire vehicle, and being vulnerable late at night when trying to get home. The Government are raising business rates again on the high street, but also snuck out on the same day as the Budget were multiple-times increases resulting from the revaluation of airports and a 10-times rise for the channel tunnel rail link, from £10 million to £100 million.

   Hansard source
2. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

   Budget Resolutions

   My right hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. These taxes are hitting across the board, and they are hitting the employment of his constituents. That is on top of the tax rises that we saw last year: the changes in business property relief, business rates and agricultural property relief, and the national insurance tax rises. It is hammering working families up and down the country, while the Government pretend that it is not. How on earth can the Secretary of State claim that this Budget will keep inflation down? Every policy choice that the Government make fires costs straight back into the system. It is happening with policy after policy, as if some giant socialist Gatling gun were spraying costs on to businesses, passengers, taxpayers and, indeed, the entire country.

   Hansard source
3. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

   Budget Resolutions

   I am afraid that I have no time to give way further. Do the Government not understand that every time they hike up taxes, the cost of food goes up? Do they not understand that an indiscriminate tax hike means that the cost to the producer rises, the cost of getting the food to the shops rises, and the cost to the supermarket selling the food rises? It is a conveyor belt of wholly avoidable costs. That brings me to the core of my argument. What are this Government actually for? Disposable incomes have been revised down, along with growth, while taxes, inflation and business rates are all up. What else is up? The number of entrepreneurs leaving the country. We thought it would be capital flight—in fact, that is what the Treasury was briefing out: real worries about capital flight—but it is not just capital flight; it is entrepreneurial flight. It is labour fleeing the country as well. People are leaving. The only thing left is land, and the Government are taxing that as well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury made a very good point in his speech. He said that he had never seen such speculation ahead of a Budget that had worried family businesses—family businesses in his constituency and in mine. I have never known a Budget to be talked about as much as this Budget was in advance of its production. It is quite incredible. The economy is being harmed just by the briefing put out by the Government. They were doing it on the Prime Minister’s own plane. It is unbelievable. However, it is not just small businesses that are being affected. We hear today that Zipcar, which is important to a great many people in London, will be closing its operations from the end of the year. That will have a huge impact, and it is happening because of the taxes on the company and the congestion charge imposed by the Mayor of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) made a good point earlier when he said that, once upon a time, Labour talked of being the party of a hand up, not a handout. Well, Labour is now, quite clearly, the party with its hand in the pocket of working Britain. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) all made the same point; they are not normally on the same page, but they were today. They pointed out that it would be working people paying the price for those extra tax rises, because of thresholds that are frozen year after year owing to decisions made by this Labour Government. The Government are not on the side of motor manufacturing either. Real concerns have been expressed by that sector, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). How on earth, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) asked earlier, will a pay-per-mile scheme work when people are crossing the border? Is the Labour party really going to tax people for driving on foreign roads? We shall have to see. The hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) made a very sensible point when he said that fiscal prudence was a means to an end. It is a means to the end of getting debt interest down, and keeping borrowing rates for businesses and families down. That is exactly right, but we did not see it from this Government. They think that people will not notice, but the Chancellor determinedly obfuscated about the figures. She talked of a black hole imposed on her, but in truth, taxes on working people are rising to pay for more welfare. The Government think that people will not notice that they are being bribed with their own money, taken from them via the tax on electric vehicles and energy. They think that small businesses will not notice business rates going up, or national insurance taxes going up. But people have noticed. They have noticed the broken promises on tax, on working people and on bills. They have noticed the smoke and mirrors. The Government are robbing Peter, but not to pay Paul; they are robbing Paul too. People were worried ahead of the Budget this year, and now they are worried about what the third Labour Budget next year will deliver, because they know that this failing Government will be coming back for more.

   Hansard source
4. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

   Reading: Pre-school Support

   Reading to children at the start of nursery and school is especially important for those who suffer from special educational needs. As we heard last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility has questioned the £6 billion that has been taken away from local authorities. I know that the whole House wants to resolve the issue of SEND, so can the Minister give an assurance about when we will get further details to make sure that, by 2028, the whole sector knows how each child will get the best provision possible, especially those in South West Hertfordshire?

