Right to Trial by Jury
Does the Minister accept that failed asylum seekers are exploiting these delays in the Crown courts? Will she therefore consider restricting the right to jury trial, so that only British citizens can enjoy it?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). I thank him for his support for the campaign against the family farm tax, and for his courage in speaking out in favour of abolishing that impost on our farming communities. It is no exaggeration to say that this is the worst Budget that I have witnessed as a Member of this House, but it generated the best response I have ever heard from the Leader of the Opposition. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) on the way that she dealt with it, and I start by referring to her excellent speech. She said: “the Chancellor has, by her own admission, broken her manifesto promise on income tax. In the last Budget, she said: “I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax…thresholds”. She also said that “extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 403.] Yesterday, the Chancellor had the gall to say, in the conclusion of her speech, that she was “keeping every single one of our manifesto commitments”—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 399.] It is hardly surprising that disillusionment with politics and the political system in our country is running so high, when there is that sort of betrayal of not just a manifesto commitment, but even what was said last year. I happened to be, I think, the only Conservative MP at the CBI dinner last year, and I heard the Chancellor say to Rupert Soames, president of the CBI, that she was not coming back for more, that there was a clean slate, and that the Government would not increase taxes. She seems to have disregarded what she said a year ago to the CBI. Was she seduced by Rupert Soames? I do not know. Did she mean what she said, or did she not? It is hardly surprising that people do not trust this Government any longer. Those who had the misfortune—I do not know whether you ever did, Madam Deputy Speaker—to travel on Belgium’s national airline Sabena developed the acronym “such a bad experience, never again”, and that is exactly the view of those who voted Labour for the first time at the last general election. They are saying, “never again”, because they witness the arrogance, the incompetence, and the downright deceit of this Labour Government. It is worth putting on record the extent to which taxes are now increasing. Table A.5 in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” sets that out. I put this in the context of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the “Today” programme this morning. When asked whether she would rule out further tax increases in this Parliament, she declined to answer, and in essence said that she would not, but let us remind ourselves of the tax increases already in the Budget. In 2024-25, income tax was £305.9 billion. It is going up to £410.9 billion by 2029-30, which is an increase of £105 billion, or over one third. National insurance is going up from £171.4 billion to £239.2 billion, an increase of 40% over five years. Business rates are rising from £32.1 billion to £41.9 billion, an increase of 30% over five years. Council tax is rising from £47.4 billion to £63.3 billion over five years, an increase of at least one third. Inheritance tax is rising from £8.3 billion to £13.5 billion, an increase of 60% over five years. It is hardly surprising that people are feeling poorer and betrayed. Very few people will experience increases in their household income of anything like those proportions in the next five years. That is why this Budget is such a disaster and a betrayal of the national interest. There is also an unhealthy development in the Budget that I hope you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can discuss with Mr Speaker. Many constituencies were mentioned, and Labour Members were identified as having contributed to the Chancellor’s decisions. It struck me that people are now being bought off by the Chancellor in return for their support, and that is an extremely unhealthy development. It is basically what we have seen happening in the United States, and we do not like it at all.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The regulator of social housing has found the Labour-run Leicester city council guilty of serious failings in maintaining safe and decent homes, with thousands lacking basic safety checks. The Court of Appeal has upheld a finding of racial discrimination in the council’s employment practices and the ombudsman has criticised its failures towards homeless families. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how we, as hon. Members, can ensure the Government intervene where councils repeatedly fail in their duty of care to our constituents?
- Hansard source
Right to Trial by Jury
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the Government’s reported plans to further restrict the right to trial by jury in almost all cases.
