Budget Resolutions

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree with the sentiment put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, on one of the most substantive issues that the House must grapple with. There is no inconsistency in being proud of the services-led nature of the UK economy while recognising the essential contribution of advanced manufacturing. There are sectors of the UK economy that could gain from the current phase of innovation in artificial intelligence in goods; for instance, robotics could reduce our wage differential with low-wage economies and return industrial functions to the UK.

The basis of British industry will, however, always be export led—that is key in the automative or aerospace sector. I do not see a tension between strengthening our resilience and our domestic industrial capacity and being an outward-facing, internationalist country to the rest of the world. I believe the two things must go together.

I give the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) a specific example: our critical minerals strategy. We cannot reduce our dependence on other countries entirely, but we can reduce the degree of exposure to individual markets and use the levers of Government, through investing in tungsten or lithium mining in the south-west of England, looking at how the refining process works, and working with allies. It is a balance between the two things. I recognise absolutely the substance of the right hon. Gentleman’s question and its importance to this debate.

On the UK-EU summit, in addition to the premise of the deal we seek to strike, we want to make progress on electric vehicle rules of origin, steel tariffs and economic security, recognising that in many cases we share similar challenges. We face those challenges together, and we can overcome them together. To that end, the Prime Minister will say more later this year about options for our long-term relationship with the EU—one that strengthens our collective security and our collective prosperity.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State makes an important point about our relationship with the EU. He will be aware that Bracknell is home to lots of companies that work in cloud technologies. Is he alive to concerns around the EU’s proposed cloud and AI development Act, and will he ensure that we address those concerns robustly as part of our negotiations in the summit and thereafter? We do need to get that right.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The agenda known in shorthand as “Made in Europe”, which affects the CADA and the Industrial Accelerator Act—it runs through as many as 50 different pieces of EU legislative files—is a top priority not just for me and Ministers in my Department, but for the whole Government. It cannot be the case that we must seek a bespoke solution for each separate area. We need something that provides business with certainty going forward. We need to recognise—in a way that the previous Government did not, frankly—that whatever our relationship to the EU, what the EU does will affect us. That is the nature of integrated supply chains and a key market on your doorstep.

I am confident that the approach that the Prime Minister has led from the front—I credit him with this—has given us the space to provide the answers for that agenda. It is a far more productive approach than the kind of adversarial relationship we saw towards the European Union from the previous Government. The bottom line is that it gets results for people in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

What we needed was a growth Budget, because only by growing the economy can we cut people’s taxes and bills. We Liberal Democrats have repeated our calls for a new growth and defence partnership with Europe, because growth through such a partnership would enable us, in time, to raise the income tax threshold to £15,000. If we can grow the economy, we can put more money in people’s pockets.

The Government’s cost of living package was too timid and not well targeted. The OBR is clear that living standards are not set to improve. I am deeply disappointed that the Government’s energy proposal is linked to the outdated council tax system. That means that between 800,000 and 1.4 million of the most vulnerable people on low incomes will not benefit from the £100 payment, while wealthier people who may have retired early and downsized will. That could have been avoided.

We have called several times on the Government to use existing data held by the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC to roll out an essential energy guarantee to slash the cost of the first chunk of essential energy, benefiting everybody, and giving extra support to those who are most in need, such as the disabled. That is the most progressive way of supporting people with the cost of energy bills, it is the most targeted way of doing it, and it is within the Government’s reach.

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Lady is aware that winter is fast upon us, which is why the Government had to design a scheme that can be delivered quickly. Will she also recognise the £100 million of additional support being given to local authorities to target exactly those households to which she has referred, so we can ensure that every household that is struggling financially this winter is given a little bit of support?

[Daisy Cooper]

The Government already have the data through DWP, which it uses to roll out the warm home discount. That data is already there, the system exists with energy providers and it would have operated just as quickly. HMRC has the data on child benefit; equally, it could have been rolled out just as quickly. Yes, I recognise that some money has been given to local authorities to roll this out, but that process will not act as quickly as the system that the Government wanted to roll out in January. It would have been done through the energy providers far more quickly than the additional support. It would have been a more targeted, faster and more progressive way of rolling out help. We have been calling for it for six months; it is unfortunate that the Government have not listened.

On business, we welcome support for small businesses, and raising the small business threshold will support a number of businesses. However, that is still tinkering around the edges rather than delivering the fundamental reform of business rates that this Government promised in their manifesto. If we are serious about breathing new life into our high streets, we have to reform the outdated, broken business rates system. In my constituency of St Albans, the rateable values are so high that only eight pubs are set to benefit from the support, and that comes in the face of a whole raft of measures in the last two anti-growth Budgets. The chair of my local Save St Albans Pubs campaign has sent me this:

“The budget does nothing to help or support most of the pubs in St Albans. Still no business rate reform. Alcohol duties up. No cuts in VAT. No cuts in the horrific employers national insurance jobs tax and a huge increase in wages”.

That means one thing: it will put up the price of a pint.

Founders’ relief has been described variously by people as “bonkers”, “dreadful” and “a pointless lottery”. It will benefit, at most, 600 people and will undermine productivity and growth. That is not exactly the ringing endorsement that I believe the Government were after. I encourage them to look at that relief again.

As for the BAD—business asset disposal—relief, the clue is in the title, and the Government’s measures do not close the loopholes. On property taxes, we need to see real reform of all the outdated property taxes—council tax, stamp duty and business rates—but the Government’s so-called mansion tax is not the way to do it. All the funding will go to Whitehall; it will not go to local councils. That is from a Government who say they want devolution at a time when they are ripping money out of local authorities.