   Hansard source
5. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

   As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, the “Ministerial Code” requires Ministers to be “as open as possible with Parliament and the public”. Exactly when did the Chief Secretary learn that the Chancellor did not face the shortfall that the Treasury was briefing to the press?

   Hansard source
6. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic)) Order 2025

   Will the Minister give way?

   Hansard source
7. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic)) Order 2025

   I have just been checking my notes, and I think that the Minister may have inadvertently referred to you, Sir Desmond, as “Mr Swayne”. I thought it might be good to offer him the opportunity to correct the record, and show that he did not mean any disrespect to the Chair.

   Hansard source
8. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic)) Order 2025

   Sir Chair.

   Hansard source
9. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   SEND: Funding

   On 16 June I asked the Secretary of State what she understood to be the drivers behind the phenomenon of the exponential rise in the number of children with special educational needs. She replied: “My Department, and the Department of Health and Social Care, are keen to understand…the drivers”.—[Official Report, 16 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 11.] May I ask what work the Secretary of State has done in the intervening six months, and what she understands better today than she did on 16 June?

   Hansard source
10. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    When did the Chancellor first brief her Cabinet colleagues on the realities of the OBR forecast?

    Hansard source
11. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Topical Questions

    There is a good reason why we have an independent economic forecaster in this country. That is because, thankfully, it does not let the Government get away with saying that £6 billion can be absorbed across Government at a time when the spending review has already allocated all the money. So let us have no more of this nonsense: where is the £6 billion coming out of? Is it SEND or is it schools?

    Hansard source
12. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Laura Trott

    Topical Questions

    The right hon. Lady can rail against the forecasts, the Tories, her own leaky Back Benchers and probably, privately, the Treasury all she likes, but the spending review has set departmental budgets for the year in question. There is not £6 billion down the back of the sofa, so unless she can say where else the £6 billion is coming from out of Government resource departmental expenditure limits—clearly, she just failed to do so—it must be coming out of schools or SEND. So let us try again: will she be straight with teachers, parents and her own Back Benchers, and tell us what is being cut? Is it SEND or is it schools?

    Hansard source
13. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Budget Resolutions

    Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a particular pleasure to speak with you in the Chair this afternoon, inspiring envy, I am sure, from your new legions of fans. On Wednesday, the Chancellor said that energy prices were one of the greatest drivers of the rising cost of living. She accepted that the cause of high energy bills must be tackled at source—in other words, at the supply side—and she recognised that the rush towards net zero is driving up energy bills for the British people. Thus far, the Chancellor and I are in agreement—stranger things have happened—but none of that seems to inform the Budget she actually served up. She promised to cut energy bills by shifting certain so-called green levies from bills on to general taxation, but that does not change the fact that the British people will still bear the costs of this Government’s net zero delusions. It is an attempt to hoodwink the public by shifting the costs from energy bills on to general tax bills. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has repeatedly made clear, the answer is not to rearrange how those costs fall, but to stop imposing those costs altogether. The pursuit of net zero is sadly leaving this country worse off and is making almost no impact on global emissions, as countries such as China and India race ahead to open more coal-fired factories. Even those who have supposedly done everything right are still being crushed. One business in my constituency has invested £1 million in renewables, but it has still seen its energy bills triple. For far too many businesses, those sorts of rises in their energy bills will be the final nail in the coffin. And rises are coming. Largely thanks to the Government’s policy on energy, Ofgem is again set to raise the energy price cap in January, meaning higher bills for the British public. Any short-term cost savings will quickly be eaten up as a result. The savings the Budget claims to offer are a mirage. Does the Chancellor believe that the British people are not smart enough to notice that, or does she simply not understand how it will play out? The long-term picture is no better. Last week, our energy system operator officially warned that, thanks to the Government’s plans to cripple our North sea oil and gas industry, we will be at serious risk of running out of gas. Yet the Chancellor’s Budget maintains the windfall tax regime, which is destroying domestic production. They continue to spend vast sums of taxpayers’ money on schemes designed to cripple that industry in the long term.