- Hansard source
Right to Trial by Jury
While this Government lurch from one outrage to another, yesterday the Chancellor shredded her promises and dropped a £26 billion tax bomb on working Britain. Meanwhile, we learned that the Justice Secretary is plotting to discard centuries of jury trials without so much as a by-your-leave—and where is the Justice Secretary to answer for this? Do we need to send out a search party to Saville Row in case he has gone suit shopping again this morning? Or perhaps he could not face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the very principles he once championed. Jury trials are “fundamental to the justice system…fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.” Those are not my words, but those of the Justice Secretary himself. This time, he was right: there is wisdom in 12 ordinary citizens pooling their collective experiences of the world. Yet, now that he is in government, he is doing the complete opposite. He blames the court backlog, but if the courtrooms standing empty this year were used, the backlog would be down by 5,000 to 10,000 cases. He pleads poverty on law and order, but yesterday the Chancellor came here and found £16 billion more to spend on benefits. The truth is that the Labour party just does not think that ordinary people are up to it. It does not trust them with these decisions. Give away the Chagos islands, shackle us to the European convention on human rights, scrap jury trials—all because lawyers know best. And when the Justice Secretary is summoned here to the people’s House, what does he do? He cowers away. Well, the people who make up juries—the British people—will not wear it any more. I have one simple question for the Minister he sent in his stead. Will she protect what is fundamental to our democracy, or will she stand by as the Justice Secretary casually casts aside centuries of English liberty?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Happy Lancashire Day, Mr Speaker. May I join the Secretary of State in expressing congratulations to Scotland? At Department for Culture, Media and Sport oral questions in September, the former tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said that the Government have “no plans” to bring in a tourism tax and admitted that the tourism sector is already “taxed enough”, yet this week the Government announced that they are bringing in a tourism tax. When did they start planning for this tax? Was any form of impact assessment carried out before they decided that whacking up taxes on a sector that has already lost 90,000 jobs because of increases in last year’s Budget is such a great idea?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I am afraid I disagree. For a second time, DCMS sectors are left reeling following a Labour Budget that failed to deliver meaningful support on business rates for hospitality and leisure. The Government introduced a new tax on tourism and whacked up taxes on the gambling industry. Instead of being supported, DCMS sectors just got hammered. Who is to blame for this disastrous Budget for DCMS sectors? Is it DCMS Ministers for failing to make the case, or the Treasury for not listening?
- Hansard source
Women’s and Girls’ Sport: Greater Manchester
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Sport England’s role as a statutory planning consultee promotes participation in grassroot sports, including by girls and women, by protecting vital playing fields across the country from development, including in Greater Manchester. However, this Labour Government are aiming to bulldoze protections, and concrete over grassroots provisions for young people. How will removing the protections in place for playing fields help to improve participation by girls in grassroots sport?
- Hansard source
Women’s and Girls’ Sport: Greater Manchester
No commitment there to stop the concreting over of sports pitches. Alongside the National Lottery, the regulated gambling sector provides more than £400 million of crucial sponsorship to British sports, whether that is horseracing, the Betfred Super League, Sky Bet EFL, William Hill’s sponsorship of Scottish football, or direct funding for grassroots programmes. After Labour’s short-sighted £1 billion tax raid yesterday, which will fuel the illegal black market, will the Minister tell the House how her Department will fill the black hole in funding for British sports, and say what impact assessment it has made on that and on job losses across the sector?