The OBR says that there is a 20% chance of appeals. Just five weeks ago, I stood right here and challenged Ministers to contact the Valuation Office Agency because it had issued the wrong valuation to two of my small businesses. I dread to think what will happen to the many people who will want to sell their house and move to other parts of the country to support family members, but who cannot because they are stuck in an 18-month appeal process with the VOA. It is not clear that the Government even have a definition of a “working farm” when it comes to the operation of the so-called mansion tax. It looks to me that it could be family farm tax 2.0—I urge the Government to look closely at that—and for what? For £400 million in three years’ time. This will not sort out the cost of living crisis that we are facing right now.

I am pleased that the Government have shifted on bank taxes. We Liberal Democrats have long called for taxes on the big banks that have made eye-watering profits. To those on the Conservative Benches who say that they are worried about the competitiveness of our financial services, let me tell them this. Under their botched Brexit deal, they have hammered the financial services, which have been hit by a loss of jobs and a loss of business. If anybody is serious about protecting our world-class financial services, they should support our calls to join the single market and to move the liability for online fraud from banks to the big tech companies. If we could do that, we could grow our world-beating financial services market and still increase the taxes further so that they can contribute to tackling the cost of living crisis.

Finally, let me just say that there is a role for optimism; there is a role for talking about real hope. I hope that we can project to the rest of the world the fact that we believe in the future of UK plc. If we are going to talk about fresh hope, however, it must be matched with meaningful action. I am afraid to say that this Budget did not deliver the meaningful change that the country expects and deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

This is a Budget that puts community first. It is a Budget for families, who will benefit from support on energy costs over the cold winter, and for much-loved high street businesses, with cuts to business rates. With the announcement of a Thames Valley mayoral strategic authority, it is a Budget that delivers devolution, so that decisions that affect Bracknell Forest and our wider region can be taken in our region.

I have heard from countless families across Bracknell Forest about the cost of living pressures that they face because of skyrocketing fuel and energy costs as a result of the war in Iran, so I strongly welcome the announcement of a new £2.6 billion energy bills breathing space scheme, which will provide £100 in direct support for over 30,000 families in Bracknell Forest, helping them to keep their homes warm this winter. I also welcome the extension of the 0% rate of VAT on electricity until July 2027, and the removal of gas standing charges so that people are charged only for what they use.

I know that the prices we have seen at the pumps in recent months are a huge source of anxiety for many across Bracknell Forest. I am pleased that the Government have recognised the pressures on motorists that have been caused by increasing fuel prices, and have extended the 5p cut on fuel duty to July 2027. They have also frozen rates, and made permanent the more generous mileage rates for both employees and self-employed people who use their own vehicles for work. These measures will have a real impact on households across Bracknell Forest, especially over the coming winter months.

Supporting households is an essential and extremely welcome priority in this Budget, but I also welcome the clear signals that this Government have given to local businesses. Wonderful local cafés, restaurants, pubs and shops drive our local economy, but I have heard from too many that are struggling in this challenging environment and that have been forced to consider raising prices or cutting staff. For that reason, I was delighted to see the Chancellor announce that he will increase the small business rates relief thresholds for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, meaning that about 47% of all RHL properties in the south-east will pay no business rates at all.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is right about small businesses, particularly small retail businesses, playing a pivotal role in the health of communities, and that the Government have done the right thing in the way he described. However, those businesses are also suffering from online competition and edge-of-town or out-of-town development that is taking footfall away from town and city centres. Does he support a call for the Government to be tougher on edge-of-town development, so that we concentrate footfall where it is needed most?

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely, which is why I welcome the measure in this Budget. It means a direct tax cut for over 250 small businesses in Bracknell Forest, directly funded by increasing VAT compliance on those online marketplaces. It is right that the small businesses that thrive on Crowthorne High Street in my constituency, and across Bracknell and Sandhurst, do not face unfair competition from the big online marketplaces. That is a decision that this Government have rightly made in this Budget.

This Government do not just talk about growth in every postcode, but recognise that our high streets are at the heart of achieving that growth. On that note, growth in every postcode means recognising the unique barriers holding back growth in every region of the UK. For the south-east, one of the biggest barriers to regional growth has been the slow progress of devolution. That is why I am delighted that this Budget also commits to a mayoral strategic authority for the Thames valley. Nobody knows the specific local and regional challenges we face better than our own local community, and no one is better placed to solve them. Devolution will bring more powers for Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, more funding for our region and a more joined-up approach on regional transport, skills and public services.

This is not just about local business. In the south-east, we can proudly say that we are home to some of our most loved and most critical national businesses from Waitrose, which has its headquarters in my constituency, to our defence sector whose contribution to the economy is estimated to be £3.6 billion in 2025. We are also home to one of our greatest and most innovative British assets—our life sciences sector. So I welcome the opportunities that a more regional approach to our economy will create. This is a Budget that backs our region to do what it does best, which is to drive growth across the Thames valley and the whole of the UK.

All these measures will strengthen our social fabric, boost our local economies and build resilient communities in these challenging times, but there is no community without security. As war continues to rage in Ukraine and the middle east, and as hostile actors swamp our information sphere and sow division in our society, we cannot afford to delay delivering the support we need for defence. That is why it is so important that the Chancellor has put forward a Budget that delivers fully on our commitment to fund the defence investment plan, and ensures we remain on track for the NATO target for defence spending to reach 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Alongside plans for a new multilateral defence mechanism and additional investment through the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank, this Budget treats our security with the gravity it deserves, after decades of underfunding by the Conservative party.

The Budget is a clear demonstration that this Government have listened to the concerns of families and businesses in Bracknell Forest, and have decided to act on them. It meets the challenge of today with pragmatism and the promise of tomorrow with ambition. I know it will not solve all the challenges facing businesses and families in Bracknell Forest, but gosh, it is a darn good start.