18:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 337 / Noes: 180 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 420 / Noes: 105 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 348 / Noes: 176 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 414 / Noes: 106 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 324 / Noes: 88 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 181 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
It is a pleasure to open the final day of the Budget debate. As we begin, let us pause and remember what is really essential to the debate today. Where are we as a country and what do we really need to talk about in this debate? I would put it like this. In the last year, gas prices have tripled, oil prices are up by over 60% and our borrowing costs—alongside those of all the major economies—have risen; and yet, business investment is rising, our economic growth has accelerated and the IMF has singled out the UK for praise for our deficit reduction plan. That is testament to the extraordinary resilience of the British people, British businesses and the British economy.
We know from reading the official documentation that there is no doubt but that ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Iran have driven up costs here and around the world. However, despite these significant economic headwinds, when the Chancellor came here last week, he delivered a substantial cost of living package to help the British people and long-term reforms to strengthen growth, and he commanded market confidence while he did so in a way that eluded the previous Conservative Government. There is not a shred of complacency on this side of the House, but the package he announced built on the success we have already achieved, with year-on-year growth—again, above 2%; an economy growing per head—not just through higher immigration, but because living standards are increasing; and wages rising faster than prices. It is clear, as we stand here today, that we can say the economy is stronger today than when this Government came to power.
But we know things are still tough. That is why the Budget unveiled much-needed breathing space for families, businesses and working people. Beyond that breathing space, we are beginning and proceeding with the big changes needed to put our country on a better course: reindustrialising Britain, driving good growth in every postcode, and strengthening our national security. The Budget shows entrepreneurs, inventors and investors that the UK is the best place to start and grow a business, with this Government using our industrial strategy and wider policy platform to back them every step of the way. We cannot insulate people from every pressure or meet every ask in one go, but we can provide the targeted support that is necessary where it can make the biggest practical difference.
That is why, to help our high streets and small and medium-sized enterprises, the Budget contains a £1 billion business rates package. In England, shops, restaurants and cafés of all sizes will get a two-year real-terms freeze. Around 70,000 more small retail, hospitality and leisure properties will be taken out of business rates altogether. To ensure that our high streets are vibrant into the future, the Budget also commits us to upgrading 600 post office branches in this financial year. That will help them to provide more accessible, welcoming spaces, simpler transactions and a speedier service for customers. That also includes the essential banking services upon which so many of our high street businesses and SMEs depend.
The House will know that all these reforms form part of a much broader package being implemented by the Government to support the 5.7 million SMEs in this country that are the beating heart of our economy and the backbone of our communities. With our small business plan, we are bringing down costs and using the levers of Government to back British business. In particular, we are cracking down on the scourge of late payments that shuts down the equivalent of 38 firms a day and costs the economy almost £11 billion a year. Our Commercial Payments Bill will give us the strongest laws to tackle late payments in the whole of the G7, with the Bill’s Second Reading set to take place this month; I hope it will command cross-party support.
We are also reducing the regulatory burden on our small and medium-sized businesses. Indeed, when the Prime Minister, Lord Leong and I met business owners at No. 10 North last month, we proudly accepted 14 recommendations from the small business taskforce, which has been working in partnership with the Government to reduce the bureaucracy holding British firms back. We are now making it simpler for smaller firms to bid for public contracts. We are streamlining Office for National Statistics business surveys to reduce form-filling. At the same time, we are making it easier for businesses to find support on gov.uk and helping them to report disproportionate regulations. We are delivering, too, on our “tell us once” ambition, as part of which we are pausing the Companies House profit and loss filing requirement for April 2028. I thank the Federation of Small Businesses for all its work on this agenda and in particular for its support on that decision.
Where there is an opportunity to save businesses time and money, we will seek to do that. As proof positive of that agenda, the Budget included savings of over £600 million per year on regulatory administration, with streamlined company reporting requirements and reduced reporting burdens for asset managers. A simpler home buying and selling process will also save businesses over £100 million a year.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I have to ask, was the right hon. Member listening to a different Budget from the one that I heard? I do not recognise anything he has said there. On burdens and costs imposed by regulations on business, the OBR said that the employment Bill—the unemployment Bill—will actually add to the cost of business, completely contrary to what he has just said.
Jonathan Reynolds
I do not want to say that the hon. Gentleman should listen a bit harder to the Chancellor when is giving a Budget, but he went into detail on that. I will expand on what the better regulation taskforce will mean.
