Budget Resolutions

Luke Charters Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As always with a Budget, there is far more to say than one can fit in a speech, but I just want to start by saying that the decision by the Chancellor to increase the headroom is not one that will garner many headlines or capture the public’s imagination, but it is probably one of the single most important things in the Budget. We simply could not have had another year where every bit of speculation on policy led to speculation on the markets, pushing up borrowing costs and leading to a constant cycle of uncertainty. I hope that this increased buffer and the move to annual forecasts will mean that we get some stability back, and that we will see the OBR—under new leadership—make far more accurate predictions and forecasts in the future than it has made to date.

I support the measures in the Budget that have been introduced to put more money into people’s pockets. My constituents will welcome another above-inflation increase in the minimum wage and the freeze to prescription charges, as well as the £150 reduction to average household energy bills, rising to £300 for the poorest households. Energy and transport costs make up a significant proportion of household expenditure, particularly for those on the lowest incomes. I hope that the rail freeze will also apply to Merseyrail, which is the main rail line for my constituents. It did seem a bit odd that we could not get confirmation from the Government last week that the freeze would apply to Merseyrail, but I see that the Transport Secretary is present—hopefully she will be able to confirm by the end of the debate that she does indeed have good news for my constituents on that score.

I am also proud that Labour is treating child poverty with the seriousness that it deserves. I welcome the measure announced by the Chancellor to scrap the two-child benefit cap that has forced so many families into hardship and harmed children through no fault of their own. This measure alone will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, meaning that, alongside other measures previously announced, we will see more than half a million children taken out of poverty. More than 2,000 children in my constituency alone will be lifted out of poverty as a direct result of this Budget.

I have heard commentators say that scrapping the cap was a measure simply to appease Back Benchers like me, but I think that really belittles the moral case for action. Let us be clear: this cruel policy did not achieve its initial aims, often punished families for changes in circumstances that were beyond their control, and ultimately cost our economy far more than the £3 billion a year that it saved.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I wonder if my hon. Friend will allow me to raise the case of a single mum in my constituency who unexpectedly became pregnant a third time. It was a time of anxiety for her. She used food banks periodically and worried that she would not be able to afford toys for her kids at Christmas. Does my hon. Friend agree that the two-child benefit cap imposed by the Conservatives is the cruellest Tory policy of all?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the policy punished children for being born, which is not something any Labour Government should be part of.

We hear that this decision may encourage people not to work, but we all know from the statistics that a majority of people in receipt of benefits are in some form of employment. As for the wider cost, the Child Poverty Action Group estimates the cost of child poverty to the country to be about £40 billion a year, so not only is scrapping the cap the morally correct thing to do; it is also the best thing for our country economically.

While I understand the pressures facing the Government, I hope that the fiscal circumstances will improve in such a way to see income tax thresholds readjusted to take account of the inflationary pressure recently experienced. Going forward, we must continue to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the burden to ensure that more and more working people are not dragged into paying tax by fiscal drag.

I have to say, I would like an explanation of the Chancellor’s comments about how those in receipt of the state pension will not have to pay any tax at the point that the state pension reaches the tax threshold in future. Of course they should not have to pay any tax on it, but why should a pensioner who might have a small private pension of £20 a week have to pay tax on that and their state pension? Once we start to look at some of the implications of the policy, it becomes clear that there are a number of unintended consequences. I hope that when the extra headroom that has been created by this Budget goes on to inspire further ideas in future Budgets, we can look at stopping some of the anomalies that the fiscal drag has created.

I will conclude with a few words on the automotive sector. I am proud to have in my constituency a Stellantis factory—or a Vauxhall Motors factory, as it is more commonly known round where we live. It is a site I have fought hard for over the years. Of course, the factory now manufactures electric vehicles. I welcome that the Budget reinforces the commitments that were made to our automotive sector in the industrial strategy for manufacturers. I am pleased that funding for DRIVE35 has been expanded by £1.5 billion, providing £4 billion over the next 10 years, which will help to build on the important investment the automotive sector needs.

