Budget Resolutions

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

It is a pleasure to open today’s debate on behalf of the Government, and to respond to the shadow Chancellor. He went through his lines and, as I expected, he talked a fair bit about welfare. If only he had ever been in a position to do something about it. That is the essential problem with the position of Conservative Members. It is not even that they failed to reform the system, it is that they created it in the first place. Their system created the fork in the road between those judged fit to work and those judged unfit to work. Their system forced people into a choice between poverty and being declared incapable of work, often permanently. It is their system that left millions of people with no contact and no support from the system, other than the payment of benefits. Perhaps most damningly, it is their system that saw the huge growth in inactivity among the young, about which they did nothing while they were in office.

As the shadow Chancellor knows, there is a wall in the Department for Work and Pensions, carefully placed between the microwave and the toilets, on which there is a very fetching portrait of the shadow Chancellor, along with portraits of all his predecessors as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. They all sat in the same chair, in the same office as I do. They saw the same trends and the same graphs that I see, but they did absolutely nothing about the situation. He talked about the changes that he proposed to the work capability assessment, but he was a little quieter about those changes not happening, because they were so incompetent that they were struck down as being unlawful by the courts. He then said that he would have done more but he was interrupted by the general election—the Conservatives had 14 years and the election was called at a time of their choosing.

The shadow Chancellor is asking the House to indulge the fantasy that, having been relieved of the duties of ministerial office, he has suddenly stumbled upon the answer to the problem, like a reverse Nostradamus, granted a magical power that enables him to identify the solutions to problems, but only at the moment when he ceases to have responsibility for fixing any them. The Conservatives remind me of a messy 16-year-old who has turned his bedroom into a tip, but when his exasperated parents come in to clean it up, the teenager says, “I was about to do that.” No one believes the teenager and no one should believe the Tories, because they had their chance and did nothing about it.

On their watch, welfare spending went up by almost 1% of GDP over the last Parliament, the equivalent of about £22 billion a year. When they left office, did the OBR think that they had a credible plan to change the system? No, they did not. The OBR predicted that costs would rise by a further £100 billion. Sometimes the Tories say that they want more face-to-face assessments, which I want too. However, in September 2023, a little over six months before the election was called, they signed off a new set of contracts allowing 80% of the assessors to work from home. Who was the Secretary of State when those contracts were signed? We do not need ChatGPT to tell us—we just need to look on that wall between the microwave and the toilets, because it was the shadow Chancellor. And that was long after the covid pandemic.

The Conservatives created the system, but they did not change it when they had the chance and they increased the number of children in poverty by 900,000, so it falls to us to begin to change the system. We have begun. We are reducing the gap in universal credit between standard unemployment and the sickness rate, a change that the OBR estimates will get 15,000 more people into work and that starts to address the incentives for sickness built into the previous Government’s system, reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not.

Changes to the Motability scheme will focus on value for money and ensure that if the UK taxpayer is paying for new vehicles, more of them are made here in the UK—reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State talks about trying to ensure that cars available under the Motability scheme are made in the UK. I looked at the Motability website yesterday and some of the changes have already been implemented, but there are an awful lot of Chinese cars listed. Yesterday, Omoda and Jaecoo, two of the Chinese companies on that list, announced that they would be implementing a 20,000 mile rebate to individuals to pay for the electric vehicle tax introduced in the Budget. That will allow China to get an even greater foothold in the UK economy. Those cars are built with Chinese IP that sends information straight back to the state, allowing it to track where those vehicles are. What will the Government do to address the impact of the growing number of Chinese vehicles and about the fact that the Budget is, perhaps unwittingly, encouraging the use of Chinese cars in this market?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman should be supporting our changes because they have done two things: they are removing a number of luxury brands from the system and they are ensuring that more British-made cars are part of the scheme, and that will continue going forward.

By the end of the decade, we will have provided an additional £1 billion for employment support for the long-term sick and disabled through the pathways to work programme, so that people are not just signed off and written off—more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservative party did not. We are fixing the long-running injustice to carers that they ignored for years, which is more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not. There is more reform in this Budget than the shadow Chancellor implemented in his 20 months as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

