Commons Chamber

Wednesday 12th November 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:35
11:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Science, Innovation and Technology
-

Please, Mr. speaker.
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
None Portrait Q2. What progress her Department has made on reaching its target for full gigabit coverage by 2030. (906318)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, please, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. According to independent analysis, over 89% of UK premises can access
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:40
None Portrait Q3. When she expects all rural communities to have a reliable mobile signal. (906319)
-

Greg Smith number three, sir. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall, with permission, Mr. Speaker, answer question three and question
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
None Portrait Q4. What steps she is taking to keep people safe online. (906320)
-

Yeah, yeah.
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
None Portrait Q5. What recent assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of the life sciences sector on economic growth. (906321)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The UK
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
None Portrait Topical questions: Science, Innovation and Technology
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

agriculture and technology. So I offer. Fenton-Glynn. Number one. So. If.
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
None Portrait Prime Minister's Question Time
-

like to welcome the Canadian Speaker. And the minister's with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

him today. Right. We now come. Question Lincoln Jopp. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Minister.
12:00
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I also welcome. The Canadian speaker? And can I. Also welcome Mervyn Kersh to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also welcome Mervyn Kersh to the gallery today? He's a member of our greatest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's a member of our greatest. Generation, a D-Day veteran who. Entered Bergen-Belsen days after.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was liberated. Mervyn is 100 years old. I'm lucky to have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm lucky to have. Met him twice. And I know that it took him many, many years. Before he. Felt he. Could even begin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could even begin. To tell his story. And we thank him for his service and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and. The. Story that he has told us. In respect. Of it. As we mark Armistice Day, we give our eternal thanks to Mervyn give our eternal thanks to Mervyn and all those who served and remember the extraordinary sacrifice of ordinary people who fought to defend our freedom. Mr. speaker, the House will also want to join me in remembering Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg. He showed the most extraordinary courage to share his testimony, and in his memory, we must ensure that never again means never again.

Mr. speaker, I welcome the news that SSE have announced that they will spend £33 billion on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clean energy projects in this country. That's a major vote of confidence in the UK economy, confidence in the UK economy, happening because of our decisions to embrace the opportunities of clean power. Mr. speaker, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. I shall have further such meetings later today. Lincoln Jopp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And can
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her involvement in the appointments process for the Chair of the Independent Football Regulator
-

We We now We now come We now come to We now come to the We now come to the urgent We now come to the urgent question We now come to the urgent question. Louie French? Yes.
12:36
12:36
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

PQ. Mr Speaker. In 2021, the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson set up the fan led review of football and selected Dame Tracey football and selected Dame Tracey Crouch to chair it. This led to a clear recommendation for an independent football regulator, which was strongly endorsed on all sides of this House. The previous government promised they would deliver this regulator, but they didn't. Leaving fans in the lurch. As a result, this government made it a priority and passed that legislation within our first year because we are fully committed to protecting football clubs across the country.

To make that a reality, the Minister for sport confirmed David Kogan as the independent chair of the football regulator on the 6th of October. David Kogan was the exceptional candidate warmly endorsed across the world of football and by the cross-party select committee. As the House will be aware, the Commissioner for Public Appointments conducted an investigation into the appointment itself, which was released last week. I am pleased that the report does not question the suitability of Mr. Kogan as chair of the IFR.

The report also makes clear that I did not personally know about the donations to my leadership campaign at the time that I selected him as the preferred candidate. It also recognises that as soon as I became aware of these donations, I chose to declare them and chose to recuse myself from the remainder of the process. However, as I have made clear, I acknowledge the findings of the report. The Commissioner was clear that the breach around donations to my campaign was unknowing, but I recognise that the higher standards were not met.

And as the Secretary of State for the Department that ran this appointment, I take full responsibility for that. And it is for that reason that I wrote to the Prime Minister and apologised for this error. I will, of course, ensure that lessons are learned from this process with my department. Our focus now is to make sure that no fan ever has to go through what I and my constituents lived through in Wigan implementing this regime to help protect clubs in financial peril, and putting the interests of fans up and down the country first, is a priority for this government.

And led by David Kogan, the independent football regulator will get on with the job. We're here today, today debating process. But this is also about real world impact. Fans up and down the country need us to get on with delivering on our promise and making a difference. This is for Derby County, Scunthorpe United, for Morecambe, for Sheffield Wednesday for Wigan, reading, Macclesfield Town and Bury. We're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

putting fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong here. Louie French.
12:39
Louie French Portrait Mr Louie French MP (Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Louie French. Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, the Commissioner for Public Appointments published his report into the appointment of the chair of the Independent Football regulator. The report found that the Secretary of State breached the Governance code for public appointments updated by her government. Not once, not twice, three times. The Secretary of State has claimed that she did not know about Mr. Kogan's donations, but the commissioner's report clearly shows that she was briefed twice by her department regarding his conflicts before she decided to appoint him to a role that must be independent.

The report also makes clear that Mr. Kogan was not shortlisted by the previous government, and it was this government that put him in the running. It was not until the Secretary of State had already recommended his appointment, and the night before Mr. Kogan's appearance before the select committee on the 7th of May, did she conveniently consider checking if she had also taken thousands of pounds off of him? Mrs. Madam Deputy Speaker, I find that highly unlikely, and the Commissioner makes it clear that she is in a position to readily ascertain the details of donations made by Mr.

Kogan before she made her choice, but she failed to do so. It was then, after the political fallout, and six days later, she finally recused herself from the end of the process. And to show how brazen this crony appointment was, her department confirmed it. While the independent investigation was still taking place. Really shameful stuff, Madam Deputy Speaker. This was not a fair and open recruitment process. The report confirms that Mr. Kogan was her preferred candidate, subject to number ten, giving the green light, and asked for DCMS officials to make the necessary arrangements for an appointment without competition.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister's fingerprints are also clear from the commissioner's report. We understand that Mr. Kogan donated to the Prime Minister's Constituency Labour Party as well as to his leadership campaign. I almost feel sorry for the Secretary of State. She has apologised to the Prime Minister for three breaches of the rules for choosing his candidate. So how is it proper for the Prime Minister to have personally given the green light to a donor? Surely, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Secretary of State was meant to have been recused from this 2029 2020 donation, Mr.

Kogan, that must apply to the Prime Minister too. Or does the Prime Minister believe that the offside rules did not apply to him? So I ask the Secretary of State who is the blame for this sorry mess? How much did Mr. Kogan give to the Prime Minister, and did he declare it? And does she agree that Mr. Kogan's deeply flawed appointment must be rescinded, given the risk to football? And finally, will she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stick by her words that rule breakers cannot be rule makers? Secretary of State. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'll try and
12:41
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker. I'll try and answer these questions in turn. But firstly, can I just say that this was a report, a process that was subject to a thorough investigation by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments? And I think when he questions the findings of that report, he should reflect on whether that is a proper role of this House or not. The report was absolutely crystal clear on that point. It was also clear, in contrast to what he just asserted, that I personally fell short of what was expected.

On one occasion, there were two other technical breaches from the department. But of course, as the Secretary of State for the Department for culture, Media and Sport, I will take full responsibility for that. He also asks about the Prime Minister, as he will know if he's read the report. I personally took the decision to ask Mr. Kogan to put that information in front of the select committee at his hearing, in order to ensure that they had full information. As soon as I had it, within hours of finding out about this donation, and he was open and transparent about the fact that he had donated to both my campaign and the Prime Minister's campaign.

But I have to say to him, I am the Secretary of State for culture, Media and Sport. It is my department that ran this process and it is for me to take full responsibility for it. Secondly, he asserts that Mr. Kogan was not part of the process. I find that astonishing, and I presume at some point he'll come back to correct the record on that, because when he speaks to his colleagues, one of whom is sitting on the front bench and was overseeing that process before the general election, at a time when this government was proudly extolling the virtues of having a football regulator and the Governance Act that they later opposed, he will know that Mr.

Kogan was approached for this job under the last conservative government, and he was put onto the list, which I inherited from the last government. And I just want to be crystal clear on this point. He was not added to the list after the general election. He was on the list from the last conservative government. Can I just ask him? He talks about cronies. He is talking about a man. He is talking to all they like, but he's talking about a man who has extensive media experience, who represented the Premier League, the EFL, the NFL and others.

Throughout his long and distinguished career. He was put on the list in the full knowledge that he was a Labour donor by the last government. And not only that, but if he's such a crony who's unfit for to hold this sort of office, why on earth did the former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak appoint him to the board of channel four? I mean, it just doesn't stack up so good. You approached him yourselves and just finally I would just say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, I'm happy to answer extensive questions about this, and that is the reason why I've chosen to come to the House and answer these questions, despite the fact that it was the Minister for sport who made the final decision.

But I'll just say to him, as a Charlton fan himself, I am a bit surprised that, given their experience of bad owners, that he is setting himself and his party against football fans in his constituency and the length and breadth of the country by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trying to attack a man whose credentials are unquestioned. Clive Betts. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I
12:45
12:45
12:46
12:47
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, all the way through this process, I have complied fully with the independent Commissioner because I believe that that is important. And in contrast to the last government who broke not just the Public Appointments Code, but the ministerial code had multiple members of their side who did. So they've still got a member of the frontbench who broke the ministerial code and now sits on the front benches. The shadow Home Secretary, foreign Secretary. Unlike them, we comply with these processes and we accept the consequences.

But can I just say to the hon. Lady, there's been an independent investigation. It's been going on for six months. I don't know how she's missed it. That's what we're discussing today. And can I say to you that she just said to me that we need to earn the trust of the footballing world now over the course of the Football Governance Act, as hon. Members opposite will well know when they were supporting this piece of legislation. There were numerous people who were concerned about the appointment of anybody to take on this role.

One of them was Karren Brady, a very distinguished member of the House of Lords with extensive experience in football. Recently, she said, David Kogan has dealt with the value for the women's game and international bodies. That matters because football isn't just about the elite, it's a pyramid and at the top crumbles, the base cracks with it. And more importantly, he's worked in governance roles that demand accountability. If you want any further evidence of the confidence that this appointment that David Kogan is commanding across the footballing world, it's that the staunchest critics of the government's approach to implementing a football regulator in the first place have come out strongly in support of the man who is already cracking on with putting football fans back at the heart of the game.
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
Well, look, can I thank you for that? And I do very much agree with her that it's absolutely essential that the public can have confidence in the public appointments that we make, not least because of the very many debacles that we saw under the last government. And that was why I personally requested that Mr. Kogan made that information available to the Select Committee within hours of being notified of it myself, so that the Select Committee had that information. She's also absolutely right to say that the committee made a recommendation to Mr.

Kogan that he must take steps to ensure that he was independent of government. I heard that although that wasn't a recommendation aimed at me as the Secretary of State, I heard that loud and clear, and it was one of the reasons why I was very quick to recuse myself from that process and take no further decisions in it. And she's absolutely right to say she's raised with myself and the permanent secretary. The occasions on which the department has fallen short, we do take that very seriously.

We've committed to coming back to her with a full list of concrete actions that we're taking. I would say, and this is not to make excuses, because it is my responsibility to make sure that we get this right. But DCMS is responsible for the vast majority of public appointments. I think we make we make nearly 50% of all public appointments across government, and that is even more reason why we need to make sure that we have the proper processes in place to get that right.

And we are looking at that at the moment, and we'll come back to her very quickly on that. Can I also just take this opportunity to thank her constituents? Because when we were in trouble at Wigan Athletic, I remember Portsmouth fans jumping on a zoom call with us at very short notice. They couldn't have been more supportive in giving us advice and guidance to help us pull through that difficult time. I remember that time as if it was yesterday, the amount of pain that we were going through and anxiety.

The footballing world was there for us and my commitment to her constituents and all of your, all of our constituents across the House is that this government will also be there for them to.
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-
think that is the reason why the Prime Minister has made clear. And the Cabinet strongly believes that although mistakes will always be made when those mistakes are made, we have to comply fully, openly with independent processes. We have to respect those processes and we have to accept the consequences. He will note that in the report that was written and published by the independent Public Appointments Commissioner, there wasn't a single recommendation made to me as part of that. There were recommendations for the department, but there wasn't a recommendation in relation to me.

Nevertheless, I chose to chosen to apologise to the Prime Minister because I believe that's the right thing to do, to take responsibility for the things that we are responsible for. He mentions the BBC yesterday. I imagine that he's alluding to an issue that was raised by many members of this House about the political appointments that were made to the board, and the appointment of one board member in particular. That has been highlighted by many members of being of concern. He will know that they were appointments that were made under the last conservative government.

The last conservative government also chose to extend the term of the board member in question just a few weeks before calling a general election. So he is now in post for several years. But there is an opportunity to look at this through the upcoming charter review, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mullan. Thank you. Thank the Secretary of State for explaining. I'm sure people have
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
Lisa Nandy Portrait Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Wigan, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I can I welcome that and say to him that although overseeing the whole process and the way that public appointments are made is the responsibility for the Prime responsibility for the Prime Minister, I do welcome the comments that he's made and the suggestions that he's made, and the need to uphold the highest standards in relation to this particular appointment. We didn't meet the highest standards. It was a complicated process. It required a specialist skill set, and it took place under two different governments.

That is not to make excuses. That is just to explain that this particular process was highly unusual. But we've learned some lessons from that and we are implementing the commissioner's recommendations in full. And can I say to him that in terms of the public having confidence, in the end, the test of whether the public can have confidence in this appointment is whether Mr. Cogan and the independent football regulator is able to deliver on the promise of dealing with bad owners and putting fans back at the heart of the game.

And I am confident that we've made the right appointment, as evidenced by the fact that he has wasted no time at all since he was appointed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

6th of October in getting on with the job. Point of order. And that concludes the Urgent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And that concludes the Urgent French. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your guidance during the discussion of
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Portrait Jenny Riddell-Carpenter MP (Suffolk Coastal, Labour)
-
-
I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill to make provision about road safety measures near schools and for connected purposes. Madam Deputy Speaker, every parent knows that heart stopping moment watching their child cross the road and just praying drivers are paying attention. For too many families that I speak to in my constituency of Suffolk Coastal, that silent prayer takes place daily as they drop off their children at school and they pick them up at the end of the day.

Road traffic accidents are tragically the leading cause of death for children in the UK and the Royal Society for Protection of Accidents estimates that every single month, 1200 children are injured in traffic accidents that happen within 500m of the school gates. These two statistics hit me hard when I first read them, and I can imagine they hit members across this house just as hard. It was a parent who first told me about their worries over their children's safety when dropping them off and collecting them again after school, and then so did the schools, and then finally, so did the children themselves.

When I look at the data, I can see it was telling me the same story. 14% of child fatalities occur during the morning school run between 7 and 9:00, and 23% happen after school between 3 and 5:00. Madam Deputy Speaker, in February of this year, ten year old Roman Osborne was hit by a van when leaving his primary school at Pickup in Trimley, Saint Martin. The driver wasn't speeding or driving recklessly. In fact, witnesses told me that he was travelling at about 20 miles an hour.

Luckily, Roman recovered, but the impact was so severe that he spent three days in hospital with a broken hip and many more months recovering. His parents told me that if it hadn't been for him landing on his rucksack, which shielded him from a far more serious injury and potentially head trauma, the outcome would have been tragic. Roman story reminds us that improving road safety around our schools isn't simply about reducing speeds to 20 miles an hour, though I dread to imagine how much worse it could be if that driver had been going 3040 or faster.

In truth, road safety is about making the environment around schools far safer and by any means necessary. That means proper crossings, clear road markings, enforcing parking restrictions, visible signage and yes, the presence of school patrols, school crossing patrols and much loved lollipop men and women. But Madam Deputy Speaker, what frustrates me most is that much of these options are available to councils today, but only if they choose to implement them. After this accident, Suffolk County Council told me that the road had been assessed because of Raymond's accident, but it did not meet the criteria for additional safety measures.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you don't need me to tell you that's not good enough. When a child is injured outside their own school, how can any system say it does not meet the criteria to make that road safer? It should not be at the discretion of any council to turn a blind eye. Bucklesham Primary School in my constituency and watching in the gallery today also know this challenge all too well. The school sits on a junction of a 60 mile an hour and a 30 mile an hour road.

It's an isolated rural school with no footsteps or homes around it, and parents have no choice but to drive to school each and every day while navigating awful conditions in the process. Parents and staff have been pleading for improvements for two decades. They've gathered petitions, met councillors, written letters and still, after 20 years, no permanent safety measures have been put in place. I presented a petition to this place in September with over 300 signatures. Because of the road safety issues outside Bucklesham Primary School.

These stories, and the many others I've heard since being elected, are exactly why I've been campaigning relentlessly to improve road safety around our schools. I've taken that campaign to number ten Downing Street, and today I bring it forward formally to Parliament through this ten minute rule bill. Now, the purpose of this bill is simple to make it a requirement, not an option for local authorities to take proactive steps to improve safety around schools where there is evidence of potential risk. This bill would place a duty on councils to work directly with schools and communities to assess road conditions, listen to local concerns and identify practical solutions.

Those measures, of course, will differ from place to place because a rural lane in Suffolk looks very different to an urban street in Manchester, but the principle must remain the same. Every child, no matter where they live in this country, deserves to travel safely to school. As my bill sets out, a package of local solutions might include more double yellow lines and enforce parking restrictions, improve signage and road markings, dedicated school crossings, more lollipop men and women, and reduce speed zones during drop hours.

In short, Madam Deputy Speaker, schools should not have to campaign for safer roads, nor should their pleas fall on deaf ears. They should be able to expect it. Our children should be able to travel to school, to and from school each day without fearing the roads outside their schools. Madam Deputy Speaker, Suffolk has one of the poorest road safety records of any rural county in England. Over the past 20 years, across Suffolk, there have been 597 fatalities and 7000 people seriously injured, 7000 7500 lives lost were changed forever in Suffolk.

Suffolk Coastal alone, more than a thousand people have either been killed or seriously injured on our roads and tragically, 17 of these were children. These are our children on our roads and this is our responsibility, Madam Deputy Speaker. The evidence shows that we can prevent many of these tragedies. The Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology has found strong evidence that 20 mile an hour speed limit and zones zone reduced reduced casualties and fatalities. After Wales introduced a default 20 mile an hour national speed limit on restricted roads.

Casualties fell by 24% between April and June last year, compared with the same period the year prior. Now, parents know this instinctively. Surveys show that 36% of parents feel roads are too busy for their children to walk to school, and 43% say traffic is too fast. Even when a 20 mile an hour zone exists. According to break, the road safety charity that I've worked with on my campaign and on this bill, 78% of parents want a 20 mile an hour limit near homes and schools, and 85% want government to do more to make local roads safer.

Yet the framework guiding local road safety decisions mean that too many councils are able to ignore local concerns, even when tragedy strikes. My bill would end that absurdity, absurdity and end the crisis at our school gates. It would also make a transparency, a duty. Councils will be required to publish annual statements outlining what safety reviews have been conducted, what measures have been implemented, and how they are working with schools in our community to improve standards. The government is due to publish a new road safety strategy earlier, next early next year, the first in a decade.

I welcome that and many of the families and schools I speak to welcome that too. But the strategy must put safety around our schools at the very top of the list. The bill. This bill would make that possible by setting out clear expectations for local authorities and giving schools the voice in shaping the solutions they need. The answer is painfully simple. We know what makes our roads safer. The measures are well understood and so often inexpensive. What we lack is urgency and accountability.

We should not accept that parents and schools that have been campaigning for 20 years to make, drop off and pick up safer, yet still have their school hugging a 60 mile an hour road. We should not accept that a that a child is hit by a van and the road is assessed and yet still fails to meet self-determined thresholds for intervention. And we should never forget that the leading cause of death among children in this country is in our gift to reduce, simply by improving road standards.

Road safety around our schools. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not about politics. I am sure that every member of this House has stood at a school gate and seen speeding cars too fast and too close. And I am sure that every member of this House has heard the same plea from parents. Roman told me that all he wants is a pedestrian crossing at his school gate. This bill would seek to give Roman that and every school the power to bring forward safety enhancements for their own school.

This is a modest bill, but it is practical. And most importantly, it would save lives and would help to tackle the biggest cause of death amongst children. With this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have the chance to make sure that campaigning is no longer necessary because safety should be guaranteed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by design, by duty and law. Okay. The question is that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the hon. Member have lead to bringing the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. of the contrary. opinion, say aye. of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bring in the bill? Sarah Coombes Terry Jermy. Ben Goldsborough. Sarah. Maya Ellis Goldsborough. Sarah. Maya Ellis Amanda Hack. Richard Quigley Samantha Niblett Alison Hume Steve Samantha Niblett Alison Hume Steve Witherden, Josie Golding and myself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Make a good one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jenny Jenny Riddell-Carpenter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thanks, brilliance. Road safety schools. Bill Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill Second Reading. What day? 28th of November 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

28th of November 2025. 28th of November 2025. I'll now give the front benches a few moments to rearrange. We now come to the Opposition Day motion on taxes. I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected either of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendments tabled, so Mel Stride to move the motion. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move the motion on the Order Paper. Madam Deputy Speaker, Order Paper. Madam Deputy Speaker, right at the centre of this motion is a single word. Trust. The trust is a single word. Trust. The trust that the party opposite lost with the British electorate. They lost it when they promised not to put it when they promised not to put taxes on farms, and did so when they said they would not be means testing the Winter Fuel Payment, and yet did.

And they did it also, Madam Deputy Speaker, when they said that they would not be putting
13:30
13:30
Mel Stride Portrait Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
tax increase, that it was a, quote, straightforward breach of the Labour Party manifesto. Now, the Chancellor also said that she would Chancellor also said that she would not be taking decisions that would affect working people. And yet we affect working people. And yet we know with the figures released just yesterday, that unemployment is now yesterday, that unemployment is now at a five year high, 180,000 fewer jobs on payrolls on her watch. And indeed some sectors particularly badly impacted hospitality. Some badly impacted hospitality.

Some 90,000 jobs destroyed, particularly affecting the youngest people in our country. Those desperate to get our country. Those desperate to get on that first rung of the career ladder, deprived of that opportunity by the minister's opposite. And of course, after that calamitous budget, madam Deputy calamitous budget, madam Deputy Speaker, there were further pledges and further promises from the Chancellor, she said to the Chancellor, she said to the Treasury Select Committee, and I quote, we are not coming back for quote, we are not coming back for more tax increases.

She said on Sky news that she would, quote, wipe news that she would, quote, wipe the slate clean. And on the 25th of November, at the CBI's annual conference, she said this I'm not conference, she said this I'm not coming back with more borrowing or taxes. There has been little of that language of late. Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think we all know why. At the October budget, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chancellor also said something else that was telling and extremely important, and it is worth me repeating it in full.

It relates to her pledge, her clear pledge, not to extend the freeze of the personal allowance under the income tax regime, she said. I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze and income tax and national insurance thresholds. So could I ask the Minister when he comes to the Dispatch Box? Will he reconfirm the solemn pledge that the Chancellor made in that last budget? Now, of course, what he could intervene now that's true, of course.

Madam Deputy Speaker, what we know is that the Chancellor has messed up the economy, and yet we are now already just about a year into this government, into the blame game. The Chancellor held an extraordinary and rather confusing address to the nation recently in number ten Downing Street, in which she sought to blame everybody for this fiasco except for herself. She blamed Brexit, she blamed Donald Trump. And when it came to future downgrades of productivity by the OBR, she even had the temerity to blame this side of the House, blaming the past for the future.

I was half expecting her to blame World War two, or the Great War, or the Boer War, or perhaps the Battle of Hastings, which, surely with the harrying of the North, must have scarred our economy, and that must still be being felt a thousand years later? War.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was the Korean War. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. So hon. Friend is absolutely right. So these are her choices that have led to this situation. She was the person that chose to put up taxes person that chose to put up taxes on jobs, which has led to growth being anaemic. And of course, we being anaemic. And of course, we know that taxes like National Insurance feed through to lower investment, to higher inflation, to investment, to higher inflation, to lower to higher unemployment, to lower real wages.

We know that they talk down the economy with this absurd and fictitious £22 billion black hole, which and the sweet black hole, which and the sweet irony of all, when they asked the OBR themselves to come in and opine on that number, said they would not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on that number, said they would not legitimise it. Yeah. And they have borrowed. I will certainly give way to my right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certainly give way to my right hon. And gallant. And agree that the real downfall of this government dates from the of this government dates from the fact that they would not face down their own back benchers and deal with the rocketing benefits Bill. with the rocketing benefits Bill. Frankly, the country is going broke, and this government has got to have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and this government has got to have the courage to deal with millions of people who are not contributing to society. Well, my right hon. Friend makes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, and I shall come to these matters shortly, because there are alternatives, of course, to what this government has decided to do. It was this government also that went on this reckless borrowing spree. We now have a situation where we have borrowed in this year £100 billion. That being the highest borrowing, excluding the pandemic in our history. And why has that happened? Because the Chancellor has fiddled the fiscal rules. She has changed the debt definition from public sector net debt, as it was under US, to public sector net financial liabilities, which allows far more borrowing.

In fact, under the original definition that we had that she incidentally said she would not change. She would have been under water on just about every year of the forecast when it came to the debt target. And that recklessness, of course, has led, Madam Deputy Speaker to the party opposite, having plans to borrow half £1 trillion more over the period of this Parliament than we had in our plans that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inherited. And I will give way. Just to put this in simple terms, for those listening at home, the for those listening at home, the Chancellor raised taxes by 40 billion. She spent 30 billion and billion. She spent 30 billion and she borrowed 70 billion cumulatively. When you look at that, someone is thinking, well, how am I going to get the return on that investment? Am I going to get to see if we're not growing the economy? How do I ensure that the interest is going to be paid? And that's why the interest payments go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's why the interest payments go up, which is why we end up paying more debt as a country because of the decisions that the Chancellor has made. My honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable. Friend is. Absolutely right. If you borrow more money Madam Deputy Speaker, you pay more for that borrowing. you pay more for that borrowing. And of course it has also fed through to inflation. We know inflation at the moment. This year is the highest in the G7, according to the IMF. It will be. And the IMF also says it will be the highest in also says it will be the highest in the G7 next year. Two in the consequences of that through monetary policy, of course, is interest rates being higher for interest rates being higher for longer? And if you have a mountain of debt that you're ruinously adding to, of course, the servicing costs of that debt is going up costs of that debt is going up through the roof.

It now stands at about 100 billion a year, rising to 130 at the end of the scorecard. 130 at the end of the scorecard. That's over twice what we spend on defence every year. I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend. I'm very grateful to to the Shadow Chancellor. He's laying out compellingly the calamitous choices that were made at the last budget.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And would he agree with me that fundamentally underlying. of. All.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which was a strategic decision that the public. Sector would be expanded and the private sector expanded and the private sector would be contracted, and the crowding out of the private sector is what's resulting in this doom is what's resulting in this doom loop that we're trapped in, because we've got fewer and fewer wealth we've got fewer and fewer wealth creators and businesses paying for this bloated public sector, and their ability to shoulder that their ability to shoulder that burden gets weaker.

By the day. Now, my hon. Friend makes an extremely incisive and correct point. If you spend huge amounts of money as a government, there is an opportunity cost to that and it comes through in various forms. I will in various forms. I will momentarily comes through in various forms, including, as he rightly says, crowding out both of rightly says, crowding out both of capital, raising the cost of capital and crowding out labour as well, and crowding out skills and well, and crowding out skills and so on and so forth.

So it's a fine and important balance to get right, and this government palpably has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and this government palpably has got it wrong. I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I thank. The right hon. Member for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right hon. Member for giving way on that point. The hon. Member for Hinckley does raise a fair point that when when raising public point that when when raising public revenue, one should at least expect a decent return on that spend, whether that be a social return or otherwise. But does the right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member not consider investing in our NHS to be such a decent return in that respect? Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. What matters, Mr. Speaker, and the right hon. Gentleman's question actually identifies the core of the actually identifies the core of the fallacy of his own government's approach, which is to assume that approach, which is to assume that getting better outputs is all about spending ever more money. It is not. It is about what you do with that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is about what you do with that money. It is about productivity. Yeah. And what the government did of its many mistakes, Madam Deputy its many mistakes, Madam Deputy Speaker, is when it came to office, it splashed out on pay rises for it splashed out on pay rises for its trade union paymasters, 14% for the railway drivers, 22% for the the railway drivers, 22% for the junior doctors, with not one string attached in terms of increased and attached in terms of increased and improved productivity.

And therein lies the answer to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lies the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I'll take another intervention. Giving way again. Does he acknowledge the massive deadweight acknowledge the massive deadweight loss caused by some of the strikes on going in the NHS? Unbelievably, on going in the NHS? Unbelievably, unbelievably, under the last government, will he acknowledge the deadweight loss and the negative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deadweight loss and the negative returns as a result of some of the previous governments? I'm surprised that the hon. Gentleman would have followed up what was not the strongest first question with that particular question, because of course, what we know is the naivety of the government in thinking by simply buying people off with no strings attached, the problem would go away. It's like feeding the meat to the wolf. When you feed the meat to the wolf, the wolf comes back to your door the next day.

And that is precisely what has happened. We're not seeing industrial relations improving at the moment. We've got various unions in the public sector threatening to strike, including in the NHS, where he started with his first question. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, where has all this led? It's led to lower growth. And no matter how much the frontbench may trumpet increase growth, the reality is that growth per capita, which is the the hon. Gentleman, says it's the highest in the G7. It growth per capita is the second lowest in the G7.

And what matters is growth per capita, because that is what drives an improvement in living standards. And I have more bad news for the hon. Gentleman who continues to chunter from a sedentary position that the IMF says that next year, growth per capita will deteriorate even further and be the lowest in the G7. I give way to the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Shannon. Can I first of all, commend the Shadow Chancellor and the Conservative Party for bringing Conservative Party for bringing forward this debate? Is he aware of the stats? The average British family is as much as £15,000 per family is as much as £15,000 per poorer than they were five years ago. Biggest increases have been energy and food, of course, and energy and food, of course, and while there has been wage increases, all that has swallowed up in the all that has swallowed up in the the cost of living that we have.

Does this challenge answer share my concern for the working tax and the working family? The cost for those who are worse off now than they who are worse off now than they ever were. And does he share the concern that I have from my constituents that any tax increase constituents that any tax increase is coming from the Labour Party will push those middle class families towards the poverty line, families towards the poverty line, and it could mean that some of them will be unable to pay the bills that their just about paying at this very minute.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

this very minute. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's observation. Of course, higher taxes are bearing down on living standards, but so is inflation. And if you look at this high level of inflation that we high level of inflation that we have the highest in the in the G7 and forecast to be the highest next year, the G7 within that sits food year, the G7 within that sits food inflation. It's running way above the headline rate of inflation. And who does that impact the most.

It impacts the very people that the party opposite profess to stand up for the strongest, the poorest in our society. And it's a direct consequence. I will in a moment I direct consequence of the policies pursued by this Chancellor. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the does the Shadow Chancellor recognise that the last government was the only government in living memory where real living in living memory where real living standards reduced over the course of five years? And does he accept that the difficult situation we're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the difficult situation we're in on the cost of living is in large part to his government's decisions over the last five years? I know there were many there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know there were many there were many great things that the last government did, not least creating employment as a job making creating employment as a job making machine. Not least despite the Russian Ukraine war bringing Russian Ukraine war bringing inflation down at the back end of 2022 from 11% down to bang on 2%, 2022 from 11% down to bang on 2%, bang on target on the day of the general election. Where is it now? Almost twice that level. We Almost twice that level.

We improved education in our country beyond all measure, and it is his party who is now undoing those party who is now undoing those reforms, and we will see the consequences of that for generations to come. We did many generations to come. We did many things for which we should be proud, not least getting us through Covid, getting us through the inflationary getting us through the inflationary times. And on the day of the general election, we had the highest growth in the G7. We had near record levels of employment, near record levels of employment, we had a near record low level of unemployment.

We've seen 13 consecutive months of improving consecutive months of improving real living standards. That's not a bad record. And I give way to my hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful. To the. Shadow Chancellor. For giving. Way so far.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The party opposite doesn't appear to have mentioned Covid. We reduced the deficit by 80%, which enabled us to spend £373 billion supporting households and supporting households and businesses during those years, and businesses in my constituency that businesses in my constituency that would no longer be in business had it not been for that support. What does he think would happen if, God does he think would happen if, God forbid, we had a similar event right now? The answer is, I suspect right now? The answer is, I suspect he's about to tell me that we simply would not be able to manage to sustain households and the to sustain households and the economy in the way that we did.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my hon. Friend is entirely right, and the conclusion that one must draw of the mess that this government has made of our economy is that it has become very brittle and very fragile and very vulnerable to the kind of external vulnerable to the kind of external shocks that we were able to withstand when we were stewards of withstand when we were stewards of our economy. Madam Deputy Speaker, per capita growth almost down on per capita growth almost down on the floor, unemployment at a five year high.

And as we know, every Labour government in history has left unemployment higher when they left office than when they found it on entering office. We've seen inflation high and we've seen rock bottom business confidence. The IOD, in one of its recent surveys, found that amongst its members, business confidence was the lowest in history. And my hon. Friend refers to Covid. Business confidence, according to the IOD, is even lower than it was during Covid when the economy contracted by over 10% overnight.

That is how bad business sentiment is out there. And I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To me to hear the Prime Minister again say today in Prime Minister's Questions that his main number one goal is growth. All the evidence is pointing against it. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pointing against it. Yeah. I think to be fair, my hon. Friend, I think the Prime Minister was referring to facial hair growth was referring to facial hair growth rather than growth in the economy. I think they are distinctly different things. And well, you may or may not be. Well, that remains or may not be. Well, that remains to be seen. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, what all this ends up with, of course, is lost fiscal headroom. And that's the story so far that we have a budget in October of last year with about 10 billion against year with about 10 billion against the debt target that it vanishes, and a 50% on top as well.

It's rebuilt in the spring and now it's rebuilt in the spring and now it's all disappeared and more. And we are waiting to find out how deep that black hole is. And we've entered something of a doom loop higher taxes destroying growth leading to a loss of fiscal headroom, requiring, in the Chancellor's terms at least, further tax increases, leading to further tax increases, leading to further destruction of growth. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

round and round we go. I will give way to the. For giving way. He's spent a lot of time in this speech talking about what people have said and done. I wonder if I could remind him that just a month ago he said that if he were in the Chancellor's position, he would raise income tax. And how does he square that with the speech he is currently giving?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the hon. Gentleman I'm pleased has given me an opportunity to correct the record because I know it was spun by the Labour know it was spun by the Labour Party that at a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference, there was a very long and extended there was a very long and extended debate about just how bad things were and speculations about all the what ifs and maybes of different scenarios and so on. The point that I was very clearly making, if he reads the full transcript of those exchanges, was that there was an alternative to putting up taxes, and that is controlling spending.

And that was the point that I was And that was the point that I was making. And what is happening to the wealth creators? Madam Deputy the wealth creators? Madam Deputy Speaker, in our country, about 16,000 of them have fled. They're going by the day. And these are going by the day. And these are people who generate the wealth and the jobs and the growth that we're the jobs and the growth that we're all striving to achieve. And of the 16,000 that have gone, if you look at the cumulative tax take that's just walked out the door, it just walked out the door, it probably requires a third to a half a million people on average earnings to fill that gap.

It is earnings to fill that gap. It is not sustainable. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is an alternative. And the alternative is what my party set out at our party conference. We set out a way conference. We set out a way forward in which you control be found from the welfare budget. Getting people into work and off benefits. I'll come back to the hon. Gentleman, Madam Chair. Getting people off benefits and into work. Something that's better for the economy, but equally for those who have mild mental health conditions, mild anxiety, mild depression, ADHD, a better outcome for the individuals concerned.

Rather than parking people on benefits as the party opposite is doing through time, focusing on actual need rather than simply transfer payments. Focusing on medical diagnosis rather than self assessments, and not paying benefits to non UK citizens. Those are real savings that can be made and in some cases they are tough choices. Absolutely. But but these are decisions that the party opposite has done. I'll take the gentleman who stood first. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Shadow Chancellor for giving way. He'll of course, remember in his time as the work and pensions Minister, where he and pensions Minister, where he oversaw a £33 billion increase in the welfare budget. So, of course he's talking about cuts now. He's he's talking about cuts now. He's not talking about welfare cuts because he had the opportunity to do that and failed to do so. He's talking about cuts to teachers, talking about cuts to teachers, touch to nurses, cuts to our armed services.

Which of those three areas is he talking about cutting right now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right now? Okay. Well, I'm glad the hon. Gentleman raised my tenure at DWP Gentleman raised my tenure at DWP when I was Secretary of State, I was very clear that we needed to arrest the rising welfare bill, and arrest the rising welfare bill, and we took through legislation, though we did actually, we did arrest. So we did actually, we did arrest. So we changed, made changes to the work capability assessment, which the OBR scored at £5 billion worth the OBR scored at £5 billion worth of savings.