I am also happy that plans to change the rules for the employee car ownership schemes have been delayed from next year until 2030, as that would undoubtedly have left many of my constituents hundreds of pounds a month worse off. Having now seen the impact of that policy, I hope the Government go the whole hog and cancel it altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State opened this debate by saying that we should look at the backdrop of the general election, which was a surprising way for him to open discussion on the Budget, not least because a central theme of the Budget is Labour doing the very opposite of what it said it would do at the general election. That can be seen first and foremost with the £26 billion of additional tax—on top of the £40 billion in tax in the Government’s first Budget—when Labour said at the general election that it had fully costed proposals and that it would not need to tax working people. Indeed, Labour said at the general election that growth was its No. 1 policy objective, and yet what do we see in the official documents from the OBR? We see growth forecasts down every year of the forecast.

Even the topic of this debate—“bearing down on inflation”—is the opposite of what the OBR says is happening, with inflation staying higher for longer as a result of the measures the Government have taken. Labour inherited inflation at 2%, and yet it is now forecast to stay at 3.5% next year and to be at 2.5% the year after. Indeed, on the topic of the cost of living, nothing hurts people’s incomes more than inflation, which pushes up bills and the cost of food and erodes people’s income.

The Government also promised to deliver jobs, but we can see the consequences of their first Budget: the changes to national insurance—the jobs tax—have meant that unemployment has been up every month that the Government have been in office, and the graduate recruitment situation is the worst on record. In response to this Budget, the OBR forecasts that unemployment will be at 4.9% in 2026-27. This Budget is supposed to be “bearing down on inflation”, but inflation is up. The Government talk about addressing the cost of living, but people are being taxed more, and more people are unable to get a job. Graduates in particular are being hit. We can see the difference between what Labour said at the general election and what it is delivering.

That all matters, because away from the big numbers—the billions that get quoted in Budget documents—are a whole series of individual measures that will bear down on people’s incomes and prospects. The Government’s measures will bear down on the small business owner who does not have the same security as a big public sector organisation, and who has put their own capital at risk; they will see a 2% increase in the dividend tax, on top of the corporation tax that they already pay. The measures will bear down on the pension saver, through the changes being made to salary sacrifice. The Government are also freezing income thresholds.

It is interesting that Labour Members cheered a Budget in which the Chancellor did the opposite of what she said last year that she would do. Last year, she said that it would be a breach of the manifesto to extend tax threshold freezes, and that is exactly what she did this time. It is worth looking behind the headlines, and bearing in mind what the official data says this will cost: in today’s prices, by 2030, the measure will cost a higher-rate taxpayer £600 extra, and a basic-rate taxpayer £220 extra. Those decisions will have real consequences on people’s take-home pay.

I represent a rural constituency, but this Government seem to dislike rural communities. We saw that last year with the family farm tax, and we are seeing it with the electric car mileage scheme, which disproportionately penalises rural communities. Again, that change was not in their manifesto. Looking at the consequences of the last Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that national insurance changes are costing the average worker £900. These policies have real costs.

The tax changes are being sold as raising more money for, among others, the NHS. At the general election, the Government said that they would end the resident doctors’ strikes, but another one has been announced today. The NHS Confederation has said that this is not a Budget for the NHS, and under the Budget, an estimated £3 billion extra in drug prices will have to be absorbed. An announcement has been made that standards may be changed so that real mental health funding is flat, and just goes up in line with inflation, which is not the change that the Government promised.

[Mr Charters]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Steve Barclay]

I am happy to; perhaps the hon. Member wants to come in on the Government’s pay offer.

[Mr Charters]

I wanted to come in on the right hon. Member’s point about inflation. I am sure that he will welcome a Budget that reduces inflation. If he looks at the Blue Book—[Interruption.] Hang on a minute. Look at the Blue Book. It says:

“Government policy measures announced since March are expected to decrease inflation by 0.3 percentage points”.

Does he welcome that, or is he staying silent on fiscal measures that reduce inflation?

[Steve Barclay]

Clearly the hon. Member has just had a text message from the Whips Office. The reality is that the Government inherited inflation at 2%, and it is currently at 3.6%, and the OBR—the independent forecaster—forecasts it to be 3.5% next year. It takes a certain genius to intervene to show that the Government are going in the wrong direction.