But I know that we have to go further, because the greatest crisis is among the young. We inherited a situation with close to a million people not in employment, education or training. That is terrible in human terms, expensive in financial terms and deeply unequal, because the numbers are often highest in the most deprived parts of the country. Those are often places where there are already multiple problems and where the loss of hope seems the deepest. Addressing this problem is a cause around which we should rally. That is why in this Budget we offer a youth guarantee, with £820 million of investment, that will offer the young unemployed a training place, work experience or ultimately a job, giving hope and opportunity where previously there was none—more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservative party did not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Tax increases of £26 billion and the tax burden rising to an all-time high of 38% of national income—this is a traditional, good old-fashioned high-tax, high-spend Labour Budget. It is a Budget that locks in a debt ratio of 100% and an economy with little or no growth. It effectively ends Labour’s pledge to grow the economy and raise living standards. The growth in real disposable incomes over this Parliament is now expected to be the second worst since records began in the 1950s. This is a Budget to appease the left of the parliamentary Labour party rather than the general public. It is a Budget to shore up the Chancellor’s weak position and that of the Prime Minister. We will see how successful that has been come May.

Since Labour came to power, the Chancellor has raised taxes by £66 billion, which is more than any Government in the last 50 years. When the Chancellor proudly announced that growth had increased by 0.5%, there were cheers from the Government Benches, but she did not mention that that figure was a downgrade from the 1.9% forecast earlier in the year, nor did she make reference to the downgraded projections for the rest of the decade. The Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its growth forecasts for real household disposable income per person over the next five years. The OBR’s “Economic financial outlook” report states that growth will slump to an average of 0.25% a year over the forecast,

“well below the last decade’s average growth of 1% a year”.

The average household will be £850 poorer at the end of this Parliament than when Labour took office.

The Chancellor said:

“today £1 in every £10 the Government spend is on debt interest—not on paying down that debt, but just on paying the interest”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 389.]

Some £113.7 billion is currently being spent on servicing that debt, and by the end of this Parliament that figure will reach £140 billion.

For a working person on average earnings, the tax threshold is frozen and will be for the rest of the decade. Pensioners will be dragged into the basic rate of income tax for the first time; 780,000 people are going to be dragged into being a basic rate taxpayer, and nearly a million will become higher rate taxpayers. For people on benefits, those benefits are not frozen; they are index- linked to inflation.

The OBR has forecast that over the next five years, welfare spending will rise by £73.2 billion to £406.2 billion. The U-turn on lifting the two-child benefit cap beggars belief. For it to go from a policy that saw seven Labour MPs lose the Whip, and that was effectively the catalyst for the creation of an entirely new political party on the left, to a totemic Labour policy is transparently a move to both appease the Labour Benches and shut the door on the surge in support for a Zack Polanski-inspired resurgent Green party and the stuttering Your party. By the end of this Parliament, lifting the cap will cost £3 billion a year. That is more than the total spend on fire and rescue services in England.

The heavily trailed high value council tax surcharge is lacking crucial detail on how it will be implemented. Doing it properly will require a revaluation of every property in the country by the valuation office by April 2028 in order to understand which houses are in scope. What will the criteria for that be? How will the value of the house be decided if it has not been sold in recent years? Moreover, the revenue will go to central Government, not the local authority. It will disappear into general taxation, and those paying the tax will likely never see any local benefit from it.

The decision to raise the minimum wage looks good at first glance.

[Sir John Hayes]

I support the minimum wage. It is important that working people, particularly less well-off working people, are adequately rewarded. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real impact will be on small and medium-sized businesses? Those businesses are already dealing with increasing cost burdens. When the Minister sums up, he might want to reflect on the effect that that may have on the creation of employment in those kind of businesses.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly agree. I have spent the last year talking to small businesses in my constituency that have been crippled by the measures in the last Budget. When this year’s measures come in as well, some of those businesses will struggle desperately to keep on lower earners, particularly young people.

My first job as a 16-year-old was working in a supermarket, and I am sure many Members had a similar experience. Those opportunities are going to disappear for young people as a result of these measures. What this Labour Government have not taken into account is that every above-inflation wage increase leads to higher business costs, lower investment and fewer opportunities for those we represent. Many businesses that want to employ people will now find themselves unable to take on staff or to take the risks that the Chancellor mentioned, meaning that businesses cannot grow.

We are very likely to see the wage compression effect, whereby the gap between those on the minimum wage and those in more skilled or experienced roles becomes smaller. That, yet again, leads to a lack of incentive to develop skills and opportunities for those with them. The Government must address that, as it will curtail opportunities for young people and lower earners. Unemployment is now set to peak at 5% and the number of economically inactive people will also rise.

The pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles will surely disincentivise the switch to EVs before the ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles kicks in, and the OBR estimates that there will be 440,000 fewer EV sales over the next five years because of the tax. How much tax revenue will be lost because those sales never happen? Then there is the plethora of other taxes that are part of the smorgasbord: the tourism tax, the NI raid on pension contributions, the reduction in the tax-free cash ISA allowance and even a milkshake tax.

