Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,558 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak. Due to the number of people who have indicated their wish to speak, there will be a strict time limit of two minutes for speeches, so that we can get through everybody. I call Ann Davies.
The hon. Lady is doing the House a great service. My late sister Joan was a hairdresser. She did an apprenticeship of exactly the kind the hon. Lady describes at the London school of hairdressing—before I was born, actually. She was proud of the skills that she acquired and then used for many years, but in recent years there has been the emergence of some extremely strange and, I would argue, dodgy barber shops, largely foreign, that I suspect have much less to do with hairdressing than with many other nefarious purposes.
It is worth reflecting on three things. As we have very little time, I make just one comment about welfare. It is necessary for the Government to reduce <span id="650" class="column-number" data-column-number="650"></span>welfare spending, because we can see what the Government’s own forecast says will happen if they do not do so: debt and borrowing will be higher in every single year. That is hugely down to the fact that the growth in welfare spending is running out of control. I was astonished that the point was avoided during the Budget, and then we had confusion when the Chancellor went on the radio the following morning and said that welfare would be reduced during the course of this Government. He was overridden by the Treasury, which said, “No, it won’t, and he didn’t say that,” but he did. That is the confusion. I do not doubt that the Chancellor wants to reduce welfare spending, but it appears that he will not be able to. The main thing I want to say is that this Budget has not been good for working families, middle-income earners, and those who bother to save. It is really hard on them. Tax is at the highest level on record; the tax burden will hit a historic high next year of 37% of GDP, nearly 38%, and will surge to over 38.6% by 2031. Growth next year has been cut from 1.6% to 1%, and as a result of this Budget, real household disposable income per person is forecast to fall by 0.8% this year. Those are stark figures, figures that economists have produced in their forecasts. The effect of that is to give Government fewer choices. I want to talk about defence, which is important because the threat we face now—from China and North Korea, from Iran and Russia, all linked together along an axis of totalitarian states—is astonishing. That means that our defence spending needs to rise. Every other Government in Europe is raising defence spending. We used to be the leader on this; they would all look to us, but not any more, because we have avoided raising our defence spending. Even the defence review will not take place until well into next year, and who knows what will happen next. This is a failure of the Government—an opportunity that has been missed. To quote Helen Miller, the economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Budget “feels like lots of fiddling, short-term things, new complications—a ‘new entrepreneurs allowance’, ‘starter ISA’…etc. I don’t hear a clear, coherent vision or a simplification of tax system”, which is necessary. The reality is that this Budget was an opportunity missed, and future generations will look back at this moment and say, “Where were you? Why didn’t you take the decisions that were necessary?”.
I was disappointed that the Chancellor did nothing to change the gift aid rules, which would have helped the Bridgwater carnival and many other community organisations and charities. The Bridgwater Guy Fawkes carnival is the most magnificent spectacle. It is Britain’s oldest carnival and the largest illuminated carnival in Europe, and it is taking place on Saturday. Like so many good causes, the carnival raises much of its funds in small cash donations, often loose change collected in a bucket on the night, yet it can only claim gift aid for a maximum of £2,000 on those small donations—a figure that has not been increased for 10 years. Will the Chancellor please consider increasing the limit? That would make a huge difference to organisations that collect so much of their funds in small cash donations. Despite making so many changes in his Budget, the Chancellor has not reinstated the listed places of worship grant scheme, which his predecessor abolished. This means that communities who worship in a listed building, such as the parish of St Andrews in Burnham-on-Sea, will have to bear the full cost of VAT on the repairs that their historic church requires. The scheme that replaced the old one is less generous and has a capped budget. We should cherish our beautiful listed churches and take care of them for future generations. I will continue to press the Chancellor to renew the scheme in full, to make sure that our congregations are not charged an extra 20% for vital repairs. There are 98 separate measures in the Red Book, and many of them will further complicate Britain’s already byzantine tax code. Do we really need a new founders’ relief from capital gains tax? We are told that it will be for “qualifying founders of high-growth, innovative companies”.<span id="659" class="column-number" data-column-number="659"></span> That perhaps sounds good for a Labour tax relief, but would it not be better to lower the rate of CGT for everyone, rather than add another carve-out for accountants and lawyers to argue about? Britain needs lower tax rates with fewer exemptions, not additional complications that drive up the cost of compliance. The fundamental problem that Britain faces today is simple: we are running out of money. Unless we change course soon, every other problem will become harder to solve. Our national debt is now £3 trillion, and every year Labour is adding tens of billions more. At a time of international uncertainty, we must spend more on defence, but this Government cannot do so because they refuse to cut welfare. We need a plan to cut debt, fund defence and get Britain growing again.