- Hansard source
Domestic Abuse: Children
It is a privilege to speak on behalf of the Opposition in this debate on such an important issue, and I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing it. This is an area in which Parliament must work with clarity, evidence and determination. The stakes are high. Almost all of us will work with constituents who have children affected by domestic abuse, and sadly many of us will have family or friends who have been affected. One in five children in the UK experiences domestic abuse, and almost four in five children living in homes with domestic abuse are directly harmed by the perpetrator, on top of the harm of witnessing the abuse. According to the National Centre for Domestic Violence, more than 105,000 children live in homes assessed as high risk. Those figures should focus minds across all parties. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West said, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was introduced by the previous Government. I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee for that genuinely groundbreaking legislation, which transformed the legal framework for tackling domestic abuse. The Act established a new statutory definition of domestic abuse in England and Wales, which recognises that abusive behaviour is not limited to physical violence but also includes emotional, controlling, coercive and economic abuse. As has been said, under section 3, children under 18 are explicitly recognised as victims if they see, hear, or experience the effects of, abuse against a related adult—for example, by witnessing abuse between their parents. Although abuse by or against children under 16 is treated under child protection law rather than domestic abuse laws, 16 to 18-year-olds may fall under both frameworks. The statutory definition was designed to ensure that domestic abuse is understood across all statutory agencies, as well as by the public, as unacceptable. It also provides operational clarity for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in identifying and flagging domestic abuse cases, supported by Home Office statutory guidance. The Conservative Government commissioned the independent review of children’s social care, the report of which was published in May 2022 and highlighted gaps in support for children affected by domestic abuse. I am pleased that, building on that, this Government have rolled out the Families First partnership programme, which integrates family help and multi-agency child protection teams. The teams include social workers, family support workers and domestic abuse specialists, promoting early intervention and tailored support. The family courts are of course critical in safeguarding children where domestic abuse is involved, and the Conservative Government took several steps to address long-standing concerns. The 2020 report “Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases” identified systemic failures, including a pro-contact culture, siloed working, adversarial processes and insufficient recognition of abuse. Of course we all want parents to be able to see their children, but we do not want children to be used as weapons in relationship breakdowns. The welfare of children has to come first; that must be the priority. In response to that report, barring orders were introduced under section 91A of the Children Act 1989 to prevent abusive parents from repeatedly returning to court. Pathfinder courts, piloted from March 2022, promote a much more investigative, child-focused approach, improving multi-agency collaboration, prioritising children’s voices and reducing conflict. I understand that the presumption of parental involvement is under review and is set to be repealed to ensure that child safety takes precedence. We obviously understand the reasons for that decision. The tragic case of Sara Sharif, which hon. Members have referred to, demonstrates the consequence of the disconnect between law and practice. Despite children being recognised as victims in their own right, the review shows how gaps in co-ordination, oversight and early intervention can still leave a child without the protection that they need. The recent child safeguarding practice review into that murder exposed a series of systemic failings. The findings underline issues that were not isolated to one local authority, but reinforce the need for wider action. A child cruelty register was first proposed by the Opposition during the Commons Committee stage of the Sentencing Bill. I thank the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for championing this issue so consistently and effectively. Although the amendment did not pass in the Commons, the concerns that it highlighted remain pressing, so the proposal must be examined again during the Bill’s Committee stage in the other place. The case of Tony Hudgell is a clear example of why such a mechanism continues to require serious consideration. Tony was just 41 days old when he was so severely abused by his birth parents that both his legs were later required to be amputated. His abusers received sentences of 10 years, of which they will serve eight. Once their licence period ends, there will be no ongoing monitoring or reporting requirements, despite the seriousness of their offence. We need a register to require individuals convicted of specified child cruelty offences, as well as those within the domestic abuse framework, to provide information to the police. That would allow that information to be retained and used to manage ongoing risk after the end of the formal sentence. It would operate in a similar way to the sex offenders register, and would ensure that offenders cannot evade oversight by changing identity, relocating or avoiding engagement with services. Evidence from police and practitioners shows that those who commit serious abuse often move across local authority boundaries or deliberately avoid contact with health and social care. A targeted, proportionate register could help to close a clear loophole in the system, and could increase our ability to protect and safeguard children’s welfare. We support reforms that are practical, evidence-based and focused squarely on preventing harm. The priority must be to ensure that children are visible to the systems designed to protect them and that professionals have the tools, information and statutory backing they need to intervene early and effectively. We therefore support improved information-sharing duties with clear accountability. We support enhanced multi-agency working, including consistent national standards, and we argue for the introduction of a child cruelty register. The Government recently announced that police and crime commissioner roles in England and Wales will be scrapped. That raises important questions about how continuity of support for victims, including children affected by domestic abuse, will be delivered during and after the transition. We would be grateful if the Government could confirm what measures they will put in place to ensure that the abolition of PCCs does not disrupt or weaken the support available to child victims of domestic abuse, and that existing services can continue to work seamlessly throughout the period of change. We must ensure that no child can disappear from view, and that known risks are managed effectively across agencies. Protecting children from domestic abuse requires consistent professional curiosity, coherent information sharing and reliable oversight mechanisms. The cases of Sara Sharif and Tony Hudgell illustrate different aspects of system failure—failure that Parliament has a duty to address. I look forward to working across the House to strengthen the measures that will be brought before us and ensure that our child protection system meets the standards that the public expect and that our children deserve.
