debates/debates2025-12-02e conversation_19
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-12-02)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-12-02e conversation_19

Beccy Cooper:We know that our official development assistance budget is currently reduced to allow for defence investment, but given the continuing need to improve global health, not least to guarantee our own health and security, will the Minister meet me and other concerned colleagues to discuss how best to continue to protect lifesaving health programmes and the work with women and girls that she has rightly prioritised? \p Seema Malhotra: I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. The UK will continue to centre women and girls in everything that we do internationally, from our diplomacy to our development work. We will mainstream gender across the Department’s work to ensure that we deliver maximum impact. We are retaining our ODA target for gender equality, and we will share an update on further measures to strengthen our approach to mainstreaming in due course. \p Caroline Voaden: Prior to last week’s talks with leaders of the British overseas territories, concerning reports suggested that the Government were planning to cave in to pressure from the British Virgin Islands, the epicentre of billions of pounds of tax evasion, and allow it to restrict public access to a register of company share ownership. Will the Secretary of State inform the House of the outcome of last week’s talks and reassure the British public that the Government will force British overseas territories to comply with the law and make these registers publicly available? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Member can find the communiqué online. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I met the leaders from the overseas territories last week at a successful Joint Ministerial Council, and I again set out clearly our expectations on registers of beneficial ownership. I would point out that all OTs with financial centres have committed to upholding international tax standards, including those on tax transparency and exchange of information, as well as base erosion and profit sharing. \p Harpreet Uppal: Since the beginning of 2025, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has documented more than 1,600 attacks in the west bank perpetrated by Israeli settlers. What more can the UK do in terms of sanctions for illegal settler outposts and settlement trade and to hold the Israeli Government to account? \p Hamish Falconer: On 27 November, the UK, France, Germany and Italy collectively condemned the massive increase in settler violence against Palestinian civilians  in the west bank. The pace of settlement building in the west bank continues unabated, as my hon. Friend knows well because she has been engaged on these issues for some time. Israel must stop settlement expansion, and it must crack down on settler violence, which has reached record levels. This Government have introduced three waves of sanctions focused on settlements, including against Mr Ben-Gvir. \p Robin Swann: In an earlier answer, the Foreign Secretary said that trade relations between China and the UK were “in our national interest”. To that extent, can I ask what conversations her Department had with Invest Northern Ireland prior to its signing a co-operation framework memorandum of understanding with the China Chamber of Commerce in the UK? \p Seema Malhotra: This Government support UK businesses to do business with China while being open-eyed to any risks. \p Richard Burgon: On Donald Trump’s threats of military action against oil-rich Venezuela, reports suggest that British military personnel are aboard the US warships heading towards Venezuela. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore make it clear that Britain will have no involvement at all, including through troops on US warships, in any Trump-led military intervention there? \p Stephen Doughty: As the Foreign Secretary made clear a moment ago, the UK is not involved in these operations. There have been reports overnight, of which we do not know the full details and which the US will respond to. We have been very clear that we expect all nations to operate in line with international law. \p Ben Spencer: The Elections Act 2022 expanded the franchise to over 3 million British nationals living overseas. As MPs, we have a duty to represent those who have lived in our constituencies, but we do not know who they are or where they are. How can our embassies help? \p Seema Malhotra: The Foreign Secretary works closely with Cabinet colleagues on many issues, including overseas voter registration. We encourage all British nationals to register as overseas voters if they move or live abroad, and that has been the approach of successive Governments. We keep gov.uk under constant review, and British nationals abroad can contact their local embassy or high commission for further information. \p Debbie Abrahams: Parliamentarians for Peace was set up in 2023 in the aftermath of the terror attack in Israel and the killings of innocent Gazan civilians. On International Human Rights Day next Wednesday, will the Foreign Secretary, her team and everyone here join us for the Parliamentarians for Peace vigil that we will be hosting? \p Hamish Falconer: I will do my utmost, as I am sure other Ministers will. \p David Mundell: The child nutrition fund is one of the most