If everything is going so well, why is Britain paying more to borrow money than any other country in Europe?
May I say that it is a genuine pleasure to follow the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali)? As a West Ham fan, I understand that it is the optimism that kills you; she is a Spurs fan, so after last season, I think I will leave that there. I congratulate her: it is not easy to follow in the footsteps of a Prime Minister and to fight against the leader of another national party. As she pointed out, the racial attacks on her in the lead-up to that election were absolutely disgraceful. I am sure that the vast majority of people in this House stand in solidarity with her. I wish her a successful career in this House; I am sure that she will be a great asset to it. Today’s debate is about growth in every postcode, but I will focus on the genuine threat of war to this country. The Budget does not deal with the defence issues that must be addressed. We could carry on saying that we have a plan to have a plan, and kicking things down the road, but that would be to hide from the reality of what is going on in the world. Just today we saw a cyber-attack <span id="637" class="column-number" data-column-number="637"></span>that destroyed hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of frozen and refrigerated stock across at least six European countries. We know that such cyber-attacks are taking place every day, yet we are still delaying the real investment that needs to take place. I was recently in Australia with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. In Australia, inflation is 4%, cost of living is the No. 1 priority and 55% say immigration is too high, yet the Australians have decided to invest in defence. In the 1980s, they felt that their geography gave them the security, and now they have recognised that it does not. They are in the process of doubling their navy, with three air defence destroyers, six frigate submarine hunters, 11 general purpose frigates, six large missile barges and eight launching vessels to protect army capability. Of course, with AUKUS, they also have a built-in 50% contingency. Germany is going to have 15 extra frigates by 2035, Finland is going to have four new corvettes by 2035, and Norway is going to have five new frigates, six new submarines and 28 standard vessels by 2035, yet we say that we are aiming to get to 3.5% by 2035. I have said this before, and I will say it again: targeting a percentage of GDP is false and wrong. The target was only brought in to satisfy the Americans in 2014. Plenty of us have a lot of complaints about President Trump, but at least he got European countries spending. As far back as Eisenhower, the Americans were saying that Europe needed to spend more on defence. George Bush made such a speech in 2007, and Barack Obama made one in 2014 when the target came in. What really matters is article 3. Everybody talks about article 5 and defence. If article 5 is triggered, nations have a choice as to what they contribute to collective defence. Everybody thinks that America will pile in with its troops, tanks, planes and warships, but it could simply say, “We will provide the intelligence,” and that would satisfy article 5. Article 3 states that a country must be able to defend its borders for three weeks. NATO is a reinforcement. We simply cannot carry on saying, “We are going to do a defence investment review in a year’s time”—not actually investing in a year’s time, but doing a review! I welcome today’s news that double shifts might be done at the dockyards to produce more frigates, but that should be happening now. In the time I have remaining, let me say this. I said before in this House that when we cut spending from 5% of GDP—that level was just a consequence of what we needed to spend—the 3% went into health and welfare, and that it would be a brave politician who stood up and said that we should cut those things, especially welfare, to invest in defence. Well, that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition is now saying. The time has more than passed. The threat of war in this country is on the horizon. We do not want it to happen, so we bury our heads in the sand and say that we can delay the spending. That cannot carry on. The threat is imminent.
The Chancellor’s big phrase in this Budget has been “breathing space”. It has been said time and again, but it is utterly false, because the Chancellor has not given businesses any breathing space at all. There is no breathing space <span id="672" class="column-number" data-column-number="672"></span>on employer national insurance. Labour’s job tax stays exactly where it is, punishing employers for yet another year. There is no breathing space on wages. The national living wage has actually gone up by 3.9% from April, on top of the Employment Rights Act 2025, with nothing announced to help employers meet the costs. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility warns that these policies will seriously damage job creation in this country. There has been no real breathing space on business rates. The Chancellor says that he is freezing business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure in real terms, but the British Retail Consortium has rightly pointed out that this is just “smoke and mirrors”. This is not breathing space at all. This is our businesses being stifled yet again by this Labour Government. I ask the Minister: what are their ambitions for British businesses? It seems evident from this Budget that they do not have any. They are taxing our British businesses again and again. All this matters because it is impacting my constituency, which is full of hard-working people. I think of the independent shops on Cavendish Street and Low Street fighting to keep Keighley a thriving place, as well as the cafés, boutiques and family businesses on the Grove and Brook Street in Ilkley, and those businesses right across Silsden, Steeton and Riddlesden and our wider area who are working incredibly hard. The pubs, the tradespeople, the hairdressers, the start-ups—they are all hard-working people, yet this Government think that employers in those small independent businesses are not workers. They put out that narrative as if those employers need to be taxed more. Let me tell the House about one of those businesses, which I visited just yesterday. The Turkey Inn in Goose Eye is a pub that is much loved by locals and visitors alike, and I called in there last night to have a meal. The owners of that pub are grafters. They produce excellent food that is second to none and they support our local community with many local activities. They do everything right, working day in, day out to support the community, but yesterday, on the back of this Budget, they announced that they were cutting their opening hours from seven days a week to just four, and they were clear about why. In their own words, they said: “With no measures in the budget to help small hospitality businesses and local pubs like ours, we must take this step”. That is the verdict not of a politician or of a Labour think-tank but of hard-working people in my constituency who have been impacted by this third Labour Budget. The Turkey Inn is not alone. I speak to pubs and small independent businesses every single week in my constituency and they are telling me the same thing. Labour is not on the side of our hard-working businesses, and that is impacting them. This Labour Budget has not provided any breathing space at all. This Government must wake up and listen to our small and medium-sized businesses, who are the backbone of our communities and our local economies, because they are pushing them to breaking point. If the Government do not wake up and listen, I fear for all of them. A simple policy of tax, tax, tax on our businesses with more regulation is stifling those businesses, not helping them thrive.