And the OBR also scored the fact that there would be the fact that there would be 450,000, almost half a million fewer people going on to those benefits. As a consequence. We had benefits. As a consequence. We had already we had already started a consultation on Personal Independence Payments that I will Independence Payments that I will come back to in a moment, and that was interrupted by the general election. The first thing that his election. The first thing that his party did when they came into office was to scrap all that and then come forward, come forward with some ill thought through proposals which didn't survive contact with the government's own backbenchers.

There are other areas where we can make savings. Madam Deputy Speaker, the size of the civil service strained by 37% since 2016, we can cut it back by 25% and make about £8 billion worth of. Well the gentleman opposite should listen carefully to this, because if he he is about to sit on those benches on the 26th of this month and listen to his Chancellor come up with some pretty unpalatable things, these are good alternatives that should be taken seriously. Raising taxes, Madam Deputy Speaker, is simply a choice, and Labour are too weak to make the choice around controlling spending.

And so they fall back on taxes. The welfare reforms that they brought through, they had to U-turn on £5 billion added to Labour's blackhole. In an instance we've seen the Timms review of Personal Independence Payments, and we've just seen the terms of reference for that, and that shows quite clearly that there is no intention of saving any money from the Pip budget. That is grossly irresponsible. It is spiralling ever skyward. The two child limit. It is highly likely, from what we hear, that that will be scrapped.

Abolished? Why? Probably because the Prime Minister, shackled to his Chancellor, is feeling that he's been squeezed halfway out the door of number ten. And he better do something to settle the troops on the back benches. But that comes with a price tag of £3.5 billion. The only choice that this Chancellor is taking is to fail, to get on top of spending, and to put up taxes in order to fund ever more welfare. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will certainly give way. My right. From giving way. But Chancellor. Often talks about taking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difficult decisions, taking tough choices. Does he agree with me. That it's not a tough choice raising taxes on other people? But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

raising taxes on other people? But tough choice is cutting spending? Yeah, yeah. The hon. Friend absolutely goes to the core of it. This government despite their majority. And this is an extraordinary point to arrived an extraordinary point to arrived at, does not have the plan or the political will or seemingly even political will or seemingly even the ability now to command enough support on its own benches to push through vital spending controls through vital spending controls that would allow us to get the tax man off the back of businesses and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

man off the back of businesses and people up and down our country. I will oh. Child poverty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Child poverty. Increased enormously on their watch. Yes it did. Where was your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

political will to deal with it? I think I think the the hon. Gentleman should look at absolute poverty after housing costs, and he poverty after housing costs, and he will find very significant reductions in children, pensioners reductions in children, pensioners and across the piece during the vast majority of our time in office.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vast majority of our time in office. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. The sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do expect members to be here for for slightly longer. So Mel Stride. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that's a great shame, because the hon. Gentleman hasn't been here for any of the debate. But that doesn't mean that he might not have given mean that he might not have given the best possible intervention from his side to date. But perhaps we'll wait. Wait a little bit and he wait. Wait a little bit and he might like to come in a little bit later.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a government engaged in have a government engaged in serious breaches that has no backbone to take. The right decisions will always fold to decisions will always fold to pressure, including from their own back benches, and all at the expense of businesses and hard expense of businesses and hard working people up and down our country. I will give way a final time tonight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Shadow Chancellor because isn't actually the crux of this is the Chancellor the crux of this is the Chancellor set out in a speech only last year, saying it's an absolute commitment not to raise taxes. She went on to not to raise taxes. She went on to say, we have set the spending envelope for this Parliament. We do not need to increase taxes. Full not need to increase taxes. Full stop. Yet here we are, on the cusp of taxes.

Going up in two weeks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of taxes. Going up in two weeks isn't. The fact is, she can't even stick to what she promised. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will have been aware right, and he will have been aware of the various quotes that I gave at the beginning of my contribution this afternoon exactly to that effect. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we say today the question on the Order Paper is a simple question, and it is essentially this, even at this late stage, will the government stand by its word, or will they dragoon those on the benches behind them through the long the wrong lobby tonight? If they vote with us, then millions will heave a huge sigh of relief.

If they vote against, then the people will have their answer and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they will never forget. Yes. The question is as on the Order
13:56
James Murray Portrait Rt Hon James Murray MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper I call Minister James Murray. Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I'd like to thank the right hon. Member for Central Devon for opening today's debate. It is two weeks until the day of the budget, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is just over two weeks since the last motion tabled by the Official Opposition, which sought to debate the content of the budget before it is announced. Now we know that conservative shadow Ministers want the British people to forget the mess they left when they were in office.

But surely shadow Ministers cannot have forgotten how the budget process works, if indeed that is the case that I'm sure the shadow Treasury Ministers will know that we would not reveal any details of the budget two weeks before the budget, and any decisions on the budget will be revealed by the Chancellor on Budget day. I'll give way. I'm very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful. To the Minister for giving way. But can you answer this simple question? Does he think that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question? Does he think that manifesto promises are important? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Madam Deputy Speaker, what I'm very used to as a Treasury Minister is in the run up to budget. Members is in the run up to budget. Members of the media are opposition Ministers. Find more and more convoluted ways of trying to work out what's going to happen in the budget, and my answer will be the same at every turn, which is they simply have to wait until November simply have to wait until November the 26th to see what the Chancellor announces in her budget.

Now, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition is entirely entitled to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposition is entirely entitled to put forward what they say they would do differently. I will give way. I'm grateful to Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to Mr. I hear what he's saying about. Us waiting for the budget, but could he just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reassure the House that he hasn't discussed any things that might be in the budget with any journalists, and certainly hasn't authorised any members of his authorised any members of his office or anybody within the Treasury press team to brief out Treasury press team to brief out some of the kites that have been flown about the budget in the media over the last few weeks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over the last few weeks. Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, despite the right hon. Gentleman's invitation, I'm not going to engage invitation, I'm not going to engage in speculation ahead of the budget. I'm not going to feed the speculation which he is trying to wind up. Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand the budget is an important day in parliamentary calendar. It's an important day for the government and rightly members opposite and indeed on all sides of the House want to know what is in that budget, but they simply must wait until November the 26th to find that out.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of order Kit Malthouse. Grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, guidance. The Minister.
13:58
13:59
James Murray Portrait Rt Hon James Murray MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is a matter of debate. And I can just calm members nerves and say it's not many more sleeps until Budget day. Minister. Thank you very much. I'll give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. I'll give way one more time before making a bit of progress. Minister. As somebody who's been around a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As somebody who's been around a long time and remembers when. resign.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resign. For leaking. Things about the budget in advance, can he explain how it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been possible for. The Chancellor. To make speeches about what may or may not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or may not. Be in her budget in advance, with. whatsoever? Minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm very happy to remind the hon. very happy to remind the hon. Gentleman and all members of the House what the Chancellor set out in her speech last Tuesday, which was the values and the principles that will guide her in taking the right decisions going into the budget at the end of the month, and the importance of protecting the NHS and bringing down the cost of living and getting debt down. Those would be the guiding principles for the Chancellor going into the budget, and that is important, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it sets out to the British people the challenges we face, some of them deep scars in the economy caused by the party opposite, but also the values that will guide us and will guide the Chancellor in taking those decisions.

On November the 26th, the Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition is entirely entitled to ask questions and indeed to put forward what they say they would do differently. But the problem is, Madam Deputy Speaker, with this opposition, that when they do so, it simply exposes their total lack of any credibility. Remember last year when we took the difficult decision referred to earlier to raise employers National insurance to support the NHS? They claimed to oppose that tax change, but they refused to say whether they would reverse it or indeed whether they would cut the NHS.

And more recently, as the shadow Chancellor pointed out in his comments earlier at their party conference, they said they think they can find some £47 billion of cuts to public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spending. I'll give way. Really great for them to give way. So the Minister just said the way. So the Minister just said the Dispatch Box that National Insurance contributions and employers raised to support the NHS.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was it hypothecated or not? Minister? Madam Deputy Speaker, as I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, as I'm sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the the way the system works is that National Insurance generally supports the NHS and pensions, but supports the NHS and pensions, but more broadly, but more broadly, if you let me finish, but more broadly, the revenue that goes into the the revenue that goes into the Treasury is not formally hypothecated. But the point is, if you're going to support public services, if you're going to get decisions to raise the tax revenue to put into that.

And that is an important principle that we had to take last year in the budget. I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take last year in the budget. I'll give way. I thank the Minister for giving way on this. He talks about difficult decisions. What about an difficult decisions. What about an obvious one, given that two thirds of the British population are now backing wealth taxes? Isn't it time backing wealth taxes? Isn't it time for the Treasury to to abandon its self-imposed fiscal straitjacket and commit to lifting children out and commit to lifting children out of poverty, investing in our public services, future proofing our services, future proofing our communities by transforming the tax system so that it better serves ordinary people and those with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

broadest shoulders, pay their fair share already. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I point the hon. Lady to the budget point the hon. Lady to the budget last year, which we decided to get rid of the non-dom tax status to rid of the non-dom tax status to remove the VAT tax rate on private school fees, to increase the air passenger duty on private jets, to passenger duty on private jets, to change the rates of capital gains tax and inheritance tax, all measures that will raise £8 billion by the end of this Parliament.

From by the end of this Parliament. From taxes on assets and the wealthy. That is what a fair tax system looks like, madam Deputy Speaker. looks like, madam Deputy Speaker. But whilst our plans are a credible way to settle the public finances, to get public services back on their feet and to support that economic stability, which is so vital for investment and growth, the party opposite come up with the party opposite come up with numbers out of thin air. The £47 billion that they mentioned earlier, billion that they mentioned earlier, at least half of these, £47 billion of fantasy savings come from a welfare plan that amounts to a menu welfare plan that amounts to a menu with no prices, a list of measures that they say would raise £23 billion in total, but with no billion in total, but with no breakdown of how we remember.

Madam Deputy Speaker, how in June of last year, just as they were on their year, just as they were on their way out of Downing Street, they said they could cut 12 billion from the welfare bill. Now they've doubled it without any explanation whatsoever. And frankly, however, he protests. Madam Deputy Speaker, however, he protests, the right hon. Member opposite really is not the person to be making this argument about welfare, because when he was the work and Pensions secretary, he personally oversaw the biggest increase in benefit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spending in decades. I will give way. The Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister. He wonders why the ability to cut more money from the welfare bill has been identified by the bill has been identified by the opposition. Does he not recognise that over 5000 people a day are joining long term disability and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

joining long term disability and incapacity benefits? That is how you can save more money. Why doesn't he do it. When they're well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When they're well? Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's. One of the sentiments, Gentleman's. One of the sentiments, I think, in the points that he made, which is we need to make sure people get into work wherever they people get into work wherever they can, that the safety net is there for people who can never work or are unable to work. But my right are unable to work. But my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is leading that work to make sure we get young that work to make sure we get young people into work, rather than young people being on a life of benefit and written off as they were by the party opposite when they were in office.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I was saying, it was frankly quite some cheek for the right hon. quite some cheek for the right hon. Member for Central Devon to lecture about welfare spending. Given the enormous increase in welfare enormous increase in welfare spending on his watch when he was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. So instead of the £47 Pensions. So instead of the £47 billion coming from some of these welfare cuts, if this £47 billion of cuts were to come from cuts to public services, what would that mean? It would mean 85,700 fewer nurses.

It would mean cutting every police officer in the country twice or cutting the entire armed forces. Funnily enough, none of that detail was mentioned in the Shadow Chancellor's speech. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we took office, the Chancellor introduced tough new fiscal rules. And these require day to day spending to be paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing, whilst protecting the long term investment in our country. Now I realise that fiscal discipline is an alien concept to some members on the conservative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benches opposite, and their record on public spending. I will. I think it's going to point me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it's going to point me out. I mean, he's just talked about the Chancellor's fiscal rules. Who Yeah,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Mr. Kate Osborne. About. Madam Deputy Speaker, when the hon. Gentleman said the Chancellor's fiscal rules, I suspect it was the Chancellor who introduced these fiscal rules, he gave it away in the way he phrased the question. And the point is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when the Chancellor was setting out her economic strategy at the budget economic strategy at the budget last year, they were on the basis of fiscal rules and making sure that day to day spending is paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing, and that debt has to be falling as a proportion of GDP to enable investment in the GDP to enable investment in the long term future of the country.

Now, this is a sense of fiscal reality and fiscal credibility that the hon. Gentleman I can see is the hon. Gentleman I can see is struggling with to get his head around why this is so important. But we believe on this side of the But we believe on this side of the House that having those fiscal rules is crucial to that fiscal stability, to making sure you have that responsible attitude in government and you provide the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government and you provide the stability for businesses to invest and grow the economy. I'll give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. My constituents, of giving way. My constituents, of course, remember Liz Truss's devastating mini budget when those rules were not followed and it had rules were not followed and it had a massive impact not just on our public services, but on the mortgages and cost of living that they're still feeling today. Does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my hon. Friend agree with me that going back to that irresponsible financial management would be a disaster for this country? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Well, I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he's absolutely right to point out the damage that recklessness in public damage that recklessness in public office can cause to families right across the country, not just for one day, but for months and years one day, but for months and years beyond that. And I think the party opposite are desperate for us to forget about what happened when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng were in Downing Street. But the British people will not forget, and they have been feeling the impacts of have been feeling the impacts of that for many years now.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the party opposite talk about public spending. But their record on public spending is their record on public spending is frankly abysmal. They spent years in office with money lining the pockets of dodgy PPE providers, as pockets of dodgy PPE providers, as the bill for asylum seekers hotel soared. And of course, as my hon. Friend has just mentioned, no Friend has just mentioned, no debate on the Conservatives record on tax and spend can be complete without mentioning the mini budget. without mentioning the mini budget.

The members opposite are desperate for the British people to forget what happened three years ago, what happened three years ago, desperate for people to forget what the Conservative Party foisted on the country. They are desperate to the country. They are desperate to forget that their reckless, unfunded tax cuts crashed our economy, damaged our international economy, damaged our international reputation and added hundreds of pounds to families mortgage costs. But whilst British homeowners have been living with the consequences of the Conservatives every day. Members opposite are all too conspicuous in their efforts to sweep their record under the rug.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, true leadership is not about ducking the difficult decisions. It is about confronting them head on with a clear focus on your priorities and values. And that is what the Chancellor has promised to do in this budget. As the Chancellor set out last week, we will secure this country's future with a budget for growth led by this government's values of fairness and opportunity, not by doing what is politically expedient, but by doing what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and high interest rates, doing what is necessary to protect and strengthen our public services.

Rejecting the austerity that members opposite seem keen to impose on our country once again, and doing what is necessary to ensure that the economy we leave to future generations is a secure one. With debt under control now, our focus on cutting debt is crucial. Madam Deputy Speaker, we inherited a national debt at around 100% of GDP, and since the spring, the cost of borrowing has risen for governments around the world. Today, one in every £10 of taxpayers money in the UK is used to pay the interest on our national debt.

That is money which should be going to our NHS, to our schools, our police and our armed forces, but is instead going to our creditors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for. Minister for giving way. And he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

talks about the building up of debt. Does he understand that when Labour were last in power, debt went up from 36%. Of GDP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of GDP. To about 76% of GDP, and that was a massive increase that built

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm very aware of the foundation of debt aware of the foundation of debt that we inherited at the election last year, which was debt being around 100% of GDP. And that combined with global borrowing prices, that leaves us in a position that we are and we're determined to change that because determined to change that because we know that the less that we have to spend on debt interest, the more we can spend on the priorities of working people, the more we can invest in our infrastructure and our industry, and the more resilient we make our public finances building the headroom to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

finances building the headroom to withstand global turbulence whilst giving businesses the confidence to invest. I thank. The Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister. For giving way. He seems to be telling us that what we can expect in the budget is debt cutting in the budget is debt cutting measures. Can he also therefore confirm from the despatch box that there won't be measures to increase there won't be measures to increase National insurance, to increase

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taxes on hard working people and to increase VAT? Yeah. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. We're back around to questions. What's going to be in the budget? And the answer again is going to be November the 26th, because that's very straightforward. The Chancellor set out the values which will guide her in taking the decisions of the budget. On November the 26th, she set out the challenges that we face being straight with the British people. And about that. But for the details, they will all be announced by the Chancellor on Budget Day in the normal way.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we know there is much more for us to do as a government, but we can see the tough choices we made last year showing early signs of progress. We are set to deliver the largest primary deficit reduction in both the G7 and the G20 over the next five years. Our stewardship of the economy has helped the Bank of England cut interest rates five times, meaning lower mortgage payments and cheaper borrowing for families and businesses. Real wages rose more in the first ten months since the election than in the first ten years of the previous government, and the average person's disposable income is £800 higher now than just before the election in real terms, meaning living standards have begun to rise, we have increased public capital investment by £120 billion over the Parliament, and we have supported the NHS to achieve a reduction in the total elective waiting list of over 206,000 since

**** Possible New Speaker ****

July 2024. I'll give one giveaway. One of the key questions we've been struggling to get an answer to been struggling to get an answer to on this side of the House is with the 50% reduction in Icbs, the redundancy bill is expected to be redundancy bill is expected to be around £1 billion. Today. The government has done a press release that says it's dealt with that yet. that says it's dealt with that yet. I've got a written question from the health department saying, we can't answer that question because we don't know the numbers.

And I've we don't know the numbers. And I've got a holding answer. How much will it cost for the redundancy payments, and is it coming from the health

**** Possible New Speaker ****

budget or the Treasury budget? Madam Deputy Speaker, that's for the Health Department to set out in the details for him in response to any questions that he's tabled. But the point about the merger between the point about the merger between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care is this a way of cutting costs and making way of cutting costs and making sure that that money is reinvested into frontline services, rather than having duplicative structures than having duplicative structures within our system? We want to make sure we're closing NHS, we're merging NHS England and the merging NHS England and the Department for health to make those savings, which you can reinvest in patient care.

But as I said, Madam patient care. But as I said, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are still many challenges ahead and we are impatient to see things improve. impatient to see things improve. Globally, inflation remains high and confidence is low, deterring investment and hindering growth as geopolitical uncertainty grows, we are also faced with the critical need to invest in our defence spending domestically. We must continue to cut NHS waiting lists, lower the cost of living and improve our country's productivity. We must invest in our roads, transport, housing and infrastructure, our public services, our towns and cities and businesses for which the last government failed completely to provide members opposite will see the budget two weeks today.

They will have plenty of opportunity to scrutinise it and participate in a serious debate about it later this month. We will, of course, oppose today's motion that seeks to speculate on what it might contain. The effort of rebuilding a country requires the contributions of everyone in that country. Madam Deputy Speaker, together we can renew the UK and build an economy that is fair and thriving. That is what this government was elected to do, and that is what the budget in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

two weeks time will play its crucial part in achieving. I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Charlie Maynard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson Charlie Maynard. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. There's a real irony in the fact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's a real irony in the fact that the Conservative Party is putting down a motion calling for the control of public expenditure and calling for trusts to be
14:14
Charlie Maynard Portrait Charlie Maynard MP (Witney, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and calling for trusts to be returned, just three years after a notorious mini budget which saw the biggest set of unfunded spending commitments in recent memory, the mini budget continues to damage the markets. Confidence in UK fiscal credibility. We still pay the so-called moron premium, driving up interest expenses on government borrowing. Now running at £131 billion a year. That is money out of everyone's pockets across this country today, and we are still living with the real world impact of them, because debt in the UK has gone from 0.5 trillion in 2000 and 5 to 2.9 trillion today, six times up in 20 years, and who has been running the country for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

majority of those years? Please. It's interesting that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's interesting that the hon. Member raises the more moron increase. And I just wanted to point out the point. We are no point out the point. We are no longer in government. You were sorry. The hon. Member's party was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sorry. The hon. Member's party was also in government from 2010 to 2015. So you led nicely into that. For that. But I think you'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For that. But I think you'll find more in premiums relating to Liz Truss. The pressures people are Liz Truss. The pressures people are feeling this, this has huge impact on everybody individually. So on everybody individually. So paycheques go less far. Tax bills are higher. Small luxuries like having a slice of cake or having a having a slice of cake or having a pint or taking your family to the pub. Those are increasingly out of reach for many, many people and reach for many, many people and that hurts.

And this is all on the back of stagnant economic growth. back of stagnant economic growth. These facts are all the enduring legacy of the disastrous decisions that you, as a sorry, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that you, as a sorry, the Conservative Party, has made. The coalition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That we want. It's fun to say coalition, but sorry, this was more recent than that. So we want to back. If you'd like to intervene, please intervene.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will get. Okay may may. May may I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Try and try and find some common ground with the hon. Gentleman? As as has been pointed out.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as has been pointed out. the. Conservatives for five years. And can we at.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And can we at. Least agree. That Nick. Clegg's decision to vote.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vote. For trebling tuition fees, breaking a major manifesto commitment was a disaster for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commitment was a disaster for. His party's ratings? So can we both. Agree that if. The. Government do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The same in respect of what they've been pledged to do, it's going to be a disaster for their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ratings as well? Yeah. Thank you. For that. So we want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. For that. So we want to back hard. I mean, look, it was unquestionably it was a disaster for our ratings. I've absolutely for our ratings. I've absolutely happily give that. And yes, I do not want them to break their promises. Absolutely right. So so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

promises. Absolutely right. So so the. Spokesman for saying that from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spokesman for saying that from from his speech, he said that he doesn't want the government to break its promises. But if he has a look at the Liberal Democrat amendment, that's exactly what the amendment does. It takes away the injunction to control public expenditure in order to keep the promises made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he now accept that it's right that the government should keep their promises and not follow his own amendment?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've already said that we should. They should keep their promises. So I'm not I mean, no, there we are. I'm not I mean, no, there we are. So may I continue, please? So we want to get back hard pressed households and small businesses and households and small businesses and push for practical steps which will help ease the burden on families and get our high streets thriving and get our high streets thriving again. So today, we have called on the government to respond to the crisis in our hospitality sector crisis in our hospitality sector through an emergency VAT cut.

This would boost football footfall on our high streets, protecting jobs our high streets, protecting jobs in a sector which employs people from all walks of life young, old, those returning to work, those vulnerable part time workers and everyone in between. And we're proposing bringing down household proposing bringing down household energy costs as winter coming by removing the biggest levy baked into people's electricity bills, in into people's electricity bills, in effect putting more than £90 a year into the pockets of the average family. This will be closer to £250 family.

This will be closer to £250 for some of the least well off, who rely more on electricity for their heating. This is about supporting heating. This is about supporting local businesses at the heart of our communities, which we all represent, and making a real represent, and making a real difference in people's people's lives by making it cheaper for them to heat their homes. For too long, to heat their homes. For too long, our high street and small business owners on them have been crippled by the policies of successive successive governments.

All this needs to be paid for and needs to be done in a way that is pro-growth, pro-business and shields households from even greater bills each month. This isn't an easy circle to square. I'm not going to pretend it is. We, as liberal Democrats are seeking to bring deliverable and progressive ideas to the table, ideas which, if the Chancellor chose, she could deliver in her budget, which is just days away, and the impact would be felt by households across the country with almost immediate effect.

Firstly, we are calling for a time limited tax on big commercial banks levied on the massive windfall profits they are receiving due to unintended consequences of our financial system because of high interest rates and the way that quantitative tightening programme works, the Treasury is effectively handing over billions of pounds to the big banks every year via the Bank of England, effectively subsidising banking profits at the expense of the taxpayer. Figures from the OBR confirm that, as things stand, we are on course to have the big banks £50 billion over the course of this parliament.

Banks never expected to receive this windfall. They never relied on this and never took any risk to reap it. They have only been receiving these payments because inflation and interest rates shot up. So this needs to be corrected. It's fair and reasonable to do a proportion of this unexpected windfall back to the taxpayer, and it will do nothing to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

undermine the health of our financial sector to claim it back. The hon. Gentleman give way,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman give way, certainly. Is it not the case that the one of the reasons why interest rates shot up in the way that my rates shot up in the way that my hon. Friend has just described is actually as a direct result of that actually as a direct result of that mini budget from from three years ago. And that is precisely why the taxpayer is now paying such large interest rate payments to the banks. And is it not their fault? Right.

And shouldn't the Conservative And shouldn't the Conservative Party get behind our plans to tax the banks to reclaim some of that money for the taxpayers?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

money for the taxpayers? Thank you. I thank my. hon. Member. I wholeheartedly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wholeheartedly. Agree, and people might kind of be joking about it, but our reputation as a country matters. reputation as a country matters. That is why people invest in our country and that is why traditionally our debt prices have traditionally our debt prices have been low. And when we go and self-sabotage ourselves, we pay for it, not just for a few weeks or months, but for years. And we are paying for that now. Would you like to intervene?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to intervene? I thank the hon. Member for giving way when we are just two weeks away from a budget where the weeks away from a budget where the Chancellor is preparing all sorts of unpleasantness for families and businesses, is he not just a little concern that the hon. Member for Richmond Park is quizzing him, sitting next to him about a budget three years ago? Does he not think that British people are more interested in what's about to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happen in two weeks time? Yeah. They're interested in what cost

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They're interested in what cost them money, and their mortgages are more expensive because the decisions the Conservative Party decisions the Conservative Party took three years ago. Well, read the ft. So so moving on. From that the ft. So so moving on. From that point, what I would what I would suggest is the digital services tax suggest is the digital services tax is another thing that we should be looking at to raise revenues. So we would raise that digital services would raise that digital services tax from 2% to 10%.

And that would raise roughly 4 billion a year. And that plus gets some of the biggest and wealthiest corporations in the world to finally contribute their fair share of tax. Here in the UK, fair share of tax. Here in the UK, we would also increase gambling taxes, because that is an important thing, which really beggars some of thing, which really beggars some of the most vulnerable in society. And of course, the biggest one of all is rejoin the customs union with is rejoin the customs union with the EU.

We left a market and nobody voted to leave the customs union. voted to leave the customs union. And we are now in a market which has more than seven times smaller than what we used to be in. And as than what we used to be in. And as somebody who founded and ran a business for 24 years, it hurts. It has huge damage. And that small has huge damage. And that small businesses, medium sized businesses and big businesses, and we're living with that loss. So the quickest way we could do is by negotiating a new bespoke customs union with the EU.

And this would unleash the potential of British business. With every month and year that goes by, it becomes clearer and clearer just how economically damaging the previous government's Brexit deal has been. The OBR forecast that it will harm economic growth, reducing long term GDP by 4%. However, according to Frontier Economics, a much closer trading relationship with Europe, not even customs union, can boost UK GDP by 2.2%. These are enormous numbers. So when we're looking around for solutions, there's one right in front of us.

So it stands to reason a new customs union would raise probably more than £25 billion a year for the Exchequer. There it is. Grab it please. So with the autumn budget just two weeks away, the Liberal Democrats met with the Chancellor was clear. Instead of asking hardworking households and struggling small businesses to pay even more tax, she must take growth seriously and repair our broken

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trading relationship with Europe. Would you give way on. That point, please? He talks about trading union. Of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He talks about trading union. Of course, if you go back into the EU, one of the things we'd have to take is freedom of movement. How does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is freedom of movement. How does that tally with the Lib Dems position on immigration and dealing with that? I mean, look, I think we should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, look, I think we should have all the economic benefits of Europe while controlling our borders and controlling movement. But, well, look at Norway, look at But, well, look at Norway, look at Switzerland, look at Turkey. There are lots of options out there. Let's go and negotiate something that makes sense for us. So I'm that makes sense for us. So I'm going to move on to the final point, which is what we also need is an which is what we also need is an office for value for money, an effective regulator with proper scrutiny and proper teeth, which scrutiny and proper teeth, which really looks into our budget.

So and I'd ask the government to take inspiration from the Swedish model inspiration from the Swedish model of tax scrutiny. I understand that 30 after introducing these changes and aided by strong economic growth, Sweden has national debt from nearly 80% of national debt from nearly 80% of debt to GDP to 32%. Meanwhile, our public debt is around 95%, which public debt is around 95%, which means that billions that we could be spending on our public services are instead going towards servicing are instead going towards servicing our debt.

A key component of this is we need to significantly strengthen the scrutiny powers this chamber has when it comes to the government's financial management, the practice of the Chancellor keeping the budget secret until the day, at which point everyone else has to scramble to assess the detail and has no time to proper to provide a proper, meaningful critique is far from the best way to scrutinise the government's economic policy, and is not how many of our international peers go about their economic policy proper, detailed scrutiny of the budget, as opposed to the wave through regime we currently have, with no proper transparency before approval needs to be addressed.

Okay, can I just refer to my colleague Chuntering in the background? So you keep saying OBR. We are we are Parliament. We we have a responsibility to scrutinise that budget. And therefore I believe that we should be doing that as, as a Parliament properly line by line and taking out what is wasted and. Well, I mean, I'd do it tomorrow if we had the chance. Yes. Anyway, I'll, I'll finish in a moment and then I'll be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

off. So just because we have always done things. A certain. Jon Pearce.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jon Pearce. Just because we have always done things a certain way, it doesn't mean there isn't room for fresh thinking, a more collaborative approach, and greater ambition. Realistically, if we're going to repair the economic damage of the repair the economic damage of the last few years, we need fresh thinking and new ideas. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thinking and new ideas. Thank you. Hear, hear! Sam Rushworth. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I also thank the opposition for giving us this opportunity for giving us this opportunity today to set out so clearly two competing visions for Britain competing visions for Britain growth, modernisation and new infrastructure and stronger public services under Labour, or a return services under Labour, or a return to austerity, government waste and decline under the Tories of both
14:27
Sam Rushworth Portrait Sam Rushworth MP (Bishop Auckland, Labour)
-
-
decline under the Tories of both their shades of blue Madam Speaker the Tories 14 Years of Power is a tale of two halves. First came well, they don't like to hear it. First came austerity, which broke our public services, leading to the social problems that have increased social problems that have increased cost pressures on government today. But in their final years they did But in their final years they did away with austerity. And what we saw was astonishing levels of profligate waste, dodgy Covid contracts, vanity projects and promises that were made to our promises that were made to our constituents but never funded.

And unless you agree with the Member unless you agree with the Member for Clacton who described Liz Truss's kamikaze budget as the best conservative budget since 1986, I would think most people in this place do agree that we have to live place do agree that we have to live within our means. So the Chancellor has inherited a very difficult has inherited a very difficult challenge because on the one hand, she inherited an economy with a she inherited an economy with a debt to GDP ratio of over 99%, the highest debt since the 1960s.

And highest debt since the 1960s. And on the other hand, she inherited a broken state. I will give way. I can't see where you are. I thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wait. I just. Wonder if you can sort of clarify a bundle of contradictions that we've.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Heard over the last. Year from members opposite. I recall in July. Of 2024. We heard from the former Leader

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We heard from the former Leader of the House, the Member for Manchester Central, that, you know, they had to sort of abolish winter fuel payments for older people fuel payments for older people because there'd be a run on the pound, and then they were reinstated because the economy had allegedly stabilised. We're hearing allegedly stabilised. We're hearing from the Chancellor and from Ministers that the economy is in a Ministers that the economy is in a state that that sort of, you know, requiring additional taxation, additional spending.

We're hearing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all these noises from the party opposite around the need to. Assure the. hon. Gentleman will be making a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Gentleman will be making a speech in due course. That was a very long intervention. Sam Rushworth. Thank you. I'm not sure I fully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'm not sure I fully understood the question or what the contradiction he sees is, but I but contradiction he sees is, but I but I will go on to talk about why I feel that we need to see major investment in our public services

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and in our infrastructure, briefly. I'm grateful to the. hon. Member for giving way on that point. He said he doesn't that point. He said he doesn't really understand the contradictions. Would he like to state how much growth there's been in the UK economy since the last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

budget? Yeah, I mean, obviously we're in a global economy. We have the fastest growth in the G7. I think that's well known. But I'm going to make I'm going to make some progress because I think this is important to set out why I think we need to be making investment in our public services and infrastructure, and you only have to look at what austerity did, look what it did to the NHS. They inherited an NHS with the highest satisfaction levels ever and with the lowest waiting times ever, and reversed both of those two things.

Look at the state of our town centres. Right. My constituents look at the state of Bishop Auckland compared to 15 years ago. Look at the state of dentistry. In the year before the general election, we lost two NHS dental surgeries. But worse than that, in the existing practices, children were being sent letters being told they could no longer be provided with NHS dentistry service. Look at the rising crime in many of our communities, which exactly mirrors the cuts to frontline police.

Look what they did to our defence capabilities with the smallest army since the Napoleonic era. I'll keep waiting. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grateful to the Oliver Dowden. For giving way, and I quite understand his philosophical approach that he wants to spend approach that he wants to spend more money on public services, but he knew of all those issues before the last general election, and yet the last general election, and yet he stood for election. He went to his constituents and said, vote for me because we will not raise income me because we will not raise income tax, we will not raise national insurance and we will not raise VAT.

Will he stick by his own promise?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will he stick by his own promise? Yes. Well, I have confidence in the Chancellor to to produce a budget Chancellor to to produce a budget that will do the things that my constituents need and what my constituents are asking for and what they voted for at the general election was changed. And look what they did to our look what they did they did to our look what they did to our justice system. With prisons at 99.9% full and a court backlog at 99.9% full and a court backlog that makes victims wait years for justice, we all know that our surgeries are crammed with these surgeries are crammed with these cases.

Look what they did to the asylum system with an enormous backlog. And also, whoever negotiated the contract on asylum hotels must have been the person who did the dodgy Covid contracts who did the dodgy Covid contracts for the amount that they were wasting millions a day on hotels. And look what they did to childhood. Contrary to what was said earlier, child poverty in our country has increased. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that both relative and absolute poverty is increased, and if you compare it from 1997 to to to 98 to 20 22 to 2023, it describes it as a u-curve with falling poverty under the 13 years of the last Labour government and increasing relative and absolute child poverty.

Look what that means in in the communities that I represent. 16 surestart centres, closed primary school budgets below their 2010 levels for college students, expensive transport, educational maintenance allowance cut. These are youth services closed. Boxing gyms, swimming pools, social infrastructure disappeared from our communities over the last 15 years. These are real challenges. But it's not just our public services because they robbed the capital budget to pay for day to day spending. They also left Britain in the slow lane, cancelling Labour's building schools for the future project left us with rat infested schools and public buildings.

Cancelling nuclear projects left us reliant on expensive fossil fuels, which led to 11% inflation at one point under them and cancelling HS2 to secure a media headline on the eve of a conference has left us without the critical transport infrastructure we need, and all of these come at higher social costs because when you sack HMRC staff, you get more tax avoidance and more fraud. When people have to wait two years for a routine operation, you get a higher sick bill.

The businesses when you don't build the prisons and when you cut the police, you get higher costs of crime. And when you cut civil servants, you then spend. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they did £3 billion on agency staff. I'll give way. From his list is when you cut

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From his list is when you cut the winter fuel payments, you know, from the government's own assessment it puts 50,000 people assessment it puts 50,000 people into absolute poverty, 100,000 people into relative poverty. And a report from the member on the front report from the member on the front benches in 2017 said it would kill 4000 people. Is that factored into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

4000 people. Is that factored into his assessment when he voted through that lobby? The only vote we ever. Had on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The only vote we ever. Had on this was the vote for or against an opposition day motion. Now, I was opposition day motion. Now, I was always clear, I felt that the original threshold that the government set was far too low, and government set was far too low, and I was always clear about that. I don't think that millionaires and wealthy people and very asset rich, wealthy pensioners should be wealthy pensioners should be receiving. I think that the policy as it now stands, and as it will be for pensioners in my community this for pensioners in my community this winter, is where it should be.

And and I voted against a motion to say and I voted against a motion to say it should be a universal benefit, because I don't think it should be universal. And whilst whilst arguing for where I think it should be now. Is, they're right about one be now. Is, they're right about one thing we do need nonetheless to control spending and, and we and we need to make sure that we that we don't listen to some of the voices on the left that thinks that there is a magic money tree because there's not.

And I know and many of my colleagues on these benches will know, how difficult it is to get money out of the Chancellor, because she has this difficult job of having to control public spending. But let's talk about that for a minute, because they not only failed when they were in government to to to invest in our public services, invest in our infrastructure and growth. Let's look at what they did on profligate waste £73,000 in 2019, topping up the government's wine cellar £1.7 million.

Painting Boris Johnson's prime ministerial planes, including 800,000 on a Union Jack, half £1 million in a single year chauffeuring ministerial red boxes around Whitehall, £11 million changing the colours of our passports, £120 million on their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

festival of Brexit. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I ask

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, can I ask the hon. Member why he is going on about. Spending decisions of previous governments? When his own governments? When his own Chancellor said last year that her budget had wiped the slate clean, budget had wiped the slate clean, she said it's on us now, so if she accepts responsibility for where she is today, why doesn't he?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she is today, why doesn't he? Yeah, yeah. Good point. I the point that I'm making is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I the point that I'm making is that spending for spending sake is not what any responsible government should do. It's also about spending should do. It's also about spending every tax pound. Well, and I don't believe that these examples of waste are things that we should continue with. Nor nor the £100,000 on a fake bell that only bonged ten on a fake bell that only bonged ten times during Big Ben's maintenance. I will in a moment, nor the 1.8 million that Truss spent on million that Truss spent on executive travel as foreign secretary, not to mention half £1 million for her private jet on a million for her private jet on a single trip to Australia in 2022.

