Budget Resolutions

Calum Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I absolutely endorse what she says about our local hospital, which I know very well. I genuinely thank frontline NHS staff, without whom the performance and improvements we are seeing simply would not be possible.

Let me turn to the substance of this debate. There was once a time, not long ago, when this place was bound in consensus on a number of issues addressed by this Budget. We used to be united on the need for a national health service as a publicly funded, public service, free at the point of use. The last Labour Government built a shared conviction that in 21st-century Britain, no child should grow up shackled by the scourge of poverty. We could go back as far as the Government of Benjamin Disraeli and find a Conservative Prime Minister committed to public health in a way that Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers have been in my lifetime. We did not always agree on how to get there, but there was at least agreement on the destination. However, as the opposition parties lurch to the right, consensus after consensus is breaking. [Interruption.] Admittedly, the Liberal Democrats have moved further to the left since their days in coalition; that is true. Maybe do not lead with your chins on that one, comrades.

Regardless of our friends on the centre left, old battles that were won must now be fought all over again, so it falls to Labour not just to cut waiting lists, improve the health of the nation and lift children out of poverty, but to win the argument, as well as hearts and minds. It falls to Labour to persuade people that we can and must help people lead healthier, longer lives, free from preventable disease; rebuild our national health service as a public service, free at the point of need; and give every child the best possible start in life, free from the scourge of poverty. Labour has won those fights before, and we will win them again.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The Secretary of State knows, because his Department shares responsibility for special educational needs and disabilities education, that that is a major challenge facing the young people whose opportunity he so rightly champions. How will the announcement that the Government will take responsibility for that from 2028 alleviate the growing deficits facing many county councils across this country, which it is estimated will grow to nearly £17 billion by the time the national Government take over?

[Wes Streeting]

That is a good question, and I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that my Department is working closely with the Secretary of State for Education and colleagues right across Government to make sure that we get that right. We have growing levels of need for provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We can all see in our casework, let alone through debates in the House, the unmet need, and its impact on children’s education, health and life chances. We are committed to modernising and reforming the system so that it meets needs and sets children up to not only survive but thrive. That is the ambition of this Government.

On Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition said that she would reinstate the two-child benefit limit. At the stroke of a pen, she would plunge half a million children back into destitution, shame and hunger. Gone are the days when David Cameron attempted to ape Gordon Brown on issues of inequality and poverty; in fact, the 2010 Conservative party manifesto included the word “poverty” 20 times and committed to an anti-poverty strategy. The 2024 Conservative manifesto mentioned the word once, in a chapter on foreign affairs. Was that because, after 14 years of Conservative rule, the stain of child poverty had been removed from our nation? No, of course it was not. The Conservatives plunged 900,000 children into poverty, more than a million children relied on food banks last year, and children are being admitted to hospital for malnutrition in 21st-century Britain—but now, this Conservative party does not even pretend to care.

On public health, remember it was George Osborne who introduced the sugar tax, and Boris Johnson who introduced legislation to ban certain “buy one, get one free” deals and free refills of fizzy drinks, yet today their successors dismiss these policies as nanny state. Their party is more apologetic about their record on public health than it is about Liz Truss’s catastrophic mini-Budget.

We are seeing the NHS’s founding principles contested for the first time in generations. The Leader of the Opposition says,

“we need to have a serious, cross-party national conversation”

about charging for healthcare. Well, if she wants one, she’s got it, and it will be a short conversation. The answer from this side is “No, over our dead body.” We will always defend the NHS as a publicly funded public service, free at the point of use, owned by us, and there for all of us. Of course, it is not just the Leader of the Opposition saying these things; the leader of Reform wants to replace the NHS with an insurance-style system. [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] They are obviously not here to advocate for their policies. They find it increasingly hard to defend them. They want a system that checks your pockets before your pulse, and asks for your credit card before providing your care.

Where is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? He is not normally the shy, retiring type—unless, of course, he is being asked challenging questions, like whether paracetamol is safe, whether he believes in science or whether he racially abused schoolchildren. In fact, it is reported that he told a Jewish contemporary at school that “Hitler was right”. Admittedly, he was at school a lot longer ago than me, but had I grown up in the aftermath of the second world war, I think I would remember if I had supported the losing side. His politics are a disgrace. He cannot stand by his record, and that is why he is not here to defend it, and why he is regularly referred to in his constituency as “Never-here Nigel”. But as we are in a debate on these issues, let me take on the Opposition parties’ arguments, whether they are here or not.

The Conservatives say that the route out of poverty is work, not welfare. I do not disagree that those who can work should work, but six in 10 households impacted by the two-child limit have at least one parent in work, and they are still in poverty because of low wages and a high cost of living. The Conservatives say that it is the responsibility of families, not the state, to ensure that children are well fed. I agree that parents have a responsibility to look after their own children, but life is a bit more complicated than that. It is far too easy for others who have never walked in the shoes of parents like mine to pass judgment on people whose lives they will never understand.

The Conservatives sneer about “Benefits Street”. They have never been there. They have not got the first clue what life is like for people living on welfare. They say that lifting the two-child limit helps only the feckless and irresponsible, so let me tell them about the mum who came to see me at my advice surgery one Friday afternoon with her three children in tow. She had fled domestic violence and had been rehoused on the other side of London in a bed and breakfast. That remarkable woman was hand-washing her girls’ uniforms, doing a three-hour round trip every day to get her kids to school and holding down three separate jobs. Please do not tell me that women like her are feckless or irresponsible, or on the take. She is facing down hardships and challenges that would break many of us. I will tell Conservative Members who is feckless and irresponsible. It is the people who exploited the covid pandemic, ripped off Britain and lined the pockets of the Conservative party.

Conservative Members say that abolishing the two-child limit is not affordable, but the policy is fully funded. It is paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion, and a tax on online gambling. What they really mean is that they would make different choices. They would put the interests of gambling firms over the wellbeing of children. By labelling it as unaffordable, they betray their view that the prosperity of our country has nothing to do with the talent of its people, but we know that by investing in our people, we are investing in a more prosperous future. Growing up in poverty is not an inconvenience; it is a trap. On average, the poorest children start school already behind, get worse exam results, are less likely to make it to university, earn less, are more likely to develop long-term illness, end up paying less tax, and are more likely to need welfare support and the NHS.

Investing in our children is a moral mission; morally, we do not believe it is right to punish children for the circumstances of their birth, or the choices of their parents. This is also a down payment on a better future. It is far better and more cost-effective to invest in children now than pay the price for social failure later. I stand here today as the product of the wise investment of the British taxpayer. It was taxpayers’ contributions that clothed me, housed me, fed me and educated me when I was growing up. As a result, I am now in a position to pay back that debt to society—and to pay it forward to the next generation, too.

We should all be proud that this Budget funds the biggest reduction of child poverty of any Budget this century. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor takes that prize from Gordon Brown, who took it from Denis Healey, because lifting children out of poverty is what Labour Governments do. And why is it that every time Labour enters office, there is the moral emergency of child poverty? It is because, since records began, every single Tory Government left child poverty higher than they found it. That is why they must never be allowed back in power.