Specifically on the employment rights agenda, we know that the Conservatives do not like it—that is not a secret—but I would simply say to the hon. Member that we have a manifesto commitment to address in particular insecurity in the workplace, including the 1 million people on zero-hours contracts. Let Conservative colleagues not forget that the premise of that particular measure is that where a person works a regular number of hours, they will receive, if they wish to, a contract for those hours—not additional costs. Additional costs are not present when someone get a contract that reflects what they are already working.
The rest of the agenda may not be popular with the Conservative party, but it is certainly popular with the country. And because of that agenda—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives did not stick to their own manifesto commitments, but we will stick to ours. Because of that agenda, of course want to reduce burdens in other places; it is an entirely noble agenda and one that reflects the interests of British business. The hon. Member may be aware—the Chancellor did speak about this in the statement—that there is an aspiration to reduce business burdens by 25% over the course of this Parliament. That will be delivered through the new Better Regulation Executive. It brings together the power of the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and my Department to move us towards a more streamlined and proportionate regulatory system—one that spurs growth, investment and innovation across the country.
I also warmly welcome the Chancellor increasing access to finance for ambitious founders and entrepreneurs. In the Budget, he introduced a new founders relief to encourage a new wave of wealth creation. Founders and early investors will benefit from a 10% capital gains tax rate on up to £10 million of lifetime gains. Dom Hallas from Startup Coalition said:
“The chancellor has delivered the boldest action backing startups and scaleups of any government in years.”
Meanwhile, the trading allowance for people starting new ventures is being tripled from £1,000 to £3,000, and £700 million is going towards home-grown innovation, strengthening Britain’s sovereignty and ensuring that tomorrow’s technologies are developed and adopted right here in the UK.
On top of all that, the Budget gives the British Business Bank £1.4 billion of additional commercial equity capacity, allowing it to back specialist venture capital funds in strategic sectors and larger growth funds capable of writing the cheques needed to keep the UK’s fastest-growing companies scaling here. The package is expected to leverage around £4.2 billion of private capital and create 14,500 additional jobs. That builds on the landmark investments the bank has already made, backing businesses across the UK: from Optima Partners, the Edinburgh-based AI consultancy, to Pharos Marine, the Norfolk manufacturer of navigation aids for offshore wind farms and ports, to Oxford Space Systems, whose satellite antennas were launched into orbit earlier this year.
Our industrial strategy is also making a difference. It is an essential part of our ambition to reindustrialise Britain and back our own sovereign capabilities. It is delivering on industrial energy costs, reversing what we inherited from the previous Government, with the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world. We are slashing electricity bills by 25% for over 10,000 British manufacturers through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. We are cutting electricity costs for those businesses by up to £40 per MWh, bringing their costs closer into line with competitors across Europe, with eligible businesses also receiving a one-off additional payment in 2027 to cover the support that they would have been received if BICS had been in place from April this year, correcting years of Conservative failure.
We are channelling investment into the eight high growth-driving sectors of our economy, including life sciences and advanced manufacturing. The Budget confirmed over £1 billion of new life sciences investment, from Kindeva, Vertex and Convatec, backed by almost £70 million of Government funding. It gave the green light to a partnership that I am particularly proud of: a partnership with Rolls-Royce to develop its next generation of turbine engine technology here in Britain. This is the single biggest reindustrialisation opportunity that the UK has before it.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I very much welcome the investment in Rolls-Royce; many of my constituents work there. What impact will the investment have on opportunities for young people in Derbyshire Dales?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. The £2.5 billion investment will support thousands of jobs in the midlands, Bristol and across our country. The significance is that it is not just another public-private investment in an exciting area of the future. It is a genuine opportunity for a leading British firm to break into an incredibly lucrative market, which is currently dominated by two main players, where we could be significant in the future.
Last week, I visited the Rolls-Royce site in Derby with the Prime Minister and Chancellor to discuss this very issue: British industry, British talent and British jobs. Everyone in the House will be aware of how outstanding Rolls-Royce is on apprenticeships and opportunities for the next generation. It is excited about what the future holds for the UK, and the Government will work hand in hand with it to make its growth ambitions a reality.
We are backing British business not just through our industrial strategy, but by ensuring that we remain an outward and open-looking economy and that we stay true to the principles on which the modern British economy was built. We intend to reindustrialise our country, but we will not use punitive trade measures and tariffs to do so. In many cases, tariffs hinder businesses and hurt consumers far more than they help them. They are ultimately paid by our own people.