I want to thank Nick Coombes from my office for his help on this speech. Unsurprisingly, I am disappointed by the Chancellor’s first Budget. From a new Administration who spent a by-election and leadership campaign claiming that they had all sorts of plans and ambitions to fix the economy after the previous Labour Administration constantly talked us down, we have a “do no harm” Budget that does decidedly little to help pensioners, fund our armed forces, support young people or back the businesses that are essential to creating jobs. The tax burden has continued to rise above record levels; inflation has not been at the 2% target since before the first Budget of this Labour Government; and the welfare bill is set to go up by another £60 billion—and neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor is willing to commit to reducing it in this Parliament. As the Leader of the House has said, we are now spending more on debt interest than on the Army and schools combined, which is clearly wrong, especially when we face some of the biggest and most rapidly evolving threats since the cold war. Yet the Chancellor, who resigned as Defence Secretary over the previous Administration’s refusal to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP, has delivered a Budget that has deferred the difficult choices necessary to keep our country safe until next year, in favour of the Prime Minister’s plan to prioritise social security over national security.<span id="668" class="column-number" data-column-number="668"></span> Young people are already struggling for support to get into education, employment or training. The increase in employer national insurance contributions, and now the further increase in the minimum wage, will make young people even more expensive for small businesses to hire, while pushing more and more workers into higher tax brackets. This was the Chancellor’s first opportunity to take bold steps to correct the errors of the previous Labour Budgets, and to provide support for businesses and entrepreneurs, which would have been a notable break from the massive tax hikes and regulatory burdens that have so far fallen on businesses under this Government. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor needed to use this opportunity to take drastic action to slash the size of the state, and to get Britain working again—to support those who are working, and to encourage into work those who are not working, but who are able to. My constituents are happy to support those in genuine need, but this Labour Government have come back every year for more money from the same hard-working people they promised not to raise taxes on to fund an ever-increasing welfare state. This “do no harm” Budget has led to the worsening of the OBR forecasts on inflation, economic growth, unemployment and living standards, and has left my constituents disappointed. I hope that the Prime Minister’s 10-year plan and the upcoming spending review have some much-needed good news and serious economic support for businesses and young people in South West Hertfordshire.
The hon. Member highlighted the statistic that around £550 million will be potentially raised in interest. How much of that interest does she think would be appropriate to go into the investments that she has outlined, given that we do not have any numbers for what we are supposed to be approving? As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, said, this is in effect a blank cheque.
Going back to the threshold point, can the Minister give any indication of what level interest rates would have to reach to trigger this, based on the Department’s calculations in crafting this statutory instrument? If it is a windfall from high interest rates generating additional revenue, what general ballpark does the Minister think interest rates would have to be at to trigger this?
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time. Could he provide us with some examples of what MHCLG could use this money for to support renters? He has not listed any yet, and obviously there are none in the SI. I am a bit concerned about where this money is going to be used.