    Hansard source
14. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Budget Resolutions

    The gas is already stored in the North sea. The problem with the industry, and what is making it unprofitable, is the Government’s determination to hammer the oil and gas industry. The Chancellor gave no clear verdict on the nuclear regulatory review. Instead, she promised that the Government would set out their plans in three months’ time. That means more delay and uncertainty for companies that might want to invest in British nuclear, and ultimately more delay in reducing the bills of British families and British businesses. This is not a Budget that will make any improvement to the lives of ordinary, hard-working people. It is a Budget that bakes in net zero, which means more taxes on the British people, more businesses forced to close their doors, more reliance on other countries to keep the lights on, and more emissions exported to countries like China. No country has ever succeeded without cheap, abundant energy. For businesses, high energy costs can be the difference between success and bankruptcy. For people working hard to make ends meet, high energy costs can be the difference between having money to set aside at the end of the month or needing to dip into savings. Punishing those businesses and those people even more in pursuit of arbitrary net zero targets is profoundly cruel. The immense damage wrought by the cost of living crisis cannot be overstated. High energy bills mean families forced to cut back on after-school clubs for their children, businesses forced to cut back on staff, and young people forced to delay buying their first home even further.

    Hansard source
15. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Budget Resolutions

    That is not the immediate problem. The energy prices currently being baked in by the prices the Government are agreeing at the moment will see energy prices sky high for years and years regardless of what happens to the price of gas. The Conservatives’ cheap energy plan will save households hundreds of pounds and offers a much-needed lifeline to British industry. I very much hope that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will adopt at least some of its measures.

    Hansard source
16. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    Andy Haldane, former Bank of England chief economist, has said that the Government’s “repeated mistakes” and misinformation about the public finances have sucked all the energy from the economy. Chief Secretary, the former chief economist is correct, isn’t he?

    Hansard source
17. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    On the process failure of the premature publication of the document, I think there is consensus across the House that it is damaging to the reputations of the UK, the OBR and the Treasury. I welcome the fact that the report says there are issues for the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and the OBR in respect of how documents are hosted. However, on the substantive issue of what the OBR had told the Treasury and the net overall effect of that, there can be no doubt. There may be a dispute about whether £4.2 billion was sufficient or not, but we know for certain that the OBR did not say there was a significant black hole that required a 2p increase in income tax, which was the consequence of the Chancellor’s press conference. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the material distinction between those two issues must not be lost, and that he must face up to the reality of the overall net effect and the impression that was left?

    Hansard source
18. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Budget Resolutions

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who I know holds his views with great sincerity, although I do not agree with many of them. Before I get into the substance of the Budget measures, I want to address the process leading up to the Budget. People might say that this is a subject of fascination just for those in the Westminster bubble, but in the run-up to this Budget, it went way beyond that. In the weeks—and, indeed, months—before the Budget, virtually every conceivable tax rise was floated as a possibility. Last week, we heard from the Office for Budget Responsibility, and what it said was summed up very well by Ben Zaranko from the Institute for Fiscal Studies: “At no point in the process did the OBR have the government missing its fiscal rules by a large margin. Leaves me baffled by the months of speculation and briefing. Was the plan to lead everyone to expect a big income tax rise, then surprise them on the day by not doing it?” Next Wednesday, the Chancellor will come before the Treasury Committee, of which I am privileged to be a member, and we will no doubt ask her about what was happening in those weeks. I do not want to pre-empt the scrutiny of that Committee, but I think everyone across the House must acknowledge what was happening. We all read the papers. We could all see how decisions about where to invest, whether to invest in the UK, whether to employ any more people and whether to have confidence in the future of the country’s economy rested on the way the Budget was prepared for. I regret very much the error that was made by the OBR. It was clearly a profound error, and Richard Hughes has taken responsibility for it this afternoon. He has done the right thing—the honourable thing—but this will be conflated with the much more serious breach of protocol over several months leading up to the Budget, and we in this House need to come to terms with the implications that this has for our reputation. There are some things in the Budget that I welcome, but there are some that I do not, including the enormous tax increase. We all fought an election where Labour plainly said that only £7 billion of tax rises were implied. We had £40 billion last year and a further £26 billion this year. This will mean 780,000 of the lowest-paid people coming into tax by the extension of the threshold freeze, as well as a tax on electric vehicles, more tax on property rents, a tourism tax and increases in tax on dividends, savings and unearned income. Employee ownership trusts relief will be halved and salary sacrifice contributions will be limited. It is obviously the prerogative of every Government to raise tax as they see fit, but what concerns me is the lack of understanding of what it takes to drive growth in an economy. When I look at the implications for the hospitality sector, which is a significant one in Salisbury, I see people who are already bemused by the unexpected increase in employer national insurance, the increase in the national living wage and the implications of changes in employment legislation—and that is before we even heard the measures in last week’s Budget. People are worried about the risks and costs associated with investing in plant, machinery and people.