- Hansard source
Right to Trial by Jury
Or read the papers.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Leader of the House will know from his own teaching experience that challenges faced by schools do not respect administrative boundaries. Dudley and Staffordshire schools in my constituency get hundreds of pounds less per pupil than the same pupils would attract if they went to neighbouring schools in Wolverhampton or Sandwell. Might we have a debate in Government time on the national school funding formula, so that we can ensure that all children get fair funding, wherever their school is?
- Hansard source
Future of TV Distribution
3. What recent progress the Future of TV Distribution stakeholder forum has made on its work.
- Hansard source
Future of TV Distribution
The Minister will be aware of a recent survey that shows that there is very little knowledge among the public of the future changes, but those who are aware are concerned about not only obtaining the service but its cost. What guarantees can the Minister give that the costs will not be too heavy?
- Hansard source
Ordained Clergy
8. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to increase the number of ordained clergy.
- Hansard source
Ordained Clergy
As a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I never cease to be amazed by the number of officials who turn up to every meeting. Could the Leader of the House convey to the Second Church Estates Commissioner that perhaps slimming down Church bureaucracy would allow more resources to be available for the ministry?
- Hansard source
Right to Trial by Jury
This is yet another attempt by a Labour Government to limit trial by jury. May I remind the Minister that Tony Blair’s Administration brought forward very similar proposals? In 2007, after a defeat in the House of Lords, they acknowledged defeat. Will the Minister acknowledge that she too will have to admit defeat?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Hundreds of my constituents work at Scunthorpe steelworks, and I fully support the Government’s actions to support the industry. A written statement on this subject is published each month. The most recent one says: “We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of British Steel.”—[Official Report, 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 1WS.] Twice in the past couple of weeks, Ministers have referred to a business plan that exists for the steelworks. Could the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister to come to the House and actually give details of the Government’s business plan?
- Hansard source
Right to Trial by Jury
The Minister is a very distinguished lawyer, so I am surprised to hear her selective interpretation of Magna Carta. She references clause 40 of Magna Carta and the timeliness of access to justice. I accept that, but I encourage her to reread clause 39, which underpins the fundamental rights of all of our constituents. Is this not just the continuation of Labour’s constitutional vandalism?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The A41 in Shropshire has seen many deaths and injuries over many years. It is a very dangerous road. Three years ago, I secured funding, with the help of the Conservative police and crime commissioner, to get average speed cameras put on the road, to reduce injuries and deaths. Unfortunately, Liberal Democrat-led Shropshire council and Labour-led Telford and Wrekin council have effectively vetoed that plan, saying that there is no case. Putting party politics aside, will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the issue, so that we can get people working together to reduce injuries and deaths on the A41?