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank all Members from across the House for their contributions tonight, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). I am also grateful for the very thoughtful contributions, particularly on welfare spending, from <span id="685" class="column-number" data-column-number="685"></span>my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and from my constituency neighbour and the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I particularly enjoyed his contribution. Most of all, let me congratulate the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) on delivering her maiden speech. I gave my maiden speech in a Budget debate, and it is a hard thing to do. I still remember how nervous I was, and I can tell her that it does not quite go away, I am afraid. I enjoyed her speech, which was excellent, and I know that her constituents and her family will be very proud to see her sat where she is. I wish her the very best for the future. It is a genuine pleasure to close this day of the Budget debate on behalf of the official Opposition. Ironically, this has been billed as a “breathing space” Budget by the same people who have taken all the air out of the economy. The British people do not just want a breather. They want to get on, and there is little in this Budget for them. The subject of today’s debate is growth—a subject that was apparently chosen voluntarily by the Government. That is interesting, because paragraph 2.48 of the OBR’s assessment of this Budget clearly says that next year’s growth has been downgraded to 1%—cut by a third. The Chancellor said that this Budget would deliver “growth in every postcode”, but the OBR has read it and found that there will be lower growth across the country. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I have got to know the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), who is chuntering away, and I know that he is about to stand up and say that the OBR has upgraded growth for this year by 0.1%. That is great, and I am delighted for him, but in March 2024, the OBR did not expect growth under a Conservative Government to be 1.2% this year. It expected the Conservatives to deliver 2% in 2026, so I am afraid to say that the OBR has downgraded its growth expectations and projections for this year, too. The Secretary of State, who was very energised, said that the Government have cut business rates, but these are the guys who inherited high-street relief at 75%, cut it to 40% and then abolished it altogether. Under pressure from high-street businesses across the country, they are handing a little bit back and think it is all fine. It is like a burglar returning your TV and asking for a thank you. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley was absolutely right to highlight that point. Then there is the high-street bank tax. This is a tax on lending, mortgages and the high-street branches that people rely on in constituencies across the country. I thought this Government wanted to see more bank branches, not fewer, but fewer branches is exactly what will happen. The Minister is probably going to stand up and claim that this Budget is delivering for working families on the cost of living, but that is not the whole picture, is it? Living standards this year, across every postcode, are set to fall under a Labour Government, but it is okay because they can all live off cheaper gherkins. The Government do not like to hear this, and no doubt I will be accused of talking down the economy, so let me be very clear: I talk up my country, but I talk <span id="686" class="column-number" data-column-number="686"></span>down this Labour Government. I am not the only one; there are plenty of us. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the Budget has “very little that will move the dial on growth”. The CBI said that the Budget “lacks the bold moves that would have made it easier for firms to invest, hire and grow.” The British Retail Consortium said costs will “keep climbing as the Chancellor failed to provide the breathing space he promised.” Even the Government’s friends in the Resolution Foundation said the Budget “did not rise to the scale of the challenges”. Do not get me wrong: I do not believe that the Government are bad people. I just do not think they have any grasp of basic economics and reality. Just this weekend, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, we heard that they do not even think that employers are working people. In all of this, let us spare a thought for poor old Keir Starmer, who must have been sat watching the TV on Lord Alli’s sofa and wondering, “What was it all for?” The new Prime Minister booted him out with a story of transformation, almost revolution. After years and years of trying, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) finally becomes First Lord of the Treasury, and we all eagerly awaited his first Budget—his first chance to mould the country to his Mancunian grand vision—but what we got was the same old Labour: higher taxes, no action on welfare, and no real answers to the challenges facing our country today. This is continuity Keir without the mandate. Tinkering with little policies like the £2 bus cap is not going to keep us safe from Putin. It is not going to take a family out of poverty; it will just get them to the bank branch, which is closing, near the house that they cannot afford, with a mortgage that they will not be lent. When will Labour learn? It does not have to be this way. Instead of fuelling a rise in unemployment and overseeing a spiralling benefits bill, the Government could reduce costs to businesses and cut the regulatory burden. We could get people off welfare and into work. We will happily work with the Chancellor in the national interest, if only he is brave enough to stand up to the Members chuntering behind him. Nothing has changed—not the tax hikes, not the welfare bill, not the excuses. All that has changed is the person holding the microphone. I accept that the Prime Minister has been busy. We have watched him bounce from the Downing Street desk to the “Gogglebox” sofa and back home to Manchester. We know his favourite crisps, but we do not know his plan for the economy. He is a TikTok Prime Minister who chose a Chancellor on a tuk tuk. He has had a ride, and now he has taken the British people for one, too. A Chancellor who, for some reason, carried a miner’s lantern to the Labour party conference is now leading the economy down a dark tunnel, with no plan to get out. Back during the days of the coup, the Prime Minister told us, with a nauseating dose of cheddar cheese, that he wanted “hope in every heart”, but we got a hand in every pocket, with tax at record levels, debt higher, debt interest higher and youth unemployment spiralling. This is not just a missed opportunity; it is a dereliction of duty.<span id="687" class="column-number" data-column-number="687"></span>