effective ways to enhance the impact and value for money of official development assistance spending  by mobilising domestic resources, with philanthropic and private capital having the potential to multiply UK ODA contributions as much as sixfold. In 2023, the UK Government committed to a £16 million contribution to fund. Will Ministers confirm that the commitment will be honoured despite the changes in ODA spending? \p Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Member has been a long-standing champion of these issues. We reaffirmed our commitment to addressing malnutrition at the Nutrition for Growth summit in 2025, as he knows, and we continue to support the child nutrition fund, which funds treatment of acute malnutrition. We are providing technical assistance and are supporting countries to integrate nutrition across sectors. \p Baggy Shanker: With winter setting in and thousands of Gazan children still acutely malnourished, will my right hon. Friend work with international partners so we can go further and faster to help those children? \p Yvette Cooper: Yes, we will. That is why we announced today that we will support the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east appeal through the winter, with pound-for-pound matching of a further £3 million to help support the people of Gaza through the winter. \p Nick Timothy: The White House has expressed concerns about sensitive cables that run under Royal Mint Court, as have the Dutch, Swiss and Swedish Governments. I understand that the Foreign Office has denied the presence of such cables to the US Government, and the Cabinet Office has denied it to the press. Will the Foreign Secretary stand up and make it very clear to the House of Commons that no such cables run beneath or near the site—yes or no? \p Yvette Cooper: We always make national security considerations a central priority, and we continue to hold a range of discussions on national security issues with the US and other partners. Under the hon. Gentleman’s party, the Defence Secretary was sacked for leaking national security information and the Home Secretary was sacked for national security breaches, and the Conservatives left us with the smallest Army since the time of Napoleon. We will not take any lectures from them. \p Jessica Morden: We have seen a year of protests in Georgia against democratic backsliding and crackdowns on political opponents, which are deeply concerning, including for those in Newport with strong links to Kutaisi. What more can be done with allies to increase diplomatic pressure? \p Stephen Doughty: We are deeply concerned by the democratic backsliding in Georgia and have issued a number of sanctions, as my hon. Friend will be aware.   I have raised concerns directly with Georgian Dream representatives and will continue to follow the situation closely. \p Oliver Dowden: Today is UAE National Day, marking 54 years since its full independence. In that time, it has become one of our nation’s staunchest allies and a key investor, benefiting constituencies up and down the country. Will the Minister join me, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, in congratulating the UAE and recommitting to this key strategic relationship? \p Hamish Falconer: I will. I was delighted to see my Emirati counterpart just yesterday. We had a Minister representing the British Government at the Emirati National Day. It is a key partner. I welcome its investment all over the country, and we will take the relationship from strength to strength. \p Kim Johnson: In July 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled in its advisory opinion that Israeli settlements and occupation are illegal and needed to be ended and dismantled retrospectively. Can the Minister explain why the UK Government still have not responded to the advisory opinion after 17 months? \p Hamish Falconer: The advisory opinion is an important piece of international legal opinion, so we are taking our time and ensuring that we have an adequate response. But I remind my hon. Friend that it is not like nothing has happened over the course of those 17 months: we have recognised the Palestinian state. That is absolutely central in the deliberations of the advisory opinion, and we have done many other things, too, as have been discussed over the course of this session. \p Ellie Chowns: What action will the UK Government take as a consequence of Israel’s flagrant violation of international law in establishing and expanding settlements? The lack of action creates a culture of impunity in which Israel feels able to green light the expansion of the E1 settlement, creating division between the west bank and east Jerusalem and putting a nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. Will the Foreign Secretary ban trade with illegal settlements to show that violating international law has consequences? \p Hamish Falconer: We have, from this Dispatch Box, announced three waves of sanctions, including on Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich. I have discussed the questions around trade on a number of occasions with the hon. Lady. Any trade with settlements does not benefit from the trade arrangements in place with green line Israel. We continue to take steps to ensure that that regime is enforced in full, and we continue to look at these issues very carefully. \p David Lammy: With your permission, Mr Speaker I will make a statement on criminal court reform.