- Hansard source
Right to Trial by Jury
I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer this urgent question. I have taken note of what she has said and, if I may, I will quote it back to her: “a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness”, a three to four year delay is “deeply demoralising”, and “justice delayed is justice denied”. How does she square that position with her support for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
This Labour Government came to power with so many promises. The Chancellor promised to kick-start economic growth, and not to increase the taxes of working people. Now that Labour is in government, I am afraid that it is doing the exact opposite. If it can be taxed, the Chancellor will tax it—an electric car, a holiday, or even a taxi home after a night out. I am afraid that the Chancellor and those on the Government Benches are completely out of touch on how the economy works. The statistics speak for themselves. Unemployment has surged across the United Kingdom: 19% more people are without a job since this Labour Government came to power, and almost 100,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality. The Government inherited inflation that was bang on the Bank of England’s targets; now, it has almost doubled. That is why there is a cost of living crisis out there in the real world. Economic growth is going in the wrong direction; forecasts have been revised downward next year, and are predicted to be lower in every remaining year of this Parliament. That is this Chancellor’s record and her legacy. In advance of this Budget, there was wild speculation about what the Chancellor would present and endless rumours of more tax rises—kite flying by the Treasury. How can we expect any business to plan or invest for the future if the rules of the game continue to shift in this way? Of course, the situation is a whole lot worse in Scotland, where the SNP Government have made us the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom. I will focus my speech on two choices that this Labour Government made in the Budget. The first is the family farm tax. Yesterday I met farmers from across the United Kingdom who came to protest against this Labour Government’s decision to introduce the family farm tax. I was disappointed that I did not see many, if indeed any, Labour Members taking the time to speak to the farmers outside Parliament. I was utterly disgusted at the last-minute cancellation by the Metropolitan police—perhaps this Government were involved, too—of the farmers’ rally in Whitehall yesterday. Farmers are devastated by the Chancellor’s decision not to reverse this cruel tax. It is not that they do not want to pay their fair share; they already do, and they are a vital part of our economy, protecting our countryside, rural communities and food security. They simply cannot afford to pay it. I entirely agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is sadly not in her place just now, but who highlighted very clearly the anguish facing many farmers, not just in her constituency, but in mine and across the United Kingdom. I deeply regret the fact that Ministers have their hands over their ears, and are refusing to listen to the plight of our farmers.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The intention may have been to force overseas investors, trust funds and others out of the farming sector, and to attack big landowners, but the tax is doing the complete opposite: it is destroying the family farm sector, forcing tenant farmers out, and seriously impacting on our food security ambitions. The family farm tax is yet another promise broken by the Chancellor, who gave no indication before the last election that Labour would introduce it. The supermarkets agree: Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer and many more have expressed their concern about how the tax will impact farmers and our nation’s capacity to produce our own food. I grew up on a farm, so I understand this. The consequences of the Chancellor’s failure to reverse this cruel tax will be catastrophic for our rural communities. Two weeks ago, I visited dozens of small businesses across the Scottish Borders—corner shops, greengrocers, butchers, manufacturers, gift shops and many more. The same issue came up at almost every single one: the extremely tough business conditions just now. The jobs tax is forcing many of them to delay hiring decisions, or even lay off staff, and the additional red tape is forcing good employers to jump through totally unnecessary hoops. The average cost of a member of staff has surged by almost £1,000 a month, thanks to the jobs tax and the Government’s Employment Rights Bill. To make matters worse, because of the state of the economy, customers have less to spend on goods and services. It is all adding up to be an economic nightmare. The Chancellor’s decisions are pushing our economy into a tax doom loop: higher taxes will fund more spending, which harms our economic growth and— surprise, surprise—means that the Chancellor receives lower revenue, and so once again comes back to ask for more tax rises.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Budget creates no incentives for people to invest and take the risk of setting up and growing a business. It sends out all the wrong messages about what we want in a country that has traditionally been full of entrepreneurs. Because of the doom loop that the Chancellor has created, it will always be hard-working businesses and families who pay the price for her economic failure. The Chancellor could have made much better choices in her Budget. She could have saved £47 billion, including £23 billion from welfare, avoiding the need to increase taxes in this way altogether. She could have introduced a cheap power plan to bring down energy costs for homes and businesses. But the Chancellor has not listened. She has not learned from the mistakes she made in last year’s Budget. This Labour Government promised economic stability, but this Budget does nothing to make that a reality, which is why Conservative Members oppose it so strongly.
- Hansard source
Cities and Towns of Culture
I warmly welcome the innovation around the UK town of culture. My 10 seconds of fame as the Under Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was in December 2017, when I went to Hull, the train broke down and I announced on “The One Show” that Coventry would be the UK city of culture. On behalf of Salisbury, which celebrates its 800th anniversary in 2027, may I ask if guidance can be given? Salisbury is a market town with a cathedral and we would love to apply, but given all our world-leading cultural assets we will need guidance about whether we qualify for the city or the town of culture.