    Hansard source
19. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Budget Resolutions

    I did not support Brexit. Brexit happened. We made a decision as a country, and I do not want to relitigate that. I commend the hon. Member for what he does to promote the discussion about measures to drive forward productivity. I think the Government could learn from some of his observations this afternoon, because until we get to a point where those who create wealth and jobs feel that it is in their interest to do so, we will be dancing on the head of the pin in terms of feeling secure about that trajectory of sustained growth. The burdens that come from this Budget will be significant, and will change the way that people think about investing in this economy. A dynamic economy does not come from ever-higher tax and higher spending on welfare. The OBR has downgraded growth in every year. I recognise that, since the global financial crisis, many economies face similar challenges—let us be honest about that—but we cannot go on spending money on welfare unless we address the drivers of sustainable growth in our economy. I fear that the measures in the Budget last week, many of which purported to give long-term benefit, will not provide what those who create wealth need in the short term.

    Hansard source
20. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Topical Questions

    T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

    Hansard source
21. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Topical Questions

    The Government have taken responsibility for SEND funding away from local authorities such as the Isle of Wight council, but they cannot explain where the money is coming from. Surely the Secretary of State understands how concerned parents are up and down the country. She can reassure them right now and explain where the money is coming from, or is she, in fact, planning cuts?

    Hansard source
22. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Budget Resolutions

    Average households will be £850 worse off by 2029-30, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. That is a consequence of this Budget, with the highest taxes in history, growth down, borrowing up and inflation up. In fact, the Government have missed their inflation target every single month they have been in office, with no projections that they will hit it any time soon. That target is 2%. The last time we hit 2% was in July 2024, when this Government took office. That is the result of a nightmare sequel to a horrendous original. We have had two Budgets, back to back, making people poorer, with more tax for more welfare. It did not have to be this way; the Chancellor had choices. Instead of raising tax again—this time by £26 billion, with 43 different taxes—she could have cut the size of the civil service back to where it was in 2016. She would have saved £8 billion. She could have taken welfare spending back to where it was just before the pandemic. She would have saved £23 billion. She would have had the money she needed to not raise taxes, with some left over to cut them instead.

    Hansard source
23. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Budget Resolutions

    It is one single Budget with a plan over five years, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The best way to lift all families out of poverty and to stop them slipping into poverty is to grow jobs and grow the economy so that we have more money to spend on public services. We know that the Government wanted to cut welfare. Indeed, they tried to cut welfare spending just a few months ago, but they were held to ransom by their Back Benchers and watered down their plans. Instead of coming back with a properly costed, reformed proposal, we have a £5 billion cash grab. They have given up on tackling the welfare bill altogether. We have more tax for more welfare. Most people on welfare do not want to be there if they have a choice, but the key word is choice. The Government have to give them choice, by allowing businesses to employ people and by increasing job opportunities, not decreasing them. What happened to the party of a hand up, not a handout? Until Labour rediscovers the central role of businesses in employing hard-working families and in growing the economy, so that we can invest more in public services through growth, people will remain on welfare and our economy will remain sluggish. I will finish by saying something on transport costs, particularly as the Secretary of State for Transport is in her place. Although I do not agree with her reforms to rail and buses, I share the sentiment behind them: that we should be putting passengers above profit. I continue to ask that she does that not just for rail and buses, but for communities all over the United Kingdom that rely on ferries. While she is freezing the cost of rail, my constituents are paying more and more in ferry fares, because we have providers that are controlled by private equity companies that are unregulated and unlicensed. I know that she would not accept that for any other community across the UK. Of course, I do not hold the Secretary of State responsible for that—it is not a situation that she created—but she is in the wonderful position of being able to do something about it, and I urge her to do so. I thank the maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), for the talks that he has had with me and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley). I look forward to continuing those conversations because, quite frankly, with private equity trading one of the ferry companies in the past few days, those companies are not going to make the changes that we deserve without the Government stepping in.