That is why the Government are using the Budget to suspend tariffs on more than 100 essentials, which will support farmers who import fertilisers and households who use heating oil; by lowering costs on products like baked beans, chocolate, marmalade and fruit, it will also support people with their supermarket shop. Government cannot reduce all the pressures on the family shop overnight, but we can use all the levers at our disposal to bring prices down, and that is exactly what we are doing.
While other nations turn inward, restricting trade with the rest of the world, we stand as a proudly internationalist country and global hub for trade and investment that is ready to deepen our partnerships with new friends and old allies—not least the European Union, which remains our largest trading market. That is the message we will be taking into the UK-EU summit later this month.
Our ambition is clear. We want to continue simplifying trade. We want to conclude negotiations on our sanitary and phytosanitary and emissions trading deals, which could add up to £9 billion a year to the UK economy and would be a huge win for small business.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile what he has said about trade with the desire to reindustrialise, manufacture more in order to make more of what we consume. In an uncertain world, national economic resilience is more important than ever, and yet we run a huge trade deficit, which has grown year on year. Our dependence is on many countries who are not friends and could pull the plug on Britain at will.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree with the sentiment put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, on one of the most substantive issues that the House must grapple with. There is no inconsistency in being proud of the services-led nature of the UK economy while recognising the essential contribution of advanced manufacturing. There are sectors of the UK economy that could gain from the current phase of innovation in artificial intelligence in goods; for instance, robotics could reduce our wage differential with low-wage economies and return industrial functions to the UK.
The basis of British industry will, however, always be export led—that is key in the automative or aerospace sector. I do not see a tension between strengthening our resilience and our domestic industrial capacity and being an outward-facing, internationalist country to the rest of the world. I believe the two things must go together.
I give the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) a specific example: our critical minerals strategy. We cannot reduce our dependence on other countries entirely, but we can reduce the degree of exposure to individual markets and use the levers of Government, through investing in tungsten or lithium mining in the south-west of England, looking at how the refining process works, and working with allies. It is a balance between the two things. I recognise absolutely the substance of the right hon. Gentleman’s question and its importance to this debate.
On the UK-EU summit, in addition to the premise of the deal we seek to strike, we want to make progress on electric vehicle rules of origin, steel tariffs and economic security, recognising that in many cases we share similar challenges. We face those challenges together, and we can overcome them together. To that end, the Prime Minister will say more later this year about options for our long-term relationship with the EU—one that strengthens our collective security and our collective prosperity.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Secretary of State makes an important point about our relationship with the EU. He will be aware that Bracknell is home to lots of companies that work in cloud technologies. Is he alive to concerns around the EU’s proposed cloud and AI development Act, and will he ensure that we address those concerns robustly as part of our negotiations in the summit and thereafter? We do need to get that right.
Jonathan Reynolds
The agenda known in shorthand as “Made in Europe”, which affects the CADA and the Industrial Accelerator Act—it runs through as many as 50 different pieces of EU legislative files—is a top priority not just for me and Ministers in my Department, but for the whole Government. It cannot be the case that we must seek a bespoke solution for each separate area. We need something that provides business with certainty going forward. We need to recognise—in a way that the previous Government did not, frankly—that whatever our relationship to the EU, what the EU does will affect us. That is the nature of integrated supply chains and a key market on your doorstep.
I am confident that the approach that the Prime Minister has led from the front—I credit him with this—has given us the space to provide the answers for that agenda. It is a far more productive approach than the kind of adversarial relationship we saw towards the European Union from the previous Government. The bottom line is that it gets results for people in this area.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
You are giving them everything they want.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am tempted to respond to that, but I will proceed with my speech; as ever, we are all waiting to hear from those on the shadow Front Bench. Actually, I will bite—go on. [Laughter.] When it concerns something of such fundamental importance to British industry as access to the single market, when it is and always will be our major trading market, gaining access for British businesses and businesses based in the UK and ensuring that British workers will not lose their jobs is not giving the other side everything that they want—it is delivering for Britain in a way that the Opposition never quite managed.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I negotiated directly with Maroš Šefčovič, the lead negotiator for the European Union. We had a very good working relationship and got a lot done. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that standing at the Dispatch Box and setting out the UK’s desired end position gives a huge advantage to the EU negotiating team, who are trying not to damage the UK but to get the best possible deal for the EU? Publicly setting out the desired end state from the UK’s position makes the right hon. Gentleman’s job in future negotiations harder, which is why we get rolled over by the excellent EU negotiators every time his Government go across to Brussels.