- Hansard source
Cities and Towns of Culture
Maybe five seconds?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests that £6 billion of costs associated with special educational needs and disabilities provision has not been catered for in the Budget. Given that, it suggests that there will be an effective 4.9% cut in mainstream school spending per pupil. That is a massive concern for colleagues across the House. As SEND is such a tough issue to resolve, will the Leader of the House consider time for a debate on this matter so that we can resolve what has happened in the Budget?
- Hansard source
Business and Trade Committee
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. In my short time in Parliament, perhaps the most terrifying thing I have heard so far is the evidence we took on the Business and Trade Committee that state actors are joining forces with criminal gangs to attack this country in the cyber-theatre. From his vast experience, has the right hon. Gentleman ever delivered a report quite so urgent and time-sensitive?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
My hon. Friend is delivering a searing indictment of this Budget. Does he agree that the intention of the farm tax may have been to take in multimillionaire so-called “slipper farmers”, but in rural constituencies like his and mine, it is hitting tenant farmers?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The Isle of Wight Youth Trust is set to lose £200,000-worth of funding by the end of the financial year. Early support hubs will lose funding across the country, and up to half the 24 surveyed said that they may close services. Will the Secretary of State speak to cross-departmental colleagues to ensure that bridge funding is put in place, so that no young person loses out?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I am sure colleagues across the House will want to join me in wishing a very happy Lancashire Day to Lancastrians everywhere, and perhaps most especially to the only Lancastrian Speaker of the 158 people to have held that office—there will have to be three more before it reaches the number of Herefordians who have held it. I also wish a very happy Thanksgiving to all our American friends, hosts and families. No one needs reminding that the Leader of the House is a thoroughly good and sensible man. [Interruption.] “Careful”, he says. We like to keep things orderly at business questions, but I cannot imagine what he can possibly have made of the past few weeks. We have had an entirely unnecessary period of prolonged economic uncertainty; endless media pitch-rolling and U-turns; a relentlessly dismissive attitude to this House from Ministers; repeated breaches of the ministerial code; and even the fiasco of a convenient Office for Budget Responsibility leak on the morning of the Budget. The House should be in no doubt that yesterday we saw the Government increase taxes to the highest levels since at least 1970, according to the OBR. Between last year and this, the Government have raised something like £100 billion in additional tax revenue, much of which will fall on working people. They have done so not through any coherent tax policy or vision for the UK economy, but through an array of “back of a fag packet” tricks and wheezes, whose inevitable effect will be to make it even harder for businesses to expand and for people to get jobs. As Paul Johnson, lately of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said, it is “big tax rises but no effort at reform”. The tax rises are mainly to finance extra spending, and are not because of worse forecasts. This Government claim to speak for working people, skills, employment and growth, but those are all things they chose to undermine at yesterday’s Budget. Those were their choices. Even now, the Government have failed to please their union paymasters. In the words of Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, the decision to freeze income tax thresholds will result in 10 million workers paying the higher rate of income tax. A stealth tax on workers means that everyday people pay the price again. What is the point of this Government? What are they for? No one can say, however they vote and whatever their politics. This Chancellor and this Prime Minister came to power last year with no idea and no plan. Even by that standard, they have been a colossal disappointment, but that is not all. As we just noted in the urgent question, this week has also seen a leak of the Justice Secretary’s intention to abolish jury trial for all but the most serious cases. We had the embarrassing sight of the junior Justice Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman)—a woman who transparently believes in the importance of jury trial—defending this preposterous proposal. The Justice Secretary is the same man who said in 2020: “Jury trials are fundamental to our democracy.” Blackstone, no less, called them “the glory of the English law”, and yet they are to be abolished by a Justice Secretary and a junior Justice Minister who both went to Harvard law school and a Prime Minister who spent nearly four decades at the Bar. The Bar Council has made clear that jury trials are not the cause of any case backlog, destroying the Government’s attempted justification for the policy. The Criminal Bar Association has strongly criticised the proposal, as has the legendary Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws. Many others will doubtless do the same in the coming days. Again, it is