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, whom I have seen more often in the past few days than my own wife. I appreciate the remarks that he has made, and I welcome the opportunity on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to address this measure, but I must be frank: we do not like the draft order very much, because it appears to be little more than an act of state-sponsored thievery. In this Halloween season, lurking in the shadows is not a vampire or a monster, but the larcenous light fingers of Marsham Street. The draft order seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to hive off a portion of the interest accrued on someone else’s money and pocket it on behalf of the Government. As a Conservative—as a believer in private property—I am astounded to find the Government pushing through yet another stealth tax just days after the Budget. I know I should not be—after all, it is not the first, and I doubt it will be the last stealth tax we see in this Parliament—but the brazen lack of respect for other people’s money beggars belief. That is why the Opposition will seek to divide the Committee and will vote against the draft order today.<span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span> As the Deposit Protection Service has stated, at present interest goes towards the effective running of the scheme, back to tenants or landlords, or in some cases to charity. In siphoning off funds to pay for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s litany of costly policies, the Government’s action raises a number of questions—some of which, to be fair, the Minister may have just answered. For example, will the draft order leave the deposit protection schemes financially exposed? What assessment has been made of the funding needed to keep these schemes running so that tenants and landlords are protected with certainty, along with the jobs that these companies provide? The draft instrument has no clear purpose, outlines no formula and sets no clear cap. We are being asked to approve a power without knowing how much money the Government are seeking to take, nor what limit the Secretary of State will impose on herself in a scheme that lets the Government profit from other people’s money. I also want to raise concerns about the relationship between this policy and the planned abolition of insured tenancy deposit schemes. Taken together, hiving off the interest on deposits for the Government’s benefit and moving all deposits into the custodial schemes will create a perverse incentive. If the Government take income from the same custodial deposits that they are forcing the whole market towards, how can they demonstrate that profiting from interest on other people’s money has played no part in their decision-making process? That is a very serious concern and it deserves far greater parliamentary scrutiny than hon. Members have been afforded today. We believe that there is a convincing argument that these changes should be made not through a statutory instrument, but in primary legislation. We can make no amendments today, we have little time to probe the details and we are being asked to approve a new tax outside the place best suited constitutionally to scrutinise financial legislation. The draft order lets the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, take a share of the interest earned on tenants’ deposits. It does not say how much, it does not say what the money is for, and it sets no cap and no formula. The Government are asking the House for a blank cheque to draw down on other people’s money. That money does not belong to the Government. By changing the system a week after a tax hike on landlords, the Government are creating another stealth tax. That comes on top of a new database fee and a rewritten tenancy system, in a sector in which landlords are already considering the viability of their portfolios. Every cost eventually lands on renters. The Opposition’s tests are simple. Is this a stealth tax? Yes, it is. Is it the Government’s money? No, it is not. Does it deliver for renters? Clearly not. For all those reasons, we will divide the Committee and vote against this instrument.
If that is so, why not simply put that into this statutory instrument? I share the suspicion of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—he and I seem to be agreeing a lot these days, which I am sure makes us both feel uncomfortable. The Minister has used this phrase again, “the Government expect”, which we have heard so many times over the years. An expectation is not the same thing as something actually happening. It needs to be put into the law. Why not simply put it into the SI?
I am sure that hon. Members will be delighted to know that I am putting the time limit back up to four minutes.
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
This Budget was a missed opportunity for the residents of Bromsgrove and the villages. There was next to nothing in it for my residents, or for the hard-working business owners and businesses across the constituency. The frank reality is that businesses across the country and in my area are really struggling right now. In recent months, we have seen Labour Ministers’ true colours. Over the weekend, we heard the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stating that those who employ people are not workers themselves. I am not sure that the carpenters, plumbers, café owners <span id="633" class="column-number" data-column-number="633"></span>and florists in my constituency would agree with that. They are frankly insulted by it. We also heard the Work and Pensions Secretary reveal earlier this year that all Labour MPs wanted to do was ask the question, “Who can we tax more to spend more money on welfare?”. Inflation is up, Government spending is up, unemployment is up, welfare is up and debt is up. How people and businesses feel is what matters, and that will be the ultimate litmus test for the Government. Following the Budget, UKHospitality told us the reality. Despite the Government’s announcement on business rates, only one in 10 pubs will be affected. The Government need to go further. They need to endorse the Conservatives’ full exemption for hundreds of thousands of retailers, pubs and hospitality businesses. Wherever I go in my constituency, I am repeatedly told that businesses operating in these sectors are not recruiting because red tape and the cost of employment have gone up dramatically. The voices of business are clear. Make UK has said that the Budget was a failed opportunity to reindustrialise, and the Federation of Small Business has said that the Budget contained “nothing to make hiring someone more affordable”. Unemployment has gone up by 276,000 in the last two years, and we are destined to see it go up even more. The Government need to get off the backs of businesses and get on their side. I would like to briefly touch on the Government’s proposals for devolution and local government reorganisation. The Government announced something last week for Worcestershire that will not improve the quality of people’s lives. It will increase the cost and bureaucracy of delivering local government services. It is not in Worcestershire’s interests. Worcestershire does not have a Mayor and it does not want a Mayor. It is not a geography that would best suit a mayoralty. We do not need more politicians in this country; we need fewer—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I say that as a politician. We need fewer politicians in this country, and we need the system to work better.