    Hansard source
24. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    It has been dragged out of the Government that there was no black hole of £20 billion to £30 billion in the run-up to the Budget. In fact, there was a surplus. That means that Treasury insiders were deliberately misleading the press, the markets and our constituents in the run-up to the Budget, when they intended all along to raise taxes on working people to fund increased welfare. Why is the Minister continuing to take the public—our constituents—for fools?

    Hansard source
25. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Budget Resolutions

    At the last general election, the Secretary of State and all his colleagues said that they would raise taxes by £7 billion, and that their plans were fully funded and costed. What democratic mandate does he claim to have for increasing taxes by £66 billion, and debt by a further £70 billion?

    Hansard source
26. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

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

    It is a real privilege to respond, Mr Mundell. As shadow Defence Secretary, this is my chance to pay tribute to our armed forces chaplains. I will not detain colleagues for long, but the chaplains are very important. I understand that there are 332 in total, of whom 195 are Anglican. This year, lots of tributes have been paid in the House during the debates on the 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day. Some 275 chaplains lost their lives in the two world wars: 96 in world war two and 179 in the first world war. I could find no figures for other conflicts, but there will no doubt have been some losses in those, too. I am sure that we all pay tribute to forces chaplains and the work that they do; the extra pastoral care that they provide is very important. When I was Minister for Defence Procurement, I did not have any particular interaction with armed forces chaplains. However, the thing one learns about the defence estate is the importance of being able to move personnel around all the time, and the hon. Lady has just described the inflexibility that is being addressed. In fact, the Right Reverend Hugh Nelson, the Bishop to the armed forces, explained it very well in front of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The Measure would be described on our side as a deregulatory move to remove onerous paperwork—something we are always in favour of. It makes total sense, especially when we consider the nature of deployment and the continuous movement of personnel—and therefore their chaplains. It is eminently sensible; it had 100% support in the Synod and the Opposition are supportive too.

    Hansard source
27. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

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

    I will not detain the Committee long, but I echo the Commissioner’s tribute to the victims and survivors of abuse who have participated in the process of drawing up the new Measure. I will not delve into the history but I note that, while not at 100%, the support in the Synod for this Measure was overwhelming. I have a question relating to Kennedys, which is clearly an important point in the Ecclesiastical Committee’s discussion about the Measure. Unfortunately, we live in an age of leaks and data leaks—the Ministry of Defence is no exception to that, it has to be said. Data is becoming ever more important to our lives as we become ever more digitally plugged in, and it was concerning to hear that some victims were worried about the fact that the firm had its contract renewed. I understand that there will be a contract variation to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened and that, were Kennedys not to be rehired, there would be an estimated 18-month delay. My question is simple: Kennedys runs a customer service-facing business, so what assurances are there that the process has changed and that what happened will not be repeated? Those participating will want to have their faith in the process underlined by the knowledge that those problems will be dealt with. That is our main concern. Otherwise, we support the Measure.

    Hansard source
28. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

    The forecasts are meant to help the Government to decide what to do, but there was nothing in this forecast of oil and gas revenues, which explains why the energy profits levy was kept. We have seen a £6.2 billion downgrade in the expected revenue from oil and gas to the end of the Budget period—a 40% decrease in just a year from what it was bringing in—while production is down 55% and 33% for gas and oil over the period. None of that is to do with the size of the basin; it is all to do with the fiscal and regulatory regime that this Government are imposing on the North sea. It was announced today that 100 jobs are going at Harbour Energy, and there will be more to come. Every job loss from now on is on this Government, because they know exactly what the oil and gas sector has been saying to them—it has been saying exactly the same to me, too, but I have chosen to listen. Why have the Government decided on the back of the OBR forecast to keep the EPL, when they know the impact it is having on jobs, investment and production and the future of the North sea?

    Hansard source
29. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Budget Resolutions

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Hansard source
30. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Budget Resolutions

    We are talking about £150 off energy bills that are already £200 higher than when the right hon. Gentleman came into government, and £300 was meant to come off those bills. Will bills be higher or lower than when he came into government last year?

    Hansard source
31. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Budget Resolutions

    Will the Minister give way on that point?