Then again, she spent £3,000 on a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Then again, she spent £3,000 on a lectern. I will. The hon. Member for giving way. He's he's he's nickel and diming He's he's he's nickel and diming this debate. There's one big question facing the Chancellor at the moment which is the two child benefit cap £3.5 billion. So let's not worry about the odd £50,000 here or there. I'd just like to hear a clear statement from the hon. Member. Is he for raising the two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child benefit cap, or is he in favour of keeping it where it is? Sam Rushworth I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sam Rushworth I. Think that's a, that's a that's a fair question. And I and I and I will answer that. And, and this is will answer that. And, and this is why it's so important that we don't return to the days of when they were in office, where vanity projects wasted so much public projects wasted so much public money. Because because I do think, I do think that child poverty is I do think that child poverty is the scourge of our time.

I do think that we need a national mission to eradicate child poverty. Some of eradicate child poverty. Some of that needs to come through things like looking at the two child cap, but not exclusively. And I've argued in this place for us to extend free school meals, and I'm really pleased that the government has listened to that and is has listened to that and is extending free school meals to more children. I've argued in this place for free breakfast clubs, and I'm pleased that the Chancellor has listened and is funding the free breakfast clubs.

And unlike their childcare plan, she's funding the childcare plan, she's funding the free childcare as well, because I do think that these things matter too. It's not just about benefits, too. It's not just about benefits, it's about making sure that we give children what they need to have a meaningful childhood. I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meaningful childhood. I'll give way. I thank him for giving way. I'm not sure I heard an answer to the question from my hon. Friend the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne does he support? Does he support a cap, a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

two child cap, or would he like to see it removed? I've never supported the two child cap, but they introduced a two tier benefit system that penalised younger families in a way penalised younger families in a way that it doesn't older families, I think that it needs, and this is a genuine view. I think that that genuine view. I think that that needs to be looked at creatively. I'm not and I don't know what the Chancellor will do on either, but Chancellor will do on either, but but my personal view is that we need to do something about that problem.

And, and I think that possibly a tapered system. I'm a big family, and I know that my fifth child didn't cost what my first child did. So whether they look at a taper or something, I don't know. But what I do have confidence in is I have confidence confidence in is I have confidence that this is a government like the last Labour government that will eradicate child poverty. And I will eradicate child poverty. And I will make the point to him again that child poverty is not just about benefits, it is about what we do to benefits, it is about what we do to improve childhood.

It's about what we what what the Education secretary announced this week about secretary announced this week about giving children more access to the creative arts. It is about the work that we're doing to get youth hubs that we're doing to get youth hubs back. It is about the work that we're doing to get free breakfast clubs. It is about the warm homes discount being extended to more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discount being extended to more people. The honourable. Member for giving way, I do apologise, I may be a little bit hard of hearing. I wondered if I could just ask him once more. Just a quick yes or no answer. Did he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say he would vote to get rid of the two child benefit cap or not? Well that's not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well that's not. I mean that's not that's not a vote before the House right now. But I've been pretty clear in my answer. I never I never agreed with answer. I never I never agreed with it when they introduced it. I think that they did terrible things that put too many children in my put too many children in my community into poverty. And there are multiple ways that the government is addressing child poverty, both through the welfare system. But children are not just poor because we don't have good enough benefits.

And I'll tell you enough benefits. And I'll tell you now, in Bishop Auckland, people don't want better benefits. They want better jobs. They want a stronger local economy. They want better infrastructure. They want better education, they want a better health service. And all of that will require public spending. that will require public spending. And if I may say, as I as I finish,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And if I may say, as I as I finish, that this is are you do you want to make an intervention order. I don't want to make an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervention. Maybe the hon. Gentleman does. I certainly don't Sam Rushworth. I was distracted by the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was distracted by the hon. Gentleman's chuntering, and I. I thought he may have wanted to make an intervention, but I may just an intervention, but I may just finish the saying that as I started that for me, that's what the choice is really about today, is do we is really about today, is do we return to the dark days of austerity that created the challenges that scourge the community that I represent, or do we lift people out of that and give them hope, give them the public services that they need, invest in the critical infrastructure that brings our economy and our country into the 21st century.

And I know where I stand on that. Do they know where they stand?
14:41
Stuart Anderson Portrait Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)
-
-
Stuart Anderson. the honourable. Member who clearly has an ideology that he believes. So as a conservative, I believe in lower taxes. And I believe that people, not governments, have a better understanding on how to spend their own money. And I want to see more of South Shropshire constituents keep more of what they earn. So last year's Halloween budget hike taxes by 40 billion, a 40 billion a year. This included a hugely damaging employer's NI contributions, and it's added almost £1,000 to the cost of employing someone.

These are the wealth creators and we are stunting them, which is not acceptable. But at the same time, the Chancellor she gave did that with one hand and with the other withdrew support for our high streets that are really suffering. On average, pubs will have to pay an extra £3,000 due to the changes in the business rates and pubs are feeling this now. The latest statistics have confirmed that the Chancellor's growth or the economic growth has flatlined, and this is despite the Chancellor's promise and I will quote, to lead the most pro-growth, most pro-business Treasury that our country has ever seen, with a laser focus on delivering for the working people.

Yeah, yeah. I would like to say how is that going? But since last year's budget, huge amount of people, is it approaching 180,000 out of work, jobs have been lost. Unemployment's up to 5%. A year ago, the Chancellor told the country she would not be coming back for any more tax hikes. Now that slate was wiped clean on TV, she said. Clearly this is what I will be doing and I will not have to come back. And if whatever reason they come up with, if the government do break that manifesto promise, I believe it will hurt them before beyond what they believe possible.

And you've run out of road of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. Hexham take. It from.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It from. You, but it almost seems certain that's going to happen. So pensions, savings, cars, houses all sadly are savings, cars, houses all sadly are in the focus of Labour's budget. So rural prosperity South Shropshire rural prosperity South Shropshire big rural constituency. And I want to look at how that's impacting at the moment. So they have the Chancellor's policies have killed growth, they fuelled inflation and they've reduced opportunities for they've reduced opportunities for South Shropshire residents. So on average, productivity earnings and average, productivity earnings and ease of access to further education are all lower in rural areas than are all lower in rural areas than urban areas.

However, closing the gap could add billions to England's gap could add billions to England's economy. A stronger economy is needed to enhance public services, and I agree with the previous and I agree with the previous speaker. We do need a strong public service, but we can't stifle private industry and businesses to private industry and businesses to try and get that. The shadow Chancellor has shown how huge savings can be made at the same savings can be made at the same time of cutting taxes for working people, and I believe that if the people, and I believe that if the shadow Chancellor and Treasury team have set out clear objectives, we can put party politics behind and adopt some of these for the good of the country.

So family farm tax in South Shropshire. This is crippling farmers. I have a huge rural constituency. 25% of my constituencies are constituents are in the agricultural industry and this is really hurting them. So I'm asking in the budget that we can reverse the cruel family farm tax. It needs to change. And farmer confidence is the lowest level it has ever been on record. More than 6000 farms have already closed under this government. That is concerning and that is a threat to food security.

So high streets, the budget must also reverse some of the measures it's put in to release the stranglehold on the high street businesses. And I know all members will go and see their constituents. And I think you'll struggle to find someone saying, I am enjoying the measures that have been put in at the moment. So more than a thousand pubs and restaurants on our high street have already gone. That's equivalent to two every single day, and that is an issue. And I do welcome that.

A future conservative government would abolish business rates for thousands of retail and hospitality and leisure businesses, and that will stimulate growth. We can then invest into the areas we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to. I will do. Does he worry about also the changes in toxic concoction that we've had create this cumulative we've had create this cumulative cycle of some pubs that do survive, having to reduce their hours, reduce their staffing, and in rural reduce their staffing, and in rural areas, that might mean that there isn't the opportunity for loneliness or for young people to get jobs, because it's a cyclical get jobs, because it's a cyclical nature, it's spiralling into decline. And that's the concern that I have in my area.

Does he share that concern for his?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

share that concern for his? I certainly do, and you raise a huge point. He raises a huge point. huge point. He raises a huge point. I have a constituency of 700mi² where the local pub, or even the where the local pub, or even the village hall is the community hub. And after Remembrance Sunday this weekend in Ludlow, I took my family weekend in Ludlow, I took my family to the Queen's in Ludlow and I have met with many of the publicans across South Shropshire.

The across South Shropshire. The experienced publicans are still able to just keep trading on reserves, but they're not really reserves, but they're not really making a profit. The ones who are have just set out trying to build up that reserve. They are going, up that reserve. They are going, going broke. It's just not a viable situation for them at the moment. But if we look also at council tax, so when Labour were last in power, council tax bills doubled in this council tax bills doubled in this time, representing an extra £751 on a band average band d home.

So what the Conservatives did was put in the veto powers, where we could make sure that council tax didn't rise beyond a certain amount. Looking at all the changes at the moment where we allowed local areas to receive the funding they want by raising council tax within that 5%, but without it going excessive at the moment we can see less funding into the rural areas, but council tax going up a dramatic amount. So people will be paying more and getting less.

So at the moment. The county Councils network has identified Shropshire Council as one of 16 local authority areas that would see significant, not little significant cuts direct from the government that is going to impact and suggesting about 9 million of funding of 9 million in government funding cuts over the next three years. This will impact so many different areas and including Shropshire Fire and Fire and Rescue have gone on record saying that. So to look at the high street, I have written to many of my constituents to do my shop local survey and I've had almost 10%.

Thousands of people have responded to this survey, which has had a brilliant uptake. And what people are saying is they love going to the local high street. They want to do it, but the numbers are not in the same level. They are dropped by hundreds of what what people are going into the high street. And also we're seeing businesses are saying they do not have the confidence and it's getting harder and harder to train. And this is causing a major issues on the high street.

We need to release the stranglehold on the high street. We need to encourage the growth around this. But the biggest factor that most businesses are telling me, it's about the tax hikes. They are absolutely crippling. And I, I put as a plea to to the government to change the current approach of what we're doing of a taxing small business. It is crippling and it will destroy the country. So to conclude this, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my honourable and gallant friend for giving way. At that point. Will he take an intervention from any member intervention from any member opposite who is prepared to say that they've spoken to a business

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in their constituency? Who welcomes the any tax increase? Stuart Anderson I gladly will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stuart Anderson I gladly will have an intervention from any member on the opposite benches who member on the opposite benches who believes they are speaking to local businesses, and they are saying the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

current tax on local business is good. Any member? Oh yeah. Child benefit.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Business in my constituency who said that they understand why the Chancellor made that decision. And one of their biggest concerns is one of their biggest concerns is the number of days that they lose to sickness and that the important the importance of improving public the importance of improving public services, both to have a better educated and healthier workforce,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they understand it. Okay. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm very happy for you to intervene I'm very happy for you to intervene in. And if you support the pay for intervening and if you support tax intervening and if you support tax hikes in for your local if he if I'll start that again, you're through. I'm very happy for the through. I'm very happy for the hon. Member intervening and I'm, I'm pretty sure if he goes and speaks to all businesses across his constituency, they might say they understand.

Do any of them support it is the thing that I'm asking. I'm happy if you want to say otherwise. But despite these huge pressures, pressures, I will continue to campaign for funding to support that enables businesses to thrive. The biggest area is the tax cuts and it remains a vital part of my focus to release unleash Rural Prosperity for South Shropshire, and I urge all colleagues on either side of the House to vote down any future tax cuts rises that we have.
14:51
Chris Vince Portrait Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )
-
-
PQ Chris Vince.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In this debate, and I thank members from Central Devon and Ealing North for. Beginning this debate. As people across the House will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As people across the House will know, I take any opportunity to speak and any opportunity to intervene. But I miss an opportunity a couple of weeks ago opportunity a couple of weeks ago where the the right hon. Gentleman for Braintree asked any members opposite if they wanted to lower opposite if they wanted to lower taxes, and I my. I've got two excuses for not intervening on that occasion. The first excuse that I've literally only just walked I've literally only just walked into the chamber and as my member over there has pointed out, you can't intervene if you've only just walked in.

And the second reason I didn't intervene on the right hon. Gentleman from Braintree was because I have to declare an because I have to declare an interest when it comes to tax, that I am the son of not one, but two. I am the son of not one, but two. HMRC, tax inspectors. And not only I know, I know, I'm telling you to the Prime Minister talking about the Prime Minister talking about what my parents did for a living. I also, and the grandson of one HMRC tax inspector.

So I have to declare tax inspector. So I have to declare an interest that I wouldn't be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standing here if it wasn't for tax. I just want to say I think. It's tax. Collection and Woking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Collection and Woking. Katrina Murray is an important. Job and. Obviously in popular culture, the tax collector gets a culture, the tax collector gets a bit of a bad rap. But just to thank his parents and family for the work they do. So I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very kind intervention, and I, I like the fact that even on a debate about tax, where we have opposing views, that we've been able to come to some sort of consensus. So my speech has already done its job, we might argue.

Yeah, I'll sit down. The answer I thought of giving the hon. Member for Braintree about tax was that I would absolutely love residents in Harlow, particularly those in low income families. And we know there are 23% of under 16 year olds who live in low income families in Harlow to pay less tax. But we have seen underfunding in our local services a hospital falling apart, schools falling apart and roads that frankly look like the surface of the moon. Now, the reality is that if we were to live in a low tax haven, I'm not suggesting members of the opposite, and not all members of the opposite, are suggesting that that would lead to those local services suffering.

And actually, it's those lower income families who can't afford private healthcare, can't afford private schools, and can't afford to get their car fixed every time they go over a pothole. Who would suffer from that? Now I will, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

long as you don't ask me about renationalisation. I know the hon. Member can't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know the hon. Member can't actually pronounce that word, but the the the question I have for him is that I quite understand all is that I quite understand all those points he makes. They are heartfelt from his position and that they're, they're spending that that they're, they're spending that he thinks should be government spending on those issues. But he was aware of every single one of was aware of every single one of those before the 2024 general election, when he stood on a manifesto commitment not to raise manifesto commitment not to raise income tax and not to raise national insurance and not to raise VAT.

Does he accept that if his government resiles from those promises, it will be a huge breach

**** Possible New Speaker ****

promises, it will be a huge breach Yeah. I, I thank the hon. Gentleman and I thank him for mentioning again, I can't say renationalisation or apparently I can, I just can't, I just can't say it when we're on it on BBC look it when we're on it on BBC look East together. Look, I stood on a manifesto to ensure that I got manifesto to ensure that I got investment into my town in Harlow, and I'm delighted that this government has promised for the first time, a realistically and first time, a realistically and fully funded timetable for a new hospital for Harlow, and has guaranteed that Harlow will be the, guaranteed that Harlow will be the, I know, turning into a political crisis.

I appreciate that and it will be the home of the UK health security chief, because my priority is to ensure that every young person in Harlow has the best possible opportunities, and I know that that is what this government did. I know that there are difficult choices that need to be made by the Chancellor. I'm not going to pre-empt what the budget says because I know I have I don't know what the budget says. You won't be surprised to know, as a as a humble backbencher, as I say, I have mentioned that my mother was a HMRC compliance officer, and I thank the member opposite for paying tribute to her.

I asked my mother to talk to me a little bit about what she did in the in that revenue and later HMRC, and she said, oh, I write a couple of bits down for you. Well, I'm not going to read out the four pages that she's written, you'll be pleased to know, but I'll just give you a few selected highlights. She's actually written here. I missed out a bit where she says, hello darling, thanks for asking. I missed that bit out. She said. She joined the Inland Revenue as an inspector of tax in 1975, which I thought was very honest with my mum and this was pre computers, so she was manually calculating assessments, processing returns and issuing code numbers i.e.

Apparently it took 18 months of training to do that and she successfully passed the exam, as you will gather. Now fast forward she did take a career break. And if you're wondering why she took a career break, I'm standing right here. And she initially worked for the the National Insurance Organisation until it obviously emerged, merged with HMRC, and her role was specifically to help people with gaps in their National Insurance records. Basically investigation work, contacting employers. In 2003, she returned to HMRC Proper to Employer Compliance Investigation Team.

Her job was to visit employers and basically check their records. She said very positively, she found that most companies were compliant, but they did make mistakes and there was a scheme and I would suggest to the Minister if he was in his place to that actually ran courses to ensure that businesses got it right. And I think that's something that would be really important. You know, when we're talking about tax evasion, there are people that may be doing that on purpose, but there are also some people that just need that help and that support.

And I think that's a really important part. And at that compliance review, she also checked that foreign employees had the right to work in the UK. She was subsequently promoted. Well done mum to a regional manager, where she managed 100 staff and eight managers which were below her. Her team, face to face, met taxpayers in their offices or in their homes if they were vulnerable. They help people complete tax returns, claim allowances and to ensure they paid the correct amount of tax, and also to administer what was then child tax credits.

And she was also able to authorise hardship payments in this context. Sadly, in 2014, 20,000 staff in customer services HMRC were made redundant and that sadly included as members of this House will know that included my mother. Thank you for they are HMRC decided customers e.g. taxpayers should telephone for assistance. Telephone staff were not given 18 months of training or if they weren't, couldn't get through on the phone, they were told to go online. Now across Essex there are a number of cuts to local offices Chelmsford, Witham, Colchester, Harlow, Bishop's, Bishop's Stortford, Essex, Mum and Hertford.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, thank. God for that. I am, I confess, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am, I confess, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm struggling to understand the relevance of this. If it's so important to budget If it's so important to budget setting, can I ask whether the hon. Member has given his mother's note

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member has given his mother's note to the Chancellor for her to read? Yeah. I think the hon. Gentleman to the question for the question. I the question for the question. I hadn't thought to do that, but I will do that. I'm sure my mother will be really appreciated that I'm having that conversation. I did briefly speak to the Chancellor before this speech and let her know of my mum's circumstances. So yeah, of my mum's circumstances. So yeah, just to put that on the record, I thank him for his intervention.

The reason I am talking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reason I am talking. So I think there will be another intervention. I just want to maybe loosely bring us back to the subject of taxes. Whilst I can see that the hon. Member's mother's that the hon. Member's mother's career at HMRC is related to taxes, it would be unfortunate, wouldn't it, if I were to have to put a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it, if I were to have to put a very tight time limit on other members. Chris Vince I. Thank the deputy so I can't talk

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the deputy so I can't talk about my father's experiences or my grandma. No. Okay. Madam Deputy grandma. No. Okay. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have got to this point. I've got to this point. I praise the preamble, but the reason I'm talking about I will give way. Be grateful to him for giving way and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

collection. In this debate. A number of my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In this debate. A number of my constituents also work for HMRC. What they've told me is that during that period of cuts, it's impeded that period of cuts, it's impeded the agency's ability to collect corporate taxation and to get into corporate taxation and to get into the public purse revenues that are rightly due. Is that not a relevant factor when we're talking about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

factor when we're talking about the opposition's plan to cut 132,000 civil servants, the. My hon. Friend for his question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend for his question. The ultimate point here is it was predicted that in the tax year 2022 predicted that in the tax year 2022 to 2023, £5.5 billion was lost to the Treasury due to tax evasion. the Treasury due to tax evasion. It's estimated that in the tax year, 23 to 24, £6.6 billion was lost to 23 to 24, £6.6 billion was lost to the Treasury because of tax evasion. I my question for the Minister when I my question for the Minister when he rounds up is what impact does he think that cuts to previous cuts? HMRC will have to the amount of HMRC will have to the amount of revenue collected through taxation fairly, based on the taxation rules fairly, based on the taxation rules that the government the party opposite, also agreed on, and actually what impact that would have on the coffers if we hadn't made those cuts.

HMRC and my question would be in the budget, can I ask them to consider that fact and look at how we can support HMRC to ensure we collect? We actually collect before we talk about other taxes, let's talk about the tax that should be corrected. It should be collected. It isn't being collected because of the staffing of funding of HMRC. I can say from personal experience that my mum and her colleagues made money for the government. I thank Madam Deputy. I appreciate I went a little bit off topic, but I hope you realised the point I was trying to make.

As to reiterate what the Treasury Secretary said in his opening remarks. The budget will be set on the 20th of November, which is why we will vote down this motion. I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After the next speaker, there will be a seven minute limit. Dame Caroline Dinenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Caroline Dinenage. Very much. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman from Harlow. Thank you so Gentleman from Harlow. Thank you so much. Thank him so much for countering us through his mother's career at HMRC. And I'm sure on
15:02
Caroline Dinenage Portrait Dame Caroline Dinenage MP (Gosport, Conservative)
-
-
career at HMRC. And I'm sure on behalf of the whole House, we thank her for her service. And please, if you could pass on our very best wishes. Madam Deputy Speaker, as a very near neighbour of my constituency, I'm sure that you will know that the history of my constituency has always been umbilically linked to the fortunes of our armed forces, a town that was effectively nationalised by the Royal Navy about, well, 2 or 3 centuries ago. And as the size and structure of our defence base changed with it went over many decades, many of the jobs and livelihoods that depended upon it.

And with a job density on the Gosport Peninsula, that's almost 50% lower than the wider South East region. That's an issue. I've spent 15 years as an MP trying to drive solutions for, so there's nothing more important to an area like mine than maintaining the conditions that give businesses the confidence to invest, to employ and to grow. But the overwhelming foundation stone for growth, for the innovation and investment that will solve the productivity puzzle the UK is facing, is the businesses need to be able to make long term decisions.

They need to plan for the future. Employers in my constituency, both the large ones like Standard Aero and Kinetic and SDS defence and the numerous small and growing businesses need to be able to rely on stable borrowing costs to know the cost of materials won't rise unsustainably, to have the confidence to take on new staff and start apprenticeship programs, and investors like those who took the plunge and moved to the Solent Enterprise Zone at the Daedalus airfield, creating hundreds of local jobs in the process.

Need to know that if they put their capital at risk by investing, the government won't reach in on a whim and take a large slice of any reward. The fact is that employers tax rises put all of this at risk. And that's what we've seen in last year's budget. And that's where local people are really nervous about. This year's budget to tax fulfils two purposes. One, which the Chancellor knows well to raise revenue for the government, and one I'm not convinced that she does give much thought to.

And that's influencing changes in behaviour. The down, the pessimism and the growth downgrades in our economy over the past year have provided really hard and fast evidence that changes to the tax regime are at least as powerful as achieving the second goal. As the first 40, 40, £40 billion of tax rises very effectively mowed down those green shoots of post-pandemic recovery. But worse than that, they incentivised businesses in my Gosport constituencies to make decisions that run in direct contrast to what our area needs fewer employment opportunities, fewer chances for young people to build good quality careers.

And I've heard worrying stories about the impact of the employer. National insurance rises announced in last year's budget of unintended consequences that have impacted my constituency. The common thread, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the National Insurance change hit the businesses for which Labour is the highest cost, it hit them hardest and in turn, putting services that my constituents rely on every single day at risk. A fifth of everyone who works in the Gosport constituency works in caring, leisure or other service occupations.

It's by far the largest employment sector and almost three times the average for England. It meant that my constituents felt the Chancellor's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

National Insurance rises the hardest. For making an excellent speech

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For making an excellent speech on what happened a year ago. But also one of the problems we're seeing is all the kite flying that's come from the Treasury at the moment has meant people are making decisions in real time now about withdrawing their pensions, not employing people, not investing. Is she seeing that in her constituency as I am in mine? Because actually all this kite fly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because actually all this kite fly has real world consequences. Even before we get to the budget in two weeks time. Caroline Dinenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Caroline Dinenage. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is 100% right to point this out. People are making knee jerk decisions because of fear knee jerk decisions because of fear about what the Chancellor will do, but they're also delaying business decisions that they might otherwise decisions that they might otherwise have made that would be bringing growth to my constituency. My constituency lies on the south coast. The stunning Solent coastline may mean that Lee on Solent and Stubbington and the wider Gosport area is a wonderful wider Gosport area is a wonderful place to retire and as I often repeat, we have the largest proportion of veterans by by proportion of veterans by by percentage of any, any other place in the UK.

But that requires in the UK. But that requires adequate health and care provision. But care providers whose main cost is personnel are really struggling. is personnel are really struggling. The Nuffield Trust has calculated that the National Insurance rise costs England's 18,000 independent adult social care providers £940 million, and that has severe consequences for the elderly and vulnerable people who need that service. One local provider, who operates a 44 bed care home offering residential care for the frail elderly and those living with dementia, suggested they had no choice but to pass those National Insurance rises directly onto their customers, and one constituent as a result, told me he was seeing an increase of nearly 8% in his brother's care home fees.

At the other end of the spectrum, Hopscotch Nursery, which looks after 1900 children across our local region and provides fantastic care and support, told me that the jobs tax added £1 million to their overheads. That's a 10% increase, meaning a 10% fee increase passed on to many of my constituents. Working parents need childcare, so working parents have to pay. What's the impact? Reduced household spending on a slower economy? Or even worse, a parent dropping out of work to look after the children? Perhaps that's why we've seen growth flatline, borrowing costs rise.

And this week, unemployment reached its highest level since the lockdown on November the 26th. Will the Chancellor demonstrate that she's learned that lesson that tax rises hit employers? Bottom lines have serious implications for our businesses, our communities and our economy. I'd be shocked if she hasn't, but we are still hearing reports that hiring costs are going to increase yet again, and none of the hospitality and retail businesses in my constituency will welcome it. After all, the sector's already seen 80,000 job losses, and I'm particularly concerned for young people.

A recent Telegraph article said that young people were giving up on Gosport because the lack of employment opportunities, and for many a job in hospitality or retail is the very first step into work. Businesses in the sector that take on so many young people across my constituencies, from adult social care to child care to hair and beauty, are telling me that they're just not taking on more staff. As a result of the Chancellor's changes to National Insurance contributions. In fact, the National Hair and Beauty Federation told me in the current rate of decline, there will be no new apprenticeships within that sector at all within the next few years.

It isn't a coincidence that this year my my constituency saw the number of young people between 18 and 24 years old claiming unemployment related benefits rise by 31%. Madam Deputy Speaker So when the government conduct their new independent review into why this is happening, they might want to start looking in their own backyard when she's considering the vast array of tax measures at her disposal to fill the £30 billion black hole, I wonder if the Chancellor will consider the impact on employment of young people of any proposals to further penalise retail and hospitality businesses.

Maybe she might even consider taking a conservative growth policy and announce that business rates will be scrapped for high street businesses like pubs. But it isn't only businesses that support growth. Madam Deputy Speaker across Gosport Lee on Solent, Stubbington and Hill Head, so many people dedicate their own time to volunteering towards supporting sports clubs, charities, health forums and community organisations. These groups are the backbones of our communities but like any other organisation, they cost money to run and the culture, Media and Sport Select Committee that I chair have now heard how increasing costs have impacted the ability of charities and voluntary organisations to deliver the services that local people rely on and love.

We often forget that charities face employment costs too. And despite 83% of charities reporting an increase in demand for their services over the last 12 months, last year's tax hike added a combined £1.4 billion to the wage bills of over 44,000 charities. That's a huge amount of pessimism that is growing in that sector. A third of charities are reducing their workforce as a result of the tax rises, and a similar number think the sector is in an unhealthy space.

This increase might be easier to shoulder were it not for the parallel drop off in funding streams. Tax rises mean less money for charitable giving, especially if the Chancellor is going to go after pensioners with her increased income tax. I can't stress enough how much tax rises have hurt and will continue to hurt the charitable sector, and the unintended consequences are huge. Less charitable, giving, fewer hours volunteered as people work longer and salary sacrifice schemes are raided, while increased costs are threatening jobs at national charities like Oxfam and the National Trust, who are also facing the loss of £50 million through restrictions on their ability to claim gift aid.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker. Sports clubs also do a fantastic job at alleviating pressure on charities and the NHS, but they can also reduce the burden on the Chancellor to pay out of work benefits on current estimates, spending on work age, disability and incapacity benefits is expected to increase by 25 billion to over 70 billion by the end of this parliament, and there are an estimated 148.9 million working days lost due to sickness or injury in 2020 for physical activity can play such a vital role in the prevention of so many conditions, and so many of our sports clubs lean in.

But last year's budget tax rises mean the sector is in a precarious position, unable to meet its potential and the facilities that those teams use to practice, play and socialise need staff as well as revenue streams. Tax undermines the work being done by our sports clubs to increase the take up of physical exercise, to reduce the burden on the NHS and to keep our communities together. Madam Deputy Speaker, we don't yet know what the Chancellor is planning to announce at the budget in a couple of weeks time.

Last year we saw £40 billion worth of tax rises, the highest tax raising budget in a generation. I know that many people in my constituency were shocked. It wasn't that what the government had promised in opposition or in the general election, but what we now fear is that she's going to go big. Excuse me on tax rises, despite categorically saying last year that she'd wipe the slate clean and she wouldn't be coming back for more, my concern for my constituents is that they have seen no tangible benefit and just pain from last year's budget, and they will undoubtedly be shouldering the burden whenever new measures are announced.
15:13
John Slinger Portrait John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)
-
-
John Slinger. for Shropshire South on his constituency, which I drove through and enjoyed a drink or 2 in 1 of the pubs in his town of Ludlow. It was a it was really good to be there. Unfortunately. I sat next to some Labour supporters in the pub so I'm grateful for that too. There has been quite a lot of bluster from the party opposite today. However, sadly for them, a party that repeatedly broke its manifesto promises crashed the economy and brought public services to their knees has no credibility.

It's all brass neck and no contrition for this. Labour government is still cleaning up the mess the Conservatives left mess, which has deep consequences for our economy. The impact of austerity, their Bodged Boris Brexit deal and Liz Truss's mini budget which homeowners have been paying the price for, and many others too. Yeah, changes to fiscal policy are made at the budget, which will be set out on the 26th of November, not today, just one of the many reasons why we will be voting against this motion.

What I can say is that my colleagues in the Treasury will ensure that the budget is underpinned by Labour's values of fairness and opportunity, and focussed on the priorities of the British people. Protecting our NHS, reducing the national debt and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

improving the cost of living. I will, of course. I'm grateful to the hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. It would just make it so much simpler for the House if it so much simpler for the House if the member would put a date on it. When the government benches actually take responsibility for actually take responsibility for running the country. I don't mind if it's in six months time, a year's time, but we can all go home. year's time, but we can all go home. I've got lots of things to do in Spelthorne until then.

And and when they do actually finally come to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

terms with the fact that they are in charge and are responsible, we'd all be grateful. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It took 14 years for intervention. It took 14 years for them not to apologise for any of the decisions that they took, frankly. So I don't think we really frankly. So I don't think we really need any lectures from the hon. Member or hon. Members opposite on Member or hon. Members opposite on that contrast. Contrast of values with the values of the party opposite austerity, financial recklessness under Liz Truss and a dodgy Brexit deal.

We cannot we dodgy Brexit deal. We cannot we cannot return to austerity and economic chaos. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the hon. Gentleman. I thank the hon. Member for giving way and talking highly of my constituency. Ludlow is lovely. Does the hon. Member realise that austerity started under the Labour government when they were last in power, and they started those measures to cut make the cuts in 2008, 2009?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John Slinger. I absolutely do accept that the previous Labour government took previous Labour government took difficult decisions towards the end of the previous government's tenure of office, difficult decisions of office, difficult decisions following the global financial crisis. What happened from 2010 crisis. What happened from 2010 onwards was unnecessary and reckless, and we are all still paying the price to this day. We paying the price to this day. We will ensure I won't give way. I've given way and I may give way a little bit.

Let me make some little bit. Let me make some progress please. We will ensure that we avoid another decade of under-investment in public services and infrastructure. And I am sure and infrastructure. And I am sure we all agree that we owe it to future generations to ensure that the economy we hand down is secure, with debt under control. And I would like to hear more from hon. would like to hear more from hon. Members. And perhaps they'd like to to intervene. Their motion makes no mention of the public services that mention of the public services that would be cut.

How many doctors, teachers, soldiers, police officers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

teachers, soldiers, police officers would they want to cut? I'm happy to take an intervention. If he's looking for ideas for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If he's looking for ideas for how to cut spending, he could do better, do worse than to look at the proposals set out in the the proposals set out in the conservative conference, where we identified £47 billion of public sector cuts, which did not require

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any of the cuts that he was suggesting then. And before his intervention. It

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And before his intervention. It does seem rather like a number was plucked out of thin air around £47 billion. And I frankly don't think billion. And I frankly don't think that that number has holds any credibility that the previous credibility that the previous government cut, they cut National Insurance in 2024, deliberate Insurance in 2024, deliberate sabotage. They cut public services from 2010 onwards. Deliberate from 2010 onwards. Deliberate ideological recklessness that is still damaging the services that still damaging the services that our constituents rely on.

No, I won't give way. The consequence chaos under the party opposite prisons full, a lack of prison places, and a crisis so bad that it places, and a crisis so bad that it led the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton. It is said to go to the country early said to go to the country early local government, underfunded schools literally at risk of schools literally at risk of collapse, waiting lists at a record high. And actually, every time I high.

And actually, every time I knock on a door, people tell me of the lengthy waits that they're undergoing, and they often say there's no difference between the there's no difference between the parties and that all politicians are the same. Well, they increased waiting lists and we are getting them down faster than we promised, the lowest level for two years. And on promises. Madam. Madam Deputy speaker, they are in no position to lecture us. In 2019 they pledged to build 40 new hospitals. Where are they waiting in 2019? In 2019, the former Prime Minister, Mr.

Johnson, said, and I quote, we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared. Where's that? How did that go in 2010, 2015 and 2017? They promised to bring net migration down to the, I quote, tens of thousands. Yet when was it that net migration peaked? Yeah, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was June 2023 at 906,000. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I thank. Him for giving way. He's making

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Him for giving way. He's making an interesting argument at the moment. So as I understand what he's saying, does he stick to his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he's saying, does he stick to his manifesto promises which he was elected on? Yeah. Because promises math.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I absolutely believe that we should implement the manifesto that we stood on. And that's what that we stood on. And that's what I'm proud to be doing. The party opposite broke their tax pledge since the hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position mentions taxes, they broke their tax pledge by increasing National Insurance in 2021. I won't give away the in 2021. They broke their triple lock promise in 2022 to 2023. I won't promise in 2022 to 2023.

I won't give way. I'll make a little bit of progress. The party opposite paints itself as economically competent itself as economically competent and the party of low taxes. Well, Liz Truss blew the first claim out of the water and on the second the tax burden on them reached a record tax burden on them reached a record high in 20 2223 at 36.3%. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to the hon. Gentleman. For giving way. A very brief point of clarification is he saying to this House that he would like this Labour government not to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

increase taxes and therefore stick by their manifesto? I am saying to this House that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am saying to this House that my right hon. Friends in the government have to take very difficult decisions to deal with difficult decisions to deal with the problems, to deal with the problems that this country faces, problems that this country faces, many of which were caused by the decisions taken by the party opposite. And I'm coming on to that. opposite. And I'm coming on to that. I'm coming on to that. They the party opposite left minds in our party opposite left minds in our national finances, our public services and our system of taxation and beyond.

And this government isn't just manoeuvring around them, leaving them for future generations. leaving them for future generations. This government is diffusing them. We're getting on with the job of renewal. And unlike the party, the parties, I should say plural, the parties opposite. We will not take risks with the next generation risks with the next generation through undue debt. We will invest in the national interest. We will reform things as we're showing with reform things as we're showing with NHS England will take the long term decisions, tough ones to rebuild decisions, tough ones to rebuild Britain.

We are doing this with our labour values at the forefront. Fairness, opportunity for all, Fairness, opportunity for all, protecting the vulnerable, empowering people, businesses and organisations. Challenging vested interests, long term investment and industrial strategy skills for the future. And our approach is course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the hon. Member, as I think he's quite grateful to me for taking my intervention on me for taking my intervention on tough decisions. Really simple question and actually probably will question and actually probably will do him some good in the the current coup that's going on. Is he for raising the two child benefit cap

**** Possible New Speaker ****

raising the two child benefit cap or keeping it in place? John Slinger I'm for doing absolutely everything we can to absolutely everything we can to reduce child poverty, and one of the ways that you can achieve that the ways that you can achieve that is through ending the two child cap and other measures. But that's a matter for my right hon. Friend the matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, not for me to to decide here, here, right now.