Jonathan Reynolds
Colleagues, it is great to receive some advice from the Conservative party on negotiating with Europe, is it not? I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. First, the premise of the UK-EU summit—[Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should just listen to the point. The premise of the UK-EU summit—agreement on SPS, food and agricultural trade, on emissions trading and on electricity systems working with each other—is all already in the public domain. We agreed the memorandum on that last year. This is about the implementation of that deal. On whether we would like the single market to operate rules that completely shut out British industry and British supply chains, it is no secret that we do not fancy that very much and are seeking a solution to it.
I will turn back to the deal, which the right hon. Gentleman says he is very proud of. As he will know, you left us a few things—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That is the second time the Secretary of State has said “you”. I did not leave anything, Secretary of State.
Jonathan Reynolds
I would never suggest that you negotiated the deal with the European Union, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can see why you would want to distance yourself from that, as we all would.
Let us move on. The British people should know that we will always seek to make things a little easier where we can. We will transform our country for the long term, but we will also act now to provide support for people in the short term. That is what the Budget was all about. That is why 2.3 million workers will benefit from increases to the national minimum wage. Thanks to these changes, a full-time worker on the national living wage will see their earnings rise by £910 a year before tax. This is a balanced approach which recognises market conditions. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Low Pay Commission for its expert advice and support on these measures.
I am also pleased that this Government committed in the Budget to expanding parental pay. We are making the system fairer so that more parents can spend time with their family after the birth or adoption of their children. From April 2029, self-employed fathers, partners and adopters in Great Britain will be able to access a parental allowance. Those only recently employed, those who have been made redundant and those who have an irregular pattern of employment will also qualify for some degree of financial support. All in all, over 150,000 people in Great Britain per year will benefit from the reforms. Thanks to the changes we are making, things will be easier for them and for working parents everywhere.
As the Chancellor said last week, this is a downpayment that will begin to address some of the issues around working men and paternity provision as we prepare the final outcome of our review of the full parental leave system next year.
I would also like to acknowledge that many in this country are quietly, conscientiously providing care for a loved one, whether that be a child, parent, grandparent, sibling, friend or neighbour. About 5.8 million people in the UK provide unpaid care for a family member or friend. In the Budget, this Government are moving to support them. We are replacing the current carer’s allowance earnings cliff-edge rules with an earnings taper. That measure alone will benefit 50,000 unpaid carers—a real injustice being righted.
We are also reviewing employment rights for unpaid carers to help those balancing their caring responsibilities with work, because it is not easy to help a relative out of bed, get them dressed, take them to the doctor or hospital appointments and cook them meals while holding down a job and working 35 or 40-hour weeks. This review, which will look at unpaid leave, the right to return, paid carers’ leave and paid leave for parents of seriously ill children, will conclude in early 2027. I can assure the House that we will act on its findings.
This is what we mean by fresh hope, good growth and support for those who need it. In our first 100 days, this Government have shown that we will do all we can to give people and businesses the breathing space that they need. This Budget has shown that commitment, too, with real, tangible measures to help—with business rates cut, tariffs reduced, energy bills slashed, living costs lowered and the minimum wage increased.
We are doing all of that while keeping Government borrowing falling faster than any other G7 economy. We are doing it while getting employment up this year, higher than previously forecast in March and while ensuring that business investment relative to the size of the economy remains at its highest level for a decade and whole-economy investment higher than at any other time since 1990.
For all these reasons, people should have hope—fresh hope—for what the future holds for them, our economy and our country. They should know that we are resilient, that we should be optimistic for the future and that the best days of this nation lie ahead. That is why I proudly commend this Budget to the House.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The Government gave today’s Budget debate a theme: “Fresh hope for the future”. The debate will be closed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who this weekend let slip,
“I don’t think employers are working people”.
I recommend that she does not deliver her message of fresh hope to the salon owners, café owners, shop owners, services firms, gym owners, pub landlords, builders, dentists and restauranteurs in her constituency of Wycombe, for she may never get served again. These are the people who are not only providing for themselves but taking risks to build businesses that employ and serve others. Everything that they do is fuelled by the hope that their relentless hard work will one day create something bigger than themselves—a better life for their families and employees. But they feel hopeless right now. Many are questioning whether they can make the numbers work. Tax, regulation and energy costs have all relentlessly climbed. But if businesses put their prices up again to cover those costs, they risk driving their customers away. That is the reality they face as working people.
