Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince)—I say that just to up his constituency’s mention count. Around 48,000 households in my constituency households will benefit from the council tax rebate for those in bands A to D. I am assuming the Government took this approach because it is a simple way of getting the money into people’s pockets, but how that works will need a lot of unpicking. It is an instructive figure, in fact, because people think that London’s streets are paved with gold, but one in two children in my constituency are living in poverty, it is among the top three for the pensioners deprivation index, and it has a very high level of deprivation overall, while there are also challenges with the cost of living.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The hon. Lady may not have read the Budget Red Book, but GDP growth is forecast to reduce from 1.6% back in March to just 1% in 2027, and indeed GDP per capita is also forecast to reduce from 1.3% to 0.9%, so the numbers in the forecasts are actually getting worse, not better.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

As the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights, I have not had time in the moments since the Chancellor sat down to go through every graph in the Red Book or, indeed, the OBR’s forecast. Obviously, the Chancellor laid out the figures very clearly at the Dispatch Box, and we will be raising these issues in the Committee. It is easy to pick one measure that has gone down, but sometimes the figure will go up in a later year, and despite the headwinds, there is some room for optimism.

Let me let me be very clear—I think the Chancellor would expect me to say nothing less, as Chair of not only the Treasury Committee, but the Liaison Committee—that Chairs of Select Committees see our role as robust scrutineers of the work of the Government of the day, whichever party is in power and whichever party we are from, as a core part of what we do. There will be nowhere for the Chancellor to hide when he comes before us on 11 November, but I am sure he is robust enough to be prepared and to take on all comers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Budget will continue to make Britain more resilient, by supporting people and businesses in the current moment and investing in the future. In an increasingly uncertain and changing world, this Government are steadying the ship. The Budget will help families with the pressures they face now and invest in the long term to bring down the cost of living, making life easier and better for working people.

I welcome much of what has been announced. However, while members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme in my constituency are much better off as a result of the measures taken by this Government two years ago—and have seen further improvements with the position that the Chancellor has taken today—there will still be disappointment that the Government have not decided to return all the surpluses from the scheme to its members. Mineworkers paid a large health price for their commitment to keeping the lights on over many decades, and each day of delay means that more mineworkers die without receiving the full fruits of their industry and community’s commitment to our nation.

Turning to the positive news announced today, we have the second fastest growth in the G7, our growth forecast has been upgraded once again by the IMF and, as was generously acknowledged by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), the FTSE has risen modestly. I remember being on the Opposition Benches when Kwasi Kwarteng was delivering his Budget and seeing hundreds of thousands of pounds—millions, even—crashing off the value of the stock market. It is important to acknowledge that those who have an independent view of this, outside of the political sphere, have welcomed this Budget, which is a sure sign that this Government are on the right track.

At every single Budget under this Government, the Conservatives have predicted catastrophe, and yet every time the economic figures have come out, they have been more positive than their predictions. We have seen measures today meaning that 43,800 Chesterfield households will receive £100 towards their energy bills this winter; a £50 reduction because of the changes in VAT; fewer pensioners being brought into paying tax; positive support for self-employed partners; a welcome increase in the threshold for small business rate relief up to £18,000, meaning that 54% of businesses in the east midlands will now pay no business rates; and no rises for the next two years on business rates.

The Government have made that economic progress at the same time as building huge amounts of home-grown renewable energy capacity; holding failing water companies to account; reviving council house building; bringing down national health service waiting times; introducing record increases in the national minimum wage; bringing more people into work than ever before; making record investments in our national health service; and bringing half a million children out of poverty. That is the difference that a Labour Government have made.

Possibly the greatest endorsement of this Budget is how weak the Opposition have been on it. When Opposition Members get to their feet to say, “Well, I think you could have been a bit more ambitious,” we know that they do not really have a line to attack us on. That is a very strong endorsement of this Budget. Of course, there is much more to be done.

I should say that while the Leader of the Opposition was making what we all know to be a difficult speech—apparently some facts were redacted in the copy she received—which is why her critique was so weak, but at least she turned up to make that speech. The leader of the Reform party did not even bother turning up to the Budget. It is extraordinary.

[Richard Tice]

I’m here!

[Mr Perkins]

I was under the impression that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) was still the leader of the Reform party. Why did he bother seeking re-election? He never turns up to this place. He is mystifying.

There is so much more to be done. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and Trump’s ill-advised war on Iran have driven up fuel prices, energy prices and the cost of fertiliser, creating a cost of living crisis across the globe to which we are not immune. In that context, I welcome the Chancellor’s priorities of boosting Britain’s resilience and bringing down energy costs for good.

Climate change and biodiversity loss continue to be clear and present threats to Britain’s security and prosperity, with droughts at home and across the globe reducing crop yields and driving up food prices. The Climate Change Committee has been absolutely clear that climate impacts could cost the UK economy £10.7 billion over the next year in lower tax revenue alone because of lower productivity due to extreme heat or disruptions from flooding. Every independent analysis tells us that, because of the cost it will have on our economy, taking action on climate change is far cheaper than not acting.

Just a few weeks after a summer of wildfires and drought, when extreme heat caused more than 3,000 excess deaths in the United Kingdom in May and June alone, we need to be really cautious about anything that can lead to higher emissions. While I welcome the Chancellor’s desire to see data centres here in the UK, we need to be very careful that we do that in a way that does not damage our climate commitment.