inconceivable to me that the Leader of this House supports this decision. I hope that at the very least he will allow time for a Backbench debate soon on this topic. Both the Budget and the Government’s proposal to abolish jury trial have something fundamental in common. The Chancellor seemed unaware yesterday that in asking people to, as she put it, “make a contribution” to the Budget, she is not inviting them to engage in some voluntary process. She is in fact using the full force of the coercive power of the state to take away their freely owned property in taxes. The removal of jury trial would do the same thing to the involvement of citizens in this country in the exercise of the criminal law—that other supreme coercive power of the state. Whatever the rhetoric, and whatever the smoke and mirrors, both these actions demonstrate that this Government hold the ordinary men and women of this country in profound contempt. No one should be surprised if those actions and this Government are now treated by those people with similar contempt.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
To govern is to choose, and the Chancellor has chosen. She has chosen spending over saving, higher taxes over welfare reform, and benefits Britain over working Britain. She would rather raise taxes by £26 billion than shave a single penny off the welfare bill. She will make people who work and save pay more for the benefits of millions who do not. I say that the Chancellor chose, but are these her choices or those of Labour Back Benchers? Just a few months ago, when debating the Government’s personal independence payment reform Bill, those Back Benchers were the ones who stood up and said things like, “I didn’t come here to cut benefits.” They were the ones in and out of meetings with No. 10 while the debate was going on in this Chamber, and they were the ones who forced the Disability Minister to stand up during that debate and announce that there would, in fact, be no savings. The Government’s welfare Bill then became a spending Bill, which Labour Back Benchers all voted for, of course. The Chancellor could have used the Budget to right that wrong—or could she? The wolves have been circling ever since. This was not a Budget for Britain; it was a Budget for Labour Back Benchers. It was a “save our skin” Budget, but in saving her own skin, the Chancellor is selling the country down the river at a cost of £26 billion to taxpayers and 200,000 jobs, on top of the 150,000 that have already been lost since Labour has been in power and the thousands more that the unemployment rights Bill will destroy.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
This Budget is simple: taxes are going up on working people to pay for more benefits. That is the story of this Budget. The Chancellor told the country that she was spending to bring down the cost of living. Really? For whom? Inflation is up, tax is up and wage growth is down. The only group of people who are going to be better off are those on benefits—the 10 million people of working age whose benefits will be uplifted by inflation, the thousands more who will go on to sickness benefits in the year ahead, and the half a million households who will get money from the lifting of the two-child cap. Those households will receive £5,000 more on average by the end of this decade, at a cost of £3 billion to the taxpayer, and some will get much more. A family with five children could get an extra £10,500, while a family with eight children will be able to get an extra £21,000, nearly as much as the annual pay before tax of a full-time worker on the minimum wage. Labour Members have told us again and again today how Labour is fixing child poverty by giving out that extra money. We all care about children—we all want children to get the best start in life. [Interruption.] Come on. Labour Members are chuntering at me, but they cannot doubt the fact that everyone in this place wants children to get the best start in life. Handing out money might improve the poverty statistics that they like so much to crow about, but it will not solve the problem. Work is the best way out of poverty, and the Government’s handout will make parents less likely to work. There are couples across the country—couples in work—who are wondering whether they can afford another child. Thanks to this Budget, their taxes are going up, and their incomes may well go down. Thanks to this Budget, some of them will decide to have no more children, or no children at all. That is sad, and it is unfair. Labour Members have been crowing about the Budget, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) said earlier, the threshold rises it contains could even drag some working families below the relative poverty line that they like to talk about so much.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