So? So the approach is paying off. We were the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year. The in the first half of the year. The average person's disposable income is £800 higher now than just before the election in real terms. But there isn't time for me to go through the long list of our achievements. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out more in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Chancellor will set out more in the budget. In my view, ours is a can do approach, not a kicking the can down the road approach. Joe Robertson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Joe Robertson. Yeah. Madam Deputy speaker, thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy speaker, thank you. To many of my constituents know the
15:23
Joe Robertson Portrait Joe Robertson MP (Isle of Wight East, Conservative)
-
-
26th of November, 2025 already. Usually budgets come and go without a huge, much known in the public consciousness of people living their daily lives. But this year their daily lives. But this year it's different. It's different because businesses and families are because businesses and families are terrified about what the Chancellor is cooking up for them now, what she could have done and what the she could have done and what the Prime Minister could have done a couple of weeks ago, did a couple of months ago, is put their fears of months ago, is put their fears at rest, confirm the Labour manifesto and confirm the promise not to increase tax on income, on not to increase tax on income, on National insurance or on VAT.

The Prime Minister was prepared to do that in the summer. He didn't that in the summer. He didn't revert to this absolute nonsense that he's not going to write the budget. No one's asking him to budget. No one's asking him to write the budget. No one's asking the Minister today to write the budget from the Dispatch Box. What we're asking is confirmation of a manifesto promise that he and others got elected on. Less than 18 months ago. The Prime Minister months ago. The Prime Minister committed to that in July, failed to do so two weeks ago.

So either he and his government are indifferent to the worrying of my constituents and the British people, or they are cooking up plans to tear up the manifesto and increase taxes. They said they wouldn't. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suspect it can only be the latter. I will give way. I'm Julian Lewis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful for my own and for giving way. There is, of course, a third. Possibility. Which some people with twisted minds have been suggesting, which is that the government plans to do some pretty terrible things in the budget, but terrible things in the budget, but is setting up a straw man by saying they're going to break their manifesto promises so that then manifesto promises so that then when they don't break their manifesto promises, everybody will swallow those other terrible things?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

swallow those other terrible things? Is that too Machiavellian? Joe Robertson? My right hon. Friend, his constituency is just across the constituency is just across the water from me. Is far more experienced in this place, and I admit to a certain naivety and not admit to a certain naivety and not imagining that Machiavellian intention behind the government that they would set up the straw that they would set up the straw man. But the point remains the same that if they are doing that, then they are indifferent to the they are indifferent to the worrying.

For my constituents and others, particularly hard working families and businesses and the families and businesses and the economy, yeah, the issue in question that we have brought today question that we have brought today as the opposition is, what is the Chancellor going to do with the situation that she created? It's surprising to have sat through this debate and heard so much deflection from the government benches, so much determination to talk about previous budgets under previous governments. In November 2025.

It's an obvious deflection technique, but they speak against their own Chancellor really in so doing, because just last year she was very proud of herself in saying that her previous budget had wiped the slate clean. She said that last November she had dealt with the mystery black hole that she had identified. But let's take her at her word. She said there was a black hole and she wanted credit for having closed it off, wiping the slate clean. Her actual words were to Sky.

Sky news was, it's on us now. Meaning from that date, any problems in the economy, any problems in future budgets would be hers to deal with. And her issue, her issues that would have caused them. So last year, she blamed the Conservatives for a 22 billion black hole. On a political level, one can understand that. Why wouldn't she? She'd just come into government. She felt she'd get away with it. The black hole this year is bigger. It's 30 billion and it's on her.

And that is why she is faced with raising money from hard working families. What she could do is seek savings. What she could do is seek savings from the ballooning disability welfare bill that set to reach 100 billion by the end of the decade on the Obr's figures. Now, she tried to do that earlier this summer, but her backbenchers weren't having any of it. So she and the Prime Minister had to shelve those plans. We learned today that not only has the Prime Minister and the Chancellor lost the confidence of many of their backbenchers, they've also lost a grip of number ten, with number ten staffers briefing out against the health secretary and the Prime Minister today having to admit to this place that he didn't authorise any of that and in so doing has demonstrated he has lost control of number ten, his own operation.

And we've now got the Prime Minister having to frankly suck up to the man, the health secretary, who wants his own job in order to try and hold his operation together so they could come back and try and make savings 47 billion savings, which the shadow Chancellor is very, very kindly, I think, identified for them in order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ahead of the budget to make. I will give way. David Pinto-Duschinsky. I thank the hon. Member. For giving way. You've mentioned this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You've mentioned this. 47,000,000 billion. Of. Savings, but you've. Neglected to mention. How. Many teachers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How. Many teachers. If the hon. Gentleman had been in here for more of the debate, he would have heard that I'm being particularly pernickety about the use of the word you. I haven't identified anything, anything this afternoon. I don't intend to. He'll afternoon. I don't intend to. He'll perhaps make his intervention short, given his short tenure in the chamber this afternoon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chamber this afternoon. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker. And I apologise. identified.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

identified. How many teachers, how many doctors, how. Many police? Neither has anyone on. Those benches. So will he do that now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So will he do that now? He didn't mention Joe Robertson. The reason that I have not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The reason that I have not identified any doctors or teachers or police, because there are none or police, because there are none to identify. The 47 billion savings have been listed out by the shadow Chancellor. They will include cuts Chancellor. They will include cuts to Whitehall, the civil service in Whitehall that I suspect his government may be dragged kicking government may be dragged kicking and screaming to cut in some way at some point by us, and they also some point by us, and they also include 23 billion cuts to the welfare bill.

It is the right thing to do to incentivise work and lift people from welfare into work, something his party used to believe in. One way of doing that is to incentivise employers to want to employ people. But the Chancellor, in her last budget disincentivized work because she taxed work by raising National Insurance contributions. And as we stand today, there are 180,000 fewer people on payroll than when this government came in. And it's no surprise that the economy is grinding to a halt.

In fact, the government is doing worse through the Business and Trade department by bringing in an Employment Rights Bill which will further disincentivize work. It is disincentivised people, young people in my constituency on the Isle of Wight, from finding a seasonal summer job because it has lowered the threshold at which the hourly threshold at which National Insurance contributions come in. So it's less beneficial to employ people on fewer hours, and indeed, younger people who used to be cheaper to employ while they were between full time work and education.

So, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gosport so eloquently set out earlier, it's the unintended consequences which have really damaged the economy and made it harder to employ people. And she's generous, I think, by describing them as unintended consequences, because really, the Chancellor, a government and the Treasury should know the consequences of their policy decisions. And it does make me wonder whether they were actually reckless as to what they were doing, and were quite happy for businesses to soak up the additional cost and to come back to the taxpayer for more money.

I would urge those on the opposition, on the government benches, of which there are very few in the House today, to maximise all possible pressure on their Chancellor to do the right thing by their constituents and the British people.
15:32
Laurence Turner Portrait Laurence Turner MP (Birmingham Northfield, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. are usually detailed as in fact, the next one on the Order Paper is on energy. So the brevity of this motion deserves comment. The most important line, I think, is the first that this House calls on the government to control public expenditure in the hands of this opposition, that short and seemingly innocuous phrase is a euphemism for cuts to essential services and a return to the austerity agenda that the public so decisively rejected a year ago.

Everything that follows an emotion hangs upon that intent. After all, they accept themselves that were the positions reversed. They themselves would likely be putting up taxes. Now, earlier in this debate, the shadow Chancellor, who was not in this place at this exact moment, said that he had been quoted out of context. But the longer transcript is reported by city. Am said as follows. If I was in exactly her position, the Chancellors and I had to deal with tax, and I was down the end of the spectrum where the black hole was really big, I would probably go for income tax.

I wouldn't want to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in that position, but that's the cleanest thing. So I was indicating I will give way. Jerome Mayhew I'm very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and since we're looking for clarity on here, what the what the shadow Chancellor was saying was if it was Chancellor was saying was if it was in her position, I could not cut spending then and he had to raise tax. Maybe that is what he would do. tax. Maybe that is what he would do. But that's not what his intention is.

His intention, very properly, is to control spending as any responsible government would do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsible government would do. Why won't his do the same? Laurence Turner well, thank you for his intervention because it brings it exactly on to the next point that I was about to make, which is that they come to the House today stating that all these difficult matters have been resolved and there is no need for taxation increases at all. They say taxation increases at all. They say they have a plan for cutting £47 billion of public expenditure. And billion of public expenditure.

And in fact, I do have a copy of that plan with me, but that is not much of a boast because it is a very of a boast because it is a very sparse document. And at the time, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay said, and I quote, Billericay said, and I quote, further detail will follow. A month has passed and we are still waiting, so perhaps the Treasury frontbench can let us know when they find out today whether they will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today whether they will be publishing a more detailed document. I give way to hon. Member. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. And to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bring him back. To the controlling. Of spending. Can I. Ask him what other members on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his side have failed to answer? Would he be in favour of keeping or scrapping the two child benefit cap? Laurence Turner?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Laurence Turner? Well, I've. Said it a number of times on the record and in this House before, so record and in this House before, so it's no evasion to say that I'm no fan of the cap at all. And as an incrementalist, I would like to see incrementalist, I would like to see at least some solid progress on lifting that cap, and I hope that we will be in a position to remove we will be in a position to remove it completely now.

No, no, I've already taken two interventions. I already taken two interventions. I want to make a bit of progress with my speech, but we might come back to it. And so I hope that the to it. And so I hope that the opposition do publish more detail, because if they do not, it will be widely suspected in the country and widely suspected in the country and the House that they know that their claims do not withstand the lightest of scrutiny. And it will lightest of scrutiny.

And it will be concluded that the real function of that document is to act as a exercise in wishful thinking that exercise in wishful thinking that is designed to avoid the taking of difficult and unpopular decisions. Now, some parts of it, I think, can Now, some parts of it, I think, can be dispensed with briefly. They tell us that they would save £3.5 billion by closing asylum hotels. I billion by closing asylum hotels. I think my constituents would choke on their cornflakes on that one, because they know that the Conservative Party was the originator of hotel use.

Just a small boat crossings were not an issue before 2019. I am glad that hotel placements in Birmingham are down by 50% compared to their peak under Labour, and I look forward to their use being eliminated completely. The greater part of their claims savings is £23 billion to supposedly cuts to the welfare bill. But again, we have only had the scarcest of details. Let's be clear about the scale of what has been discussed. 23 billion is the equivalent of a quarter of the Universal Credit bill, more than half the disability Social Security bill, two thirds of housing costs.

Now, to give her credit, the shadow welfare secretary said last week that she would be happy to share a further breakdown of those savings. Again, that has not been brought forward at this time and I think that if the opposition are to ask the House to have any confidence in the proposals that they put forward, they must provide that information, not examples of proposed cuts, but in their totality. The other part

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of that I will give way. Ben Spencer. I'm very grateful for the give away, but one of the striking features of this debate is how much the government benches have spent in their time discussing our record in government, and what our record in government, and what our plans are going forward. It's almost as if they are. They are lingering and they are cheering on lingering and they are cheering on and desperate in need for a change of Prime Minister. Yeah. Will they facilitate this?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. When members on the opposite side talk about defenestration, I side talk about defenestration, I do, of course. Listen, because of their greater expertise on these matters and of course as well matters and of course as well what's past is prologue. He tempts me to get on to the Zinoviev letter, but that might be one for another but that might be one for another day. But actually, I've only made one brief reference to the last government's record. We are scrutinising their motion and their proposals.

It is an opposition debate, and that is a proper function of Parliament. And the function of Parliament. And the other part of their document that I want to comment on is their intention to axe 132,000 civil intention to axe 132,000 civil servants. Some of these people are my constituents, has already been my constituents, has already been noted. Now, not only is this pledge a rehash of a here today, gone tomorrow promise once announced by tomorrow promise once announced by Boris Johnson and never seen again, it is unclear where exactly they see those job cuts falling.

Is it the additional trade and customs officials hired since 2016? Is it the additional DfE staff hired as a result of Academisation, effectively a transfer from local government functions to central governments? Is it MHCLG staff hired as a result of the growth in statutory burdens on our local authorities? I think all our constituents who work in those roles deserve at least clarity on what the opposition's intentions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are. I will briefly. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree with me giving way. Does he agree with me that it's interesting that the party opposite has put forward lots of proposals of, you know, fantasy proposals about various cuts they can't make and yet strangely failed to mention any of the Covid money

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to mention any of the Covid money that went missing on on their watch and its recovery. Good point. Yeah. Well I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think he is. He is right, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. And we could all point to examples of waste and inefficient spending under the previous government. And that is, of course, part of the that is, of course, part of the context of where we find ourselves today, as are the £9.5 billion of undisclosed spending pressures that undisclosed spending pressures that were withheld by the Treasury on their watch from the Office of their watch from the Office of Budgetary Responsibility.

And I will just say this before concluding, because, you know, has been part of the debate and we are been part of the debate and we are today in a pre budget debate and no backbencher knows the contents of backbencher knows the contents of what will be announced. But when we do, when we do look back on the do, when we do look back on the past and that reflective way, I think the hon. Member for New Forest East had, I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

Thank you. I thank him for giving way. I just wonder if he could tell the House whether he personally would be content if income tax, National Insurance or VAT was to rise in the budget in two weeks time. Well, I'll happily say to him that I don't think any of us come to this place wanting to raise taxes. I will just draw attention to to one thing. In the Labour Party manifesto, which was a statement, and I think it was an important one, that a growing economy needs strong public services.

So I do, of course, also welcome the record investment, the biggest in 20 years in our NHS, which in Birmingham has seen waiting lists fall by 20%. Now that is a philosophical difference between my side and his, but that was also a very important part of the manifesto that I stood upon. Now earlier, the hon. Member for Rotherham, member for New Forest East, I think, suggested that he remembered when Hugh Dalton resigned in 1947, which I'm not sure the numbers can quite be right on that one.

But when we when we do look back, I will just say this every conservative government and leadership since 2010 onwards and inclusively claim mitigating circumstances when they deviated from manifesto commitments. Some greats such as the pandemic, some less so. And there is no doubt that the weakening of international trade, the imposition of tariffs and the forthcoming OBR, what we understand to be revision on productivity estimates, are new and relevant factors. That is why difficult conversations are currently happening in governments and parliaments across Europe.

So when the opposition demand consistency from others, they would do well to reflect on their own confounding record.
15:42
Neil Shastri-Hurst Portrait Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Solihull West and Shirley, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. Deputy Speaker. Now, this debate is much broader than mere numbers on a spreadsheet buried in the Treasury. It's about trust. It's about stewardship, and it's about the future of our country. And that matters because at the last general election, the now government and all of those elected on their manifesto said they wouldn't raise taxes on working people. Yet last year, at the budget, they did precisely that. They introduced £40 billion of tax rises under the guise of national insurance.

In the majority of cases, which have a trickle down effect on working people up and down the country. To compound matters, on the 25th of November of last year, the Chancellor addressed the CBI and she made a cast iron promise. No more borrowing, no more taxes. That was a pledge to every family, every community and every business in this country. And yet and yet, madam Deputy Speaker, we are now on the precipice of the government breaking that promise.

And to do so. To do so would irreversibly damage the public's confidence in the government's ability to manage our economy. Simply put, every tax rise hits families, hits pensioners and hits small businesses. There is a simple maxim Madam Deputy Speaker, borrowing today is merely debt for tomorrow. For every pound borrowed, it has to be repaid and it has to be repaid with interest. Now I know the opposition benches do not necessarily regularly take the words of Margaret Thatcher to heart, but I would I would leave a quote to her pennies don't fall from heaven.

They have to be earned. That is what people up and down this country are doing every day. They are grafting to provide for their families and their future. She was absolutely right. History teaches us that unchecked spending commitments undermines growth. It reduces confidence, and it erodes the state's ability to serve those who are most vulnerable. In contrast, having a control over public expenditure isn't an ideology. It's not something to be feared. It is simply common sense. It's about cutting waste, and it's about making hard choices today so that future generations are not saddled, saddled with crushing debt.

That's responsible government. It was Churchill who said that the price of greatness is responsibility. Well, when the the now government came into power with great fanfare, there was a sense that they wanted to be a great reforming government. Well, is there any greater responsibility, any greater responsibility than to families who budget carefully, citizens who trust government to keep their word, and the public who expect manifesto promises to be kept? People live within their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

means. I will give way. If he was a conservative in 2010,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If he was a conservative in 2010, when George Osborne promised not to put up VAT, or in 2019 when Boris Johnson promised not to put up any Johnson promised not to put up any taxes. Both of them made promises that they went on to break because they said that the that the circumstances of the country allowed it. Or is he a recent convert to this position?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Neil Shastri-Hurst I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He may have forgotten the the Covid pandemic that swept across this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. That, of course turned over the table and therefore difficult decisions had to be made. No, that's. No excuse.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No excuse. The difference is now I will make my point. The difference, the make my point. The difference, the difference is this is not a situation where the Chancellor came before the media last year and said, before the media last year and said, the buck stops with us now. That is what the Chancellor did. She has to own these decisions. As I say, people in this country are asked to live within their means. They make sacrifices and they plan on those contingencies.

They expect the government to do the same. So when the Chancellor promises not to borrow more, not to tax more, the borrow more, not to tax more, the country should be able to take her at her word. Such promises are bonds of trust between the government and the people, and I have a certain degree of sympathy for the the members opposite. They have been put in an invidious position. They've been asked to break a promise that they have made to their constituents and that they have made to their country.

So I ask them to look into their hearts and think, really? Is this what they want to be remembered for? I ask them, will they show the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leadership, the independence of thought and the resolve to vote for this motion here? Jerome Mayhew.
15:47
Jerome Mayhew Portrait Jerome Mayhew MP (Broadland and Fakenham, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jerome Mayhew. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is going to be a very simple speech because it a very simple speech because it only has a single fundamental point, and that is that honesty in politics matters. That shouldn't be a controversial statement. We can of course, we are in this place advocates. We are advocates for a political philosophy, for political tactics in individual debates. But the fundamental is that we should be, yes, putting forward our case as attractively as possible.

We could be using some statistics and not using others, because they make our case more effectively than others. But when you come down to downright misleading the public, then a line is crossed. And that is wrong because it's taking the public for fools. In the election of 2024, the party opposite had a manifesto. It was the manifesto on which every single one of the members, Honourable and Right Honourable opposite, were elected on. And it had a core promise at the very heart of it.

And that was that. Apart from an identified £7 billion of tax rises which they're intending to raise, there was going to be no other tax rises and in particular none on National Insurance contributions, income tax or VAT. It is the very basis of their electoral mandate, and even then they only managed to secure 34% of the vote. The first breach of that those promises came in October last year, when tax rises weren't 7 billion. They were 40 billion justified by a wholly fictitious £22 billion black hole that the OBR refused to support.

And the and the Financial Times, amongst others, could not identify either. They raised taxes on employers, a tax on jobs or fully £25 billion, which the IFS said was a straightforward breach of their manifesto. And we were told then it's a one off. We've wiped the slate clean. This is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's words. We're not going to come back with more taxes. We have fixed the foundations of the economy. It's now on us. Those aren't my words.

Those are the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And now we come to the second budget in just two weeks time. There has been no global event that has blown this government's plans off course. There has been no pandemic. There has been no European invasion, sending electricity and energy prices through the roof. If events have changed, it has been as a direct consequence of the political and economic decisions of that government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's friend. Give way, I will. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Would he agree with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree with. Me that actually. What. Has changed. Is the inability of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister and the Chancellor to control their backbenchers, who now feel free. To demand. Whatever public expenditure they think is convenient? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Jerome Mayhew is entirely correct. He tried half heartedly, correct. He tried half heartedly, admittedly, to save £4.5 billion from the welfare budget. He put his own Minister in the ridiculous position of starting a debate, arguing for £4.5 billion of tax arguing for £4.5 billion of tax savings on sorry spending, savings on long term disability and health on long term disability and health benefits, only to end the very same debate advocating for a £300 million debate advocating for a £300 million increase in those same benefits.

He has lost control of his backbenchers and he's lost control backbenchers and he's lost control of spending of his government. So we've had no global event. We do have government policies which have been economically disastrous. They are truly the tax and spend party are truly the tax and spend party with tax. They've raised the tax burden to the highest in history, certainly since the Second World certainly since the Second World War. And in spend they raised £40 billion of tax. They borrowed a further 30 billion, increasing spending by 70 billion.

They intend under their own plans to to borrow half £1 trillion extra during the course of this Parliament. And for what has there been reform of public services? No. Public sector productivity has declined. You are getting less for your money and even more so in healthcare, where the decline in productivity is fully 8.3%. And what they've done is they've increased wage inflation. So for public sector pay, it's more than 6% inflation. Whereas the trailed the private sector trails by a third.

It's a third less. So they're coming back for more. They are intending we are told I will in a second. We are there. They are intending, we are told by multiple briefs to the newspapers that they are coming back and intending to breach their core election manifesto to raise taxes because they cannot reduce spending. And on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that point I will give way. I just. Think what he's saying is not quite credible about health, about quite credible about health, about our healthcare. And I appreciate that his researchers will have gone away and tried to find a statistic that works for his speech, but it's that works for his speech, but it's undeniable that we've delivered more appointments in the NHS, significantly more appointments that waiting times are coming down and that satisfaction levels are going back up again. For the first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time since they broke the NHS. Jerome Mayhew intervention. One quick clarification waiting times have actually increased on each of the last three months, so they are not going down at the moment, but productivity. If you if you hose productivity. If you if you hose enough money at a system, you can get increased results at it. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but what you're getting per pound spent has declined by over 8%. That is a very serious point. Yes, I will give. Way this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Way this. The previous intervention from the hon. Member opposite is my hon. Friend aware of the office for National Statistics report last week which showed that NHS week which showed that NHS productivity had actually declined since this party took office? And would he like to invite the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would he like to invite the hon. Member to retract what he has just said? Jerome Mayhew I couldn't put the words better myself. These are not words better myself. These are not my statistics made up by my researchers. These are the Office of National Office of National of National Office of National Statistics. These decisions that the Chancellor, we are told is about to make in two weeks. They're not inevitable. There is another choice. She can grow a backbone, and so can the the Prime Minister and impose some control over public spending.

We've set out a plan to reduce spending by £47 billion. I've heard some of the criticisms and challenges from the members opposite. That's okay. You have a budget of £1.3 trillion to choose from. Are they seriously saying that they cannot find £20 billion of necessary savings from a £1.3 trillion budget? If they cannot, then they don't deserve to be in government. This motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, isn't a sleight of hand. It is a simple short motion which merely asks the government and the members opposite when they choose which lobby to go through tonight, whether or not they are going to stick with their own promises, to stick to their own manifesto commitments, are they going to treat their constituents as fools, or are they going to vote with the opposition and defend their own, albeit shaky, democratic mandate?
15:54
Gregory Stafford Portrait Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-
Gregory Stafford.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of high spend. Historically high. Debt and higher. Taxes, killing growth. Fuelling

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inflation and reducing opportunities and. Absolutely weakening our economy locally. Madam Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, I've. Spoken to numerous. Businesses across. Farnham and Bordon. Hertsmere and our surrounding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

villages and they are. All anxiously. Awaiting the undoubtedly business. Crushing budget. In two weeks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In two weeks. Time. And the government's lack of understanding of. Business should surprise. No one. The frontbench has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The frontbench has. More experience in the trade union movement than it. Does of business. And indeed, Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Was asked. Which company supported her damaging Employment Rights Bill, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and. Cause around 326,000. Job. Losses, she couldn't name a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Losses, she couldn't name a single one. The avoidance of engagement runs right. To the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the. Top in this government, and. We've. Seen it today in. This debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, we've had. What I would call a utopian

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What I would call a utopian socialist vision from. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who mentioned that Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Auckland, who mentioned that Labour came in in the. Last general election to change. Well, given how much. They've resiled.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They've resiled. From their manifesto, change. Is about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

still. Sticking to. But if you speak to constituents and businesses in my constituency, and I'm sure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituency, and I'm sure. In the honourable. Member's constituency as well, it has. Not been. Changed for the better.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I have to say, this is the lack of interest in this. I will in continues. With, I'm afraid. The Liberal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Liberal. Democrats. The fact that not a single Liberal Democrat backbencher has chosen. To speak in this debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To speak in this debate. A debate about the fundamentals. Of how we're going to grow this economy, how are we going to run our economy?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our economy? Not a single one thought it was important to talk. And I think. Is shameful. And I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is shameful. And I. I have to say, I hope. That. The frontbench spokesman, who I do have a lot of. Respect for, goes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Respect for, goes. Back and speaks to his. Colleagues about this. But I am also concerned the. Fact that he. In his. Amendment. Which thankfully.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. Which thankfully. Was not accepted by the speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact that we have asked them, we've asked the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government to stick. To. Their promises. Was removed from. His amendment. And again, an extraordinary situation, and I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extraordinary situation, and I've given way to the hon. Member. This is. His comment about my contribution. But perhaps because our constituencies are different, his constituents don't face the his constituents don't face the same challenges. But the sorts of changes I'm talking about are things like getting NHS dentists things like getting NHS dentists back, reopening surestart centres, fixing the problems on our high street, improving our schools, getting the Camhs waiting list down. These are serious things my constituents are looking to me to deliver that, and we know as much as each other does about what will be in the budget.

But what I will be certainly looking for will be a budget that invests in the public services that we in the infrastructure that has been sadly neglected for far too long.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the hon. Member has demonstrated. The point. I can, I can I just respond. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. The hon. Member first, but I. Will I think the hon. Member is actually described, the socialist utopia that I accused. Him of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Him of. What the fundamental. Point is, if you don't. Have. Businesses contributing. To the economy, then. You.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You. Can't fund those. Public services. If you. Make 90,000. People unemployed in the. Hospitality sector. They are not paying income tax

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They are not paying income tax and we cannot support. The public services. This idea. That. You can just raise money out of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You can just raise money out of without. A. Consequence is. Not sustainable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Smith. I thank the hon. Member for that clarification. Hopefully that means clarification. Hopefully that means that they will be voting for our motion when it comes later. But he shakes his head because it probably doesn't fit the narrative that he is looking for. The other point that the hon. Member for Bishop that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland just made on me was that he said that neither he nor I want know what's in the budget, and while that is technically correct, while that is technically correct, the fact that the government has been flying so many kites pretty much since the summer about what's going to be in this budget.

More kites than in Mary Poppins. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think, gives us some indication of what is going to be in the budget. But in doing so, and I think this point has been made earlier in this debate, it's caused great uncertainty, it's caused great worry, and meant that businesses are either one deciding not to invest because they're so worried about what's going to happen or delaying decisions to do so because the budget has been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pushed. I will give way briefly, sir. Tom Hayes giving way on that point, if I may, I'd like to quote point, if I may, I'd like to quote the chief executive of the CBI, who says scrapping the Climate Change Act would be a backward step in achieving our shared objectives of reaching economic growth, boosting energy security, protecting our energy security, protecting our environment and making life healthier for future generations. The chief executive of energy UK says treating the Climate Change Act as a political football is a surefire way to scare off investors.

Does he support his conservative leader's objective of scrapping the leader's objective of scrapping the Climate Change Act, given that those two respected authorities say that it will damage investment in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our economy? Yeah. I mean, I don't think I mentioned the Climate Change Act in my speech, but I'm grateful. I'm my speech, but I'm grateful. I'm grateful for him raising it. I think what my constituents want, and I'm trying to answer his point is Barking me before I've even had is Barking me before I've even had a chance to answer what what my constituents say to me is that they want green policies. They want want green policies. They want sensible moves to reducing carbon and pollution, but what they want and pollution, but what they want is to be able to to do it absolutely in a way that doesn't hobble our economy and doesn't hit hobble our economy and doesn't hit them in their pocket when they are facing one of the most difficult times at the moment in the face of times at the moment in the face of this government, because they are being taxed to death by them.

I refer to another set of constituents, business owners of Rutland, London, in my constituency, who told me about the much vaunted backing your business. Our plan for small and medium sized businesses report that's come out from the government recently, they said, and I quote while promised, while it promised to cut red tape, it lacks delivery details, relies on third party cooperation and depends on enforcement rather than details, plans or even an outline, none of which has been set out to us. So once again, another supposedly amazing thing that this government has done businesses don't want.

And during the general election, Labour did say to the to the public that they would not raise taxes. They said that 41 times they were not going to raise taxes. Then, of course, as we've heard, the government raised taxes for £40 billion. And once again, we could have had at that point a sensible discussion about how we were going to reduce the size of the state, how we could reduce inefficiencies, how we could increase productivity. But we had none of those discussions.

Essentially, we had a tiny change to welfare, which this government, because of its backbenches, couldn't get through. Now, whilst I disagree with the Labour backbenchers on on that I asked them to find that backbone again. I asked them to find that backbone which made them stand up to their front bench last time and do so again. So if the Chancellor does come to this House and raises taxes on working people, I ask them to find that backbone again and vote against it, because their constituents will thank them and the country will thank them.

Overall. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the minute or two I have left, I want to focus very much on the local leadership. I think it is incumbent upon us as local leaders to see and speak and listen to constituents and businesses, which is why I'm running a business round table next week, which I'm very grateful. The shadow business secretary is coming to speak at. And I recommend it not just because we are local leaders, but I think members on the opposition benches would learn something.

They would learn that their constituents are not in favour of this. The Member for Bishop Auckland made some, I think, reference that our constituencies are not the same. I can tell you that my constituents, I'm sure in his there are business owners suffering. There are families who are struggling. There are farmers who are worried about what they're going to do with their taxes. There are small there are small businesses that are going to be broken up because of this government's tax. And there are thousands upon thousands of people who either have lost their job or will not get into employment because of what this government has done.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is time for this government to actually act. Stop tinkering, stop the gimmicks, stop punishing hardworking families and small businesses. This country deserves more than those promises. It deserves action. It deserves certainty, and it deserves a government who is on the side of those who work, innovate and contribute every day. What we need from the Chancellor in two weeks time is to deliver a budget that actually invests in growth, actually supports jobs, actually protects household incomes, and cuts the red tape that I have described on businesses earlier.

I urge the Minister to take this opportunity seriously and ensure that the Chancellor and the government as a whole listens to their constituents, listens to my constituents, and produce a budget

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that restores confidence, ambition and hope in this nation. Doctor Ben Spencer. Thank you.
16:03
Ben Spencer Portrait Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I think one thing this government's really good at doing is creating a sort of good at doing is creating a sort of a feeling of fear and worry, particularly amongst my constituents. They look at what's happened to them as a consequence of decisions that were taken in the last budget. That's people from all walks of life across the board, people who employ people, people who are employed, people who work in hospitality, people who work in the charity sector who've had to make very difficult decisions as a consequence of the impact of the last budget.

Of course, I'm grateful to the hon. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. We've talked about the fear of our constituents, but there's another fear, which is but there's another fear, which is that held by businesses. And he will know that if you look at business confidence, it has plummeted to the worst on record, but also investment decisions taken by business have been delayed by business have been delayed because people are worried. Businesses are worried about the impact of this terrible budget that impact of this terrible budget that we're facing.

So does he agree with me that the speculation, fuelled by the anonymous briefings from number 11, are already actually damaging our economy?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our economy? Well, I thank him for his intervention because this was pretty much what I was going on to say at this constant kite flying say at this constant kite flying that's happening about various different potential taxes or cooked up schemes that could affect up schemes that could affect different walks of life as the government is trying to keep on meeting its burgeoning and ever meeting its burgeoning and ever growing spending commitments are making people lose confidence, and that has real impact in terms of that has real impact in terms of decisions they're making here and now, even without these policies having been enacted.

Like it or not, having been enacted. Like it or not, the budget on the 26th is already here. It's already operating. It's operating through the media, and people are making decisions now people are making decisions now which have real impact, and particularly in my patch, home

**** Possible New Speaker ****

owners are absolutely. And I do think forgive me because this is a serious point, because people who are worried because people who are worried about the financial situation of the country will save and spend, whether private individuals or whether private individuals or businesses. But this very debate is designed to fuel that speculation, is it not? Is that not the very aim

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is it not? Is that not the very aim of this debate is to fuel that and make people feel more anxious? Thank you. Speaker. Ben Spencer intervention. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ben Spencer intervention. This this debate, I think we were hoping, would clarify the inability of the would clarify the inability of the Prime Minister to answer the question from the Leader of the Opposition only two weeks ago in Opposition only two weeks ago in terms of reinforcing the manifesto commitment around not raising the big three taxes. So we are in a period of uncertainty which we are trying to resolve, that has been created by this ongoing kite flying. And I tell you what, in my patch,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I tell you what, in my patch, of course. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Would he agree with for giving way. Would he agree with me that the corollary of taxes is expenditure? And would he agree that we've also tried to elicit that we've also tried to elicit from the benches opposite, excuse me some clarity as to whether members opposite would like to members opposite would like to raise the two child benefit cap or leave it where it is, which would leave it where it is, which would cost £3.5 billion.

And and would he be prepared to take an intervention from the hon. Member who suggested that we were spreading uncertainty when this is a kite flying exercise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which has been done by the Chancellor in the media recently. Ben Spencer I thank my constituency neighbour and from constituency neighbour and from Spelthorne for intervening and of course, you know, always happy to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course, you know, always happy to take interventions from I might say I'm happy to take intervention. I'll sit down and. Scott Arthur.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott Arthur. So my home town is Kirkcaldy and the MP for Kirkcaldy was Gordon the MP for Kirkcaldy was Gordon Brown, of course, and I do thank you for giving way. And in that Blair Brown government, he he did a Blair Brown government, he he did a lot of work to cut child poverty. And and that is something that I am really proud of and pensioner really proud of and pensioner poverty as well. And I think the members opposite should be absolutely ashamed of what they did absolutely ashamed of what they did to child poverty in the UK.

Absolutely ashamed. And both myself and I am sure my colleagues on and I am sure my colleagues on these benches will do everything they can to reduce child poverty, including, I hope, removing that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child cap. Ben Spencer. Well, I thank him for his his clout in that position and I'm glad. I mean, since members opposite have been keen to talk about the past, I'm glad he brings up Gordon Brown, I'm glad he brings up Gordon Brown, who of course sold the gold at record levels, which led to a mess which we had to clean up going forwards. But homeowners, particularly my constituents, are concerned because we have many people who are asset rich, cash poor.

We have many people, however, many pensioners who are worried about pensions. We have people who do the right thing. They make decisions which we encourage, which are responsible decisions, whether that's investing in pension saving for the future, and they are seen as targets or potential targets by this government to pay for the the profligate spending that's that's being offered going forward. So they're desperately they're desperately worried. And look, the truth is we have to stop spending money which is not ours to spend.

There are so many on the government benches. Of course, I was very happy to take Sam Rushworth. I think he was in the chamber.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When I read a list of billions of pounds of profligate spending by the party opposite while they were in government. I'm pleased that this government has stopped that, and I'm pleased that he's a convert to our cause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to our cause. Ben Spencer thank you. I thank him for his intervention. Look, I mean, I have to say I'm getting a bit exhausted of this 14 years narrative and this this whole recurrence in terms of trying to recurrence in terms of trying to chew over the past if he wants. I want to talk about the future, and I want to talk about decisions now. I want to talk about decisions now. I want to talk about bringing hope for the future again.

If he wants to talk about the past, we can talk to talk about the past, we can talk about the past. We can talk about the dodgy PFI deals that were done under the previous Labour government. We can talk about government. We can talk about Gordon Brown selling the gold. We can talk about IMF bailout. If I can, I might go back to the future. can, I might go back to the future. But if he wants me to continue in the past, I can do so. If I had to take an intervention.

Yeah. Okay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take an intervention. Yeah. Okay. Right. So let's get. The honourable. Member give. My friend. Was looking for an intervention, I think probably from the I think probably from the opposition benches, but I thank him for taking one from me. Isn't the sad tragedy of all of this that we sad tragedy of all of this that we are now stuck for the rest of this decade with this government? Because they're clearly not going to hold a general election while to hold a general election while they're bombing in the polls.

Yeah. And while the country is in their hands for the rest of the decade, all they want to do is talk about previous decades. What must our constituents and their constituents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be thinking when they hear this sort of stuff? Yeah. So I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. So I thank. the Member for his intervention because he is absolutely spot on. Our constituents are hurting. They Our constituents are hurting. They are in a difficult situation. They are very worried what's going to happen in two weeks. And they look into this place and they see the government benches who just want to talk about the past over and over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again. Charlie Maynard thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Let's talk about trade. Yeah. When the hon. Gentleman is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When the hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, he should do it via me facing the chair, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the backbenches. Charlie Maynard let's talk about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charlie Maynard let's talk about trade. I find it extraordinary if we're looking at the future. I mean, I think Stephen Bush and the Ft talked about the permanent lobotomy talked about the permanent lobotomy that the Tory party needs to have when talking about Brexit. It's like if we are talking about like if we are talking about getting money into the exchequer, let's get our economy moving again. There's growth back in the economy. There's growth back in the economy. Let's open up a customs union with Europe and get our economy growing.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So let's look to the future. So I have to apologise to remember I came in in 2019. It strikes me that this debate was probably better suited in 2018 before I was elected. I'm moving on in terms of how we the situation that we find ourselves in. Many members on the benches opposite have spoken about the Chancellor or the government bringing in free this and free that. The government doesn't have money, the Chancellor doesn't have money. It's not even just taxpayers money which they are pledging to spend.