As the House is aware, the first part of the independent review of criminal courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson—one of the foremost judges of his generation—and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Shaun McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once-in-a-generation court reform. That is desperately needed, because the Government inherited an emergency in our courts: a record and rising backlog currently at 78,000 cases, and victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case.

Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six-year wait for justice. During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated; it is systemic.

We are all proud of our justice system, rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to

“deny or delay right or justice.”

When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves. Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This Government have already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose, a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown courts—5,000 more than those funded last year by the previous Government.

Today, I can announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates, to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.

However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The case load is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse. To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian’s bold blueprint for change. First, I will create new “swift courts” within the Crown court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in   triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hardwire transparency into our new approach.

Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials—a practice not found widely in other common law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up. I will limit appeals from the magistrates courts, so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further.

Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.

These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences. Among others, that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.

I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill’s time, and today magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.

Conservative Members talk about the Crown court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971—the year before I was born—to replace a patchwork of part-time courts unable to cope with a rising caseload. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. We now face an emergency in the courts, and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve.

I am also clear that we must future-proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a   second report, focused on efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.

We will also continue to support victims, to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announced this week that I will provide multi-year funding for victim support services, including specialist emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increase budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million—more than half a billion. I want those victims to stay the course.

Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation, which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Justice Secretary. \p Robert Jenrick: I am glad to see that the Justice Secretary has finally come into work today. When 12 prisoners were mistakenly released after the introduction of his brilliant new checks, he did not bother to come to Parliament to inform the country; then, when I asked his Department whether it is paying compensation to terrorists in prison, he did not show up; and when the news of his plans to scrap jury trials mysteriously emerged in the press last week, he was nowhere to be seen. Like the prisoners under his watch, he has been a man on the run—the “Lammy dodger” of this sorry charade of a Government—but today we are blessed with his presence.

His past is catching up with him, because the best opponent of the Justice Secretary’s plans to curb jury trials is the Justice Secretary himself. In 2020, he said:

“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.”

In 2017, in his report into prejudice in the criminal justice system, he found that juries

“act as a filter for prejudice”,

but now that he has become the Justice Secretary, he is scrapping the very institution he once lauded. Which is it? Will the real David Lammy please stand up?

It is not just the Justice Secretary. Who can guess which Labour MP said that taking away jury trials

“would be a wholly draconian act”?

It was his own junior Minister, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). And what about this one? Who said there should be a

“right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”?

Any ideas, Mr Speaker? Who else? It is the Prime Minister this time. Do this Government have no shame?

Yesterday, the Justice Secretary boldly claimed that if the medieval barons were around today, they would support his changes. Then again, English history has   never been his specialist subject, has it? Eight hundred years on from Magna Carta, we have another unpopular leader who does not listen to his subjects and who levies eye-watering taxes, and a state that locks people up for what they say. Well, I say that the link between British citizens and the administration of justice is as important as ever. It is a link that serves as a check on an occasionally overbearing state. Our ancestors did not stop bad King John, only to be undone 800 years later by this Prime Minister and his court jester.

And all of this because the Justice Secretary cannot manage his own Department. This morning, in England alone more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty. In fact—[Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I wanted, quite rightly, the Justice Secretary to be heard without comment from Opposition Front Benchers, and I certainly expect the same from Government Front Benchers in return. \p Robert Jenrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This morning, more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty in England alone. In fact, over 21,000 court days have gone unused this year. Why? Not because there are too many juries, but because the Justice Secretary will not fund the sitting days. Had he done so, the backlog would have shrunk by up to 10,000 cases, but the fact is that it has risen this year.

The truth is that scrapping juries is a choice. This Government could find the money to bear down on the backlog of asylum claims and to spend more on benefits, but not to fund the courts to sit round the clock. Last year, the entire budget for courts and legal aid was £5.5 billion, which is almost exactly the same amount of money—£5.4 billion—that we spent on illegal migrants. He defends their rights under the European convention on human rights, but not our rights under Magna Carta. And for what? He cannot even guarantee that in four years’ time these changes will have reduced the backlog. With this Justice Secretary, it is justice delayed and justice denied.

Much of the rest of the package announced today is sensible, but why has it taken 17 months? The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association have all said that jury trials are not the problem. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You are facing the wrong way. It is very hard to hear you when you are looking at the doors. \p Robert Jenrick: Apologies, Mr Speaker.