    Hansard source
32. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Budget Resolutions

    One of the most incoherent, damaging and destructive decisions that the Government took last week was not to scrap the energy profits levy. The levy will destroy our oil and gas sector, as the Government have been told by so many sources, including the industry itself, the renewables industry, the unions and Offshore Energies UK. The Government know exactly the impact that keeping the EPL will have on jobs, investment, our supply chain and our transition to cleaner renewable energies.

    Hansard source
33. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Budget Resolutions

    No, I do not agree, because that is factually untrue. Investment in green technologies, including carbon capture, EV charging point roll-outs, wind and solar, is being driven by our oil and gas companies. They will stop investing in green technologies and our domestic supply if we tax them into the ground, and that is exactly what the EPL is doing. The Labour Government have kept the EPL, which means that our oil and gas companies are being taxed at 78%, which is more than is faced by any other mature basin in the world. They also removed investment allowances, ensuring that our oil and gas companies are the most uncompetitive when they are trying to invest in the North sea. As a result, the companies and the skills that we need for the transition are moving abroad. Across the UK, we are losing tens of thousands of North sea jobs. That impacts every constituency. Do not think it is just north-east Scotland that is impacted; every single hon. Member in this House has oil and gas worker constituents—energy workers—who are losing their jobs today because of the Chancellor’s choice last week to keep the EPL. That impacts everybody.

    Hansard source
34. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Budget Resolutions

    Yes, absolutely. Many flights that take off from Aberdeen are full of workers who are leaving north-east Scotland for Norway, taking their skills and taxable income with them. Norway welcomes the opportunity for investment in its energy sources. Norway drilled more than 30 new exploration wells in its North sea this year. We drilled zero. That is not because the North sea is different on either side of the boundary line, but because of the United Kingdom’s fiscal and regulatory regime. We are banning ourselves from our own resources. We are making it so financially unviable to get at our own resources that we are becoming more and more reliant on other countries for our energy security. That does not make sense. Even if we come at the issue from a green angle and pretend that we are helping the climate, imports are more carbon intensive. We are bringing more carbon-intensive energy, which we need, into the UK. The Government love telling us that we will need oil and gas for years to come. We will, but we will not be using UK oil and gas for years to come. We will be using oil and gas from Norway, Qatar, Mexico or America, and we will import it at a huge carbon cost, and at a huge cost to the Treasury through loss of tax, other revenue and investment. Offshore Energies UK states that £50 billion of investment will be lost because of the EPL being kept in place. That £50 billion could go to a huge number of schools, roads or NHS projects, or it could fill any deficit that we have, but no, it is being left, because the ideology of this Government is to run down our domestic oil and gas sector. When I am out having constituency meetings in north-east Scotland, I spend most of my time listening to people who are worried about their jobs. They are worried about when—not if—their job will be lost, and where they will get another one. There are no new jobs in the oil and gas sector. They are not being created. When a job is lost in north-east Scotland, or in any other constituency with oil and gas jobs, there are no replacement jobs. Our skilled workers are moving abroad. That expertise and those skills—the ones that will drive the transition and keep our communities together—are moving away. One of the most cynical things that the Government did on Wednesday last week, when they chose to keep the EPL, was to release their consultation results for the future of the North sea. They thought that the people of north-east Scotland were so dim, so stupid, that they would not realise that keeping the EPL in place was going to have a destructive impact. They thought that they could wave a little flag with “North sea future plan consultation” written on it, and it would distract us, but guess what? We are not distracted. We know that it does not matter how many tie-backs are allowed, or whether we rename a licence as a certificate; that will not make any difference when it comes to how long the North sea lasts, because we do not have the fiscal regime to make it viable. I met representatives of a large oil and gas producer on Friday—I am sure that no Government Members did, because they do not actually engage with the sector or listen to it.

    Hansard source
35. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Budget Resolutions