If the hon. Lady had listened to what I was saying, she would have heard me say that Worcestershire does not want a Mayor. The Government’s proposals for devolution are nothing more than a cop-out to absolve Westminster of its failure to tackle the big issues facing this country, and that is the theme that runs through this Budget. Politicians do not create jobs. I read in <em>The Times</em> this morning that the Government believe that mayors and local leaders can be empowered to create jobs. That is absolute rubbish. It is businesses that create jobs. Every single penny and pound of taxation received by the Government is generated, ultimately, through the endeavours of private enterprise. <span id="634" class="column-number" data-column-number="634"></span>We have to get to the point, once again, where risk taking and entrepreneurialism are not frowned on. They should be embraced and encouraged. If the Government want to tax something, they have to create wealth and prosperity first. They need to get off the backs of businesses and get on their side.
If the picture is so rosy, can the Minister explain to me why, a couple of weeks ago, when I visited six businesses in my constituency, all in the hospitality sector, every single one of them said that they are not recruiting and nor have they recruited since the Government increased national insurance contributions? Why is he painting a picture that is different to reality? Why does he think they are not recruiting?
“What incentive is there for hard-working families and young entrepreneurs to remain in Britain after this Budget?” That is the question that a constituent put to me at a community meeting I held in Wixams in Mid Bedfordshire last week. Let me start with what I think is the main test that really matters for any Budget: will it make my constituents richer in five years’ time than they are today? Having listened to the Chancellor and the reaction over the weekend, I am afraid that the answer is no. There is simply no confidence whatsoever that this Budget will deliver growth in their postcodes, and it certainly does not give hope in their hearts. Given that the Prime Minister is extremely comfortable looking to the past, whether it is to the 1970s or 2016, but not to the future, I did a little reflecting myself over the weekend. It is fitting that we debate this Budget 40 years on from the big bang in 1986, when regulations that were strangling our economy were swept away, making London into the powerhouse of global finance that it remains today, opening the City of London to the world and delivering prosperity here at home. The courage of that decision in 1986 benefited every corner of Britain, delivering more jobs, investment and tax revenues that paid for schools, hospitals and public services.<span id="647" class="column-number" data-column-number="647"></span> During my 15 years in the City before coming to this place, I saw at first hand how EU regulations after the credit crunch steadily ratcheted up costs and de-risked our entire economy. The courage and ambition of 1986 have slowly given way to the caution and complexity of 2026. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is right to say that Britain needs a new economic revolution even bigger than the big bang. Where are we today? The OBR says that the tax burden will reach a record 38.6% of GDP. The Budget raises tax on savings and rental income—again. It doubles the bank surcharge and leaves Labour’s damaging jobs tax untouched. After Labour’s first Budget, I told the House that it was “a job-cutting Budget”. Some 1.7 million people older than 16 are now unemployed—up by 276,000 under this Government—and vacancies are at their lowest level since 2014. Last year, about 136,000 more British nationals left the country than came home, with two thirds of them under the age of 35. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor may have changed, but this Budget makes it clear that Labour has not. It is still picking the pockets of working people to pay for welfare. That was plain to hear this weekend, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury redefined working people to exclude employees. It may be a new team at the Dispatch Box, but their contempt for British business and British business owners in this Budget is as strong as ever.
The Budget was a missed opportunity for our rural economy, which yet again this Government have failed to back. My message to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is simple: stop saying that every postcode matters, and start showing it. In Chester South and Eddisbury, around our farms sit the contractors, vets, farm shops, pubs and family businesses that keep our villages alive.