They are filling shifts themselves because they can no longer afford the staff. They work harder simply to stand still. They are wondering whether they can continue to justify the sacrifice to their families. But if they pack up, it is a problem for us all, because it is their taxes that are helping to keep this show on the road.
When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “I don’t think employers are working people”, it was one of those Labour truths—the sort of truth that Labour Chief Secretaries have such form in letting slip out. “I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards—and good luck!”—the handover note of another Chief Secretary after Labour’s last chance in power in 2010. But who left the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) with no money when he wrote that fateful note? It was one of his predecessors as Chief Secretary—a man who during his second tilt at the Labour leadership was forced to apologise for his own failure to get public spending under control before a brutal financial crisis hit. That Chief Secretary is now the Prime Minister, and his first Budget suggests that he has not learned his own lesson.
“Employers are not working people,” “There is no money,” “We failed to control public spending before a crisis, sorry”—three Labour admissions, three different moments in our recent political history that tell us an awful lot about the way that this party governs. They are a neat summary, too, of this Budget, for there is precious little in it for working people. Labour has no money to fund the basics of defence, and it is failing to get public spending under control. No wonder that despite all the briefings about a Budget for bloody-minded entrepreneurs, it undershoots at almost every opportunity.
Take business rates. I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to exempt 70,000 businesses from rates altogether, but Conservative plans would take a quarter of a million firms out of paying rates. On the minimum wage, it is right that the Chancellor has not levelled it up for younger workers, but Conservative plans would halve employer national insurance for under-25s. Labour offers employers the temporary bung of the youth guarantee, but that scheme is necessary only because this Government have made it so much more expensive and risky to take people on.
If entrepreneurs look under the bonnet of the new founders’ relief, they will discover something hopelessly complex that is likely to benefit very few. This is no return of entrepreneurs’ relief, and it comes as this Government halve the limit on business asset disposal relief. Last year 61,000 people claimed that relief, and only a few hundred are thought likely to benefit from founders’ relief. Labour’s entrepreneurship adviser, Alexandra Depledge, has left her role after mere months, saying that the Government treat entrepreneurship and innovation as “a sideshow”.
What about sole traders and freelancers, such as personal trainers, electricians and creatives—the people who do not have an army of accountants? The reward for their hard work is having to report their earnings to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs more frequently so that they can be squeezed for more tax, while there is no such vigilance on checking the eligibility of benefits claimants. Has the Chancellor ever had to deal with the realities of cash flow—of a few good months followed by a fallow period?
Meanwhile, by taxing banks the Chancellor risks making them less internationally competitive while driving up the cost of borrowing for businesses across the economy. Shifting energy costs from green levies to general taxation does nothing to tackle the underlying drivers of our staggeringly uncompetitive energy prices. The Chancellor slipped out another Labour truth last week when he said that the Energy Secretary opposed Jackdaw. I expect that she is opposing Rosebank, too. We can forget reindustrialisation.
Consider British food producers. It is all well and good to take a few pence off imported gherkins—we support cheaper goods—but at the same time Labour should help domestic producers compete. They are hamstrung by higher taxes, higher energy bills and rising wage costs.
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Lady knows that her party left us with the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world. Is she saying that she opposes taking policy costs off bills and putting them into taxation? I think she said that, but that would obviously result in higher bills than we have now.
Julia Lopez
Our cheap power plan would lower bills across the board. The right hon. Gentleman’s plan is to just shift costs from green levies to general taxation.
Perhaps the most damning thing about this Budget is what it does not attempt to do. After seeing off Keir Starmer, this new Prime Minister wants to press the reset button and pretend that this first 100 days is a fresh start, but Labour owns the last two years and the last two Budgets. If the Prime Minister will not reverse their measures, the consequences of the decisions that have already been taken are his to own as well.
The national insurance rise has been devastating. Chef Tommy Banks said,
“Over the 20 years I’ve been in the industry, this is without doubt the hardest time it’s ever been to operate…I’m seeing restaurant owners saying, ‘We’re closing tomorrow. We’re going to make everybody redundant.’”