    Well, in that case, the Minister will have heard exactly the things that I hear from it, so why has he not acted on them? I asked the company I met on Friday what it thought about the North sea future plan paper. Its words to me were: “We didn’t need 170 pages, we just needed a fair fiscal regime.” That is all it wants. It wants the EPL to be taken away, and it needs the fiscal regime to make sense. The EPL windfall tax was brought in when there were record prices. Last week, the Government defined “windfall” as $90 a barrel and 90p a therm, yet we have to wait until 2030 to get that. We therefore now have a windfall tax on $68-a-barrel oil and about 80p-a-therm gas. Why do we need to wait until 2030? Why are we doing that to our oil and gas sector? Why are we making sure that they are completely taxed into the ground? Why are we making investment unviable, ensuring companies move abroad and undermining our industry? We have defined what a windfall is, but we will still tax companies on windfall profits now. That does not make sense. There is no windfall. We are now taxing the oil and gas sector so much that the tax revenues are falling. The decrease in revenue from the oil and gas sector last year was 40%. Why was that? It is because investment is going abroad and production is falling. It is because it is not viable to invest in the UK any more. A company I met last week said that it is more stable to invest in west Africa than the North sea. That is the situation that is being created by this Government. That is the issue that we see in north-east Scotland, and it is my constituents and the constituents of neighbouring MPs who are feeling the brunt. My constituents do not talk about career progression, but about career survival: “How much longer will my job last? How many more redundancy rounds will I survive?” Those are the conversations we have in north-east Scotland. That is the reality of the oil and gas sector in north-east Scotland, and that is the absolute madness of the policies that this Government are following. Will the Government, please, for the future security of our energy, for £50 billion of investment that could come into our energy systems, and for the survival of tens of thousands of jobs, scrap the EPL? It must be scrapped. In no other sector in any other part of the country would this Government allow that many jobs to be lost, yet they are willing to do that to the energy sector in north-east Scotland, and to our oil and gas workers, and that is completely irresponsible.

    Hansard source
36. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining the Government’s supposed intention for the Bill, but is he aware that Amanda Spielman, the former Ofsted chief inspector, said that this Bill was “very likely” to have a detrimental effect on children’s education?

    Hansard source
37. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    On the point about branded school uniforms, headteachers in my constituency have often bulk bought school uniforms through a supplier, so it can be more cost-effective to buy the uniform through the branded supplier than to buy it on the high street. Surely what the hon. Gentleman suggests could have a perverse outcome. Does he not think that if branded items can be bought at a cheaper cost, they would be better than buying off the peg?

    Hansard source
38. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for outlining the situations in which his constituents find themselves, as mine do in many cases. Is he as concerned as I am that mandatory registration for home education essentially risks treating every parent as a potential safeguarding concern, rather than recognising the fact that they are doing their absolute best for their children? They absolutely want to comply with the law and should not be treated as criminals in the first instance.

    Hansard source
39. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

    Some weeks ago we had a debate in this Chamber about a petition signed by over 3 million people who oppose a national identity card scheme. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if those people knew the details in the Bill, they would be equally shocked and concerned?

    Hansard source
40. 1 Dec 2025·Parliament·Gareth Davies

    Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic)) Order 2025

    It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to serve on this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition and to see the Minister in his place for the first time in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I wish him luck for this one and the many more to come—Ministers spend a lot of time in DLCs, as he will come to realise. As the Minister pointed out, the orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions negotiated and updated with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. DTCs prevent the double taxation—as the Minister was saying—of income or gains from cross-border activity, combat tax avoidance through the concealing of assets offshore, and promote trade and investment between the signatories. I understand that these agreements are based on OECD and G20 recommended standards on base erosion and profit shifting to create international rules to protect against tax avoidance. Negotiating and updating such agreements are fairly routine; the previous Government negotiated literally dozens of new DTCs between 2010 and 2024. It is one of the regular ongoing duties of the Government and Treasury Ministers, and I am therefore pleased to see these agreements come into force today. These orders give effect to new agreements with Andorra and Peru, as well as updating and replacing existing agreements with Romania and Portugal from 1977 and 1969, respectively. These agreements cover double taxation with regard to capital gains tax, corporation tax and income tax, as well as those taxes of a similar nature in Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. Historically, these agreements have passed through the House with little disagreement. The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be breaking precedent today. However, I have two little questions for him, which I am sure he will find incredibly straightforward—and if not, the answer will be in his pack. First, can the Minister provide an estimate of the net impact to the Exchequer in terms of tax revenue as a result of these measures directly? As they say in Peru, it takes two to tango. Therefore can he update the House on the ratification process of these orders in the Parliaments of Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania? It is a pretty straightforward question because obviously we need both Parliaments to enact these measures. Can the Minister clarify what the process is, and whether the ratification process in those countries is running in conjunction with the passage of the draft orders in this House?

    Hansard source