It's our children's money. And I think this goes to the core of the problem that we face now, because decisions which the government is taking to keep on spending and not cut, not cut in terms of spending and keep on borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, that's not on my head. That's not on the heads of anyone in this room. That's on the heads of our children. Families know how to budget, and it is the equivalent of a parent saying, we fancy going on holiday to, I don't know, Lanzarote this year and we're going to borrow money to do it, but we're not going to borrow.

I'm not going to borrow, I'm going to borrow my kids. They're going to take out the loan. They can pay back that loan in the future. It is fundamentally, morally unacceptable that we are in this position and we do not. And we this government is not an approach to try and drive down the deficit and pay back the debt. And that's why I'm so pleased. The Leader of the Opposition announced a golden rule in terms of making sure policies going forwards recognise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we we cannot keep on spending money that we do not have. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. We in the last government from 2010 onwards worked really hard in 2010 onwards worked really hard in terms of driving down debt. And we almost got there in terms of reducing deficits and we almost got reducing deficits and we almost got there when Covid kicked off. Could people imagine the situation we people imagine the situation we would have been in if Covid had kicked off without the work we had kicked off without the work we had done, in terms of balancing the books and the firepower that we had fiscally to get through it.

Yeah, I fiscally to get through it. Yeah, I remember the debates that we had around Covid. I remember really well the first year. I'm sure well the first year. I'm sure everyone in this chamber does, whether they're a member or not. And I remember early on being And I remember early on being desperately worried that the shadow from Covid was going to loom long and it was going to loom hard. And and it was going to loom hard. And for the next decade, we were going to see the impact of turning off
16:13
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

to see the impact of turning off the economy for two years. Order, order Ashley Fox.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order Ashley Fox. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the general election, the Labour Party said they would not increase income tax, national Insurance or VAT and they repeated they would not increase taxes on working people. And in their manifesto, they said they would increase spending by only £9.5 billion. This was to be paid by £7.3 billion of extra taxes and 3.5 billion of extra borrowing. Madam Deputy Speaker, this was a modest plan with a prudent margin.

It was a plan put forward to the electorate to show they could be trusted with the public finances, and my constituents might be surprised to learn that if they now look on the Labour Party website, that manifesto is rather more difficult to find than a couple of months ago. Now it is fair to say that we conservatives did not believe them, so we were not entirely surprised when, within weeks of moving into Downing Street, the Chancellor told the country that she would have to raise taxes.

After all, she had apparently found a magical £22 billion black hole. Magical because nobody other than the government seemed able to locate it. Certainly, the office for Budget Responsibility couldn't find it. It was, of course, a fiction. Madam Deputy Speaker, to give the Chancellor cover for what she always intended to do, which was a massive increase in taxes, borrowing and spending, because that is what Labour does. Dogs bark and cats miaow and Labour increases taxes and borrowing and debt.

And in her first budget last year, the Chancellor didn't raise taxes by the £7.3 billion promised in the manifesto. She increased taxes by £40 billion and she didn't increase borrowing by the promised 3.5 billion, but by £32 billion. And believe it or not, she didn't increase spending by the promised £9.5 billion. She increased it by £7 billion. The Chancellor imposed £40 billion of extra taxes on our economy. She increased national insurance through employers. She increased stamp duty capital gains tax and imposed extra taxes on family businesses and family farms, and then pretended that none of these were taxes on working people.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman. Deputy Speaker. I'm just interested when the hon. Member interested when the hon. Member will acknowledge that debt has risen from 0.5 trillion to 2.9 risen from 0.5 trillion to 2.9 trillion from 2005 to 2026, forecast March. That's nearly six times, and the great majority of it's under your watch. And yes, we can talk about Covid, but Covid is can talk about Covid, but Covid is not is a very small portion of that about 0.7. So what about the rest of it.

And are you going to take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of it. And are you going to take any response. Oh sorry. Is anyone going to take any responsibility for it? Mr. speaker, I'm grateful for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, I'm grateful for that intervention. Of course, he will know that the Liberal Democrats joined a coalition Democrats joined a coalition government in 2010 with the Conservatives, and we inherited a Conservatives, and we inherited a deficit of £156 billion in 2010, 11% deficit of £156 billion in 2010, 11% of GDP, and it took ten years to 2020 to reduce that steadily to 2% 2020 to reduce that steadily to 2% of GDP. And for all the moaning and whining from the benches opposite whining from the benches opposite about austerity, actually what we were trying to do, we a coalition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

were trying to do, we a coalition government for five years and the Conservatives for the remainder, was to live within our means. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And that is tough. That's really difficult. It's about improving public services, but without necessarily hosing money at them. necessarily hosing money at them. And we see that most successfully in the field of education, where in England we've seen a dramatic England we've seen a dramatic increase in reading standards and standards of examination of English standards of examination of English pupils caused by genuine reforms. And that compares very favourably to what's happened in Scotland and to what's happened in Scotland and Wales, where those reforms didn't take place.

And the skill of of take place. And the skill of of government is how to improve public services without always spending services without always spending more money. And the Liberal Democrats used to have a few members who we who we called Orange members who we who we called Orange Book members. And it's a shame there are so few of them left. Now, there are so few of them left. Now, who does the Chancellor think she's kidding when she says she hasn't kidding when she says she hasn't increased taxes on working people? Try telling the farmers in my constituency that they're not working people or the young family where both parents work, and they're saving to pay the stamp duty on their first home.

Yeah. Now, as members opposite will recall, that first budget was not well received. So to draw a line under her broken promises, the Chancellor said, we've now wiped the slate clean. It's now on us. We've put everything out into the open. We've set the spending envelope for the course of this parliament. We don't need to come back for more, except we know that's not true. She is coming back for more. She is now set to break that promise again by putting up taxes again, happy to give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend for giving way. Does he have any idea as to why the Chancellor has changed her mind? Chancellor has changed her mind? What is it that has affected her decision? Where just a year ago, she said she didn't need to come she said she didn't need to come back for more, but now she says she does. Has there been any great global shock, or do you think it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

global shock, or do you think it's lies? Well, I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. I would suggest two reasons. The first is our two reasons. The first is our economy has slowed down as a result of the very tax increases that she has imposed, and the federal Labour backbenches have lost their nerve, and therefore the Prime Minister and the Chancellor can't control and the Chancellor can't control public expenditure in any way at all. Now the British people are already paying the highest tax burden in 70 years and Labour want to increase it further.

It is sad to say that this government has no clue as to how the economy works. I clue as to how the economy works. I genuinely believe that their frontbench wants to reduce unemployment, but have they ever considered that if you increase employers national insurance employers national insurance charges, if you increase the cost of employing labour, then of employing labour, then businesses might use less of it. If you pass an Employment Rights Bill that increases the cost of labour, might business use less labour? Might that be why unemployment has increased in every month since they took office? Is that why unemployment increases under every Labour government? And Labour is just as ignorant on the effect of taxes and spending? If you tax entrepreneurs, you will have less enterprise.

If you increase benefits, don't be surprised if it becomes more attractive to claim them. Unfortunately, Labour's answer to every question is more spending because of course it's what they do best spending other people's money. We never hear about their plans to improve efficiency or get better value for the taxpayer, because there are none. Labour's Labour's higher taxes and borrowing are leading to higher unemployment and lower growth. We are in a doom loop created by the Chancellor, and if we are to revitalise our economy, then the first step is for the government to control public expenditure.

That is why we have outlined our plans to reduce expenditure by £47 billion. We will reduce welfare spending by £23 billion and unlike the Liberal Democrats, reform UK and other high spending left wing parties, we would keep the two child benefit cap. We would reduce the size of the civil service to where it was in 2016, saving £8 billion, and reduce overseas aid by a further £7 billion. And we would use those savings to cut both borrowing and taxes to bring about a new spirit of enterprise and confidence in our country.

It is ironic, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Conservatives today calling for the government to stick to its manifesto, promise not to increase taxes. The British people will notice if they break

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that promise for a second time. In. Which brings us to the front
16:23
Gareth Davies Portrait Gareth Davies MP (Grantham and Bourne, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

bench contribution. Shadow Minister Gareth Davies. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm very grateful to be responding to this debate on behalf of His Majesty's Official Opposition. Let Majesty's Official Opposition. Let me start by thanking everybody from all sides of the House for their contributions today, but in particular those on my side of the House, my hon. Friend, my hon. And gallant friend for South Shropshire, who pointed out the impact of the family farm tax on his farms in Shropshire, in the 6000 farms across the country that have closed.

The hon. Member for Harlow, who sadly is not in his place, probably on the phone to his mother, spoke very well about Harlow and his mum, but I particularly enjoyed the bromance that is emerging between him and my hon. Friend for Runnymede and Weybridge. My hon. Friend for Gosport spoke very well about the impact of the rise in National Insurance contributions to the Gosport employment market. My hon. Friend for Soluble Solihull West and Shirley made a very good quote about Margaret Thatcher, and as the MP for Grantham, I particularly appreciated it, but it still rings true today about spending wisely with other people's money.

And my hon. Friend for Farnham and Boredom rightly highlighted that not a single Liberal Democrat backbench MP has turned up today, which I agree is completely shameless. Shameful. But we did hear from the hon. Member for Witney who had the temerity to think, to talk about our country's reputation when it is his leader who's prancing about in a wetsuit, falling off paddle boards, slightly ironic. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend for Broadland and Fakenham, who made a number of very important interventions.

He also pointed out, though, that every member opposite should really ask themselves the same question every time they wake up in the morning. Who voted for this? No one opposite has a mandate for further tax rises, just as they did not have a mandate for last year's jobs tax increase. Madam Deputy Speaker, they must know this. And the proof of this is right in front of us. Over 400 members of Parliament in less than ten have actually shown up.

I was going to say to try and defend the indefensible, but they didn't even do that. Nobody tried to defend the indefensible. We just heard more and more speeches about the past. When it is their constituents that are living in the present, I think they know that this upcoming budget is surely the beginning of the end. This is a government, Madam Deputy Speaker, who has lost control. And just when the Prime Minister should be focussed on fixing their mistakes, he is instead having to oversee coordinated briefings against the apparent plots to depose him by his own health secretary.

It is troubling, to say the least, that the Prime Minister seems more worried about the damage that's coming from inside his own Cabinet than the damage already done outside of it. The truth is, this Labour Party will not be forgiven. Socialism has failed everywhere and every time it has ever been tried. And we shouldn't forget. We shouldn't forget that Labour won the last election because they basically promised not to be a Socialist Labour government. They said they wouldn't fiddle the fiscal rules to borrow more money.

They said they wouldn't increase national insurance, income tax or VAT, and they said they wouldn't pursue ideologically driven policies that would push up energy bills. In fact, they said that they would cut them by £300. Unfortunately for the country, this is very much turned out to be a socialist Labour government. After all, higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower confidence and economy put into reverse back to the 1970s. Felt in every boardroom, every workshop, every pub and place of work across this country, the best thing that they can do right now is take responsibility for their own actions to show leadership.

After just 16 months of labour, inflation has doubled. Taxes are heading for record highs, borrowing has risen rapidly and unemployment has surged to the highest level since the pandemic. And none of this, none of this takes into account what may yet be to come. We know the Chancellor deliberately picked the latest time possible for her upcoming budget in a last ditch hope that someone, somewhere, might come up with something that makes it all better. And on November the 26th is a highly unusual date for an autumn budget.

The last time we had a budget this late, phones still had Ariel's mark. Morrison was returning the Mac and you had to rewind your VHS tapes before taking them back to blockbuster. If only we could rewind the last 16

**** Possible New Speaker ****

months. Sadly, we can't. But I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he Friend for giving way. Does he agree with me that this very long lead in period for the budget has caused enormous uncertainty for business? Who have faced this string of briefings in the media about every possible tax rise, and the very date the Chancellor has chosen for her budget is itself chosen for her budget is itself causing more uncertainty and delaying investment decisions. Gareth Davies I.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gareth Davies I. Couldn't agree more. In fact, markets and investors have now markets and investors have now endured week after week of reckless, irresponsible speculation not about irresponsible speculation not about whether Labour will put up their taxes, but which taxes will go up. taxes, but which taxes will go up. The endless uncertainty, as my hon. Friend says, has caused relentless Treasury kite flying that has damaged confidence. So many kites in the air, in fact, but none of in the air, in fact, but none of them tied to an actual plan.

My them tied to an actual plan. My hon. Friend for Isle of Wight East said this very well. Everyone seems to be looking over their shoulder to be looking over their shoulder to see who the Chancellor will come for next. This cannot be what Labour MPs want in the run up to Christmas, so they have a chance tonight to reaffirm the promises that they made to all of their constituents. This should be their easiest vote this year. Their core manifesto commitment that won them the election is printed in black and white in the motion today.

To fail to support this motion is confirming to each and every one of their constituents that they are content with betraying their trust.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be in no doubt the country is watching. Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. I call the Minister Dan Tomlinson Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And may I also thank all honourable and I think some right hon. Members for their contributions today. My right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for his opening speech and the Member for opening speech and the Member for Grantham and Bourne for closing for the opposition today. He was, of course, Exchequer Secretary for a course, Exchequer Secretary for a time under the last government. He will know then just how busy the period two weeks out from a budget period two weeks out from a budget can be for a junior Minister in Treasury.

I imagine when he was in my position 14 days out from a budget or an autumn statement, as I think it may have been, that think it may have been, that officials were rushing in and out of his office with advice on various measures. His day was full of meetings, trying to get the of meetings, trying to get the details right. And yet I'm sure. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is absolutely nothing more in the absolutely nothing more in the world that he would have wanted to do than be called to the House on such a day for an opposition day such a day for an opposition day debate.

So I thank him and the Shadow Chancellor for calling this debate at such a crucial time in debate at such a crucial time in the budget setting process. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do expect some interventions during my remarks in the next 10 to 15 minutes or so, and I may encourage members on all sides of the House to play what I'm going to call Treasury Minister Bingo. And that is, if I am asked questions about the upcoming budget, I intend to respond with The Chancellor will make all decisions on tax and spend at the budget, and I will not comment on speculation so we can see how many interventions we get.

We can see how many times we get to play the Treasury Minister. Bingo. But just just to forewarn those who But just just to forewarn those who may be like me, enjoy a game of bingo, that that is where we'll go. And we've already got an And we've already got an intervention coming. So here we go.
16:32
Dan Tomlinson Portrait Dan Tomlinson MP (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
I appreciate it's at the end of a session of debate today, and that the Minister is trying to be funny, but a lot of constituents that I speak to don't find this period of time particularly funny and would like him to sit, stand there and confirm that his government will stick to their manifesto pledge. Please don't respond. Madam Deputy Speaker, please can the Minister not respond with the word bingo? It is a really serious matter,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Scott Arthur. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Chancellor will intervention. The Chancellor will make all decisions on tax and spend at the budget, and I will not be commenting on speculation. I've said that's what I'll say. That is what I say. If people want to continue to intervene. We are two weeks out from a budget and I'm not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

weeks out from a budget and I'm not going to be commenting on speculation from the Dispatch Box today. I'm happy to do that. I'm grateful for the intervention. I've heard what the Minister says. I don't ask him to comment about the budget, but can you confirm that he thinks that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you confirm that he thinks that manifesto pledges are important? Yeah. Good question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me just say if he wants to ask questions about the manifesto, and I'm glad to know that he's interested in the change that this interested in the change that this government is bringing through its manifesto that we have invested in our NHS, we have introduced new taxes on Non-doms, we have taxes on Non-doms, we have introduced free breakfast clubs, we have invested in HMRC, which I think we'll come on to talk about think we'll come on to talk about later after the contribution from my hon.

Friend the Member for Harlow, to reduce tax avoidance, we have set up great British Energy and we're implementing the National Wealth Fund. Let me make some Wealth Fund. Let me make some progress. Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me just make a bit of progress, if I may. make a bit of progress, if I may. I'll happily take take a further intervention in good time, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is sorry, but it is true that the party opposite squandered their time in power, just as they squandered much taxpayer money, and after 14 years of failure, they left people paying more for less, enforcing a policy of austerity that my hon.

Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield spoke about in his contribution. For too long, that policy brought public services to their knees. Something which we needed to fix saddled us with so much debt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we now pay £1 in every £10 of public money towards debt interest payments alone. And I agree with the contribution from one of the members opposite who said that this this is not a morally acceptable situation. That is a situation that we inherited and it's one that we intend to change over the course of this Parliament.

The international comparisons bear out that we are on track to reduce the deficit that we inherited faster than in any other G7 economy. That is the stability that the Chancellor, Madam Deputy Speaker, is returning to the public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

finances. So rather than yes, I'm happy to give way to my hon. Friend. I'm grateful to the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister. For giving way. He's just. Spoken about public. Services touching. On productivity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On productivity. And I. Wonder if I may, madam Deputy Speaker, put something on the Speaker, put something on the record at the start of this debate, the shadow Chancellor talked about the importance of time, public sector pay settlements to sector pay settlements to productivity increases. I had some insight into this as a union official in the in the aftermath of official in the in the aftermath of the ambulance strikes, when Ministers from former government said they wanted productivity said they wanted productivity increases, the negotiators for the government side had nothing to suggest.

There was no productivity suggest. There was no productivity link. They were asking the trade union side for ideas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

union side for ideas. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his years of experience and work in supporting public sector workers and supporting proud trade unionists. There is there is much that we need There is there is much that we need to do, and members on the opposite side have mentioned statistics that have been published of late to make have been published of late to make sure that the investment that we make in the NHS comes with those improvements that we can see in improvements that we can see in productivity and output.

That's one of the things that actually the Health Secretary was talking about today, when it comes to our reforms to NHS England, making sure that we're not duplicating spending both in the Department of Health and Social Care and in NHS England. That's this. I thought members opposite were against quangos, but it turns out they're against that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reform. I'm happily supporting. And encouraged to hear that the Minister wants to link increased Minister wants to link increased funding with productivity increases. So in that spirit, why was it that So in that spirit, why was it that the resident doctors pay rise last year was not linked to any productivity increases?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

22%. In the end, what we needed to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the end, what we needed to do when it came to sorting out the strikes was we needed to give public sector workers a fair deal. public sector workers a fair deal. And it was not. It was not fair. The situation that they were left The situation that they were left with, with their wages going up significantly less than prices over the 14 years that you were in power. Now we have and the Health Secretary has been clear about not wanting to go as far as their wanting to go as far as their demands when it comes to pay settlements.

But we are clear that the situation that we reached last the situation that we reached last year is right and proportionate, and we hope that we can continue to invest and reform in our NHS. Let invest and reform in our NHS. Let me make a bit more progress. If I let me let me make a bit more progress, if I may. I am only on progress, if I may. I am only on page two of a six page speech. I know. There we go, there we go.

I'm taking many interventions. Let me taking many interventions. Let me take a number fewer. Madam Deputy Speaker, the previous. Thank you. The previous government saddled us with much debt, which we've talked about £1 in every ten of public money going towards debt interest payments, perpetuating a stop start cycle of public investments which left our roads full of potholes and train lines that can't even make it between London and the north of England, and an unpredictable business environment, with business taxation going up and down all the time.

All this gave us an incredibly narrow base for regional growth, with few parts of the country forging ahead. While too many in the rest of the country fell behind. For the members opposite, levelling up was a slogan. Madam Deputy Speaker. It was not a solution and instead it is this Labour government which is growing the economy and lifting living standards in all parts of the country. It is this Labour government which is investing in infrastructure to get Britain building again. And it is this Labour government which is working with local leaders and members of Parliament to build pride in place and revitalise communities.

That's the change, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we are bringing. Look, they had the opportunity to invest in our public services, in our public services, to upgrade rail, roads and connectivity to protect our NHS. But instead they threw money around. Madam Deputy Speaker, with little regard for its value. And look, this is a key factor in our in our stalled productivity. Time and time again, they have the option to choose economic responsibility, but chose political convenience instead. The austerity which they pursued after the financial crisis, when interest rates, interest rates were at record lows, was a sledgehammer to our economy, gutting public services and cut the essential flows of investment.

Madam Deputy Speaker, which would have aided a faster recovery. And as the Member for Witney has mentioned, and as Liberal Democrat members do, I want to mention, they then went ahead and implemented a rushed and ill conceived Brexit deal, which brought extra costs to businesses and extra disruption to trade. And when the pandemic arrived, Madam Deputy Speaker, our country was not ready. Our public services and our economy have been severely weakened.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member. I will now. I thought that was a good point. I thank the hon. Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I think yesterday I did say to him, I think he's got the second worst job in government. the second worst job in government. So I think he's feeling that today. But even if what he's just said is true, and I and I don't happen to true, and I and I don't happen to agree with him, the Chancellor last year after the last budget, said that the slate was wiped clean, that no more tax rises or borrowing would be needed.

So what has changed between then and now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

changed between then and now? I thank the Member for Farnham and Bordon for his intervention, and I was glad to attend his Westminster Hall debate last night Westminster Hall debate last night on wine producers across the UK. And you know, I I'm impressed. I am impressed by his close reading of impressed by his close reading of all of the words of the members of the Cabinet. I hope one day to be as diligent as him in following the utterances of of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and all of the Ministers.

Let me just say, let me Ministers. Let me just say, let me just say, when it comes to the inheritance that this government and the British people are having and the British people are having to deal with. If wage growth, since the financial crisis had continued the financial crisis had continued at the pace that it had before. It's not just that families in my constituency, in his and across the constituency, in his and across the country would be 1 or £2000 a year better off.

They would be £12,000 a year better off. Can you imagine the difference that that would make to the businesses and communities across our country, if we hadn't had that productivity stagnation? And in the end, we will see at the budget, the OBR is implementing its review of productivity. And I'm not going to pre-empt that review. But I think it is right and proper that we make sure that our fiscal forecasts are based on accurate understandings of what has happened in the past to our productivity, because the past is a guide to the future, I hope that this government will continue to beat the outcomes that happened under the previous government, with productivity almost flatlining.

And that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exactly what this budget will be about. And I'll happily. Give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way. I'm giving way. Poole that might be the final one. No, I'm grateful for the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one. No, I'm grateful for the. Minister giving way. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon asked him a specific question, which was him a specific question, which was what has happened since October last year when the Chancellor said, we're not coming back for more. We we're not coming back for more. We wiped the slate clean. From now on, it's on us. What's happened between

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exactly? What is different? What different? One of the things that's changed is that members opposite seem to is that members opposite seem to have found £47 billion down the back of the sofa and are coming forward again, just like they did in government, with plans that are not deliverable. They have done the job deliverable. They have done the job of a losing opposition. And look, we have been there in the past when numbers that are used in opposition numbers that are used in opposition are not serious and not credible, and we all know where that ends up.

They said recently that they would slash taxes and pay for it with £47 billion of fairyland spending cuts that, for context, members that would be equivalent of firing every police officer in the country. Now, of course, I'm not saying they're going to do that and that they've joined the defund the police brigade. But just what would they do? We don't really know because all we have is a menu without a price list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if unexplored area that we could look at to raise some of the money that we need is by selling the brass neck opposite on the commodities market, because having cheered when Liz Truss having cheered when Liz Truss delivered her budget, then they now have the gall to lecture us about fiscal responsibility.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fiscal responsibility. And they have the gall to manage, about to lecture us about managing the public finances as well. When the public finances as well. When they say they want to cut, they say they want to cut civil service numbers. Between 2016 and when they numbers. Between 2016 and when they left, there were 130,000 more civil servants. The former member for Uxbridge and the former Prime Uxbridge and the former Prime Minister said that he would cut civil service numbers by 91,000. They then went up in October 23rd, I think, when the opposition spokesperson was in my role.

The right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash unveiled an immediate cap on Ash unveiled an immediate cap on civil service numbers pledged to cut them by 66,000, and then they went up between May 2022 and July went up between May 2022 and July 24th. They went up in every single quarter. So the items on your menu, I'm not sure that if the public I'm not sure that if the public bought them, they would they would leave your restaurant at all satisfied, because everything you promised doesn't seem to turn into promised doesn't seem to turn into reality.

Madam Deputy Speaker, to conclude now, if this debate has conclude now, if this debate has taught us anything, you want more. Okay. If this debate has taught us anything, it is simply this that the party opposite not only needs to stay in opposition for longer, but I'm sure they that way that they will do so because so far they've learned nothing from their time on the on these benches. No humility for their mini budget, no plan for giving Britain a brighter future, no grasp of the realities, madam Deputy Speaker, that the country and the world are facing, and they also have no will to face up to reality, show leadership and make choices that will support our public services, businesses and citizens.

Meanwhile, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has given the country the fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of the year. We have raised wages and raised living standards. The Bank of England has cut interest rates five times because of the economic stability that we have brought, that has reduced mortgage payments and lowered the cost of borrowing. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has increased public investment in capital spending by over £120 billion over the course of this Parliament building for the future, something that the party opposite failed to do.

And that is the difference that a government with British values at its heart can make. And at the budget this month we will put those values into practice again, fairness and opportunity for all so that we can secure our economy, strengthen our public services and lift living

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standards for the British people. Yeah, right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper as in that opinion, say I of
16:46
None Portrait Division
-

The The chamber The chamber will The chamber will notice The chamber will notice I'm The chamber will notice I'm on The chamber will notice I'm on my feet. So they should be seated. The question is, as on the order papers, may I? No, no. The eyes are Gregory Stafford and Rebecca Smith. Tellers for the noes are Lilian Greenwood

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll I'll see I'll see you I'll see you. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, Yeah, I Yeah, I was Yeah, I was gonna

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order Order. Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order! The ayes to the right 101. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 101. The noes to the left, 316.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 316. I don't believe. It, guys. The eyes the right. 101. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes the right. 101. The Noes to the left 316 to The noes have it. The the noes have it en have it. The the noes have it en bloc. I will let the front benches very quickly shuffle over as we go very quickly shuffle over as we go on to the next debate. We now come to the opposition day motion on to the opposition day motion on energy. I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected amendment B in the name of the Prime Minister, and the name of the Prime Minister, and I call the Shadow Secretary of State Claire Coutinho to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion. Shadow Secretary states. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move the motion standing in the move the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition on our cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills for everyone by 20% and take a
17:01
None Portrait Opposition Day Debate: Energy
-

for everyone by 20% and take a common sense approach to British energy security by backing the North Sea. Madam Deputy Speaker, our cheap power plan recognises the fact that the biggest problem the country faces is the cost of our electricity, whether that's for living standards, for industry, for AI or electrification, the focus of any government should be making electricity less expensive. It electricity less expensive. It should be making it shouldn't be making it more expensive as the labour plans will do.

It should be labour plans will do. It should be making electricity cheap. Our cheap power plan would axe the carbon tax, power plan would axe the carbon tax, a tax that's gone up by 70% this year under Labour, pushing up everybody's energy bills, and it would scrap the renewable would scrap the renewable obligation subsidies, which sees some wind farms get three times the market price for electricity. And market price for electricity. And I'd like to start by thanking the Liberal Democrats, who came out this morning, to back the second this morning, to back the second part of our plan.

I'd also like to thank reform, who appear to have thank reform, who appear to have copied and pasted it wholesale, and the Tony Blair Institute, who just the Tony Blair Institute, who just two weeks ago said, we need to ditch Labour's disastrous Clean Power plan in favour of a cheap Power plan in favour of a cheap power plan which takes off carbon power plan which takes off carbon taxes. Sounds familiar. In fact, I will happily give way.
17:02
Claire Coutinho Portrait Rt Hon Claire Coutinho MP (East Surrey, Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to my right hon. Friend, even before she came into the department and asked for a whole system energy cost analysis, it was while I was the energy Minister, set as the strategic objective that we should have among the cheapest electricity prices in Europe in the 2030s. Does my right hon. Friend have any idea why the party opposite has now dropped that as a strategic objective?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend who is always is so knowledgeable on matters to do with energy, and in matters to do with energy, and in fact, he's right. The only people who have not got the message are the party opposite. They are on the wrong side of this debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, they were sent out by their Secretary of State with a promise of cutting bills by £300. promise of cutting bills by £300. But bills have gone up by £200 since the general election.

I warned them over and over again that this would over and over again that this would happen, but they didn't listen. And now onto their plans. Energy bills now onto their plans. Energy bills are going to keep on rising now. They might not want to hear that from me, but they should listen to the trade unions. Or they should listen to energy bosses who came to Parliament just a few weeks ago and Parliament just a few weeks ago and in a bombshell moment said even if gas prices went to zero, bills would still rise because of would still rise because of Labour's plans.

And I would hazard a guess that this is a view shared by their Prime Minister, seeing as by their Prime Minister, seeing as he tried to sack the Secretary of State at the last reshuffle. What does he know that these guys don't? does he know that these guys don't? I wonder? Our electricity is already some of the cleanest in the world, but it's also the most world, but it's also the most expensive. If you want people to adopt electric cars or home heating, then you need to make electricity cheap.

If you want AI or industry to succeed in this country, then you need to make electricity cheap. If you want people to have a better standard of life so they can spend more money on their families than their bills, then we need to make electricity cheap. Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills by 20% now, not just for a favoured few like they're doing, pushing up bills for 22 million families to give handouts to 6 million. It would cut bills for everybody, households and businesses.

That's £165 off the average family's bill. But even more if you spend more. And the difference, you could do it now. Step one I will happily give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way at that point. When the hon. Lady speaks about our country, does she include our country, does she include Northern Ireland? Would her motion extend to Northern Ireland? Because extend to Northern Ireland? Because we, of course, are subject to, unfortunately, EU regulations, unfortunately, EU regulations, which were on the 1st of January, introduce the carbon border adjustment mechanism, adding to the adjustment mechanism, adding to the iniquitous Irish Sea border, a carbon border. Her party brought it carbon border.

Her party brought it in in large measure. What does she intend in the future to do about it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He's right to raise the plight of Northern Ireland, as he knows there's a Ireland, as he knows there's a single energy market on the island of Ireland. But what we need to do is cut electricity costs for everybody right across these isles. And the first part of our plan would be this to axe the carbon tax. would be this to axe the carbon tax. The carbon tax on electricity pushes up the price of gas, wind, solar and nuclear.

And it's gone up solar and nuclear. And it's gone up by 70% this year thanks to their policies. We asked Labour Ministers policies. We asked Labour Ministers about this. They pretended not to know anything. We warned them not know anything. We warned them not to do it, and they said it was a conservative scare story. But here we are. The Secretary of State blames gas for high bills, and I'm sure the Minister will say it again today in his speech. But a third of what we pay for gas is a carbon tax that the government chooses to impose.

So if he thinks the price of gas is too high, then take off the carbon tax, he could cut the price of gas by a third tomorrow. And guess what? That would make wind, solar and nuclear cheaper too. So every time that someone blames gas today, it's like complaining that their Bath is overrunning, but they won't turn off the taps. It's in their gift to axe the carbon tax. It's gone up because of them. So what are they waiting for? Step two when the wind blows, there are windfarms in this country getting three times the market price of electricity thanks to the renewable obligation subsidies.

That is clearly mad. The Secretary of State doubled those subsidies when he had his last chance to ruin the energy system. We closed the scheme in office, but it is time to scrap it. And these two policies would cut people's electricity bills by 20%. Now, in time for winter, in time for us to be a world leader in AI, in time for us to stop the crippling redundancies in industry that are coming down the track. But instead, the party opposite is doing something very different.

The party opposite is intent in locking us into higher prices for longer. The results of the Secretary of State's botched wind auction will become clear in January, when the party opposite promised to cut bills. The cost of electricity was £72 a megawatt hour. Last year, they locked in a fixed rate of £82 for offshore wind, and this year they're offering up to £117. Now these are fixed rate inflation linked contracts and they've extended the length of those contracts.

There will be paying these prices for 20 years. What they're essentially doing is signing us up to a 10% fixed rate mortgage for 20 years, because they don't want to be on a 4% variable that moves around. And the problem is this if they are signing up to higher prices and the current cost of electricity, and that's before you include all the extra costs of wind, you have to pay them to turn off. When it's too windy. You have to pay for backup when it's not windy enough.

How is that going to cut bills? Higher prices for longer? And it's not just what you and I will be paying Madam Deputy Speaker it's what our children will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paying as well. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and we've seen this for giving way, and we've seen this in the health service before with PFI. For example, when £13 billion worth of investment became £80 billion worth of public debt to pay back. Does she worry that this is back. Does she worry that this is exactly the same principle Labour seem to be a providing here? By locking in this high cost for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

locking in this high cost for the future, for our children and for the country. Yeah. Well, I thank my hon. Friend and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my hon. Friend and that's exactly the right point. It's a point that I will come onto in a second. Now, everyone remembers actually those contracts. And I will give way in just one And I will give way in just one second. And my hon. Friend there is absolutely correct, because what the Secretary of State is signing the Secretary of State is signing up to is the PFI of the century, but this time it is going straight on our energy bills.

Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend. Would she agree with me that the government could at least be consistent in its management of consistent in its management of contracts for difference and its auctions? And as she share my bemusement that they have dismissed bemusement that they have dismissed one way of providing about 7% of our grid requirements in fairly our grid requirements in fairly short order, and that would be to accept the interconnector between Morocco and the UK, which will bring reliable solar and wind

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powered energy to the UK. Well, I expect my. Right hon. Friend, and he makes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right hon. Friend, and he makes an excellent point when it comes to reliability of electricity. That's what we need. We need electricity what we need. We need electricity that will work in the winter. We need electricity that will work when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing here. And the wind is not blowing here. And the question that I would ask is this why is the party opposite? Signing up to these high prices and locking up to these high prices and locking all of our constituents in for 20 years? And it's because this Secretary of State is in the pocket Secretary of State is in the pocket of the wind developers.

These are the highest prices for wind power that we've seen in a decade. They that we've seen in a decade. They might shake their heads, but that is just the fact. It's much higher than the price of electricity is right now. So why would you be right now. So why would you be buying more than ever before at the highest prices in a generation, and highest prices in a generation, and fixing those prices for 20 years? And I say this to the hon. Members on the opposite benches, if their on the opposite benches, if their constituents are saying to them, which I'm sure they are, that their bills are too high, now, what will bills are too high, now, what will they say to them in January, when it will be the Labour Party who locks them all into even higher locks them all into even higher prices for longer? And I yes, I will happily give way on that point.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Member. Thank you. Thank you for giving way. Can the hon. Member just just the right hon. Member remind the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which party was in power when we reached cripplingly high energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reached cripplingly high energy prices that led to the cost of living crisis that we have today. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. Remind the hon. Gentleman that when I was Energy Secretary, bills when I was Energy Secretary, bills came down by £500. Under this Secretary of State, they've gone up by £200. And what he needs to explain to his constituents is why signing up to higher prices on signing up to higher prices on inflation linked contracts for 20 years is going to fulfil their years is going to fulfil their promise, the promise he made to those constituents of cutting their bills by £300.

I wish he could bills by £300. I wish he could explain that and actually it's worth them listening to this, because from the Tony Blair Institute to the most respected Institute to the most respected energy economist, Dieter Helm, everybody has pointed out this risk to them. It has not come to them to them. It has not come to them without warning. The fact that they are signing up to prices much more expensive than gas for decades. They are on the wrong side of this debate, and they are on the wrong debate, and they are on the wrong side of consumers.

And come January 1st, those results are published. Everybody will be able to see that Everybody will be able to see that and they will ask them, were you warned? Did you do your job in Parliament and speak up for me and my bills? And here's the problem. Their whole position is not driven by what's best for consumers. It is driven by ideology. And nowhere is that clearer than in their where their war on the North Sea. Madam Deputy Speaker, when Scottish Renewables say Labour's policy on oil and gas is damaging the transition, surely even they must realise that they're on the wrong path.

I will happily give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Way on that point. I'm very. Grateful she's making a very able speech explaining why this Clean Power 2030 plan is so ruinous for consumers. But what she hasn't mentioned is, of course, trying to mentioned is, of course, trying to connect up this very dispersed array of wind farms across the array of wind farms across the North Sea requires an enormous amount of new infrastructure, and we now know that the load factors we now know that the load factors are being reduced.

So you require 30% more wind turbines to create 30% more wind turbines to create the same net zero effect. And connecting all this up, the wind farm investors themselves don't farm investors themselves don't have to pay the full infrastructure costs for connecting this all up. It's the consumers that pick up the bill. So there's another hidden subsidy for wind power that is not reflected in the prices, the guaranteed prices that are already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being paid. Well, I thank my right hon. Friend. He is, as ever, an expert Friend. He is, as ever, an expert on this issue. And if you look up the price cap recently and why it went up, yes, it is those hidden costs. It was the balancing costs costs. It was the balancing costs paying wind farms to turn off when it's too windy next year. The network costs are about £100 per family. So he's absolutely right. family. So he's absolutely right. You have to look at all of these extra costs that are coming down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the tracks. Now, if I might turn to the North Sea, I'll happily give way to my. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I think she's making an excellent speech. I'm really worried. I'm really worried about my constituents who are going to have face higher bills going into winter and beyond. If the message is clear, isn't it that the Labour government has the power to get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bills down? They're making a choice not to do so. Yeah. That's it. I thank my hon. Friend. He's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend. He's exactly right. These are political choices, and they should reflect on choices, and they should reflect on them. When it comes to the North Sea, we know that we will need oil and gas for decades to come. I'll and gas for decades to come. I'll just make a bit of progress, and then I will come to the chair of the select committee. We know we will need oil and gas for decades will need oil and gas for decades to come.