The hon. Gentleman is a champion for farmers in his community, and he is right—the Chancellor had the chance to repeal the vindictive family farms tax and family business tax, but he chose not to.<span id="641" class="column-number" data-column-number="641"></span> Nearly nine in 10 rural businesses have paused investment, and when investment stops, the consequences ripple through the whole rural economy. Conservatives would scrap those damaging taxes. The Government also had the chance to give small businesses some much-needed breathing space. They did not. Our rural businesses, particularly in hospitality and tourism, are being squeezed by rising costs, higher taxes and more regulation. When businesses are struggling they stop investing, they stop expanding and, crucially, they stop taking on staff. These are the businesses that give so many young people their first step into work, and we should be making that easier, not harder. That is the difference between this Government and the Conservatives: we would halve the jobs tax for under-25s and create 100,000 new apprenticeships, because the best way to get young people into work is to back the businesses willing to employ them. This Budget did neither. Then there is the cost of fuel. The fuel duty freeze is welcome, but the Conservatives kept it frozen for 14 years because we understand how much rural communities rely on their cars. This is not just about fuel for transport. On Saturday, I was out chatting to residents in Audlem, and so many of the people I spoke to are living off-grid. The price of heating oil has nearly doubled this year, and families are wondering whether they can afford to fill their tanks before winter. Rural communities are being left out in the cold, quite literally, and the Budget offered them nothing. That is the real cost of this Budget in the countryside: investment on pause, young people not taken on, homes going cold, and family farms wondering whether they will survive. The contrast could not be clearer. The Conservatives would back our family farms, cut taxes on jobs, bring down energy bills through our cheap power plan, and get our rural economy growing again. The president of the National Farmers’ Union described this Budget as “tinkering while Rome is burning”, and he was right. Our farmers, rural businesses and families do not need more promises, more consultations or more plans for the future. Rural Britain needs action now, and this Budget has failed to deliver it.
What a missed opportunity to strengthen the rules, strengthen the illegal immigration policy and strengthen our borders. How can the Home Secretary reasonably think this is fair to the British people?
The independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”, published alongside the Budget, says on page 77 that the consequence of the 4% hike in property income tax will be fewer rental properties and higher rents as landlords pass on those costs. Does the Minister think the OBR is wrong? If not, does he accept that rents will go up as a result of those measures?
Ms Darlington has indicated to me that she needs to speak and then leave. The Front Benchers may wish to know that, exceptionally, I have given her leave to do so.
How does the abolition of a rural district council such as New Forest, and its absorption into a unitary authority dominated by an urban centre such as Southampton, increase devolution and local democracy?
Like the Home Secretary, I come from an immigrant family that came here legally, but I fail to understand why she thinks not being able to get settled status for 20 or even 30 years will deter people from coming here illegally, provided that there is no prospect of them being removed from the country because of laws like the European convention on human rights?
A Home Secretary clearing up the mess of her immediate predecessor—who would have thought it? When I brought through changes to the visa regime, the chorus of disapproval from the then Opposition, who now sit on the Government Benches, was deafening. She has already conceded that her proposals are not as robust as the announcement she made this time last year, so what confidence can the House or the country have that she will not further water down the proposals she has announced today as they go through the legislative process?
Restricting access to public funds to those with settlement rights will most likely require primary legislation. When will such a Bill be brought forward?
The Home Secretary is right to say that government is about a social contract, and I can see where she is coming from. Some of us do not have amnesia. Many of us were putting this to our then Government in that period in 2023, and anybody who was serving as a Home Office Minister at that time should wear sackcloth and ashes. Frankly, as a party, we will never move on until we accept that—although there was a very difficult situation after covid. I still worry about a couple of things. I am still not entirely clear why, apart from political pressure, the Home Secretary is watering down her proposals from last time, if she is. I can see what she is trying to get at with care workers earning their right, but surely we should establish the firm principle that people have to have come here honestly to work in the care system and go on working. My last point is that I agree with her that, if people come here illegally, they should not be allowed to claim an indefinite right to stay until after 20 years, but are we going to have people in hotels for 20 years? Surely this underlines the fact that we have to arrest people, detain them and return them, otherwise there is no deterrent.
