Budget Resolutions
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Beverley and Holderness since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
800
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
0
As currently published
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | MP | Beverley and Holderness | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
Not yet retrieved from the register. Parliament's register page
Will the Secretary of State give way?
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but he will be aware that there is no plan to ensure that that 2030 target is met. At a time when we have short-term cuts in operational spending, the Secretary of State must feel a certain amount of disappointment that we do not have a firm plan in place, because if the Treasury do not sign off the numbers, then nothing really happens. That is true, is it not?
The present Foreign Secretary’s ridiculous policy on oil and gas has now been overturned, so will the Minister, in a similar vein, ensure that the right hon. Gentleman’s equally absurd refusal to allow localised electricity pricing can also be overturned, so that businesses, such as those in steel in Scotland, can enjoy the competitive energy prices that the considerable generation in that country deserves?
The hon. Lady is making a typically powerful speech, but, in my 21 years in the House, I have normally found that the person who holds her position gives a somewhat less partisan critique of the Budget, recognising that the primary role of all of us as Back Benchers is to hold the Executive—the Government of the day—to account, rather than just playing to our party political base.
I received a card from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation yesterday—I do not know whether my right hon. Friend also received one—suggesting that every family in Beverley and Holderness will be at least £440 a year worse off at the end of this Parliament. But today, on top of the points that he has already made, we are going to see not only disposable income being constrained, but debt going up in each of the next five years by more than was previously suggested.
I agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman just said about the need to focus on growth. The question is: how do we get it? It seems that too many on the Labour Benches believe that it is by Government intervention rather than reducing the taxes that create disincentives for business. Is he as alarmed as I am at the more than £2.2 billion increase in taxes on business today—from writing down allowances to company distributions and business asset disposal relief, as well as the probable more than £6 billion reduction in lending that will result from the £1.5 billion bank tax?
We have had devolution since the Blair Government, and Wales has become one of the poorest parts of the whole of Europe, although it has had serious and real fiscal devolution. If it has been so spectacularly painful for the residents of Wales to have such devolution, why does the hon. Lady think it will be so marvellous for people in other parts of the United Kingdom?
It is a pleasure to take part in this Budget debate and to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). Like him, I tend to think that this Budget reflects the seriousness and the vision of the Chancellor, but unlike him, I do not conclude from that that the Chancellor has a deep and serious vision of the future for this country. On the contrary, he, alongside the Prime Minister, has come up with a whole series of small measures. In fact, there are more measures in this Budget than in any previous Budget, and their average value is lower than in any previous Budget. In other words, the Chancellor is fiddling. He is playing with little gifts that he can highlight and say, “We are doing this for business. Look, we are we are taking 70,000 businesses out of business rates.” Of course I welcome that, but it is inadequate in a high street that is falling and losing. The Conservatives have a leader and a shadow Chancellor with a vision, and that is why our policy would take 250,000 high street companies out of business rates so that we can have the shops, the cafés, the pubs and all the other businesses that give chances to young people and give them that first job so that they can learn how to talk to a boss, how to engage with customers, and how to understand tills and money. That first job gives them a chance, whether it is a Saturday job or whatever. I know that Labour Members did not mean to do it, but that door has been slammed in young people’s faces by this Labour Government. That is why we have seen youth unemployment go up.
I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am sure that, when he meets young people in his constituency, he is exactly the same as me. I am sure he meets more and more young people who feel a sense of hopelessness. They feel that they are further than ever before from getting on the housing market, and some of them cannot even look that far because they are struggling to get that first job—that first opportunity. Today’s Budget shows that this Government still do not get it, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman does. Perhaps we can finally hear a non-partisan Labour intervention from someone who takes deeply seriously the need to get business going in this country.
I think—I am not an expert on this, let alone on all those jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s region—that most are already outside of that system and are therefore not being lifted out. UKHospitality has suggested that as few as 10% of these businesses will be affected by the measure. That is my point to the hon. Gentleman, who I know is sincere and wants to properly reflect the serious challenges facing his constituents and his part of the country. This Government do not get it. Instead of the bold measure we should have had—250,000 businesses being brought out to bring life, dynamism and hope back to his high street and mine—we have a timid Government playing on the margins. That of course is the central problem of today’s Budget, as was laid out far more eloquently and—as Labour colleagues would doubtless say—more reasonably than I ever could by the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). The Leader of the Opposition said that the Chancellor had received a hospital pass on inheriting the economic situation from his predecessor, but I remember someone once saying to me, “Do you know what the best thing you can ever have in life is, Graham?” I said, “No, I don’t. What is it?” They said, “A lousy predecessor.” On that measure, the Chancellor has been quite fortunate. And yet he comes forward with something this timid, this pallid and this lacking in inspiration, and gives a speech that entirely aligns with those qualities, and he is met with a near rapturous reception from Labour Members who have had to put up with the two previous Budgets, with their disastrous impact on the UK economy. Why were those Budgets so disastrous? I can tell the House: it is because growth and wealth, which the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), spoke about so eloquently earlier, come from the private sector. They do not come from a mission-led Government having a tight deadline to go and help rearrange governmental boards and improve the quality of people on them—that is peripheral. It is private business that creates them, but what did the former Chancellor do? She raised taxes on business by £60 billion. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> More than £60 billion, I am told. The small businesses that I meet in Beverley, Hedon, Skirlaugh, Withernsea and across my constituency really want to grow and have customers who want to come in, but the tax position has meant that they cannot offer jobs to the young people I also meet outside those shops, standing around listlessly, who want those jobs. That gap has been widened by the £60 billion in taxes. According to Government Members today, that gap has been narrowed because of this business rates reduction for 70,000 businesses. But that is not telling the whole story, is it? It is a sleight-of-hand Budget as well, which is why I think it is a disappointment. Business taxes have not gone up by another £60 billion—praise the Lord—but they have gone up by over £2 billion through fiddly measures. On top of that, there is the ever-popular call of, “Let’s attack the banks to feed the Labour Back Benchers,” who are so divorced from economic reality. The banks will be paying £1.6 billion in 15 months—that is if we believe that in 15 months, the Chancellor will say to this particular set of Back-Bench Labour MPs, “Oh, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s look forward to the day we take the tax off the banks.” I rather fear that the <span id="368" class="column-number" data-column-number="368"></span>15 months will be extended because of those people who have done so much damage before by leaning on their Front Benchers. Anyway, let us assume that it is real and it only lasts 15 months: £1.5 billion or £1.6 billion will be taken out of the banks. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, being a long-standing and experienced Member of this House, that the capital of banks has a big multiplier attached to it. When the Government take £1.5 billion or £1.6 billion away from the banks, they are not hitting the rich and helping the poor; they are actually massively reducing the pool of funding available for the very businesses that, if only the Government started to get some of their policies right, might get to a position, as they profoundly want to, where they can offer a job to that young person outside who cannot get one today.