Land managers and farmers are central to preparing the UK for the impacts of climate change. Investing in UK farming will also help to protect farmers from global events, in turn helping to shield consumers from rising food costs. Yet just a few weeks ago, the window for applications on the sustainable farming incentive was open for just six hours before it was fully subscribed. It is great that this Government are getting that money out the door and to farmers. It also shows the immense appetite for this funding and for nature-friendly farming. It is important that the Government take every step that they can to provide more support for farmers who are doing things the right way.

In conclusion, this is a Budget of stability and of hope for working people and small businesses. It is a Budget that supports entrepreneurs. It was extraordinary to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that this Budget does nothing for business when it specifically supports entrepreneurs and risk-takers in our economy. This Budget is progressive—it has the most value for those with the lowest income—and it takes the serious decisions to address the collapse in our economy caused by the Conservatives. It continues to deliver growth while reducing, over several years, the debt-to-GDP ratio of our country. For all those reasons, it is a Budget that I am very pleased to support.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Poorer—that is what every household in the country is, including in my constituency of Boston and Skegness. This year alone, real household disposable income is down 0.8%, and every single year between now and the end of this parliamentary term, the average household’s real disposable income is down compared to what the OBR forecast just six months ago. Let us look at the other main economic data: GDP growth for 2027 is forecast to be down once again—from 1.6% to 1%—under this failing Labour Government; and GDP growth per capita is forecast to be down from 1.3% to 0.9%.

And let us just look at what is up, shall we? Government borrowing in this financial year alone is up almost £20 billion compared to what the OBR forecast just six months ago. Over the lifetime of this Budget book for the next five years, Government borrowing will be over £65 billion more than the OBR forecast just six months ago. This is a Government who are completely out of control in terms of spending. That is why the bond markets are applying what is known internationally as “the moron premium” to the United Kingdom under this Labour Government.

Credit where credit is due, this Chancellor does know where the real problems are and he has tried to do a little bit. He understands that there is a crisis with energy bills, which are now forecast to go up by an extra £466 per household in January, and then by another £200 per household in April—all because of the madness of net zero and the rush to renewables, which is happening as we speak. Every single day, NESO is having to tweak and twiddle the dials and add balancing costs to the tune of some £50 million. That is ten times what it was just a few years ago. Next year, it will cost £200 per household for the balancing costs on the grid alone. This is completely out of control. The Chancellor has shuffled the cards in the pack. He has moved a bit from bills to general taxation, but he has not dealt with the real crux of the crisis, which is that the rush to renewables is driving up all our household energy bills at a catastrophically high rate.

Now, I am constructive sort of guy, so I want to give credit where credit is due, so let me say that the Government have done the right thing in approving Jackdaw—but they need to go further. Ministers know in their heart of hearts that they need to approve the oilfield at Rosebank—the Prime Minister was tempted to confirm it at question time today—and grant many more licences in the North sea, because that is our energy treasure; that is where the jobs are and where the growth is. This Government are completely failing on growth. The energy crisis is getting worse, and everybody needs to understand that. If we use our energy treasure, the bills will come down.

If we look at property and housing—again, credit where credit is due—the Chancellor has eased regulations to try to build more homes on brownfield sites. I think he might have read the teal paper I released in September on how to reduce the cost of construction and get more things built. He is right to remove the need for biodiversity requirements on brownfield sites, but there is so much more to do to reduce the construction cost of the new homes that I think we all agree we need to build. There is a £15,000 to £20,000 increase in the cost of homes because of unnecessary regulations, but again the Chancellor has not grasped the real opportunities to go for it and reduce the cost of building. That is what we need. We all agree that we need more affordable social housing, but to do that we have to reduce and remove unnecessary restrictions and the delays in getting planning consents.

We now know that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has given up on her 1.5 million target. In reality, we will be lucky to get to half that number—750,000 homes instead of 1.5 million. These are the lost opportunities from a Government obsessed with regulation, obsessed with process and obsessed with bureaucracy. They cannot do the right thing to deregulate and get some growth.

[Mike Martin]

The hon. Member seems to be extolling the benefits of building houses, so can he explain why the Reform party in Tunbridge Wells is campaigning to restrict house building?

[Richard Tice]

Far from it—we are actually trying to build more houses on brownfield sites, because that is what we should do all over the country, including in the great town of Tunbridge Wells. We need to make it easier to build on brownfield sites. At the moment, house builders are giving up all over the country because the costs are too high.

I think the Chancellor has been looking at some of our excellent Reform policies, but while he is right to lift the income tax threshold for pensioners, he could have gone much further and lifted it for everybody—up to our recommended level of £15,000—by being more dramatic about cutting the vast amount of wasteful spending on welfare and cutting foreign aid to overseas nations that do not need it. Those are the differences between the right things to do and the lost opportunities of this Government.

I think the Chancellor has listened to another Reform policy, which is to lift the threshold on business rates, but he has not gone far enough. While the £18,000 threshold is better than £12,000, it needs to be much higher. That is another lost opportunity.

We have a nation of voters, and every household who looks at this Budget book and listens to the Budget will say, “No, thanks. Every single year between now and 2030-31 we’re all getting poorer than the OBR forecast just six months ago.” People feel it and they sense it. They know that their money is being wasted on bureaucracy and unnecessary quangos—more taskforces and quangos have been set up during this Budget. It could have been so much better. I feel that this Chancellor has just not had the courage or the strength. He has not risen to the occasion. He has tried, but it is not good enough. We are facing a financial crisis and an energy crisis, and we need a Government who do the right thing—a Government who cut our bills. This Budget is a lost opportunity.