This Budget is presented as being transformative for the NHS and for other services, but take community services; community health services in all our constituencies are hugely important. Waiting lists have been at about 90,000 since the general election, particularly for children, but we do not hear too much about that from the Government. We have heard very little in this debate about productivity, so let me close with one example. Last month, the Health Foundation said that there was only a one in six chance of the Government achieving the 2% annual productivity growth target that they set. Members might wonder why that matters. If productivity growth is at 1%, it will cost an extra £9 billion a year for the NHS. There is only a one in six chance of delivery, but if the Government do not deliver, there will be a very significant cost to the NHS.

This Budget puts up tax on working people in order to pay more in welfare. We can see that in a whole series of measures. We can also see the gulf between what the Government said at the general election and what the Chancellor has delivered. She has not even been consistent with what she said in her Budget last year.

Large-scale Energy Projects and Food Security

Luke Charters Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) on securing this debate.

My perspective is informed by my work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security —which the hon. Member is welcome to join—and also my role as a member of the Labour Growth Group, which I suspect she may not be willing to join. I am also proud to be an MP who represents some fantastic rural communities.

In all of those roles, I have seen how renewable projects offer farmers crucial opportunities to diversify their income streams in an unpredictable economic climate. The notion that food security and renewable energy are somehow mutually exclusive is a non sequitur. It does not add up, neither logically nor practically. I can attest to this from my own constituency, where thriving farms producing everything from carrots to poultry co-exist alongside new solar schemes, like Hessay, and hopefully Elvington, too. But when a harsh season strikes—such as a devastating flood or drought—farmers face the real possibility of losing a significant portion of their harvest. In those scenarios, having additional income from solar energy can help.

A striking example of this comes from Australia, where sheep farmers have turned to solar farming as secondary income. They allow their sheep to graze among solar panels, keeping the grass short while the panels provide shelter from the sun. One farm even demonstrated an increase in wool production after the installation of their solar farm. It is that kind of innovation in agriculture that we should embrace. The notion that food security and renewable energy are at odds falls at the first inspection.

Currently, ground-mounted solar panels occupy just 0.1% of all land in the UK. Even with ambitious expansion, this is expected to rise to no more than 0.3%. To put that into perspective, that is less than the land currently used by golf courses, and solar farms provide essential services, be that clean energy or income. Finally, solar farms are often built with temporary permissions, and can be decommissioned, returning the land to its original state. Soil disturbance during installation is minimal, and solar farms can actually benefit soil health, helping it recover from a period of intensive agricultural use.

Let me be clear: climate change is itself a major driver of food insecurity. By supporting renewable energy projects, we are not only protecting our environment, but safeguarding the future of food production.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. He has rightly highlighted that solar farms can be combined with food production. There are studies showing that there are even ways in which crop yields can be increased. But would he therefore encourage the Government to be clearer in their national planning policy framework that if solar farm applications are being put forward, they should be combined with food growing as part of the application?

[Mr Charters]

What will really help is if we work towards a position of having a land management framework, so that we can have the clarity of addressing some of these challenges.

Let me continue. The argument that there has to be a trade-off between food security and renewable energy is misguided. If anything, our farmers’ future depends on our commitment to both. With a small slice of land, a forward-thinking approach and a commitment to combating climate change, we can ensure that our fields are productive for generations to come. The solution is clear: renewables should be seen not as an obstacle to food security, but as a powerful tool to help secure it. As I said, golf courses will take up more land than solar projects, so let’s not get caught in the rough—we need to aim straight for the green.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob or to stand if they wish to speak. We are going to be very short of time and I will cut to the Front Benchers when appropriate, even if some Members have not spoken, so if you speak for too long, you are taking time off others.

Contracts for Difference

Luke Charters Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I very much enjoyed my visit to Telford, where I spoke with local business. It is easy to think about these things in very macro terms, of how many gigawatts and so on—the kind of thing I like talking about—but he is right that this is as much, if not more, about all the jobs that we can create in the supply chain. People in this country want hope and change, and this will deliver it.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I welcome the auction increasing solar capacity. There are great projects in my constituency, funded via that scheme, such as Hessay solar. Will the Secretary of State visit sunny York to see the site once it is complete, and does he share my conviction that solar will be critical in the energy mix if we are to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and gas?

[Ed Miliband]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s embrace of solar as part of the energy mix. It is really important to say this: we need more rooftop solar. Lots of people in this House ask, “Why don’t we do more on rooftops?”, and I agree with them. There is also an important role for ground-mounted solar, however. I very much look forward to coming to York at some point to see the projects he talks about.