The sad fact is that the country went through a pandemic and we had to get the country’s finances under control. This Chancellor promised that she would not increase taxes on working people, but that is exactly what she has done. Who can trust her? I know that people out there do not. If all we heard about this Budget was the speeches of Government Members, we would think something wonderful was going on. I hate to shatter their delusions, but the fact is that people out there are despairing. People have been saying to me, “If all the Government are going to do is take your money in taxes, why work? Why bother?” We are seeing those who can, from successful business people to talented future entrepreneurs, leaving the country. The Government are killing aspiration and growth, and, in fact, savings. The OBR says that household savings will fall as a result of the Budget, from 6% to 2% by 2030. The Budget is an attack on people who are simply doing the right thing: working, saving, trying to pay their way in life and trying to build a better future. The Government could make different choices. If they were willing to get a grip of the welfare bill and bring it down, they could cut taxes on working people. We have heard from several Ministers, and from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions himself, that the system needs reform, but their actions say otherwise. Working-age welfare spending is up £40 billion in this Budget. The Timms review’s terms of reference tell us that there are no savings to see here. The Secretary of State will not even say the word “savings”. They say one thing, but do another. It sums them up. After all those promises not to put taxes up on working people, here we are with two Budgets in a row hiking taxes on working people. It does not have to be this way. We have identified £47 billion of savings from public spending. Of that, £23 billion is welfare savings from doing the right thing, such as stopping giving sickness benefits to people with anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and stopping handing out benefits to foreign nationals. It is not kind or compassionate to trap people on benefits. It is not fair on people who are working to pay the bills, and it is simply not affordable for our country to go on like this. The Minister likes to chat a lot during debates, and he has said that he stood for office “to stop drawing charts”—[Interruption.] He might like to listen to what he actually said, although he does not like to listen to other people. He said that he stood for office “to stop drawing charts and start changing them.” He has certainly achieved that. Inflation is up, unemployment is up, borrowing is up and public spending is up. Perhaps he can tell us which of those he is most proud of. The Minister, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the entire Government will all leave their mark on our country with this Budget. At their last Budget, they dug a hole. With this Budget, they have dug it deeper. Instead of cutting the welfare bill, they are adding to it. Instead of getting people into work, they are putting them on benefits. Instead of backing workers, they are funding stay-at-homers using the hard-earned money of Britain’s taxpayers. That is the choice they have made, and we reject it.
- Hansard source
Music Recording Studios
5. What steps she is taking to help support small and medium-sized music recording studios.
- Hansard source
Music Recording Studios
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies for making it just in time. Chiltern Railways are entirely to blame. I thank the Minister for that answer, however a couple of weeks ago I met my constituent Dom, who runs a small music studio. The cost pressures on the music industry coming from this Government are unsustainable at the moment, not least from business rates—even after yesterday’s announcement—employer national insurance and the minimum wage. With so many small music studios having closed in recent years in this country, how will the Government ensure that our music industry has a solid future?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T2. Much of Buckinghamshire’s tourist economy is under- pinned by walkers coming to enjoy our countryside and the beautiful Chilterns, but on top of the tourism tax, the industry is threatened by the Secretary of State’s Government threatening to plaster Buckinghamshire with solar panels, which will drive the walkers away. What representations is she making to her colleague the Energy Secretary to protect tourism in Buckinghamshire?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
I entirely endorse the argument that my hon. Friend is making. The big punishment in yesterday’s Budget was the increase in taxation on dividends. That says to our wealth creators and entrepreneurs—the people who create jobs—“Don’t bother.”
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
In reflecting on the title that the Government have offered up for today’s Budget resolutions debate, “Economic Sustainability and Fair Choices”, I have found myself wondering on what planet anyone could possibly call yesterday’s Budget sustainable or fair. The forecasts show that GDP growth will be down in every year from 2026 to 2029, consumer prices index inflation will be up 3.5% this year, taxes will increase by £26 billion, the unemployment rate will hit 4.9% in 2026, the size of the state itself will increase to 44.8% of GDP, borrowing will go up £11 billion, and debt interest will be higher in every year of the forecast. That is not the makings of a sustainable economy or growth, and it is certainly not fair on the taxpayers who will have to shoulder the burden to pay for it all. As I visit businesses in my constituency—the retailers and hospitality businesses on the high streets of Wendover, Princes Risborough, Great Missenden; the village pubs; the furniture manufacturers in Princes Risborough and the surrounds; and the rocket scientists and big businesses at Westcott venture park—they all paint a picture of preparing for things to get worse. They say that they are not planning to take on new employees or apprentices.