Even the Climate Change Committee acknowledges that. Yet thanks to their policies, we are paying Norway billions of pounds paying Norway billions of pounds for gas from the exact same fields. They are banning the British industry from drilling. That point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She was kind enough to go through her plan with me, and I think there is. I'll be honest, I think there is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll be honest, I think there is merit in discussing some of the proposals on a cross-party. No, no, it's not what they think on a cross-party basis and I'm sure the government will do that. But she government will do that. But she talks in the motion about the highest industrial energy prices in the world, the second highest domestic ones. But this was true domestic ones. But this was true throughout their time in office. It grew and became a massive problem. It was something I came across in It was something I came across in this place in my time here.

What is it about the situation she found it about the situation she found when she was Secretary of State and her predecessors found that made it so difficult to address these very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

high energy costs? Yes. I think the chair and I thank his him for his time and going his him for his time and going through the plan and his willingness to to look at it as well. What I'll say is this is they well. What I'll say is this is they weren't always we actually have had the lowest gas prices before the crisis, and we had lower crisis, and we had lower electricity prices as well. What's happened is we've switched out a lot of costs into fixed costs, and lot of costs into fixed costs, and those costs are increasing.

Now, that's something that everybody is looking at. Like I said at the beginning of my speech from the Tony Blair Institute to the trade unions, to people right across the unions, to people right across the political spectrum, and we need to address it because there is a huge amount on the line, whether it's growth, whether it's living growth, whether it's living standards. Like I said, AI is something which is here in the near term. We can't wait till the 2040s, which is their plan. And even then which is their plan.

And even then it's not clear that their plan would bring down bills at all. I'd happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's not the truth that the reason why energy bills are still so high is we still produce a lot so high is we still produce a lot of electricity by using gas and burning gas, and because we are burning gas, which is so, which is sold on the global market and keeps the energy prices high, that is the the energy prices high, that is the main problem. And we need to decouple electricity from gas

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prices and particularly get away from gas. Not possible. As the chair Select Committee was happy to spend some time with. was happy to spend some time with. I hope the hon. Lady was because she might learn something. 40% of our electricity prices are wholesale prices, 60% are fixed wholesale prices, 60% are fixed costs. They are things like building out the networks, which is phenomenally going up under their phenomenally going up under their plans. It's something even Ofgem has pointed out. It's like switching off wind farms when it switching off wind farms when it gets too windy.

We spent £1 billion on that. This year. We're going to be spending £8 billion on that when it comes to 2030, so I would urge her to go and look at the numbers. her to go and look at the numbers. Now. Our imports of foreign gas, which has four times the emissions of British Gas, have soared because of British Gas, have soared because of what they're doing to the North Sea. They were up 40% year on year Sea. They were up 40% year on year at the beginning of this year.

And when the unions, the chief executive of octopus and even the executive of octopus and even the chair of Great British Energy, has said that we should keep drilling in the North Sea, don't any of them wonder if the Secretary of State wonder if the Secretary of State has got this wrong? I know the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. There's nothing that I said there that's factually incorrect. Let me. I'll just make a little bit more progress, if that's okay. The truth is, like the Winter Fuel Payment, is, like the Winter Fuel Payment, cut the promise to cut bills by £300 shutting down the North Sea, supposedly clean power 2030.

Their Secretary of State has told them to back policy after policy, which has unravelled as soon as it met reality. Time and time again, he is making them look like fools. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line, billions of pounds of tax revenue. In fact, at the budget in two weeks time, it would be less tax they'd have to pocket from working people if they just backed the North Sea. Never in my life have I seen a government deliberately shut down a successful industry like this.

It's economic vandalism based on student politics. No wonder there Minister got booed when he went to Aberdeen. They should scrap the windfall tax, end the mad ban on new oil, gas licences and back our cheap power plan. Now I'll just make a bit more progress because I know other people want to get in. We've heard a lot this morning about the different factions jostling to replace the Prime Minister, but I've got an idea for all of them that they can get behind.

So I say to the Blue Labour faction, if you want to protect industry, then you need cheaper electricity. So back our cheap power plan. I say to the blairites, if you want to make the most of AI then you need cheaper electricity. So they should back our cheap power plan. And I say to the soft left, if you care about lifting people out of poverty and improving living standards, then back our cheap power plan. This won't just help 6 million households by jacking up the bills for 22 million.

That's what they're doing. That's what the Minister will no doubt boast about when he talks about the Warm Homes discount. It will cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone. But they should think about this at the last energy price cap. The reason bills went up. It wasn't gas. Ofgem was very clear. It was the political choices of this Secretary of State. He keeps making them defend the indefensible. And speaking of where is he? Thousands of Aberdonians are losing their jobs and where is the Secretary of State.

We've been locked into higher bills for two decades. Where is the Secretary of State? We're missing out on an AI future. Where is the Secretary of State? Since July, he has bothered to come to the House to explain himself just once. Yet he's a walking, talking cost of living crisis, and his mistakes will be with us for decades. If I've read the news correctly. Apparently he's tucked away somewhere plotting his leadership bid. But let's be honest, the country was asked that question and they were very clear what they thought about the prospect of a Prime Minister.

Miliband. He should stop plotting and start cutting people's bills. And the final question I would ask those on the benches opposite is this aren't they fed up of defending these policies that keep turning into dust as soon as they meet? Reality of telling their constituents they will cut their bills, when instead they keep on rising, of being political mushrooms left in the dark and fed a pile of manure. We were all mushrooms once. Madam Deputy Speaker, but if this is going to be the one and only Parliament, they should at least use it to do something worthwhile.

Stand up to the Secretary of State. Stop him locking their constituents into higher prices for longer. Put cheap energy first and vote for our motion tonight to back 200,000 jobs in the North Sea. Get back to growth and cut all of our constituents electricity bills by 20%.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the record, I've never been. For the record, I've never been a fungi. The question is, as on the Order Paper, I call the Minister to move the amendment. Minister Martin

**** Possible New Speaker ****

McCluskey. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move the amendment standing in the Prime the amendment standing in the Prime Minister's name on the Order Paper. Madam Deputy Speaker, for too long the British people have paid the
17:22
Martin McCluskey Portrait Martin McCluskey MP (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, Labour)
-
-
the British people have paid the price for a broken energy system and an overreliance on imported fossil fuels. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the wholesale price of gas went spiralling and as a result, our typical energy bills nearly doubled in the space of a year. In a moment, let me make progress. This was the direct result of successive conservative governments refusing to invest in clean, home-grown power here at home, whilst leaving our electricity grid to wither in recent years. Let me make progress and I'll come back.

In recent years, millions have struggled with fuel poverty and many still face enormous debts today. Their failure was a disaster for family finances and business finances and public finances. And as we head into another winter, the effects of this are still being felt by many. But we must be honest. This was neither unexpected nor unavoidable since let me make progress since the 1970s, half half of the UK's recessions have been caused by fossil fuel shocks, and those on the benches opposite had 14 years to do something about our energy security.

But instead of making a stronger and more secure their policy of complacency, dither and delay left us completely reliant on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

petrostates and dictators to keep the lights on. And I will give way. Forgive me, I was just wondering

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me, I was just wondering if he remembered what else happened in 2022, around February time, which might have impacted gas

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prices? Yeah. Of course I mentioned the war in Ukraine in 2022, but this was not a crisis only caused by the war in Ukraine. It was a crisis caused by 14 years of underinvestment. As I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

14 years of underinvestment. As I just said there dither and delay, of course. Mr. For giving way. He talked about honesty, which is ironic given where he sits at the moment in the government, in the government of which he's a member, government of which he's a member, and the Minister. The Minister is better than this because he knows he was talking specifically about renewables. Less than 7% of our electricity came from renewables in electricity came from renewables in 2010, less than 7%, and it was approximately 50% by 2024.

To suggest that the Conservatives didn't transform and improve our renewable energy is a falsehood. And I'm sure the Minister, because I know he's a better man than this, will now withdraw the allegation he made. Be better.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made. Be better. You're back on that. You're turning your back on the policy that you followed for 40 years, which the which the which the right which the which the which the right hon. Lady opposite supported supported for years. I will make progress. Bills did not rise. Bills did not rise because we built too many solar farms or wind turbines. As their motion helpfully points out. As their motion helpfully points out, we are still dependent on oil and gas.

For three quarters of our energy bills rose precisely because they did not build enough clean, home grown energy, because we were they were not ambitious enough, because they buried their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heads in the sand and accepted the status quo. Yes. That makes intervention. Just to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That makes intervention. Just to be clear, the language that we use also means that we do not accuse each other of falsehoods.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Matt Rodda thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I commend the Minister for his may I commend the Minister for his speech, and hopefully my words will reflect the seriousness of the issue in front of us. Does he agree issue in front of us. Does he agree with me that on the point of building new solar in particular, building new solar in particular, that sadly the last government fell woefully short? And indeed, I think the statistics are very much along the statistics are very much along the lines of more solar being built in the first few weeks of being approved.

In the first few weeks of the new Labour government than was approved in the whole term of the last conservative government. Perhaps you'd like to update me on Perhaps you'd like to update me on those figures and just provide a little bit of light and less heat in this debate?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in this debate? Thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think I'm right in saying that seven and a half the saying that seven and a half the projects we've consented and since last July would power 7.5 million homes through solar. And the work homes through solar. And the work that is being undertaken by the Secretary of State on solar sprint will see us go even further on will see us go even further on solar. And I will just make some progress on my speech a year in a moment, in a moment.

Let me make some progress here. A year and a half ago, fed up with that status quo that I was talking about a moment ago, the British people voted for change. And from the moment this government came into power, we have been laser focussed on our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, because that is the only way to strengthen our energy security, to bring bills down, to create a whole new generation of good jobs in the energy industries of the future,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and to build a more secure, prosperous Britain for generations to come. Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He just said that the costs of building more wind farm and solar farms hadn't fed through to bills. But if you look at Ofgems last price cap, it was paying wind farms to turn off when paying wind farms to turn off when it was too windy. That made bills more expensive. And actually we more expensive. And actually we spent £1 billion on that this year.

By 2030, we're projected to spend £8 billion. It's an enormous added

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cost because they are consenting wind farms that they cannot get into the grid. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you. Speaker. If we had built the grid exactly as we had planned to, we wouldn't be paying planned to, we wouldn't be paying those constraint payments. That is the point. That is the whole point. That is the whole point. Every That is the whole point. Every every wind turbine we put up, every solar panel we install, every piece of grid we construct is helping to of grid we construct is helping to reduce our reliance on gas. Allow me to make some progress.

And in just 18 months, we made the biggest just 18 months, we made the biggest investment in clean Home-grown energy in British history. With more than £60 billion of government more than £60 billion of government funding and a further £50 billion of private investment. We have consented. We have consented, as I consented. We have consented, as I said, enough clean power for the equivalent of 7.5 million homes, including nine new solar farms and offshore wind farms in the Irish Sea and the English Channel.

We started building the next generation of nuclear power, including Sizewell C power station in Suffolk. We have set up Great British Energy, our publicly owned energy company, which they which they still oppose and which is already and which is already installed, will answer the right hon. Gentleman, which is already installing solar panels on hundreds of schools and hospitals across the UK, so that money saved on energy bills can go back into key services. And we have kickstarted Britain's carbon capture and hydrogen industries as we lead the way on the technologies of the future.

This is the immediate difference this Labour government has made to our communities and our way to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister suggested. Probably doesn't crow too much about GB Energy, given that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scottish Secretary was at the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, and let the cat out of the bag that the thousand jobs. Well, we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, we. Never really meant a thousand jobs with GB Energy maybe a thousand jobs somewhere sometime. thousand jobs somewhere sometime. But on energy bills, when will Labour lower people's energy bills by £300? Because it sounds to me like it's at some indeterminate point in the future, whereas the electorate could rightly and justifiably thought that Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

justifiably thought that Labour meant some time in the immediate future. Yeah. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, and we are committed and remain committed to the reduction in energy bills that was laid out by by the Secretary of State, and we are committed to that. And what we say about GB Energy is the Scottish National Party can oppose GB Energy as much as they want, but that will deliver good, high quality jobs in Scotland. And what quality jobs in Scotland.

And what the and what the hon. Gentleman and what the hon. Gentleman suggests of what the Secretary of State, of what the Secretary of State, of what the hon. Gentleman said about what the Secretary of State said. There will be jobs created, and There will be jobs created, and there are jobs being created by GB Energy right across the supply chain, right across the supply

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chain, right across the supply chain. And allow me to make some. Oh. I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. The Robert Gordon University estimates that 90% of the UK's oil and gas workforce have the skills that have medium and high transferability to the offshore renewables sector, making them well positioned for the transition. If the SNP do not want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those jobs in Scotland, can the Cornwall? Hey. The hon. Member makes an excellent point, but obviously I excellent point, but obviously I will be carrying on arguing for jobs across the UK, but particularly in Scotland and not all in Cornwall. But I will just all in Cornwall. But I will just make some. I'll make some progress on my speech. Madam Deputy Speaker, even in the face of this rapid even in the face of this rapid progress across the country, there are some many on the benches opposite who still cling to the opposite who still cling to the status quo of stagnation and decline.

Those who suggest we should simply generate more electricity, those who suggest. electricity, those who suggest. Those who suggest we should simply generate more electricity with gas leaving billpayers across Britain. leaving billpayers across Britain. Allow me to make progress. I will allow her to intervene, leaving billpayers across Britain to deal with the consequences. But the reality is, and the right hon. Lady must know this. The reality is that our ageing gas fleet, half of which is more than 20 years old, means that in any scenario we would need to invest in rebuilding our power to invest in rebuilding our power system.

The truth is that replacing old gas plants with new gas plants would be significantly more expensive, and those costs would be met by consumers, while also while met by consumers, while also while also leaving us more exposed than ever to the global price of fossil fuels over which we have no control. fuels over which we have no control. Allow me to make some progress. The data shows that solar and onshore wind remain the cheapest power sources to build and to operate in this country.

So when faced with a choice, faced with a choice between investing in new, expensive gas and increasing our reliance on unstable fossil fuel markets, or the alternative clean home grown energy controlled by Britain, creating jobs for Britain, bringing investment to Britain and powering Britain. Really, there is no choice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at all and I will give way. Thank you Minister. He just referred to the oil and gas sector as the status quo, or gas sector as the status quo, or something that we should be moving away from. Does he also mean the 100,000 jobs supported by that sector, the millions in investment, sector, the millions in investment, the billions that we get in revenue from that sector? Which part of that does he not support, and which part of that does he not want to protect while we transition to new energies? Because it sounds to me like he wants to shut it down like he wants to shut it down tomorrow, which are my constituents, the local economy in my area and also the energy security for the country.

He seems very willing to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. He seems very willing to get rid of. Yeah. The hon. Lady makes a timely intervention, because I'm about to address all of those points in this section of the speech. So nowhere is this transition more important than in the North Sea. For decades, its workers, businesses and communities have helped power our country and our world, using all their skill to tackle mammoth engineering challenges in some of engineering challenges in some of the most extreme conditions on the planet. There will continue to be a role for oil and gas, and the role for oil and gas, and the workforce will continue to play their part for decades to come.

But we are also following the evidence. The reality is oil and gas production has been falling for decades by around 70, by around 75%, decades by around 70, by around 75%, by around 75% between 1999 and 2020. For the North Sea, oil and gas For the North Sea, oil and gas industry has lost around a third of its direct workforce in the last decade, 70,000 jobs lost during the time that the party opposite was in government, when they had no plan, no plan to deal with the transition.

So we face a choice. Do we continue to let this happen? Do we abandoned entire communities with no plan for the future, or do we act, creating new skilled jobs and helping our workforce take advantage of the opportunities that clean energy brings? And this government has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chosen to act. To explain why, in the Alice in Wonderland world of the government's net zero policies, it is right to import liquid natural natural gas, which does not count on our carbon footprint for some reason. Instead of producing our reason. Instead of producing our own gas, which would count on our carbon footprint but would be carbon footprint but would be cheaper and far easier and more carbon efficient to produce in our own country. Why is the government pursuing this ludicrous policy pursuing this ludicrous policy which is self-harming, the economy, making worse our trade, trade

**** Possible New Speaker ****

making worse our trade, trade deficit and losing tax revenues for the government because we're not exploiting our natural resources? Question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have been net his intervention. We have been net importers of oil and gas since 2004, net importers, and they are precisely making the point for us. precisely making the point for us. We want to reduce the reliance. We want to reduce the reliance on imports. We want to reduce the reliance on oil and gas by building reliance on oil and gas by building clean, home grown energy here in Britain. Investing. One moment.

Britain. Investing. One moment. Allow me to make progress. We have been investing billions into carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind. capture, hydrogen and offshore wind. We are also providing up to £20 million of funding from the UK and Scottish Governments to make sure that the existing workforce benefit from new opportunities in new industries, including the Oil and Gas Transition Training Fund, which is providing thousands more offshore workers with bespoke careers advice and training.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

References. Scotland I was in Cop26 in Glasgow when. The. Last time we had a conservative Prime Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prime Minister. Who showed real. Climate leadership. On the. Global stage. And sadly, that now we've seen a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And sadly, that now we've seen a sad spectacle today and we'll see more of it later today of a party that did have a distinguished tradition in environmental tradition in environmental protection and climate change reality, running away to the reform votes. That is an empty vote. Does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

votes. That is an empty vote. Does former. Prime Minister Boris. Johnson, who says, certainly in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Johnson, who says, certainly in my party it's all about. Bashing the green agenda. And personally I. Don't think we'll get. Elected on that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Elected on that. I didn't see. Us soaring in the polls as a result of saying what rubbish net. Zero is. I didn't see a massive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Zero is. I didn't see a massive leap in support. For the Conservatives. Oh yeah. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman makes a makes a pertinent and interesting and interesting point. And it's, it's interesting to see this turnaround of the party opposite the right hon. The hon. The right hon. Gentleman who sits in the front bench at the moment, I'm struck by something he said before where he said, nobody is before where he said, nobody is saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was an eminently sensible thing to do. We need to decarbonise and we need to have an ambitious target to aim for.

He went on you know, I've got a page of quotes here from the hon. Gentleman opposite when he when he backed net zero and backed the policy that this government or we could or he could look to his former leader, who I think he was parliamentary private secretary for Theresa May, who said to roll back now would be a catastrophic mistake. The science remains the same. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to ensure we protect the planet for the future. And that means giving business the reassurance it needs to find the solutions for the very grave challenges that we face.

You have turned your back. They have the opposite. The members opposite have turned their back on all of this, and in doing so, they have built a coalition which includes businesses, includes members of members of their own, members of their own party who are now turning against their new policy on clean energy. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Quotes. Now energy bills are set to rise by hundreds of pounds because of the government's green because of the government's green levies. That's not just my opinion. That's the evidence of Centrica, of That's the evidence of Centrica, of Octopus Energy and of EDF. Is the Minister seriously coming to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chamber and saying that some of the biggest gas and electricity suppliers to the country are wrong? Madam speaker, I'm coming to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam speaker, I'm coming to this chamber and saying we need to continue to invest in building out the grid. That is what that is, the grid. That is what that is, what that pays for. That is what that pays for. And those companies that the right hon. Lady has mentioned know that that is what this pays for. And if we fail to do it, we will just all it leads to is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it, we will just all it leads to is higher bills for consumers across this country. Of course. I thank. The Minister for giving me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister for giving me someone who has actually worked in this industry. I appreciate a lot of what he's saying. I've also noticed the gap saying. I've also noticed the gap in the the narrative coming from the opposition, because it was in 2017 that Theresa may's government 2017 that Theresa may's government took the decision to close gas storage facilities, which actually would have helped with a lot of the pressures that we've been talking about. So does he agree with me that actually it requires long term vision? And perhaps the opposition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vision? And perhaps the opposition weren't as good at that as they are claiming to be now? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think that really gets to the heart of the point here, which is a party opposite, abandoning its long term commitment, which was in the national interest, of which we had a on which we had a consensus across this chamber abandoning the national interest in favour of short what they think is a short term political interest, if they'll allow me just to make some progress on what I was saying about about the North Sea.

One moment. We're working with industry and the Scottish Government to extend the Energy Skills passport, making it easier and quicker for oil and gas workers to bring their expertise into new sectors. And in the coming weeks, we will also publish a response to our North Sea Energy Future consultation, setting out the framework for building a world leading offshore clean energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. I'm. Very grateful. Departments like mine are worried about their electricity worried about their electricity prices right now. Not in ten years time, not in 20 years time, but time, not in 20 years time, but right now they are paying the highest electricity prices, bar one highest electricity prices, bar one in the world. And their industries, and the businesses on which they rely are paying the highest electricity prices. And the third electricity prices. And the third of the wholesale price of electricity is the carbon tax.

There's a there's a solution here, There's a there's a solution here, isn't there, Madam Deputy Speaker? And that is reducing this exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exactly. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Or the other solution is that we get off gas, that we move away from, we off gas, that we move away from, we move away from gas onto clean power. And what I would say, what I would say to the honourable, what I would say to the honourable, what I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the warm Homes discount, which is giving support to one, to giving giving support to one, to giving support to 1 in 6 households across this country this winter, is providing support to £150 and the.

providing support to £150 and the. The right hon. Lady opposite dismisses this, but this is essential support for families, the most vulnerable people in our most vulnerable people in our country, and need support this winter. Allow me to make some progress and then allow it to be a progress and then allow it to be a one Mr Speaker. We must not lose sight of the fact that clean energy is the economic opportunity of this century. And since July 2024, the confidence instilled by our clean energy mission has seen £50 billion of private investment announced for clean energy, creating jobs, strengthening supply chains and rejuvenating industrial communities across the country.

Our carbon capture clusters will support over 35,000 highly skilled jobs on Merseyside, Teesside, the Humber and Aberdeenshire, including 1000 apprenticeships. Sizewell C will support 10,000 jobs at peak construction. Our SMR programme, for which Rolls-Royce is the preferred bidder, will support 3000 jobs in Northern Ireland. £100 million has gone to Belfast Harbour to support two new major wind farms in the Irish Sea, creating more than 300 jobs in East Anglia. Future offshore wind projects are supporting another 100 jobs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Carrington in greater beware. There are many people hoping to contribute, so I hope he's coming to a conclusion very shortly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to a conclusion very shortly. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. With that in mind, I may not take further I may not take further interventions from hon. Members. Carrington, Greater Manchester, 200 jobs in the region. I could I could jobs in the region. I could I could go on. But all of these all of these jobs, all of these jobs are what the party opposite are turning their back against these new clean jobs of the future. And where we sprint towards our clean energy sprint towards our clean energy goals, we are also doing everything we can to protect those who have borne the brunt of this crisis.

And as I said a moment ago, the Warm as I said a moment ago, the Warm Homes discount is providing support to an extra 3 million households this winter, and we are also this winter, and we are also working with Ofgem to relieve the burden of energy, energy debt, which many consumers are facing, and to support British industry. and to support British industry. From next year, 500 of our most energy intensive businesses will get a cut to their bills, with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get a cut to their bills, with thousands more firms getting discounts in 2027. I thank the Minister for giving way. I mean, he will know that one of the most energy intensive industries in the country is the ceramic sector, which which cannot go off gas because the technology simply does not exist to change the kilns from gas to electric. The process can't happen, can't happen. But under the Conservatives, we were the sector was excluded from the current supercharger scheme.

Can the government please consider and we beg again extending the current supercharger scheme to include the ceramic sector so that we can bring down the electrical costs that they incur, whilst not being able to look at the gas prices? There are thousands of jobs on the line in places like Stoke on Trent that need this help. They need it now and anything that government can do would be most grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I know he is a champion for that industry and for his constituents, and that is his constituents, and that is something that I will pass on to colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, which we will look at the previous government. The previous government stood idly by as jobs went overseas, and we will not. And through our industrial strategy, we are taking action to reduce industrial action to reduce industrial electricity prices. Introducing the British Industrial Competitive Scheme for 2027, which will reduce Scheme for 2027, which will reduce electricity bills by up to 25% for over 7000 eligible British businesses.

Madam Deputy Speaker, businesses. Madam Deputy Speaker, if we want to create new good jobs and revitalise our industrial regions, then we must seize the opportunity to make Britain a world opportunity to make Britain a world leader in clean energy. This is the economic opportunity of the century. And to the party opposite, I would And to the party opposite, I would say you seem to want the party opposite. Seems to want to double down on their record of failure. Do down on their record of failure.

Do they not want to remember that their failed energy policy caused the worst cost of living crisis in
17:43
17:44
Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at its best, we rise together to. Face challenges and threats. We roll up our sleeves. We deploy. Ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit. We meet those threats and challenges head on. That is what we need now. A collective patriotic endeavour to tackle climate change, to cut bills, to ensure that our economy is based on British energy sources which are cheaper, cleaner, won't run out and are immune from the whims of foreign dictators. What is not to like? Well, sadly, there are colleagues in this House who do not like that, who are against that patriotic endeavour to secure the future for our children and grandchildren.

It's not for me to speculate on their motives, but for the security of our country, for the good of our future. We need to make sure that those people never get anywhere near power. So let's start with the one part of this motion that we can all agree on. Energy bills are far too high. The typical families are having to pay £60 a month more than they were five years ago. British businesses still face over the highest electricity prices in the OECD. That is bad for the cost of living, bad for business, bad for economic growth.

So we must bring energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bills down in. A simple question is how? Yeah, sure. Well member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. And I think he's making a spirited speech which gets to the heart of what we're all trying to address here, which is trying to address here, which is that there are there are fiscal levers out there which we can pull on to ensure that we bring down on to ensure that we bring down bills. But does he share my sense of disbelief that the irony of the party opposite, that earlier today brought forward a debate suggesting that there should be no further tax rises of any kind, and yet simultaneously are willing to propose a set of multi-billion pound measures to scrap all of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pound measures to scrap all of those levies. Already on four minutes. If interventions are long, they'll be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dropped even shorter. So please be mindful. Tim Farron I will limit the number of interventions I take, but number of interventions I take, but I would say that this the party to my right. The Conservative Party my right. The Conservative Party had a record, or at least presented itself as being the party of sound money, and this appears to be a money, and this appears to be a decision to move away from that and to chase after some permanently absent colleagues. My mates, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absent colleagues. My mates, my friend. Go on. Thank you for. Giving way. Every household will cause for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Every household will cause for fees for energy this year £1,775 charges have indicated that that £4.4 billion is owed by every household, or most households, to the energy companies. Does he fear, as I fear, that the vulnerable and the needy this winter will fall under the fact that they won't be able to heat their houses because of the money that they owed. They can't have any more debt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fuel poverty is a reality, and it's a it's a stain on our country. it's a it's a stain on our country. And he's right to raise it up, raise it on behalf of his of his community. Let's just get to the community. Let's just get to the heart of this. Then we must bring the energy bills down. And the question is how? And I'm afraid the question is how? And I'm afraid the plan put forward by the Conservative Party is nothing more than a mirage.

They say cut bills than a mirage. They say cut bills by removing the renewable obligation levy, which is great. As always, we're ahead of them. We set always, we're ahead of them. We set out our plan to do just that. But the key difference, the key difference is that ours is properly funded through a windfall tax on the extra payments the big banks are getting as a result of quantitative easing. The quantitative easing. The conservative plan in this motion is funded by the classic.

These days conservative hand wave of will just conservative hand wave of will just cut spending. What happened to the Conservative Party being the party of sound money? I'm happy to let

**** Possible New Speaker ****

him explain. I was sat in the previous debate where we were talking about tax, and in that very same debate, the funding was being used to deal with some of the tax burden on the likes some of the tax burden on the likes of the high street. So can I ask him to explain the Liberal Democrat policy of where they're levering policy of where they're levering these taxes on social media giants, big banks, and what he's just talked about and where they're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually going, because it seems like he's spending them twice over in one afternoon. Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very gladly and very grateful to him. Raise two of the sources of additional income that we would raise. Because if you just blindly raise. Because if you just blindly say, we'll get the money from somewhere and don't say where, the Liberal Democrats have actually said, well, we'll find the money. said, well, we'll find the money. His party has done nothing of the sort. And so, as I say, those people who support sound money and people who support sound money and wise economics are leaving his party in droves, and many of them are coming to the Liberal Democrats, are coming to the Liberal Democrats, given their record in government and the complaint, I won't give away now because I'm aware we have let other people in.

But given let other people in. But given their record in government and the complete lack of detail about which spending they could now, which makes it very rich that members on makes it very rich that members on their benches are asking us for details. And we've given some, once upon a time, once upon a time, the upon a time, once upon a time, the Conservatives did not believe. Once upon a time, the Conservatives did not believe in the magic money tree. not believe in the magic money tree.

But today their plans seem to entirely rest upon its fictional bounty. And the other part, and the bounty. And the other part, and the only other part, the only other part of their plan that was supposedly bring down bills was to supposedly bring down bills was to scrap the current auction for the renewable projects or new new renewable projects altogether. Now let's remember what that would let's remember what that would actually mean. It would cut between 11 and £15 billion of private investment in cheap, clean power.

With all the jobs and opportunity, it is over from a sedentary position. The right hon. Lady says it's not cheap over the over the lifetime of this project. Yes, it is cheap. I wonder, does the Conservative Party not understand that the the upfront costs are one thing, but the input costs over time are over 20 years are as cheap as chips. This is basic economics, and I struggle to comprehend how a party that was in government for so many, for so many years has lost touch with reality so very, very quickly that that would be it.

I won't the it would be a disaster for our economy, for our communities and for our young people. Far from bringing down energy bills, it would just make us even more reliant on imported imported fossil fuels with their expensive prices. The last few years when energy bills skyrocketed rocketed. Indeed, because of the Vladimir Putin invasion of Ukraine, they have shown what a terrible, a truly terrible idea. That is what happened to the Conservative Party being the party of national security that's long gone to, alongside their commitment to sound money, Putin would profit, while British families and pensioners struggle.

Now, the whole argument being put forward by the Conservative Party and our absent colleagues on the fourth row back are habitually absent. Colleagues on the fourth row back is that bills are too high because we're investing too much in renewable power. So they say stop investing, scrap our climate commitments, and bills will magically come down. But it's just not true. It's not the price of renewables that's pushing up bills. Generating electricity from solar or wind is now significantly cheaper than from gas.

Even when even when you factor in extra costs for backup power, when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. But people aren't seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power because wholesale electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas, even though half of all our electricity now comes from renewables, compared to just 30% from gas. That's because the wholesale price is set by the most expensive fuel in the mix. And in the UK, that's always, almost

**** Possible New Speaker ****

always gas. Not the case in other countries or some other countries in Europe like Spain. And France.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And France. So tying us even more. Go on. I've been very persistent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Go for gentlemen. One of his fantastical suggestions is that he has a way of breaking the link has a way of breaking the link between gas and electricity prices, and I don't know which model he and I don't know which model he wants to follow. That of China. Perhaps a Korean model, but could he please explain to us how exactly? Because when I was the energy Minister, I looked at this to see if it could be done. We couldn't find a way of making it work.

I'm find a way of making it work. I'm really interested to see the detailed work the Liberal Democrats have put in and can explain it to the House. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House. Yes. I mean that he was the energy Minister makes me question the selection standards of previous Prime Minister. How far do you need to look? The channel is not that to look? The channel is not that wide. France and Spain, neither of whom rely France, France's nuclear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whom rely France, France's nuclear and Spain has. And Spain. Spain has renewable energy in neither. Nuclear power stations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nuclear power stations. If people stop chanting, I'll explain. In Spain and in France, there is not a reliance upon gas, there is not a reliance upon gas, partly because of nuclear in France and in Spain, not nuclear, but entirely down to renewables. And if he'd looked not very far away, you know, the other side of the Bay of Biscay, down in France, in Spain, he would be able to see that that is entirely possible. So how do we decouple ourselves? How do we decouple ourselves from reliance upon gas? It is blindingly obvious.

Don't make it so. You have to rely on gas. You invest in renewables. That is so obvious as to be almost beyond belief that people who held that brief not long ago do not get it. Investing in cheap renewables, making sure people actually see the benefits in their bills. That is the answer. Now, the conservative plan would rip up our crucial national commitments on climate change. I won't repeat the the quotations from the previous Prime minister's. The noble Baroness may have Maidenhead and Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson, now a moderate and a progressive by comparison, absolutely, utterly, utterly stunning and utterly stunning. It is distressing that the Conservative Party has left traditional voters behind who do care about the environment and our economy. Now. Communities like mine bear the brunt of the impact of climate change. Farmers, whose businesses are blighted by ever lengthening droughts and ever more severe floods. Communities like Kendal, Burneside, Staveley, Appleby, Grasmere experiencing appalling flood damage in just three weeks time. Madam Deputy Speaker, we will note the 10th anniversary of Storm Desmond, which did hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage to our communities, devastated lives, homes and communities and apparently once in 200 year event, which happened only a few years after two 1 in 100 year events, it's obvious that things are changing.

Do not dare tell Cumbrians that climate change isn't a clear and present danger. The fuel poverty and fuel poverty is worse in our area. 227% of our housing stock was built before 1900. Those homes are solid wall, hard to insulate, expensive to heat. In North Westmorland, we have the least energy efficient housing in the whole of England. 17% are classed as either F or G on the rating scale. And yet we are so well placed to provide the solutions our coastal waters hold huge amount of latent energy, yet like the rest of the UK, they are largely untapped for tidal power.

Britain has the second highest tidal range on the planet after Canada, and we are making use of nearly none of it. What an absolute waste. All the jobs that could be created in Cumbria. I won't give way in Cumbria. If we did this all the cheap energy we could generate, all the bills we could slash. So we have the big scale answers in our communities. We also have the small scale ones to Coniston Hydro scheme have been hugely successful, but its future could be secured and the energy bills the local community drastically reduced.

If only the government would deliver the P450 one code modification to allow local energy market become a reality for us in the lakes, but also right across the United Kingdom. In every community, local energy market would open the floodgates, pun intended for local schemes in every community, in every constituency represented here and beyond, so that households and businesses get the benefit of cheaper, cleaner energy created by people that they know. So what would a real plan to cut energy bills while it look like, while continuing the UK's leadership on climate change? Well, we've set it out in our amendment on the Order Paper today.

Don't slash investment in cheap, clean renewables. Increase it like the Liberal Democrats did when we were in government, quadrupling the amount of renewable power generated between 2010 and 2015. Make homes warmer and cheaper to heat with an emergency upgrade programme. Work together with the European Union to trade more efficiently, cutting costs and reducing reliance on gas, and end those expensive old renewable obligation contracts from 20 years ago, which imposed those levies on people's bills and stopped them seeing the benefits of cheap renewables move them onto cheaper contracts for difference pioneered by the Liberal Democrats to bring down prices and drive investment at the same time.

Now that is a real plan that treating the British people with respect by presenting actual solutions rather than vacuous soundbites. In closing, because the crushing poverty, the crushing poverty that millions endure from eye watering energy bills is real, and it is an outrage. The threat to our world and to our children's future from climate change is real, and it is an outrage. To love our neighbour means having a real and practical plan to tackle both. This motion does not provide that.

I am determined that we will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear Andrew Lewin. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased. To have the opportunity to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To have the opportunity to discuss energy and climate change. Although I have to confess, I'm still reeling from the speech of still reeling from the speech of the of the Shadow Secretary of State when by my count. She she State when by my count. She she talked more about mushrooms than she did climate change. Madam Deputy Speaker, we do. Look, we Deputy Speaker, we do. Look, we we're here just weeks after one of the most deadly storms on record the most deadly storms on record caused such destruction in Jamaica, a storm which the Imperial College storm model concluded was
17:57
Andrew Lewin Portrait Andrew Lewin MP (Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)
-
-
storm model concluded was appreciably stronger and more dangerous because of climate change. And we are debating this motion in the shadow of comments made by the UN secretary general, in which he concluded that humanity has failed to keep global heating to below 1.5 degrees. With that backdrop, it's sad to see such a defeatist motion put forward from the party opposite. That said, perhaps it's apt that we're debating this on an opposition day because the Conservative motion before us is opposing many of the things that they did in government.