He says employer national insurance has increased his business costs by 162% and that, with a couple of hundred staff, that can mean half a million pounds.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 has not even begun to have its full effect, yet I spoke to a small business last week that is already having to shell out £8,000 to prepare for its implementation. Another is being quoted £200,000 in legal fees to fight a tribunal. Another is winding down its disability employment activities; it used to give opportunities to people with cognitive impairments who needed extra support, but it will no longer take the risk. Since 2024, 170,000 jobs have been lost, and by the OBR’s reckoning another 215,000 jobs are to go by the decade’s end. Does this Budget do anything to stop that slow-motion car crash?
There is no review of the farm and family business taxes, which are crushing our food producers and entrepreneurs at a time when the nation needs the food security they provide. I recently spoke to a business that has been in the same family since the 1850s. The owners cannot risk losing it on death, so they are trying to offload it early, at the expense of investment in the business itself. That will not generate growth. Last week, another private school closure, in Leweston, left parents and children in limbo because Labour refuses to review its envy-driven tax on independent schools.
The pressures on these businesses are flowing out into the wider economy, which is why everything is costing people more. It costs more to go out for a meal, have your hair done, take a few days away with the kids or buy the weekly shop. The Prime Minister now owns Keir Starmer’s choices.
The most damning part of the Budget was the difference between the Prime Minister’s homely “breathing space” rhetoric and the hard reality that real household disposable income is falling this year and is lower in every year of the forecast—nearly £1,500 lower than forecast under the last Conservative Government. What is everyone getting in return for all the extra tax? Better public services? No. The Government are spending £124 billion a year on debt interest alone. That is up £14 billion since March, and is more than we spend on defence, policing and prisons combined. Are we at least building up a buffer to make ourselves more resilient? No. The Chancellor has cut fiscal headroom to just £15 billion, the equivalent of barely 3.5 days of public spending. The Government are even kicking defence spending into the long grass.
Businesses are paying more tax, families are getting poorer, public services are not improving and the Government are leaving the country dangerously exposed to the next economic shock. There are only two sustainable ways out of that: grow or cut spending. On both, the Government are found wanting. Last week, Ministers went full Vicky Pollard when asked whether they would grip the welfare budget this Parliament: yes, said the Chancellor, and no, said the Treasury and No. 10. The Prime Minister said, “As soon as possible.” No, eventually concluded the Chancellor—yeah, but no, but yeah, but no. The Chancellor’s leader is making a fool of him.
What about growth? The Prime Minister’s big idea is to reopen the debate about rejoining the EU. That is a debate that the Business Secretary does not want to have: he says that it creates uncertainty for business, which companies explicitly do not want. [Interruption.] He is now trying to nuance his way out of it, but we know what he said. It is also a debate about free movement that the Home Secretary does not want. It is a debate that will tie us to the slow-growth lane, and we will pay for the privilege. Why do we have to pay the fees of EU students to access “Made in Europe” when our participation is in the EU’s interests and the matter has not yet been settled in the EU Parliament? The Prime Minister is weakening our hand to build a left-wing coalition that will keep him in power.
If growth is the goal, why does the Prime Minister not pull the levers that the Government already have by bringing down energy costs, making it easier to employ people, cutting tax and getting more people off welfare? Because those decisions require real courage and a willingness to test the mandate that the Prime Minister fears he lacks among those on his own Benches and in the wider country.
“Employers are not working people.” “There is no money.” “We failed to get public spending under control before crisis hit.” Those three Labour truths run through this Budget, which has been overseen by a Prime Minister who is more interested in the perception of being on people’s side than in the reality, and is offering a debate about a future he may not control rather than taking tough decisions that he could own today if only he were to find the courage.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
This Budget provides breathing space now and fresh hope for the future, which is the focus of today’s debate. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members across this House who have made contributions—not only today, but over the four days of the debate on this Budget—on the action we are taking in government to steer Britain through the global economic storms, kick-start good growth in every postcode, strengthen our national security and chart a new course for our country in the years ahead.
Many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), rightly stressed the challenges we are facing because of the storms in the global economy. We have heard a lot from Opposition Front Benchers—most of it hot air—but there was not a word of apology for calling on this Government to join the war in the middle east that is driving up energy costs, inflation and the cost of Government borrowing. We cannot wish away these global economic storms. Instead, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out a course to steer this country through them.