Why did the Justice Secretary not start by reforming the Probation Service and court listings, and by tackling delays from late prison transfers? Why has he still not taken up the Lady Chief Justice on all the sitting days that she has offered him? Lastly, why on earth does this Justice Secretary think he has a mandate to rip up centuries of jury trials without even a mention of it in his party’s manifesto?

The Justice Secretary, in his twisted logic, says he is scrapping juries to save them, but be in no doubt: if he gets away with this, it is the beginning of the end of jury trials. He is already in retreat. Let us unite to send him packing for good. \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to the shadow Justice Secretary, although I am a little surprised that in his tirade, he never once mentioned victims—not once. Not once in his clip did he talk about the people waiting in the backlog.

The right hon. Gentleman has boasted that he is an armchair historian. May I give him a history lesson? In 2019, Crown court sitting days were cut by almost 15%. The Conservatives oversaw a 12% reduction in Crown court trials, and many of us remember, over those 14 years of austerity, the magistrates courts and Crown courts that closed in local communities under his watch. The senior presiding judge in England and Wales said:

“It was a political decision.”

I wonder if the shadow Justice Secretary will try to blame the pandemic for that decision.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about what I tweeted in 2020. We are saving and protecting jury trials. Jury trials will continue. He talks about trial by jury as if we lived in the United States, but 90% of criminal trials—1.3 million—are done by our magistracy, which has existed for 650 years. We are going to grow our magistrates, who we believe could do more.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about Magna Carta. Yes, clause 39 establishes the jury trial and a fair trial—we are proud of that—but he knows, too, that clause 40 asks us not to delay justice. That is the substance of this debate, and that is why we need reform. He knows that the Conservatives took juries away from defamation cases in 2013. Back in 1933, we had juries sitting in civil cases. Of course we reform; we do so to meet the needs of the system. He also knows that because of DNA evidence, CCTV and a whole raft of reasons, including that the police now arrest 10% more people, we have a demand issue. We must meet that challenge, and we must ensure that we put victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. That is who it is there for, and it is why he should have mentioned them. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee. \p Andrew Slaughter: May I recognise the commitment of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State in grasping the issue of the Crown court backlog, which, as Sir Brian Leveson says, is a threat to our whole system of criminal justice? The criticism of these proposals from those on the Opposition Benches comes with no solution whatsoever. I also acknowledge the Lord Chancellor’s decision to stay within the limits proposed by Sir Brian for cases that will be tried without a jury in the future.

None the less, these are profound changes to the criminal justice system that not only restrict the role of juries, but substantially extend the powers of magistrates and judges sitting alone. Will the Lord Chancellor therefore evaluate the effects of these changes to see whether they, along with other measures such as increased investment, bring down the backlog and whether they do so fairly, without bias and without increasing conviction rates or sentence length? If they do not deliver on all these points, will he think again? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work in these areas. Yes, I can commit to that evaluation, which is very important indeed. In his report,  Sir Brian estimated that the system would be 20% faster: it takes time for juries to deliberate, and without the conveyance of information between barristers, the judge and the jury being necessary, he expects that a judge-led or magistrate-led system will be speedier. As my hon. Friend will know, the magistrates courts do not currently have a backlog and with an increase in the number of magistrates, they can do a little more. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: The Government’s plan, announced today, to reduce the use of trial by jury would be an historic upheaval of our court system, with profound consequences. The Justice Secretary has not argued in favour of judge-only trials on their own terms; instead, he has argued that there is no alternative, which is simply not true. Many within the legal profession have argued that removing trial by jury is a misdirection from the multitude of problems that underlie the backlog.

Those problems, caused by years of Conservative mismanagement, have resulted in countless wasted hours of sitting time and in victims failed time and again. Perhaps the defendant does not arrive in court because of the broken private contract, there is no interpreter, the witness care unit forgets to tell witnesses to attend, key evidence is not served until the day of trial so the defence has no time to consider it, or there are not enough court staff to manage security on the door, so the trial runs late. Maybe our crumbling court infrastructure means there is no running water, a broken lift or even a flooded courtroom. We need a real solution to tackle these issues that plague our justice system, but instead the Justice Secretary intends to remove a huge number of jury trials, despite his previous opposition to that, all while the Ministry of Justice capital budget is being cut by 3% in real terms every year.