We have not even touched on the absence of the commitment to 3% of GDP on defence anywhere in the Budget. There is not a single reference to it and I do not understand how. We saw today that the service chiefs will write to the Defence Secretary to tell him that it will not be possible to deliver the strategic defence review. I would love to hear from the Minister how Labour will facilitate defence in this day and age.

The OBR has stated that not a single measure contained in the Budget will improve growth, which has, in fact, been downgraded from the figure forecast in the summer. Taxes on working people have been increased by stealth to pay for welfare. That will be Rachel Reeves’s legacy, and this is quite possibly her last Budget—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. You can refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the Chancellor or by her constituency name, but not by her own name.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall draw to a close.

It comes to something when the Chancellor can stand at the Dispatch Box to deliver her Budget, make a boob joke and that not be the most offensive thing she says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I did not say anything of the sort. I said that we are not going to have a £10 million mansion in Westminster paying less tax than a terraced house in Blackpool, and that has been brought to an end by this Budget.

I have heard the worries of some Opposition Members about the surcharge, and I want to assure the House that less than 1% of properties will be affected, and even for the £10 million mansion I have mentioned, it will not exceed £7,500 a year. To put that in perspective, it is not even enough to bribe a Russian-sympathising, Putin-praising Reform politician—or a traitor, as we should always call them.

Other reforms in the Budget will ensure that everyone who drives on our roads helps to maintain them. It will address the fact that tenants pay higher taxes than their landlords and tackle some of the tax breaks that have exploded in recent years, disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. That is the fair thing to do, and it is the responsible thing to do.

I know that others want to take a different approach, and I heard representations from some to raise income tax. Who was particularly keen? The shadow Chancellor. He told eager listeners—[Interruption.] I think he should listen. He told eager listeners at the Conservative party conference that he would “go for income tax”. In fact, he was more enthusiastic than that, going on to label it the best “thing to do”. We have not taken his advice, and are instead delivering major reforms—reforms ducked by Tory Chancellor after Tory Chancellor.

We have heard a lot about welfare today, and I recognise why. It is because our welfare system is failing, and we are changing it. We are undoing the huge incentive to be labelled too sick to work that the Conservative party built into universal credit, and the OBR has confirmed that this will move tens of thousands more people into work. The shadow Chancellor claimed he had a plan to reform welfare, but he did not mention that it was quashed by the courts. What he actually did as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was to oversee the subsidised leasing of luxury cars, with the ordinary taxpayer bearing the cost of tax breaks for Mercedes and BMWs on the Motability scheme. Well, those days are done. The scheme has itself removed luxury cars, and it has committed to half of its cars being built in Britain. We are reforming its tax breaks to save over £1 billion in the coming year.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.

The last Government cancelled face-to-face assessments for health benefits; this Government are bringing them back. The last Government also oversaw a scandal that has received far too little attention. They allowed people who came to Britain for just a few years—people who left, and never had any intention of returning—not only to buy a state pension, but to buy it on the cheap. The Conservative Government did not just waste money here at home; they wasted it across Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and we are bringing this overseas pension scandal to a close.

What this Government will never do is pretend that the Tory policy of making children poor does anything other than cost us all in the long run. Child poverty costs this country £40 billion a year. A child growing up in poverty is less likely to be in work as an adult, and they earn 25% less at age 30. We tackle child poverty not only because it is a moral imperative, as was laid out by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), but because it is an economic one. This Government will scrap the two-child limit, we will lift over half a million children out of poverty and we will deliver the biggest fall in child poverty of any Parliament on record.

Everyone can see what the Conservatives are trying to do. They cannot defend their record, and we all know why. They have nothing to say about Britain’s future, as the Leader of the Opposition made patently clear yesterday, and now they are salivating at the prospect of trying to hide their total lack of policy behind the cheap, divisive, lazy politics of talking about “Benefits Street”. Well, bring it on, because this Budget is for every street, with potholes being filled, neighbourhood police back on the streets and an NHS that is actually there when we need it. It is a Budget for every street in cutting borrowing because that helps not just mortgage payers, but employers; it is a Budget for every street in cutting energy bills because the cost of living crisis has seeped into everyone’s homes—rich and poor, north and south; and it is a Budget for every street because child poverty exists in every part of Britain, limiting life chances, wasting talents and undermining not just some childhoods, but all of them. With borrowing down, energy bills cut and public services rebuilt, this is a Budget for every street in Britain.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Gregor Poynton.)

Debate to be resumed on Monday 1 December.