We have chosen to use some of the fiscal headroom established last year to absorb the impact of the Iran war and to protect the economy, British businesses and family budgets. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) and for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) rightly said, fiscal discipline underwrites every policy of this Government. We will meet the fiscal rules in full, and for the first time, in the third year of the forecast. Last year, borrowing fell to its lowest level in six years as a percentage of GDP, and it continues to fall across the forecast.
We will not take any lectures from the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) or the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). They like to claim that they were innocent bystanders who just happened to be Treasury Ministers at the time of the Liz Truss mini-Budget. We all know that they were the architects of the mini-Budget. The shadow Chancellor still maintains, and said as recently as September, that there were a “lot of good things” in the mini-Budget, and to this day the British people are paying the price for his failure. Liz Truss’s stint in office might have been short-lived, but the impact was long-lasting.
The contrast with this Labour Government could not be clearer. I am proud that the IMF has said that the UK stands out as a country where
“action to reduce debt and deficit has been taken decisively”.
It has said that we will have the lowest deficit in the G7 by 2029. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) rightly said, the British economy has proven more resilient than many predicted, including Opposition Members. Indeed, it has defied expectations. The Tories and Reform like to talk down our economy, but the fundamentals of the British economy are strong. Public investment is up. Business investment is up to its highest level in 10 years. Productivity has finally turned a corner, and we had the joint-fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of this year.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister talks about people talking down the economy, but the Joseph Rowntree Trust says that Labour is overseeing the sharpest fall in living standards in 65 years. I wonder whether she thinks it is wrong. If she does, how much are the Government overseeing in terms of declining living standards?
Emma Reynolds
The last Parliament was the worst Parliament on record for living standards. Since the last election, living standards have increased by 1.8%. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to read the executive summary from the OBR, which stated:
“As a net importer of energy, the rise in energy prices constitutes a negative terms-of-trade shock for the UK, which pushes up on inflation and lowers real household disposable incomes.”
Those are the global headwinds we are facing.
Graham Stuart
Following on from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), the Minister will be aware that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that constituents of mine—families—will be at least £440 worse off in this Parliament. It will be the worst Parliament ever. There is no covid and no new Ukraine impacting on energy prices. Can she answer my right hon. Friend’s question? Is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation wrong or right?
Emma Reynolds
What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that wages have risen faster in the first two years of this Government than they did in the first 10 years of his Government, so we will take no lectures from him or his party.
Against this backdrop, the Chancellor is providing immediate breathing space for families and businesses. Our £100 household energy payment will support 20 million households in England. That is 80% of households, and it will be paid for by a time-limited 3% increase to the bank surcharge, which the Conservatives will oppose in the Lobby.
We are going further on bills, by extending the removal of VAT on electricity until July and extending the 5p cut on fuel duty, and next year we will abolish gas standing charges. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), and many others, for welcoming this energy support package. Overall, in 2026-27, households in England are estimated to benefit by about £160 on average from the support that we are providing on energy, according to new analysis published this morning. Households on the lowest incomes are expected to benefit the most, with the bottom 20% benefiting by about £230 on average, almost four times as much as the top 20%. Because we know that higher energy costs are a challenge for business too, we are reducing bills by up to 25% for more than 10,000 eligible businesses from next April through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary earlier. That will help to support the British firms at the heart of the future of Britain’s reindustrialisation.
Beyond energy, we are supporting families by giving self-employed dads paid paternity leave, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for welcoming that measure. We are backing British businesses and high streets, and here I would like to correct the record. Of course the brilliant men and women across the country who run small businesses are working people, and I thank them for their contribution to our local economies and our local high streets—the bakeries, the cafés, the restaurants, the beauticians, the hairdressers, the local pubs, and so much more. In the first week of this new Government in July 2024, we cut an extra 20% from business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues from April next year. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for her invitation to the pub in her constituency, and I look forward to going there to eat the goulash.
In this Budget, the Chancellor has gone further by taking 70,000 more small retail, hospitality and leisure properties out of paying business rates altogether. For all other businesses in those sectors, we are freezing their business rates in real terms. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith)—my constituency neighbour—for what she said about that change in business rates, and the 2,000 small high street businesses across Buckinghamshire, including Aylesbury and indeed High Wycombe, that will be taken out of business rates altogether. To pay for this—as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell)—we are increasing machine games duty for higher-stakes machines, and we are carving out adult gaming centres and vape shops from business rate reliefs. We are also ensuring that online marketplaces collect and pay VAT, which they should be doing already.