The party opposite wants to the party opposite set up the UK Emissions Trading Scheme in 2021. Now they want to scrap it. The party opposite introduced the levy on the oil and gas sector, and now they want to scrap it. And most shocking and most shocking of all, the Climate Change Act was a labour achievement in government, but one that for many, many years had support across this House. And of course now they want to scrap it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the party opposite also privatised the National grid and were warned at the time in 1999 that this would not lead to the massive investment from the private massive investment from the private sector. We are, we are now living with the consequences of that lack of investment over something like of investment over something like 40 years. Does he not agree? That is another reason why we face such high energy bills, that failure by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

high energy bills, that failure by the party opposite. Thank you. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, I'm going to go on my hon. Friend, I'm going to go on to talk more about why investment now is good for us in the short term and the long term. Madam term and the long term. Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a genuinely sad state of affairs. There have been conservatives who have taken the climate very seriously, from the leadership of Lord deben on the Climate Change Committee to the former Prime Minister, Baroness May.

I'm even old enough to remember Lord Cameron, then Leader of the Opposition, imploring people to Opposition, imploring people to vote blue to go green. I know I don't look that old, but the message is clear that is no longer message is clear that is no longer what the Conservative Party is interested in, and I intend to address the rest of my speech to those who are still serious in this place about reducing emissions, protecting the planet, and doing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protecting the planet, and doing what is right for the next generation, I will. Forgiving me. Speaking of screeching U-turns, when he when he was campaigning in the election last year, telling his constituents that he would lower their energy bills by £300. What is he saying to them now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am saying to them, as I'm going to go on to talk about that investing in decarbonisation scheme

**** Possible New Speaker ****

investing in decarbonisation scheme and having warm homes is exactly the way that we get bills down. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. In a second. But I, I promise the member from Beverley I do. But the member from Beverley I do. But Madam Deputy Speaker, just last week I met Tina in Hatfield. Tina is a council house resident and she is a council house resident and she benefited from the Social Housing Decarbonisation Scheme. A her home had been retrofitted last year with had been retrofitted last year with new insulation, triple glazing and a host of other improvements. She a host of other improvements.

She is thrilled with the results and she told me, most importantly of all, that last winter, her monthly all, that last winter, her monthly energy bill fell from £140 a month to £67 a month. Tina's experience proves that you can cut emissions and you can cut costs. It proves that there isn't a fight between that there isn't a fight between fighting climate change and support, with the cost of living, that the two can and must work together. two can and must work together. That's precisely why our Labour government has expanded the Social Housing Decarbonisation Scheme, and why I'm proud that funding for wave three will see more than 600 council homes in Welwyn Hatfield council homes in Welwyn Hatfield brought up to standard EPC by 2028.

Hundreds more families I will happily give one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gregory Campbell generous we did. Under the last conservative government, we went from 7% to government, we went from 7% to nearly 50% renewables. We cut our emissions more than any other major economy on earth. But we also, as economy on earth. But we also, as has been said, saw electricity prices go very high. And when I was the net zero Minister, we were the net zero Minister, we were looking at heat, we were looking at transport, we were looking at industry. And the fundamental way of decarbonising each of those is of decarbonising each of those is through electricity.

How can you do that if you keep driving electricity prices ever higher? And electricity prices ever higher? And I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, I admire his ideological fervour, but we've got to get prices down if but we've got to get prices down if we're going to get a balanced approach that looks after families and looks after decarbonisation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm grateful for his intervention and I recognise that there were improvements made by the there were improvements made by the last government. But if he's listening carefully, which I'm sure he is, that's the theme of my speech. And from comments on this speech. And from comments on this side of the House, it is so sad to see the Conservative Party walk away from the climate and just walk away from the climate and just walk away from being a party that takes these issues seriously.

That's the sad thing about reform. That's what matters. Look, there are hundreds matters. Look, there are hundreds more families in my constituency who are about to enjoy the same experience as Tina, meaning they experience as Tina, meaning they can live in water, warmer homes and have dramatically lower energy bills. Upgrading our homes is the right priority. It is and will continue to yield results, but it does, of course take time to scale across the country. The same is true of our investment in new nuclear power, the continued growth of all forms of renewables, and mandating that from 2027, every new home must have solar panels on the roof in parallel.

The government is also right to recognise the urgency of now. Energy bills are down from their peak, but still significantly higher than before Putin's invasion of Ukraine. So it is absolutely right that we have targeted plans to ease the pressure on families on lower incomes this winter through the Warm Homes discount scheme to 2.7 million families across the country and around 11,000 in Welwyn Hatfield Madam Deputy Speaker. The Conservative motion today reflects the sad journey of their party, at best ignoring climate change and at worst, playing to the climate sceptics who might be plentiful on Elon Musk's X, but which of there are very few in this country and I suspect as well in their constituencies.

In contrast, this Labour government is absolutely right to invest in warm homes, to back renewable energy, and to declare that tackling climate change is and will remain a national priority.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stuart Anderson. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm delighted to. Speak in this. Because it's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because it's. Such an important topic for many Shropshire.
18:04
Stuart Anderson Portrait Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shropshire. Both individuals and businesses need energy prices. To come down. It's a cost that. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. Not sustainable and is going. In the. Wrong trajectory. And we need to be honest with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the British people on the route to. Achieve that. Now, the Leader of the Opposition has clearly set out and said. That the net. Zero target.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Zero target. Is not achievable. We are being. Honest in that discussion. And I believe over the coming

**** Possible New Speaker ****

few years, all members in this House will see that that target. Is not. Achievable and it will be reversed. On that. And what we're doing, we're trying to I think I use the word bluff, the British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people, that if we offset our carbon. Emissions down. It's okay. To import all of that in now. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To import all of that in now. We have far more reserves here that we can use before. Bringing any.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bringing any. Any of these energy costs, energy from overseas. We can. Bring these reserves, pull them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bring these reserves, pull them out of our ground and use them here. We've got a lot more that we can do there. Now, if you're saying no, we there. Now, if you're saying no, we need to look at solar. Let's look at rare earth metals. I've spoken about them several times here in about them several times here in the chamber, 17 different rare earth metals, of which 90% is processed in or through China that literally use a scorched earth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policy to pull these out of the ground, yes. Well. Yeah, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the the the Member for giving way. He mentions rare earth metals. The government is coming metals. The government is coming out with the Critical Minerals strategy. Hopefully later before the end of the year. We have vast the end of the year. We have vast resources of critical minerals here in the United Kingdom. Why didn't the previous government invest so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the previous government invest so that we don't rely on China? He raises. A very interesting point. 30

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A very interesting point. 30 years ago, China looked at this about five years ago when I went over to Australia. They were looking at it and the US were looking. Every country outside China has left this way too late. And to do a critical mineral strategy now is still way too late. It's going to we need it. We need it in place. We need to be looking at it. And all of these, like all the magnets that we use over here, MRI through MRI scans, everything like that require rare earth metals.

We need to look at this. It should be in place today. We got that wrong. I'm happy to say we did not get our rare earth metals strategy right. And it is costing us. And everybody is waking up to that strategy now. But we can't say, okay, well, let's just pull it in from China and we're very happy for them to offset our carbon emissions to over there. We need to look as well. I want to look on a defence position with energy.

We need energy to ensure that we have a strong defence. So recently, the government has committed the NATO standard 3.5 of defence, 3.5% of defence spending, 1.5% of defence related spending. On that, we should be focusing on article three of NATO over defence internally with that, that 1.5 defence related spending should focus on a couple of things energy security and food security. And I sit on NATO parliamentary assembly. These discussions are ongoing of what that's used, because if our tanks don't have any fuel to get to where they need to, they can't fight before we even look at ammunition, things like that.

So I think there's a bigger discussion around national resilience of energy security. And it isn't say, well, we have to go faster on renewables. We need something in place now. The world is the most unstable it's been since the Second World War. We need something in place now and we need to move to what is sustainable. So defence is key with that. And when I talk about food security outside Much Wenlock in my constituency, which has just been voted the happiest place to live, and it's a lovely place to live, there is 600 acres of beautiful view, one of the best in the country with prime agricultural land that can grow food.

And there is an application for 600 acres of solar panels. There is not one person I have found in the constituency, only the landowner who wants to turn that into solar energy. And if you put solar panels all over that, the solar speed, that that rollout that the Minister has mentioned, how they're going quicker, they are doing it with no regard of local communities and what they want in their communities. And this is really detrimental. And what is happening. The discussion around net zero is getting killed because local communities have been overridden on this.

So I've talked about the speed of solar and the defence side of things, also with food security. But when we look at off grid, so in South Shropshire, only 42% of homes are on gas, gas mains, many of them are off grid. I think the average is about 73% across the country. So some of the plans that the Minister is setting out of what the government are doing are not working. They are not working for a lot of these off grid communities, and there are a lot of old homes in South Shropshire, many pre 1945 that are too expensive to make sure that you can retrofit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them and put oh, thank you. And I'll conclude on that order. Doctor Stevenson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Stevenson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Look, clearly. We're at a moment in this country where we face an affordability crisis where people can't afford their energy bills, they can't afford their housing bills. And that means more than bills. And that means more than just not being able to pay the bills. It also means they're losing face with us. They're losing faith in this place because democracy is no longer delivering for them. And that's precisely why we on these benches want cleaner and cheaper benches want cleaner and cheaper energy to ensure that they can afford their bills and do have faith.

But there's also something faith. But there's also something else as well, that in this place, the decisions we make now will live for on for generation after generation, for decades, the carbon generation, for decades, the carbon we emit between now and 2050 will not live without us, but with our great grandchildren and their great grandchildren and their grandchildren as well. It's so important that we get this right at this moment. And the motion from this moment. And the motion from the party opposite about expanding North Sea oil and gas, it would not
18:10
Jeevun Sandher Portrait Dr Jeevun Sandher MP (Loughborough, Labour)
-
-
make our energy cheaper. Perhaps more importantly, it would not make us more secure either. The party opposite talks about a cheap power plan. They are in power. For 14 years we had the most expensive energy bills in the G7 with the highest inflation, because they left us dependent upon natural gas. And what do we see today? Exactly the same plan all over again. Natural gas is setting our energy price 98% of the time. It drove 80% of the increase in the wholesale cost, 50% of the wholesale cost driving the increase in energy prices.

How on earth can the party opposite today want us to relive and repeat those mistakes over and over and over again? But let's talk about North Sea oil and gas in particular the North Sea oil and gas. If you take all of it out as they are at the moment, leaves us with five years worth of supply. And then what do we do? What will we invest in? Then we will be dependent upon natural gas over and over again. That's exactly why we invest in the future.

But more than that, but more than that, the North Sea gas fields twice as expensive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as those in the Middle East. It doesn't even make economic sense. I'll give way. Member for giving way. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member for giving way. And projections show that if we fully utilise the oil and gas, the North Sea, we could cover half of our Sea, we could cover half of our energy needs to 2050. So there's a lot more in there than five years worth. And the point that just worth. And the point that just because even if it were true that there was only five years in there, so why would we be increasing our imports in order to cover anyway? imports in order to cover anyway? Why wouldn't we be using what we have? Because we're going to be a net importer for years to come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

net importer for years to come anyway. Why are we closing down the North Sea if, as he suggests, it's all going to be gone anyway? It makes no sense. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The gas feels that she's talking about a geologically unstable. It's about a geologically unstable. It's not even clear if we can get them out of those. We knew in 1997, only 20% of those reserves are left. And 20% of those reserves are left. And then. And then we get to 2050. And then what do we do? That's precisely why this government is investing in clean energy investing in clean energy home-grown energy that's cheaper and more secure for the future.

And the reason why we know this is because the party opposite used to believe it too. Used to believe in net zero, used to believe in the Climate Change Act. And look how Climate Change Act. And look how much you've changed. It's a deep, deep shame.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deep shame. I haven't changed. I'm still here, doctor Jeevun Sandher.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You're right, I do, I do apologise. Our plan, which used to apologise. Our plan, which used to be shared across this house, is precise to invest in cleaner, cheaper energy for all. Because we cheaper energy for all. Because we know that wind and solar is 60% cheaper than natural gas. We know that because after the capital cost, that because after the capital cost, the wind and the solar is free, and then the network cost that we need to balance in any case and renew our grid.

And again, this was something we shared across this house. And it's a shame to see house. And it's a shame to see where we are. But beyond investing in clean energy, which is cheaper, we're also investing in home we're also investing in home insulation. So actually using less energy at home. So that builds a lower for families. And they do lower for families. And they do have faith us in this place. And on top of that as well redistributing those costs, the warm home discount

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the standing charge that I'm so glad the Living Standards Coalition put forward, I will give way. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving away National Energy Action Estimate that Stoke on Trent is number one in this country for fuel number one in this country for fuel poverty. And we the analysis that they show that even if we were to reduce the energy bills that we reduce the energy bills that we will do, most of the energy will simply disappear through leaky windows, draughty doors and windows, draughty doors and uninsulated homes. So does my hon. Friend. Accept, agree and acknowledge that this has to be a twin track approach where not only we bring down the overall cost of energy, but houses use less energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so that we are cleaner. Greener Antifa. The house will be shocked to hear. I do agree because it is hear. I do agree because it is about getting bills down for families and it's so important. And when we we insulate homes, that when we we insulate homes, that also reduces energy demand as well. Which means actually our transition is easier and it's cheaper. And when we build and when we insulate when we build and when we insulate those homes, by the way, that's not just good for bills, it's not just good for people, but it's also good good for people, but it's also good for jobs as well.

Good non-graduate jobs. When there are too few of those. In our move to a post-industrial economy. But most post-industrial economy. But most importantly of all, but most importantly of all is getting down carbon for good. Yeah, the carbon for good. Yeah, the decisions we make now, the carbon we emit will live with us forever. we emit will live with us forever. Either we in this place across this country will make those innovations, country will make those innovations, will live up to the duty for this generation.

And going forward, we will get to clean energy. We will stop emitting carbon. It will be stop emitting carbon. It will be cheaper and cleaner. And our children, our great grandchildren, their great grandchildren will be their great grandchildren will be thankful to us or we don't. This is the moment for us to rise to. This is why we're investing in that cheaper, cleaner energy. Yes, so it gets bills down for good, but also gets bills down for good, but also to ensure that we live up to the promise we've made to future generations to come.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Peter Lamb. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. No industrialised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No industrialised. Country has ever. Been able. To succeed. Without cheap, abundant energy. As my right hon. Friend the Member As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey so rightly says, the government must prioritise delivering cheap, abundant energy delivering cheap, abundant energy for households across the country. The plan that she laid out last month would knock nearly 20% off
18:15
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
month would knock nearly 20% off the average household energy bill by cutting the disastrous taxes that this government continues to defend. Indeed, not only does this government plan to keep hitting families with extra taxes to plan to fund their ideological commitment to unreliable and expensive energy sources, they plan to make the situation even worse by shutting down energy production in this country and making us even more reliant on imports from abroad. Businesses can feel it. Far too many are being forced to cut back or close their doors altogether, because the cost of doing business is simply too high.

That's pubs, nursing homes, family farms all forced to make painful decisions because of this government. And for industrial businesses, it's even worse. Some of the best well-paid jobs of the 21st century, in high skilled manufacturing or in AI, rely on access to cheap energy. These are jobs which can revitalise communities and enable people to build successful lives for themselves. Our competitors around the world understand this, but this government does not. We need people to start new industrial businesses here, but why would anybody do so when the government is only going to make their lives harder? Through its commitment to sky high bills and intermittent, unreliable forms of energy, those on the government benches often talk of sustainability.

But there is nothing sustainable about this situation. People across the country can feel it in their energy bills each and every month. Thanks to rising bills, many families simply don't have enough money left at the end of the month to save for a home, plan a holiday, or even send their children on a school

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trip. I will give way. In January this year, the Centrica said, and I quote if rough, Centrica said, and I quote if rough, which is the largest gas storage facility in the UK, have been operating at full capacity in recent years, which was the recent years, which was the decision that wasn't taken in 2017, it would have saved UK households it would have saved UK households £100 from both gas and electricity bills. So would you agree with me that sustainable, sustainable thing that sustainable, sustainable thing to have done would be to do is to invest in gas storage facilities.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the Member for his intervention. But we should still be investing in storage from the North Sea. That's that's still the North Sea. That's that's still the best storage that we have. The the real human cost of Labour's plans real human cost of Labour's plans on energy is making the cost of living crisis even worse. And all the while, countries like China and the while, countries like China and India continue to open new coal fired factories. UK emissions are the lowest that they've been since the 1850s, while in the eight years between 2013 and 2020, China pumped between 2013 and 2020, China pumped out more carbon than Britain has produced over the past 220 years.

And that's not just because it's a bigger country per person. bigger country per person. Emissions are more than double the level in the UK, and rising. I gladly thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend for. Giving way. Can she throw. Any light on the apparent contradiction whereby the contradiction whereby the government seem prepared to import fossil fuels, thus exporting our carbon footprint, but not allow us to develop our own fossil fuel to develop our own fossil fuel resources? Is it because they're afraid that once we develop them, we won't want to stop using them?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we won't want to stop using them? Or is there some other explanation? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is, unfortunately a mystery to me. I don't understand why we would be making this trade. why we would be making this trade. It is clearly a bad one, no matter how much we might wish it were otherwise. This government cannot otherwise. This government cannot and will not make a dent in addressing global climate change.

We are simply sending our emissions We are simply sending our emissions abroad while business. While British businesses and British families pay the price. People families pay the price. People across the country are being forced to make hard choices because this government won't face the facts and government won't face the facts and deliver the cheap, abundant energy that we so clearly and dearly need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we so clearly and dearly need. Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The speaker time for some home truths. The conservative government oversaw such a disastrous energy policy that it led to the worst cost of living crisis in generations. It started so well and they just bottled it. They blocked wind power projects, failed to invest in nuclear, failed to invest in the grid, and were clueless when it came to solar, tidal and geothermal. Once again, it falls to this government to clear up the mess left by the party opposite, and we will not take any lectures from them on how to build a just transition to deliver long term, sustainable, domestically produced energy to reduce bills.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker. Cornwall is a land that became post-industrial way
18:20
Perran Moon Portrait Perran Moon MP (Camborne and Redruth, Labour)
-
-
before virtually any other part of the country, and anyone that visits the country, and anyone that visits Cornwall cannot miss the mines and the wheelhouses that evocatively blend into our beautiful landscape. blend into our beautiful landscape. The Cornish Celtic tiger was tamed, but it is set to roar once again but it is set to roar once again thanks to this government's commitment to critical minerals and commitment to critical minerals and renewable transition. The member opposite referred to critical minerals. Just then our resources minerals.

Just then our resources of tin, which is used in virtually every electrical device. Lithium, every electrical device. Lithium, which is used in EV batteries and tungsten, will provide domestically sourced resources to accelerate our sourced resources to accelerate our transition to renewable renewables whilst creating thousands of jobs whilst creating thousands of jobs where, you know, which reduce our reliance on as the as the member reliance on as the as the member mentioned, our reliance on Chinese imports, it is beyond me why it is imports, it is beyond me why it is taken so long and it's taken now 15 months of a Labour government to see the benefits in Cornwall, why the previous government didn't invest in Cornwall? I have no idea.

invest in Cornwall? I have no idea. But Cornwall and driving down the the A30, our landscape has new beautiful features. Our wind turbines are creating sustainable energy for local people. Now. We have vast opportunities in wind, solar, geothermal and tidal, and Cornwall's opportunities play a strategically prominent role in transitioning away from fossil

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fuels. I'll take this. First. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He's very generous. He's making the argument for He's making the argument for exploiting our home home resources so we don't have to import them from elsewhere. That's exactly the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from elsewhere. That's exactly the argument when it comes to North Sea oil, isn't it? Absolutely. No. Absolutely not. What I'm talking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely not. What I'm talking about here is, is why didn't the conservative government make the investments in critical minerals investments in critical minerals that this Labour government has identified straight away? It was there. It's been there for for decades, for centuries in fact, and decades, for centuries in fact, and it's been ignored. So we are now reliant on on Chinese imports. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reliant on on Chinese imports. Yes. One of the challenges in bringing down energy costs is the upfront costs of the equipment that upfront costs of the equipment that people need to use to take advantage of cheaper electricity. advantage of cheaper electricity. Now, he knows a lot about electric vehicles because he used to work in the in the sector. He knows that the salary sacrifice scheme was the biggest single way of getting electric vehicles on the road. Does he agree with me that the he agree with me that the government should look at a similar scheme for solar, for battery, for insulation, potentially heat pumps insulation, potentially heat pumps to as a great way of enabling consumers to benefit from cheaper electricity?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I do declare an interest in that. I have the the UK's largest ground source heat pump company in my own constituency and I'm a big advocate of ground source heat pumps, and I'm hopeful that the government's going to come forward with plans, particularly around social housing, to, to to support that, that sector. He makes a very valid point. But these opportunities in Cornwall would be scuppered without the likes of the allocation of round seven and the thousands of green job opportunities that would be quashed.

Now the opposition parties need to wake up. This government is committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels, because to do so means that we do break free from the shackles of the wholesale gas price. We control supply and in doing so, reduce domestic and business energy bills rather than continually being exposed to the whims of the likes of Mr. Putin. Now, I know that some members maybe not here at at the moment, quite admire Mr. Putin, but this Labour government and I suspect those that are paying through the nose for Putin's whims and the previous government's failure to invest do not either.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we're talking about ideology, I must ask the question what is it about the oil and gas backed, climate change denying parties opposite that makes them feel so threatened by the green energy transition their constituents? I won't because of time and I know there are others to speak. Their constituents won't thank them for blocking access to sustainable, low energy and low cost energy. And on this side of the House, government Ministers know that we fully understand and support the transition with with interventions such as the Warm Homes discount, which I do applaud, and I'd urge Ministers to continue to ignore the siren calls and pursue the path to long term, cheap renewable energy, lowering bills and regenerating areas like Cornwall that were long abandoned by the Conservatives.

And the previous government lost the plot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on energy. This government is taking back control of our energy industry. Alison Griffiths. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are looking at their Littlehampton are looking at their rising energy bills, already the second highest in the world, with a real sense of fear. People shouldn't have to choose between heating and eating because of the heating and eating because of the direct choices, the political choices of the party. Opposite. choices of the party. Opposite. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's not just residents. I'm hearing from many local organisations, from hospices to food manufacturers to the local pub, are worried about the rising pub, are worried about the rising costs.

The Secretary of State's ideological attacks on North Sea oil and gas production are not just devastating communities across Scotland, but also high streets right across the country. Businesses are already struggling with lower footfall as customers with lower footfall as customers rein in spending, worried about the security of their own jobs. It's a security of their own jobs. It's a doom loop and the government simply doesn't get it. But our small doesn't get it. But our small businesses do. Businesses like Oxfam in my constituency, producing some of the best strawberries in the country, which, madam Deputy Speaker, I'd love to invite you to try.

David, their director of agriculture, feels that there is no plan and no support. Not for energy, not for infrastructure, and not for infrastructure, and certainly not for growth. Rich and Mark, who run East Beach Guest House, a beautiful boutique hotel House, a beautiful boutique hotel on the shoreline of Littlehampton beach. Tell me they face a cliff beach. Tell me they face a cliff edge, a cliff edge of costs imposed by this Chancellor. The jobs tax, the family business tax, the cost the family business tax, the cost of the Employment Rights Bill, as well as their eye watering energy bills.

This government is an bills. This government is an existential threat to small businesses and the families and businesses and the families and communities they support. Enough is enough because the reality is that enough because the reality is that every pound spent just to keep the lights on is a pound not spent in our shops. When businesses suffer, our shops. When businesses suffer, we lose jobs, skills and the very places where people meet, work and places where people meet, work and build a community.

And that's why I welcome the work done by my right welcome the work done by my right hon. Friend, the Shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and net zero.
18:27
18:29
Rebecca Paul Portrait Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
-
million per month to import energy from Europe because our own production cannot meet demand, can only be called a failure and a security risk. The country urgently requires an energy policy that is realistic, reliable and rooted in the pursuit of prosperity. Yet what successive governments have legislated for has been anything but. The net zero agenda is not working. It is time we were honest about that fact. The target may have been well intentioned, but the current pathway is unaffordable and unworkable.

What many people will be wondering is how did we get to this point? To address that, we must look back to the Climate Change Act 2008. When this act was passed, it was the first legislation in the world to set a legally binding national framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it only applies to territorial emissions, that is, emissions that occur within the UK's borders. This means that while it can be made to look as though we are meeting our climate targets with a reported 54% reduction in territorial emissions since 1990, we are in fact exporting an increasing share of our emissions elsewhere.

This phenomenon, known as carbon leakage, occurs when UK based industries shut down or relocate overseas to avoid high carbon costs, only for the UK to continue importing the very same goods, often with higher embedded emissions. Net zero by 20 50th May lower UK emissions on paper, but perversely, it is also driving up global emissions in real terms as we become more reliant on imports. Several forces contribute to this. First, UK electricity prices are now among the highest in the developed world, driven in no small part by net zero policy.

Second, under the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, firms in energy intensive sectors must buy allowances for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit, a cost their foreign competitors may not face. Third, the rise of green finance regulations, such as mandatory ESG disclosures and climate stress testing, has constrained domestic investment into high emission sectors. Even as our competitors around the world forge ahead without similar constraints. I'm going to continue, but thank you for the offer. The economic consequences are now plain to see.

Since 2021, the output of UK energy intensive industries has fallen by around 35% in sectors like steel, petrochemicals and fertilisers. This trend is not theoretical. The damage already done to Once Proud Industries is plain to see at Grangemouth in Scotland. Ineos recently announced the closure of its ethanol production facility. Its founder, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, issued a stark warning at the time, saying Britain is offshoring its emissions and onshoring virtue. We close plants here, import the same products from abroad and claim we're greener.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the decision to reduce North Sea oil and gas output in favour of increased imports. On paper, this slashes the UK's territorial emissions. In reality, it leaves us more reliant on volatile overseas markets, increases our net carbon footprint and surrenders billions in domestic tax revenue and thousands of skilled British jobs. We appear to have confused decarbonisation with deindustrialisation. So what do we have to show for years of adherence to the Climate Change Act and everything that came with it, the second highest domestic energy prices in the world, the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, and 12 million families struggling to pay their energy bills.

I defy anyone to try and sell that as any kind of success. The old orthodoxy has been tried, it has been found wanting. We now need a better way forward, which is what we offer today with our cheap power plan that delivers on energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security, supports economic growth and protects the public from unaffordable green extremism. Kim Leadbeater.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kim Leadbeater. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is vital that we challenge the bankrupt energy record of the UK bankrupt energy record of the UK government, a record of failure that continues to punish Scottish workers, strip our national wealth and plunge families into fuel and plunge families into fuel poverty. The current policy being prosecuted from Westminster is not a sustainable plan. It is, quite simply, ripping jobs from the north east of Scotland with nothing to replace them. Scotland is an energy rich nation, abundant in both oil and gas and world leading renewable potential.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

potential. The. Does the hon. Member
18:33
18:33
18:33
Graham Leadbitter Portrait Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member. Police intervention. Yes, they are transferable, but they work where they can transfer to needs to exist they can transfer to needs to exist and it does not exist at the current time. The the downturn in the North Sea from a crippling, a crippling fiscal regime is absolutely destroying those jobs. And the skills that we need to get to that clean energy potential. Madam Deputy Speaker, the SNP is clear that support for the just transition for Scotland's oil and gas sector, recognising the maturity of the North Sea basin and aligning with our climate change commitments.

However, we must be absolutely clear that a just transition does not mean simply stopping all future oil and gas activity overnight. That approach threatens energy security and destroys the very skills we need to transfer to net zero. We have repeatedly called on the UK government to approach decisions for North Sea oil and gas projects on a rigorously evidence led case by case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. Instead, we have seen a fiscal and licensing regime that is actively destroying the highly skilled jobs required to deliver clean energy security.

The Energy Profits Levy is a crippling tax on Scotland's energy, and we must see its end in the upcoming budget. We have seen the consequences laid bare. Harbour energy confirms a cumulative headcount reduction of approximately 600 roles since the EPL was introduced in 2022, blaming the punitive domestic fiscal regime. Meanwhile, a landmark report found that 1 in 4 North East firms have slashed jobs due to this tax. The decline in North Sea oil and gas jobs currently outstrips jobs created by the scale up of the clean energy industry.

The loss of highly skilled offshore workers with transferable skills, without jobs to transfer to, makes a mockery of just transition. The Chancellor has the opportunity to fix this in two weeks. The question is will she? Furthermore, Madam Deputy Speaker, where is the support for the alternative? Labour promised a flagship GB Energy project would bring down bills and create 1000 new jobs in the North East. Yet only 13 out of 69 employees at GB Energy are based in Aberdeen, while 31 are employed in London.

And now we have heard the astonishing admission that creating 1000 jobs was never the intention. Let us turn to the soaring cost of living and broken promises, of living in the broken. Excuse me. Let us turn to the soaring cost of living and the broken promises made to Scottish households. The Labour Party promised to cut energy bills by £300 before the election. But what is the reality? Since the government took office, bills have soared. Independent analysis shows that average energy bills could rise by £287 on their watch to meet their original pledge.

Now a Labour government would need to cut bills by nearly £600. The situation facing Scots is completely absurd. We are an energy rich country where bills are going up while energy jobs are going down. We produce enormous amounts of electricity, yet Scots pay among the highest energy bills anywhere in Europe. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, we must address the UK government's ideological obsession with nuclear energy, which threatens Scotland's transition to renewables.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposition. Scotland already has an abundance of clean, renewable abundance of clean, renewable energy enough power to enough to power our country several times over. We do not need expensive over. We do not need expensive nuclear power, yet Scots are being forced to pay for a nuclear power station. They do not want, and will station. They do not want, and will not benefit from at great risk to our economy. We are speaking, of course, about the nuclear tax being imposed on Scottish households to fund the construction of Sizewell C in Suffolk.

This plant is not in Suffolk. This plant is not expected to generate electricity until the mid 2030s at the earliest. Furthermore, the long term legacy Furthermore, the long term legacy of nuclear power is routinely ignored by Ministers. The true cost of the geological disposal facility of the geological disposal facility for nuclear waste is now estimated to be up to £69 billion. At current prices. The body responsible for the GDF project has described it as unachievable. This is an eye wateringly large amount of money, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is the reckless fiscal regime destroying jobs in the North Sea, the broken promises leaving families facing sky high bills, or the imposition of a toxic nuclear tax to fund of a toxic nuclear tax to fund white elephants. In England, Westminster's energy policy, dictated to us by both Labour and dictated to us by both Labour and the Tories, has been a complete failure. It is no wonder that more and more Scots are concluding that the only way to escape this repeated mismanagement, and the only route to cheaper bills, is through a fresh start with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

independence. It is time to put Scotland's energy in Scotland's hands. Aphra Brandreth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Aphra Brandreth. Hey madam Deputy. Speaker, as. We head towards winter, I'm sure many members like me will. Have begun to receive emails from worried constituents asking how they will afford to heat their they will afford to heat their homes this winter. Because the reality, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that they were promised by this Labour government that their energy bills would fall by £300. Instead, bills would fall by £300. Instead, they've risen by almost £200. Britain now faces some of the highest electricity prices in the highest electricity prices in the world, affecting everyone from families to businesses and families to businesses and communities.

And this, Madam Deputy Speaker, comes down to one simple truth this Labour government are truth this Labour government are putting ideology before the British people. And for those. I'm going to people. And for those. I'm going to continue because of time. For those that doubt this, madam Deputy Speaker, let me set out the cost of the Secretary of State's policies with statistics sourced from his own department. The UK now faces own department. The UK now faces the world's second highest domestic electricity prices, four times higher than the US, with 12.1 million households struggling to pay bills and 43% spending over 10% of their income on energy.

At a time when energy security is crucial, the government is closing our North Sea oil and gas sector, and a logical move that in reality will cost jobs, cost us billions in lost economic value and all whilst not actually delivering the environmental benefit that many people understandably want to see. Because shutting down domestic production doesn't reduce demand, it just means importing more from abroad, often with a far higher carbon footprint. So I ask the Minister, why does this government persist with an ideologically driven approach when even the chair of Great British Energy and the Scottish renewables sector have both called for continued drilling in the North Sea? Madam Deputy Speaker, the Conservatives have set out a clear and credible plan for cheaper energy.

Of course, I want a clean and healthy environment for this and future generations, but we also need to recognise the wider context if we make wise and prudent decisions today to support our economy, utilise the resources we have and encourage investment and growth, then we will have a springboard to pursue a greener future. And my concern, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that we are making decisions influenced by the Climate Change Act, which by only counting domestic emissions means you could, for example, close industries in the UK and shift production overseas, resulting in lost jobs, revenue and growth.

Yes, meeting the requirements of the act, meeting the requirements of the act, but all whilst resulting in increasing global emissions. Madam Deputy Speaker, Good intentions are Deputy Speaker, Good intentions are not matching the reality for families or for the environment. So I support our plan to cancel the I support our plan to cancel the carbon tax on electricity generation, saving every household generation, saving every household £75 a year and end outdated renewable subsidies, saving families a further £90 annually. families a further £90 annually.

Labour promised a £300 reduction in bills, but under them bills have bills, but under them bills have risen by £200. That is the price of putting ideology over delivery and putting ideology over delivery and pragmatism. So I urge members to back this motion and back our cheap power plan. power plan.
18:41
18:41
Martin Wrigley Portrait Martin Wrigley MP (Newton Abbot, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
investment. And yet our energy bills are higher than the national average. And in my Newton Abbot constituency, we have higher fuel poverty than the average. And the district has 23% of households in off gas grid areas. Yet we are faced with electricity bills that are based on the price of gas. This is because the electricity generation market is set up using the so-called marginal cost pricing, which effectively increases the wholesale price of renewables to that of electricity generated by gas. Because gas power plants are flexible and used to top up the supply, even though a significant and increasing proportion of the UK's electricity is generated by sources with low marginal costs like wind, solar and nuclear power, these generators also receive the higher marginal price set by gas under this marginal pricing system.

The UK's electricity market price is set by gas 98% of the time, the highest rate across Europe and well above the EU average of just 40%. All of this is under the government's controlled system of contract to energy generators, to provide a level of certainty and the productivity and supply, but we have to break the tie with gas and marginal cost pricing. The introduction of contracts for difference used most significantly for offshore wind and introduced by my right hon.

Friend, the Member for Kingston and Surbiton in the Energy Act of 2013 is a good step, but it still relies on setting a strike price strike price for energy, which is heavily influenced by the price of gas at the time of the deal. In the 12 months to September 2025, renewables accounted for 42% of the UK's total energy mix, while figures for the second quarter of 2025 indicates renewables made up a record of 54% of electricity generation, the answer to cheaper bills, according to experts, is to intervene in the design of the market to stop the cost of gas plants from setting the price for the whole market, not increasing the reliance on fossil fuels that are choking the planet to death with carbon emissions.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you to. Bowie. Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker. Two Labour promises gone in one day. That must be a record even for day. That must be a record even for for this failing government, because we heard today the confirmation that there is no way that this government is going to that this government is going to cut energy bills by £300 by 2030. It's a party that campaigned on the It's a party that campaigned on the pledge of cutting bills by £300. And yet we have seen families bills go up.

A party that consistently up. A party that consistently blamed volatile gas prices until the gas price fell. And now they must confront the reality that must confront the reality that their extortionate auction rounds race to clean power 2030 and strangulation of our North Sea industry are impacting households up and down the country. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a government that has no plan to cut government that has no plan to cut energy bills for the British people. In comparison, our cheap power plan In comparison, our cheap power plan set out by my right hon.

Friend the Member for East Surrey would cut families bills by 20% immediately. families bills by 20% immediately. Our cheap power plan would take £165 off the average electricity bill by off the average electricity bill by axing the carbon tax on electricity generation, stopping the Secretary of State's rip off auctions and of State's rip off auctions and scrapping ridiculously expensive old renewable subsidies. Our cheap

**** Possible New Speaker ****

power plan I will give way, but very quickly. And I apologise to Madam Deputy Speaker. I don't normally read in Speaker. I don't normally read in the chamber. I don't think it's good form, but on this case I will because this is available on the minister's website, he says, I minister's website, he says, I quote. I'm also proud of the UK's world leading role in tackling climate change, and with the UK climate change, and with the UK being the first country to introduce legally binding long term emissions target under the landmark emissions target under the landmark Climate Change Act in 2008.

He now not?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not? Yes, I do want I do want to scrap that act. We will scrap that act because the cost and the British people is far too high and it is unsustainable. And that's why we want to bolster domestic energy security by backing British oil and security by backing British oil and gas, supporting workers and reducing reliance on imports, imports, which have soared as a imports, which have soared as a direct result of this government's policies. I will not, because we are very limited on time.