I agree with the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) about reindustrialisation, but we will not reindustrialise Scunthorpe in my neighbouring constituency by screwing it with the highest energy costs in Europe, and nor will we reindustrialise simply by exporting our carbon by importing oil. That is why we need to get on with Rosebank. I came to the House with a load of figures about the rising tide of debt, the tax burden rising to 38% of GDP and the £4.3 billion tax raid on landlords, but we know all those figures. What are we going to do about it? Traditionally, Governments—I have seen so many come and go—get the bad news out first. This Government still have three years to go, but I do not quite know why we have got over 100 tiny policy changes but are not actually fixing the fundamental problems now. We should get the bad news out now. A colleague told me today that actually the Prime Minister is being very shrewd about this: we live in a TikTok generation, so he can let out a little policy announcement every week to keep people happy and delay decisions. That may be good politics, but is it good government? We all know that society is breaking down because people feel that some are abusing the system. We had the statement this afternoon about legal and illegal migration, and we know how strongly people feel about that, but in working-class constituencies people feel strongly about so many abusing the system. They feel particularly strongly about young people who are not in work, education or training. I agree with the Government that we cannot solve that problem with what they call crude benefit cuts, but there has to be some balance; work and training have to be worthwhile. Therefore, we cannot dodge the issue of the amount and level of benefits paid to young people. I was reassured by the front page of <em>The Times</em> today, which said that the Government are looking at what is going on in the Netherlands. So, great, we will not have crude cuts, but we have got to get these young people into training, given medical help and helped into work. We need them to be not dismissed by the system in a tick-box exercise, filling in paper, but seen by a real person and helped into education or training—or, if they cannot get into that, some form of workfare. The trouble is that half the benefit bill is taken up with the state pension. For years, I have been one of the few people who has questioned the triple lock. It is amazing how Ministers defend the triple lock, but the moment they cease to be Ministers they say it is unaffordable. The Government have listened to all the economic advice, but eventually the triple lot will have to come to an end. Again, why delay it? The Government cannot imagine that getting rid of the triple lock will pay for the vast cost of a national care service—the NHS writ large. It would be better to say to pensioners—this is a fair deal, which I think they would accept—that their state pension should, as a proportion of the economy, stay roughly the same. We would not be bankrupting the nation, and the state pension would go up by how much the economy grows every year, which is fair.<span id="631" class="column-number" data-column-number="631"></span> If we want to save money, we do not want to delay these decisions till 2030. Surely what we need now is to get old and frail people out of expensive hospitals and into new cottage hospitals. They need not be in “all singing, all dancing”, hugely expensive private finance initiative hospitals. We should have more cottage hospitals where old people can be looked after, in a caring and loving way, and relieve the health service, if we are to save the national health service. On saving one thing, the average price of a house in my constituency is just £200,000, and what really upsets people is seeing how their whole inheritance, which they want to pass to their children, will go on care costs. Let us go back to the old idea of having a cap on the total amount paid for care. There is a way forward. I think we can work together to get young people back into work and training, and we can reassure old people that they will be looked after in their old age.
The question is about reducing the cost of renting. What is the contribution of the 4% increase to a reduction in the cost of renting? Mr Speaker, my interest is recorded in the register.
Although I welcome the earned progression model, it is disappointing that the Home Secretary has watered down her original proposals under pressure from Cabinet colleagues. Her plan to make illegal migrants wait 30 years for permission to remain will not deter any small boat crossings. Does she agree that the only way to stop the boats is to deport all those who arrive illegally?
It is weeks since I wrote to the immigration Minister, but I have not had a response—out of generosity of spirit, I will say that the Government have been busy—so I will take this opportunity to invite the Home Secretary to come to the proposed site in Linton-on-Ouse. It is an integrated village. If the Home Secretary were to come and see it for herself, I think she would be quite shocked. I do so in the full, open spirit of working co-operatively—I do not even mind if I cannot be there on the day. I really want the Home Secretary to come to site with the Linton-on-Ouse action group and to see for herself just how inappropriate it is.
<Question HRSContentId="{DD04D927-7200-4D74-9529-67ED14E43567}">11. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{ED844246-D649-4CC7-8640-9C49024A8DCE}">What assessment she has made of the adequacy of powers available to councils to stop the opening of vape and barber shops on high streets.</QuestionText> </Question>
This year alone West Yorkshire trading standards has raided 20 premises in Keighley, seizing illegal and counterfeit goods, and yet residents watch those same dodgy shops reopen within days. Our local trading standards has received well over 3,000 intelligence reports about dodgy shops such as minimarts, vape shops, takeaways and barbers, with reports linked to money laundering, drug supplying, modern slavery and illegal working—and that is just within Keighley. Despite the Government’s rhetoric of wanting to take a tough stance on this issue, why was West Yorkshire trading standards not included in the latest round of funding to support local trading standards with law enforcement action against organised criminal activity? Will the Minister look to resolve this issue?
Following the complex rescue of a lady at Aysgarth Falls earlier this year, I want to pay tribute to Swaledale mountain rescue and the North Yorkshire fire and rescue service. In particular, Swaledale mountain rescue relies on dedicated volunteers to respond to emergencies right across the Yorkshire dales. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising its contribution to our rural community and continuing to support close co-ordination between its volunteer efforts and local statutory emergency services?
Since I last asked the Minister about the Liberal Democrats’ £620 million-worth of debt at Eastleigh borough council, it has got bigger, the external auditors have said that there have been financial misstatements and a lack of management financially, and the Government have now given it <span id="576" class="column-number" data-column-number="576"></span>£150 million for social housing. What will it take for this Minister to come down on Eastleigh borough council and get that debt down?
Order. I urge colleagues to keep their questions short and for the Home Secretary to be as on point as she can be.
Order. Marvellous. I call the Home Secretary.