Many Members have mentioned young people during the debate. We want young people to have the chance to earn, learn and get on. As the Chancellor has rightly said, we have a moral duty to the next generation. We are raising pay for low-paid workers, while being careful not to price young people out of that crucial first job. We have also expanded access to work experience, and provided record funding for apprenticeships. We have introduced a scheme for first-time buyers, and have capped student loan interest rates at 6%.
My hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) mentioned the mineworkers pension scheme. It is this Labour Government who returned the investment fund to the members of the scheme in a previous Budget, and in this Budget the Chancellor has rightly introduced a measure to ensure that not a penny of the surpluses will come back to the Government. Instead, 100% of surpluses will go to the scheme members. As for the outstanding issue of the guarantor’s fund, the Chancellor has made it clear that we will go on to ensure that the full transfer takes place.
As well as making decisions to provide breathing space now, the Chancellor took action for the long term to kick-start growth throughout the country, which is the only way to keep Britain’s families and Britain’s finances secure for the long term. That begins with, first, delivering the most ambitious devolution package in a generation. We are putting power in the hands of local leaders because they know the right levers to pull to drive growth and job creation in their local areas.
Secondly, this Budget delivers radical reform of our energy system, because our priority is to bring energy costs down to help British business to compete and British households to cope. We will only buy and build new projects where they lower bills and can connect to the grid. We will further break the grip of international gas prices on our bills by moving more of our old renewables on to fixed-price contracts, and we will build cheaper, faster grid connections through GB Grid.
Wera Hobhouse
Given that the Minister has just said that the Government want to support households but also move away from expensive fossil fuels, why make cuts to the boiler upgrade scheme and the warm homes plan?
Emma Reynolds
We are securing energy in our country and giving people an energy support package, as I outlined.
Crucially, we are putting an end to the Tories’ practice of loading levy costs on to bills, because, unlike them, we are determined to bring down energy bills for families.
Thirdly, we are supporting companies to start, scale and stay in the UK. We are introducing a new founders’ relief for founders of high-growth companies, and a new young entrepreneurs allowance to cover a year of living costs for young founders while they turn their ideas into businesses. Crucially, and as recommended by the women in tech taskforce, we are establishing a new scale-up programme to support female founders. The British Business Bank will also double its commitments to women-led businesses.
Finally, we have taken action to tackle the big challenges facing our country—most importantly, on defence. The first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe, and I am proud that this Labour Government have driven the biggest boost in defence spending since the end of the cold war. At the Budget last week, we took difficult decisions to reprioritise budgets across Whitehall in order to fund the £15 billion defence investment plan in full. At the spending review next year, we will set out the details of how we will meet our NATO commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. Crucially, that includes setting a target of 3% by 2030. This is a “credible path” to the UK meeting our NATO commitments—not my words, but those of the NATO Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, who has welcomed our plans.
I know that there is plenty of disagreement in this House on the measures in the Budget, but there is one area where I think we agree: we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people and Government of Ukraine. This Budget provides £10 billion of additional economic and military support for Ukraine. Together, we are sending a clear message to Moscow that Britain will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
This is a Budget built on fiscal discipline. It charts a way through difficult global economic headwinds. It provides breathing space for families and businesses now. It kick-starts work on the big changes needed to put this country on a better course on devolution, energy and defence, and it will deliver good growth in every postcode and strengthen our national security. This is a Budget built on Labour choices—breathing space today, and fresh hope for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That income tax is charged for the tax year 2027-28.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).
2. Income tax (main rates)
Resolved,
That for the tax year 2027-28 the main rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the basic rate is 20%,
(b) the higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the additional rate is 45%.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
3. Income tax (default, property and savings rates)
Question put,
That—
(1) For the tax year 2027-28 the default rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the default basic rate is 20%,
(b) the default higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the default additional rate is 45%.
(2) For the tax year 2027-28 the property rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the property basic rate is 24%,
(b) the property higher rate is 44%, and
(c) the property additional rate is 49%.
(3) For the tax year 2027-28 the savings rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the savings basic rate is 24%,
(b) the savings higher rate is 44%, and
(c) the savings additional rate is 49%.
(4) In consequence of the provision made by paragraphs (2) and (3), sections 5 and 7 of the Finance Act 2026 (which had set the property rates and savings rates for the tax year 2027-28) are repealed.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.