I want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are very limited on time. I want to give the Minister a time to respond. Oh, fine. Go on. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. On that same website, the hon. Member talks about the deep emissions cuts that result from the Climate Change Act from the Climate Change Act emissions targets. Does he agree with the website that were it not for the Climate Change Act, those emissions wouldn't have, those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

emissions wouldn't have, those emissions reductions wouldn't have happened. Andrew Bowie I didn't know that my website was such a go to place for Labour MPs. I recommend you read some of the other things on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that website, including setting out how our cheap power plan will reduce bills. Look, yes I. Will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will. Madam Speaker, I've not had time to go on my own website, but I hear it, I hear it, I hear it's a good it, I hear it, I hear it's a good read. The fact of the matter is, he's putting forward a policy that will cut energy bills, the opposite will cut energy bills, the opposite of what the government is doing, and it will create jobs in the North Sea, and it will ensure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

case? Yes, yes. And I recommend he does look at my website, because everybody else my website, because everybody else in the chamber seems to have by now, I will give you one last time and then I do need to make progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then I do need to make progress. I'm interested to hear what he has to say about cutting bills. Does he not recognise that the cost of letting climate change go on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of letting climate change go on unmitigated is a vast cost to every household in this country? Hear, hear!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear! Andrew Bowie I would like to remind the hon. Lady, as she well knows, we cut our carbon emissions faster than any other developed nation on earth, and yet heat. nation on earth, and yet heat. Global warming is increasing. We need to encourage other countries to reduce their emissions. But we to reduce their emissions. But we do not do that. We do not do that on the backs of British Bill peers, who are paying far too much for who are paying far too much for their energy prices.

And I thought the Liberal Democrats would be supporting of supportive of creating jobs and reducing bills and the burden on British people, but obviously not. The government's policies have seen imports soar as a direct result. These policies have been described as naive by the GMB, incorrect by the American ambassador will make Britain increasingly dependent, according to the Norwegian government. Needs replaced, says Scottish Renewables, and is leading to a haemorrhaging of energy jobs, according to none other than the head of Great British Energy, Juergen Maier.

In fact, the only person that seems to think this is a good way to manage our energy industry is the Secretary of State for energy. This government is sacrificing an industry, the livelihoods, communities and prosperity, many of them in my constituency on this mission. Now, the irony is not lost in the North east of Scotland. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are importing more gas from abroad, from the very same seed that we are prevented from exploiting ourselves at a higher carbon footprint.

While workers in Aberdeen and across the north east of Scotland, and across the domestic supply chain across the United Kingdom, see their jobs disappear. It is a fact of which
18:48
Andrew Bowie Portrait Andrew Bowie MP (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative)
-
-
Aberdonians are incredibly proud that in every oil rich nation on earth, you will find an Aberdonian earth, you will find an Aberdonian accent soon. The only place you will not find a Scottish oil and gas worker is in Aberdeen itself. 1000 jobs set to be lost every month as a direct result of the month as a direct result of the policies of this Labour government because those people are leaving. Madam Deputy Speaker, they are off to the Middle East, to Australia, to the Far East, to South America, Mexico, the USA, Canada.

In fact, anywhere that British Labour Party anywhere that British Labour Party is not in charge of energy policy, the successful, this successful industry is enduring a politically industry is enduring a politically manufactured decline made in Whitehall, devastating livelihoods across the UK and particularly in Scotland. This government is demonstrating a reckless disregard for the industry, which for decades for the industry, which for decades has kept the lights on in this country, an industry which we will continue to need for decades to continue to need for decades to come.

Now the oil and gas industry has been through challenging waters before the 20 1415 global downturn before the 20 1415 global downturn and oil price collapse saw a contraction in operations and job losses. But the response could not losses. But the response could not be more different. In 2015, the conservative government commissioned the would review and commissioned the would review and initiated a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North Sea. We recognised the value of the domestic industry and we acted accordingly. Our oil and gas industry is facing tough times again, but this time the downturn is only in the UK.

Globally, the energy industry is booming and the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the Gulf of America, South America and Norway activity is increasing in New Zealand. They have just overturned the ban on drilling brought in by the previous Labour government. The difficulties experienced in our domestic industry are the result of political decisions driven by ideology over pragmatism. I hope. I very much hope that the Chancellor is listening to us on these benches, to the workers in the oil and gas industry, to their unions, to the businesses, to the Americans, the Norwegians, the renewables industry, even to Juergen Maier, because we are at a critical turning point.

The industry stands on a precipice. The Chancellor must act now, if not now, at this budget, the UK will not have a domestic oil and gas industry left to salvage. The real irony here is that the Secretary of State, in his vitriol and zealotry, is jeopardising the future of renewable energy in the North Sea, as the Port of Aberdeen CEO said this week as they announced further job losses. Our energy sector risks being stranded in limbo between the destruction of our oil and gas industry and a nascent renewables sector.

Also this week we saw shell divest from offshore wind project. They just don't get it in this scorched earth strategy against our traditional offshore industries, they are decimating a skilled workforce and dismantling a world leading supply chain. Talent and capital is moving elsewhere. We need cheap energy and that means all of the above nuclear, gas, hydropower, innovative technologies and renewables. If they can be proven that they will cut bills because, Madam Deputy Speaker, as this Labour government ripped the floor from beneath the oil and gas industry of today, they will soon realise they are losing the workforce, the supply chains and the investment of tomorrow.

But there is another way, Madam Deputy Speaker, our way. They should declare the North Sea open for business, reduce our reliance on imports, get rid of the EPL, build more Luke Taylor big and small, create energy abundance, cut electricity bills by families by 20%. Right now using our cheap power plan. They could do it, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, but blinded by will. Yes, Minister.
18:52
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, Minister. Thank you. Very much. Madam Deputy. Speaker, can I thank all. Honourable and right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Honourable and right hon. Members across the House for their contributions in this short but very punchy debate this afternoon, very punchy debate this afternoon, and rightly so. This issue of how we build an energy system for the future has become a huge political topic, a conversation not just in this House, but actually much more in the public domain than it has been for some time. Energy is hugely important, and that is why it's even more important that we rise to the occasion to plan a future energy system that works for everyone in this country, and that is based on a credible long term plan, not what we saw from the party opposite today.

And it's been an interesting debate, not least because for quite a lot of it, it seemed to be the echoes of the Tory party of late debating with itself. We had mentions of Boris Johnson, of Baroness. May we I think we've doubled the number of visitors to the shadow Ministers website just in the past half an hour. And of course, there are plenty of quotes to go around and we don't need to go right back to the dim and distant Boris Johnson days we could go back to just earlier last year.

The climate transition presents huge opportunities for this country when it comes to jobs, investing, investment and improving our energy security. The shadow Secretary of State, who now apparently doesn't believe in any of that, she said in the same speech. We will not roll back from our targets at all and then stand here today and very proudly seems to dismiss all of those targets. I was particularly pleased to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Beverley and Holderness, who seems to be the only person left in the Conservative Party willing to defend 14 years of investment in renewables.

Everybody else in the party wants to turn their back on that investment. But I'm delighted that the hon. Gentleman is here in this debate and in many others to remind us of, to remind us of his way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the Minister is a thoughtful person, and I think will share the concern about North Sea share the concern about North Sea oil and gas, for instance. But on the specific topic of renewables, we are proud of what we did. But we are proud of what we did. But under the Climate Act, which has no cognisance of what happens to the economy, it's just decarbonisation economy, it's just decarbonisation or bust. We now have extraordinarily high electricity prices and marrying that when you need to decarbonise heat and transport and industry, when the main way to do it is by electrification, it puts us in a bind.

That's why I do believe that we're right to look at getting rid of the Climate Act and look at a new system, a balanced system that recognises we must balance economics with the righteous, move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economics with the righteous, move towards tackling climate change. Minister. Well. I'm glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to have another opportunity to speak about it positively, about the Conservative Party's record on renewables, when no one else in his party seems to want to talk about that at all. And of course, the reason that was made by a number of hon. Members earlier about why we are still subject to the volatility of gas prices is that it still sets the price far that it still sets the price far too often.

And the only way that we bring down prices in the long term is to remove gas as the price setter. Now that means we need to build more renewables. But also the key point that I think his party misses is that they built lots of these projects, but they didn't build the grid that connected them. And so when they talk about constraint payments, that is the legacy of a party that failed to build the grid for 14 years. That brings significantly cheaper power to homes and businesses across the country.

I will give way to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Lady, but then I really need to make some progress. It's not the truth that once the transition and the project are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transition and the project are being built, the energy is free. No commodities are to. Touch you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because the wind. The sunlight is cheap and costs nothing or very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

little apart from the installation. Well. I'm grateful to the hon. Lady, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the hon. Lady, I. I would just say it is significantly cheaper to generate electricity from renewables. I might not go quite that far, but and this is a point I will return to, because there is a false debate at the moment of saying that the wholesale price of gas is cheaper, and therefore we should just simply rely on gas more, which completely rely on gas more, which completely ignores the fact that we have an ageing gas fleet in this country, and that you would have to build and that you would have to build significantly new gas power stations in order to take advantage of that.

And the figure that the party opposite frequently throw party opposite frequently throw around compares the construction costs of renewables, which have extremely cheap, ongoing costs in extremely cheap, ongoing costs in the long run, with the costs of gas itself, not with actually building it. And that is, I'm afraid, a it. And that is, I'm afraid, a false debate. Let me just, madam, I'm not going to give it. I'm sorry. I have a great respect for the gentleman, but I've got four minutes to to finish and sum up this debate for a long time in our post-war history, there was a consensus.

It was fuelled, firstly by the transformative discovery of gas in the North Sea, but also by a protracted period of is not worrying about. When we flick on a switch, the electrons would flow. Putin's invasion of Ukraine threw all of that consensus away, and it threw into stark reality our dependence on gas power. By 2022, as astronomic energy prices that many of our constituents are still facing the price shattered the complacency that simply continuing with the system, as we've known it for a long time, would work.

Now, the answer to get off this is to build a system fit for the future. And that is not going to be easy. And I think we have, too often in this House and in our public discourse, come to believe that we can achieve difficult things by giving simplistic answers. The truth is, this is complicated, and only by tackling the root causes of our dependence on gas and the failure to build grids, and the failure to build the infrastructure we need of the future, can we deliver long term bill discounts for our constituents, but also the energy security that we badly need? Most of our electricity grid was built in the 1960s and hasn't been upgraded since.

It is holding back economic growth, but it is also failing to get cheaper power to people's homes across the country. So we face as a country two paths we've heard today from the party opposite the status quo, the idea we carry on as we have at the moment, and hope that the volatility of fossil fuel gives us some cheaper prices for a little while until we get to the next spike and we fail to protect our consumers. We've seen it again and again in the past 50 years.

Half of the recessions in this country have been caused by our exposure to fossil fuels. We will not do the same again. We will not build an expensive monument to how we used to do things that have let people down. We will deliver change and build an energy system for the future, and that is why we are delivering our clean power mission. I do want to turn to the contributions that have been made on the North Sea, which I think are hugely important, and I'm afraid I do not have quite as much time to sum up as I thought I might.

It is really important that we recognise the North Sea has been in transition for a long time, failing to recognise that that does not help the workers in the North Sea now, and the status quo, which has led to a third of workers in the North Sea losing their jobs in the past ten years, has let down workers and communities. The failure to have a plan has let them down. We are not going to do that. The status quo cannot be sustained, either economically or practically.

And so we will set out in the coming weeks our future for the energy in the North Sea. It will recognise the importance of creating new jobs, of driving forward investment in renewables and carbon capture and hydrogen, not talking down those industries, but also recognising that oil and gas will be with us for decades to come. And the workers that have powered our country for more than half a century will continue to have a hugely important part in our energy system and our economy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in in concluding, there are there are two paths ahead of us, either ambition for our country or the barely managed decline that we have all faced in the past 14 years. Hope that we can build something better, or defeatism that says we shouldn't tackle the climate crisis. We should not build new infrastructure because it just might be too difficult building for the future. Or the yellow brick road of nostalgia, which has let so many of our constituents down.

We all want in this House energy security, economic growth, cheaper bills and to improve people's lives. What divides us in this place is the sense of ambition we have. We are ambitious for the future of the country, ambitious for what we can achieve, ambitious for tackling the climate emergency. We will get on with delivering that. And the party opposite needs to learn the lessons of their 14 years of failure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, the question is that the original words stand part of the question. As many of that
19:00
None Portrait Division: Energy Debate
-

of the question. As many of that
19:00
19:00
None Portrait Division: Energy Debate
-

Colleague Colleague colleagues Colleague colleagues observing Colleague colleagues observing the Colleague colleagues observing the chamber will see that I'm on my feet. And Miss Coutinho, are you miss? She exited the chamber. Well, that's very lovely, isn't it? Can we move? The question is, as on the we move? The question is, as on the Order Paper as many that say, I of the contrary, no. Know for the eyes of Gregory Stafford and Andrew of Gregory Stafford and Andrew Snowden Tellers for the noes, Costigan.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right. 97. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 97. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 336. The ayes to the right 97. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 97. The noes to the left 336. So the nose noes to the left 336. So the nose noes to the left 336. So the nose habit. The nose habit. Unlock. The habit. The nose habit. Unlock. The question is that the proposed words be there added. As many of that opinion, say aye. I of the country. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I declare the ayes have it.

I declare the question as amended, to be agreed question as amended, to be agreed to. That point of order. Nigel Huddleston.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today we had an urgent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Earlier today we had an urgent question on the appointment process of the independent football. Regulator. The Secretary.
19:16
Nigel Huddleston Portrait Points of Order Nigel Huddleston MP (Droitwich and Evesham, Conservative)
-
-
Of State, in her.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the Prime Minister. In that process. This evening, we. Learned from number. Ten that the Prime Minister did sign off.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sign off. On the appointment. Of David. Cogan, who donated to. The Prime Minister's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Prime Minister's. Campaign an. Involvement that the Prime Minister's ethics adviser has called regrettable. Can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, will the Prime Minister be making a the Prime Minister be making a statement or what alternative mechanisms are there for him to inform the House and update the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

record? The. I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of that point of giving me notice of that point of order. I have not received any notice of a statement on this matter, but the Treasury Front matter, but the Treasury Front bench will have heard what the hon. Member has said, and no doubt will Member has said, and no doubt will be sharing that information. There are other parliamentary mechanisms available to pursue such matters. I am sure that the Table office will am sure that the Table office will be able to assist the hon.

Member be able to assist the hon. Member if he needs further advice. It's not a continuation, I hope, of the point of order, because I've made

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point of order, because I've made my statement clear. Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister is, of Speaker. The Prime Minister is, of course, responsible for the enforcement of the ministerial code. If indeed, as appears to be the case, he has breached it. Is there a role for the speaker, or what other methods are there, not just for a debate in this place, for him to be held to account for doing what he is supposed to do, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which his ethics adviser has said he should have done? The hon. Member is incredibly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member is incredibly experienced and will no doubt know and understand when I say the ministerial code is not a matter for the chair, but he will obviously pursue all avenues and there are many across the house for there are many across the house for him to continue this conversation going forward. That is the end of this business. I'll be moving on to this business. I'll be moving on to the exercise to the front bench. Wishes to wish to move over from Wishes to wish to move over from Wishes to wish to move over from benches.

And members should be ended quickly and quietly. Quickly ended quickly and quietly. Quickly ended quickly and quietly. Quickly and quietly. Mike. Mike. Should I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and quietly. Mike. Mike. Should I come to motion number three on telecommunications Minister to move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. No. Object is normally the terminology. Mr. Jim Shannon, I'm terminology. Mr. Jim Shannon, I'm surprised you weren't aware of that. The division is deferred until

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wednesday next motion number four on retained EU law. Reform Minister Tamworth. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many that. Are contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come on to petitions. Petition. James Naish.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition. James Naish. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in behalf of my constituents in Rushcliffe who have signed a local petition signalling their desire for the centre of West Bridgford to for the centre of West Bridgford to have a dedicated Changing Places facility. As debates in this House have repeatedly noted, Changing have repeatedly noted, Changing Places facilities are a highly valued initiative which give people with disabilities and their with disabilities and their families and carers more freedom to participate in activities which the rest of us take for granted.

I hope,
19:19
19:20
Liam Byrne Portrait Petition Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition Liam Byrne. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker, I. Rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Ward End Ward in Birmingham. The petition calls on the City Council to safeguard children and parents around Thornton and Sheffield

**** Possible New Speaker ****

schools, where I've undertaken school gate surgeries over. The. Last month. Right now, children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last month. Right now, children are at risk from dangerous driving on Banville and Saint Agatha's Road and implementation of a one way and implementation of a one way system on these roads, together with a proper study for a one way system on Chetwynde and Saint Joseph's Road, would ensure safer children and happier residents and less damaged vehicles. And it is, of course, now possible, thanks to of course, now possible, thanks to the hard work of the City Council and its transportation lead Councillor Majid Mahmood, and his decision to earmark £3.8 million decision to earmark £3.8 million from the Clean Air Zone revenue budget.

The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons request that the House of Commons urge the government to work with Birmingham City Council to implement a one way system on Saint Agatha's Road and Banville Road in Ward End to ensure the safety of children, residents and their vehicles, and the petitioners vehicles, and the petitioners remain. ET cetera.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remain. ET cetera. Petition road Safety and Ward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

End, Birmingham. I beg to move that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this House now do adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn, and I come to Seamus Logan on the Nolan principles. Seamus Logan.
19:22
Seamus Logan Portrait Seamus Logan MP (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to address.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Nolan principles, and I wish I could say, as the dentist might say, that the next 30 minutes say, that the next 30 minutes should be pain free, but I can't. This is going to hurt. And it's not because of the Prime Minister's because of the Prime Minister's current difficulties. I want to thank the backbench Committee for granting time for this debate. Members will know that the seven Members will know that the seven Nolan principles are now part of the fabric of our public life in this country.

We might have expected, in fact, that we were led expected, in fact, that we were led to believe in the Labour Party manifesto that they would restore our faith in standards in public our faith in standards in public life. Sadly, I remain to be convinced, as so many people are, that this is the case. Time and that this is the case. Time and again. We have seen and are seeing examples of Ministers and others failing to meet these basic failing to meet these basic standards, particularly honesty, integrity, accountability and integrity, accountability and openness.

Most recently and highlighted by me in an urgent question to the government, the former DEFRA Secretary of State made some very dubious claims from the Dispatch Box regarding water quality in Scotland. Comments repeated in writing to a Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government on social media and in Government on social media and in broadcast interviews. Thank goodness, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the office for National Statistics, but I have yet to hear a clarification or better still, an apology from said former Secretary of State.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life published its last report and recommendations in November 2021. It was entitled Upholding Standards in Public Life. Among their findings were the following. There still needs to be greater independence in the regulation of the ministerial code. The scope of the business appointment rules should be expanded, and the rules should be enforced through legal arrangements. Reforms to the power of the Commissioner for Public Appointments are needed to provide a better guarantee of independence, of the independence of assessment panels, and transparency around lobbying is poor and requires better coordination and more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

frequent publication by the Cabinet Office. This committee I will take a brief intervention. Can I commend them for bringing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I commend them for bringing this forward? The hon. Member for Aberdeen North East. I was in Augsburg Council in 1985. The Nolan Augsburg Council in 1985. The Nolan Principles in 1995. They were very clear. And integrity, selflessness, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. They were formulated to bring us into line. I was very grateful to have that when they gave it to me in 1995. As public trust is at an in 1995. As public trust is at an incredibly low ebb.

Does the hon. Member not agree that now more than ever, all elected officials must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ever, all elected officials must cling to these vital principles as a foundation of public service? Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Member for his intervention, and I must say, I will address his point later in the speech. The committee I referred to speech. The committee I referred to noted and I quote, standards, regulators and government are not sufficiently independent. Government needs to take a more Government needs to take a more formal and professional approach to its own ethics obligations. To address this, we recommend the address this, we recommend the number of stronger ethics rules that standards, regulators and government are given a basis in government are given a basis in primary legislation and that government develops a formal compliance function.

The arrangements to uphold ethical arrangements to uphold ethical standards in government have come under close scrutiny and significant criticism in recent months. They said maintaining high standards requires vigilance and leadership. The committee believes our recommendations outline a necessary programme of reform to restore public confidence in the regulation of ethical standards in government. These words and their recommendations, written in the teeth of one of the most corrupt regimes in Downing Street this country has ever witnessed, still hold true today more than four years later.

Now turning to the situation in Scotland, the Seven Nolan Principles have been extended further with two additional requirements. Public service holders of public office have a duty to act in the interests of the public body of which they are a board member, and to act in accordance with the core tasks of that body. Respect. Holders of public office must respect fellow members of their public body and employees of the body and the role they play. Treating them with courtesy at all times. I recommend these additions for wider consideration.

Interestingly, just this summer, the former Prime Minister John Major intervened again, telling the current Prime Minister that he needed to crack down on misconduct in politics, citing examples of scandals and political funding. The award of honours, lobbying, unsavoury behaviour, bullying and he referenced partygate as well as well as whole governments breaking or bending the law and shielding their own colleagues from censure. His suggestions for improvement included asking the House of Lords Advisory Commission to scrutinise the suitability of political peerages, as well as their propriety.

More of that in a minute or two. Giving statutory powers to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments so that they can impose sanctions on former politicians and officials who flout time limited lobbying bans three. Ensuring the government responds swiftly to recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life for new protections to prevent wealthy foreign interests influencing politics through mega donations. I understand a cap on individual contributions is under consideration, and this will be of interest to certain Ministers who have already received extensive donations from organisations directly supplying to sectors within their portfolio.

Five. And finally returning the Electoral Commission to its former status as an independent body, free of government guidance. Labour promised an ethics committee in their manifesto in 2024 and have now, as I understand it, established an ethics and Integrity commission and one might hope that this body will make a significant contribution to ensuring the proper and full application of the Nolan principles. They are intended to apply not only to members in this place, but to the other place also, in fact, to all public servants.

But as Harold Macmillan famously famously said, events, dear boy events, I give you the current Civil War in the boardroom at the BBC, an organisation that I have tremendous respect for and under remain a critical friend. Many feel this almighty mess may be traced back to the appointments process, which cannot, which cannot be said to as we would. Cannot be said to be as we would like it to be. But returning to this place when things go wrong, government spokespersons tell us that their Ministers do the right things in these circumstances.

But it seems to me that they only do that when they are found out. We have seen an example of it this very day. What hurts the most? And I will explain towards the end of my speech why it matters so much. And to the hon. Gentleman's point, is that this Labour government has been mired in scandal almost from day one, accepting expensive glasses, suits, accommodation, clothing for relatives from wealthy donors appear, allowed privileged access to ten Downing Street and involved in appointing advisers.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor, using costly freebie tickets from lobbyists to watch football games or concerts. Three junior Ministers forced off its brief.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was trying Madam Deputy Speaker but on the mention of tickets he will know. A Scottish Government Cabinet secretary was Government Cabinet secretary was using a limousine to attend football matches. I mean, I mean, surely that does not sit easy with him. And I also point out that his government is running Scotland via government is running Scotland via the Holyrood. And things always have not been aboveboard. And I think particularly about very senior people in his own party. Deleting text messages related to the Covid inquiry and absolute

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Covid inquiry and absolute disgrace. So does he join me in condemning that action? Yes. The hon. Member for his intervention, but it always strikes intervention, but it always strikes me as very strange, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Labour MPs from Scotland, who are keen to get elected here, spend most of their time talking about events in Holyrood. So why don't they go up Holyrood. So why don't they go up the road to the Parliament and Holyrood, the PM and the Chancellor.

Three junior Ministers forced out of office, for example, in conflicts of interest and housing and entanglement in an overseas and entanglement in an overseas corruption case. The members are chuntering from a sedentary position, but you're not watching enough Parliament TV because nobody can hear you at home. I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy. Nobody can pardon, Madam Deputy. Nobody can hear them at home. The former Deputy Prime Minister's resignation over unpaid, underpaid tax on a second home purchase. The forced sacking of the former US ambassador, Lord Mandelson, over his close personal involvement with the late Jeffrey Epstein.

What are we to make of the fact that Lord Mandelson, Lord Mandelson, Mandelson still sits in the other place, while the former Duke of York has been stripped of his peerage and the self-proclaimed invincible Baroness Mone, who, despite admitting to conducting herself in a less than totally honest way in her dealings with the media and in other ways, which at the very least fell well below the standards of conduct that we might expect, still has her seat in the other place.

Meanwhile, trust in politics is at an all time low. In June last year, 4 in 5 Britons said that they were dissatisfied with how they were governed, according to the British Social Attitudes Survey. Other opinion polls show that this government to be the most unpopular in history, with the Prime Minister's personal ratings are at an all time low. After only 16 months. The Nolan Principles are now clearly integrated into the proposed Public Office Accountability Bill, exemplified by the new duty of candour.

However, duties and obligations are all very well until you are the only person in the room doing the speaking or demonstrating candour. Sadly, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is still a culture of fear across the public sector, even in the BBC in relation to speaking up. Unless the Nolan principles are backed up by proper protection for those who speak up, including a confidential and anonymous reporting platform. Unless that happens, whistleblowers will be confronted with a choice to speak up, potentially lose their career or their job, or stay silent and potentially fall foul of the law.

An office of the whistleblower. Madam Deputy Speaker, would relegate these choices to history and help to reduce or bring an end to the harm to public, to the public. Such an office would be the very embodiment of the Nolan principles, as we have seen with so many scandals. They could have been prevented or limited if an office for the whistleblower had existed. I hope to join the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills when she meets with the relevant Minister in the near future on this point.

So to conclude, why does all this really matter beyond the obvious need for high standards in public office? A brief one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful. Deputy Speaker for the member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker for the member. Take an intervention. As he knows I care very deeply about these issues too, or at least I hope he does, and in fact spent some six years on the standards committee at Holyrood, which was referred to earlier. Would he be content to the Scottish Government were to seek a full Government were to seek a full motion on such a proposal as he is suggesting, so that this could be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggesting, so that this could be across UK initiative rather than just one that focuses on this place. Point. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. Well, I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but of course, I'm not in a position to speak for the Scottish Government. Once again, the Scottish Government. Once again, members. Opposite members opposite, referring to matters in Holyrood rather than to the place where they rather than to the place where they were elected. It matters because, in the context of a disastrous loss of confidence in the behaviour of of confidence in the behaviour of public servants, including us, in the face of a dramatic loss of public trust, is it any wonder that public trust, is it any wonder that people do not take part in the democratic process anymore? Is it any wonder that people might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any wonder that people might consider voting for parties of the far right? Is it any wonder that we see trouble in our streets? Is it? I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. I'm grateful. He talks about considering voting for parties to the far right and of course, the former leader of reform UK in Wales pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery. Lord Nolan highlighted the need for openness. Does he agree that with £4.6 million of suspect donations from overseas, we need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take measures against foreign governments and state linked groups intervening in our politics? Seamus Logan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seamus Logan. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and he's obviously agreeing with the point that I made agreeing with the point that I made earlier. It matters because this behaviour is simply unacceptable. Is it any wonder that snake oil salesmen and women obtain support? Madam Deputy Speaker. History Madam Deputy Speaker. History teaches us that when the people lose faith in the democratic process, when they lose trust in the government, when our institutions fail them, and that is what is happening before our very eyes, the door opens to very dangerous people who do not have our interests truly at heart.

That

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is why the Nolan principles really matter. I call the Minister Minister Chris Ward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the honourable. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Murray East for securing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Murray East for securing the debate? He said it wouldn't be pain free and he was. True to his word. But I know he cares passionately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cares passionately. About these matters. And whether it's the Hillsborough Law, whether it's the Kincora children's scandal it's the Kincora children's scandal that I know he has campaigned on for many years or other injustices. I know he cares deeply about public services and the Nolan principles underpinning it. So I will take it in that spirit. Today, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister for Giving Way, and it was fantastic to see the
19:35
Chris Ward Portrait Chris Ward MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven, Labour)
-
-
consensus in this House around the Hillsborough law. Does he share my concern that the Scottish Government have still yet to confirm whether they will match the Non-means-tested legal aid that is written on the face of the bill, as passed at Second Reading across the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

week. Minister. Thank you for that. I mean, as I understand it, the Scottish understand it, the Scottish Government have had a number of years to address this and still haven't. So I would hope the First haven't. So I would hope the First Minister will get to that. And we can. Yes, we can clarify, but Madam Deputy Speaker, we are celebrating 30 years of the Nolan Principles this year and the principles set this year and the principles set out by Lord Nolan in 1995.

Honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity, openness selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership are rightly the foundations of standards in public life across the United Kingdom. And as the hon. Member said, with public trust in our public services public trust in our public services and our politics at a low point, they are as important, if not more so, than they have at any point in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so, than they have at any point in the last three decades. Of course, I will. Thank the Minister. For giving way. He talks about. Public trust.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Public trust. One way to. Try and restore that. Trust is. To hold.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To hold. Accountable every single. Breach of the Nolan Principles,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Breach of the Nolan Principles, from this place and every other place that is obligated to follow those principles. And the public do not see that accountability in action. Would you agree with me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the new government can do more breaches? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you for that. I will come to accountability later on, but I do agree there is more that can be done on accountability. I would done on accountability. I would argue that this government is making some progress on that, but I do agree that I will come to that do agree that I will come to that later on if that's okay. But I do want to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the government is committed to strengthening and upholding the Nolan principles.

Indeed, just last week, the Prime Minister was at this despatch box reiterating that those principles reiterating that those principles are, and I quote, not some kind of optional extra, but the very essence of public service itself. essence of public service itself. It is worth reminding the House also that Nolan principles do not just apply to politicians, they just apply to politicians, they apply to all public servants, elected or not, in local and national government, as well as the national government, as well as the civil service, the police, health, education, social care and services.

They also apply to the private and They also apply to the private and voluntary sector who deliver services paid by the taxpayer. And I do want to emphasise that the overwhelming majority of public servants do seek to uphold these principles and live and breathe principles and live and breathe them every day, in my opinion. We are too quick to point out those who fail and too reticent to point who fail and too reticent to point out those who live them every day. But it is true that in recent years, public trust in our politics, as we mentioned earlier, and our public service more broadly have been eroded.

Indeed, it was in response to the events of the last parliament, Partygate, to the complete sidelining of the independent adviser and to the abuse of public contracts during Covid that the now Prime Minister outlined a number of steps to strengthen the ministerial code and to try to breathe new life into the Nolan principles. So that is why this Prime Minister put the Nolan principles up front in a strengthened ministerial code, rather than as an afterthought or as an annexe. It's why the Prime Minister has empowered the independent ethics adviser to launch his own inquiries without prime ministerial approval, which I think we can all agree is a welcome change from the last government.

And it's also why the Hillsborough law that we've all waited so long for. And I know members across the House support will ensure that every public authority now has a legal requirement to adopt a code of ethical conduct based on the Nolan principles. I know the hon. Member will agree this is an important step forward, and I hope it can be a catalyst to drive improvements across the public sector. Based around Nolan. Now, I know the hon. Member called today and has previously called for an office for whistleblowers previously.

I do understand why, and I know how strongly he feels about this, as you all know, the Nao and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body due to the risk of duplication. The government agrees with that, but I do hope, and I'm sure he will work with us during the passage of the Hillsborough Law to try and make sure we can ensure the legislation delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need.

As we go through, of course, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Gentleman very much for allowing me to intervene. What is absolutely apparent, What is absolutely apparent, looking at the Public Office Accountability Bill, which is known as the Hillsborough Law, that's as the Hillsborough Law, that's going to and will create enormous going to and will create enormous pressure on any number of bodies, particularly the Employment tribunal, which I understand has tribunal, which I understand has tens of thousands of cases waiting, and I could list any number of and I could list any number of others I shan't now, I hope I have that opportunity to explain in the meeting that I have with the Minister planned, but it is crucial Minister planned, but it is crucial that people have someone independent to go to so that they don't end up in the employment don't end up in the employment tribunal, where they will be roundly trashed and lose not only their reputation, but their way of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their reputation, but their way of earning a living. Thank you for that. I do agree, and that's why we need to get the and that's why we need to get the measures in the bill right. That's why I hope she and other colleagues will work with us in committee and will work with us in committee and work with us as this bill progresses. Sorry. And we take it on to statute. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to say, whilst I do respect the hon.

Gentleman, I simply don't accept the general depiction he gave of the government depiction he gave of the government and the lack of progress made. I remind him that we have delivered on a manifesto commitment to establish the Ethics and Integrity Committee Commission, sorry, which will promote the seven principles and it will report annually on improving standards. We've closed Acoba and reformed the outdated business appointment system. The ministerial severance system has also been reformed to end the scandal. We saw in the last government, where Ministers got large amounts of public money for going to them after being either removed from their position or returning very quickly to save taxpayer money.

And just this week, the community and Local Government Secretary announced powerful, very strong new powers to improve standards and accountability across local government. I will indeed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. Much appreciated. Just very briefly, those standards are real. Really.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Really, very much welcomed, particularly within Doncaster. And I just wondered if he agrees with me, though, that they have to be applied at a parish and town council level as well. And we want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to see those expectations aligned across all public services. Minister. He raises a very good point. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He raises a very good point. I should remind him that I think parish councils are about to be abolished. So we might have to we might have to change in the local government reorganisation. So we might have to look at that. But I do take his point, and I think I do take his point, and I think I think it raises a fair one. The hon. Member also mentioned a number of recent cases. Where, to put it of recent cases. Where, to put it politely, he suggests the Nolan principles may not have been abided by.

I'm of course, not going to by. I'm of course, not going to comment on the specifics of all of those, or indeed those where Scottish Government may not have Scottish Government may not have always abided by those principles. But I will say that the Prime Minister has made clear how seriously he takes Ministers abiding by the code. It's why he invited the independent ethics adviser to to address Cabinet on adviser to to address Cabinet on the first day of the election, and it's why he has stuck ever since, it's why he has stuck ever since, to a very powerful role for that position, which I think we can agree is a step forward, conscious time.

Madam speaker, final thing I wanted to say is I've heard the hon. Gentleman say before that he believes, and I quote, our leaders cannot be trusted to do the right thing unless they are legally compelled to do so. After recent years, perhaps even recent weeks. I understand his scepticism, but I don't accept his fatalism. I believe the vast majority of our public servants and our leaders are trustworthy. I believe that every day they seek to show leadership with honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity and openness.

But where we public servants fail to meet those standards, there must be clear and effective accountability. I will give way one more time, and then.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. One area that I don't believe is fully covered and needs to be is fully covered and needs to be expanded on is racism. Discrimination. So from the seven principles, it's not clear which principles, it's not clear which one would cover. Normally you would actually all of them would bridge actually all of them would bridge that. But I think I would gently request the government to look at how we can hold members of this place and those in office accountable for language use.

That

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is definitely racist. Minister. He raises a really important point, particularly for members of point, particularly for members of this House, but also across public services more broadly. We have seen very worrying, very worrying reports of that recently in in our reports of that recently in in our core public services. If it's okay with him, I will write back to him and discuss it with my colleagues and discuss it with my colleagues in the Equalities Office and see what we can do.

But I think he does raise a good point. So sorry. As I raise a good point. So sorry. As I was saying, Madam Speaker, I don't accept the fatalism that the hon. Member set out, but I think where there are failings and public servants don't meet high standards, there needs to be swift, effective accountability. And of course, it's accountability. And of course, it's responsibility of this government, of these Ministers, indeed all governments, politicians and public governments, politicians and public services to strive to reflect what Lord Nolan set out 30 years ago.

As I've said, this government is taking steps to achieve that. I'm the first to accept we are not there yet, but we are making progress. I'm on my last sentence, but I will give way. I will give way to the Ombudsman and then I will give way. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him. And it was just just before he finishes. It was at the end of August that in the end of August that in Nottinghamshire, where I'm a member of Parliament, the leader of the county council actually banned the Nottinghamshire Post and Nottinghamshire Live from speaking Nottinghamshire Live from speaking to him and his authority. And I think that represented a really dangerous moment where local dangerous moment where local accountability isn't being adequately recognised. I wonder whether he would speak to his colleagues about how we can bolster colleagues about how we can bolster local journalism and the role that it plays in that accountability.

Part of the Nolan principles?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Part of the Nolan principles? Absolutely. And just to reiterate the point on local government that the community secretary set out really important secretary set out really important powers earlier in the week to try and improve standards and to hold

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people to account. And hopefully that will help with. James Asser for this short intervention during my speech. And intervention during my speech. And I appreciate the number of times that he's referenced the points that I made in my speech. But can that I made in my speech. But can he advise us in this place? What can the government do about peers and the other place who fall below

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the other place who fall below the standards that we and the public have come to expect? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. That that is a matter for, I guess, for individual parties and for the Lords to look at. I'll come back to him on it, though, because House of Lords reform is another part of the Cabinet Office is overseeing. So and I do agree that particularly with recent cases on all sides of the House, should I say, there is a need to improve trust and accountability there. Obviously, the Hereditaries bill that we are trying to take through is part of trying to modernise and improve.

The House of Lords, I think will be a big step forward. If we could get that, get that through. But he does make a broader point and I will come back to him if that's okay. So finally, Madam Speaker, as I said, the government is taking steps to breathe new life into the Nolan principles. We are not there yet. We will keep working on it. And I'm grateful to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tonight. The question is that this House do now adjourn, as many opinion, do now adjourn, as many opinion, say aye. the ayes have it. The ayes
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page