While I welcome the £500 million investment in victims and witness support over three years, the total courts maintenance backlog is estimated at £1.3 billion. Where is the investment to fix the collapsing infrastructure in the justice system? Will the Justice Secretary consider reopening many of the Crown courts closed under the Conservatives, including mine in Chichester? As he confirmed to the media today, an entire jury’s worth of prisoners have been released in error in recent weeks. Does the Secretary of State have confidence in his Department to oversee such an extreme and radical reform when it is not even getting the basics right? \p David Lammy: The hon. Lady mentions a range of issues that are important in ensuring that our 80 or so courts and 500 courtrooms are working effectively. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at efficiency as part 2 of his review. We need not just our courts but the Crown Prosecution Service and our police to work together at a reasonable level to deliver that improvement.

When we think about either-way cases, I think that it is legitimate for the Government to take a view on whether, for example, a driving licence fraud, fly-tipping or the theft of a bike requires a jury trial that will last for about two days, or whether those cases can be dealt with by a magistrate or a judge. I know that the hon. Lady is committed, like us, to bearing down on violence against women and girls. It cannot be right that if  someone is charged with an offence such as theft of a bicycle, theft from a vehicle or employee theft, they can opt for a trial that, by necessity, goes into the system and will delay a rape trial, a murder trial or something like that. That is the balance of the decision that I have sought to make. I think that the Government have made the right decision in implementing Sir Brian’s review. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Mother of the House. \p Diane Abbott: The entire House is concerned about victims, including the victims of attacks on women and girls. However, the entire House is also concerned about the men and women who will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages of justice if the right to trial by jury is curtailed. To quote from a lawyer:

“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”

That lawyer is our current Prime Minister. He wrote that in 1992—it was as true then as it is today. How can the Lord Chancellor propose a limitation of the right to trial by jury when he knows perfectly well the category of defendant who will suffer the ill effects? \p David Lammy: I am hugely grateful for my right hon. Friend’s expertise in these areas. She will know that for lots of reasons, particularly to do with poverty, many women are affected by criminal cases that do not command a sentence of much more than 12 months. Actually, the vast majority of crimes committed by women are dealt with by magistrates, and it is my judgment that those magistrates could do more. Keeping in mind the victims and centring them in our thinking, it cannot be right that we are asking women to wait. In a city like London, a woman who is raped tomorrow will not have her trial listed until 2028 or 2029. The Victims’ Commissioner supports these changes because they put those women first. I also remind my right hon. Friend of the £550 million that I am dedicating to victim support to support the very women she talks about. \p Jeremy Wright: The Government deserve credit for taking seriously a serious report into a serious problem, but is it the Justice Secretary’s preference that the changes he has outlined to jury trial will be permanent or that they will recede when the problem of backlogs recedes? In relation to judges alone deciding either-way cases, he knows that Sir Brian’s recommendation is that the presumption should be that there would be judge-only trials for cases where the sentence may be three years or less, but that presumption could be rebutted. Is it the Government’s intention that that should be a presumption and not a definitive rule? Finally, he knows that Sir Brian also recommended that plea hearings be pushed back to allow for advice on guilty pleas to be given more clearly and more fully, and that is likely to increase the number of guilty pleas preventing cracked trials. The Justice Secretary has talked about extra funding for the criminal Bar, but will he focus that funding so that people can be advised early and we can avoid those cracked trials? \p David Lammy: We will consult on how we implement it so that we can deal with cracked trials. I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the importance of Sir Brian’s work and his deliberations  with his panel. It is not my expectation that these rules will change. Sir Brian drew on his tremendous experience to reflect on the complexity and the demand that we are seeing in our criminal justice system. For example, DNA evidence, phenotyping, the range of new laws that this Parliament is introducing, and the increase in sexual crimes as a result of smartphones and other technology all require changes in the system, so I believe that the changes that we are making will be permanent. \p Clive Efford: I understand that my right hon. Friend has inherited a disastrous situation in the criminal justice system. A huge backlog was left by the austerity of the Conservatives, so I have no truck with them. However, does he fear, as I do, that restricting trial by jury will put a certain class of people in judgment over the rest of us, and that the check and balance on that is that a jury can be drawn from those I would describe as working-class people? Does he fear that we will create an “us” and “them” in the criminal justice system by taking away people’s right to go to trial by jury? \p David Lammy: I understand my hon. Friend’s anxiety, but I remind him that the vast majority of these individuals will be tried by magistrates. The historical system we have is actually an aspect of the right in clause 39 of Magna Carta to be tried by one’s peers. Importantly, they are people who live in every neighbourhood in our country and who volunteer their efforts. \p David Davis: When the Secretary of State took office, he swore an oath of office, which reads:

“I…do swear that…I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”.

That last bit matters. Governments of his party, my party and—before they get too sanctimonious—the Liberal Democrats all starved the courts, from Blair to now. The Secretary of State has to put that right, because if he does not get sufficient extra sitting days, this problem will not be solved. When I say “sufficient extra”, I do not mean 1,000 days, or even 5,000 days; we need an increase of an order of magnitude. Instead, he is undermining a bulwark of our constitution. In the words of Lord Denning:

“It has been the bulwark of our liberties too long for any of us to seek to alter it.”

Why will the Secretary of State not go and have his argument with the Treasury and solve this problem properly? \p David Lammy: I understand the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman says. He is right that our courts have been starved of funds for too long, but he knows that, despite the extra investment we are putting in and the investment we got in the spending review for new courts in places such as Blackpool, this will take considerable time. We have asked Sir Brian to reflect, and he is one of our most eminent judges. Would it really be right to ask the victims to wait a decade until we have fixed the system? It cannot be. For all the reasons that Sir Brian reflects on in his report, we have to chuck everything at this. We need more investment, reform and modernisation, which we are doing. \p Stella Creasy: Any of us who has supported a constituent in a rape trial will take no lectures from the Conservatives about how they managed our courts. There is clearly a challenge here. The worry for many of us is whether the Justice Secretary’s prescription is the solution; as he points out, juries are involved in less than 3% of all criminal cases. It is difficult to see how this measure, with all the challenges it may bring for justice and fairness, particularly for some of our minority communities, will address the backlog. Lord Leveson himself pointed out that increasing sitting days would not be a solution unless we had the barristers and solicitors. Can the Secretary of State give a guarantee that there will be funding for the legal aid required to ensure that every defendant has decent representation? \p David Lammy: I remind my hon. Friend that we are increasing the uplift for barristers and their fees by £34 million. We have also increased legal aid, with £92 million for our solicitors. Because we need a pipeline of criminal lawyers, we have a match-funded scheme for pupillages so that we see the next generation of young people from all backgrounds becoming our criminal legal aid lawyers. \p Vikki Slade: Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; if they were, we would not see similar extended delays in the magistrates courts, which have a record backlog of 361,000 cases. The cause is not just pupillages, but legal advisers in magistrates courts. Given that some of these cases with potentially longer sentences will move to the magistrates courts, what additional investment will go into them so that we do not just see the problem move from the Crown court to the magistrates court and see victims wait just as long there? \p David Lammy: That is why we are putting money into legal advisers and why we are growing the magistracy. There is not anything like the backlog that exists in our Crown courts in our magistrates courts, so the question is: should we leave it as a year, or could our magistrates do more? I think 18 months is right in terms of the sentencing threshold. \p Richard Burgon: I need to be honest: the prospect of citizens in our country being put away in jail for up to three years without the benefits of a trial by jury sends a chill through my heart. I gently say that no Government should ever govern as if they will be in power for ever. Those on the Front Bench denounce members of Reform as Putin’s pals—I think that is a fair description. Does the Justice Secretary want to think again? Imagine if Putin’s pals, as they are described, were in government in this country and people could get put away for three years without trial by jury. How would they use that? Is that not a frightening prospect? If we make these changes under pressure and hand them on to forces that would take things even further, would that not concern the Justice Secretary? \p David Lammy: Clearly, my hon. Friend would accept that justice is not being served now. I simply would not equate either our magistrates or our independent judiciary with anything like what we see under Putin’s Russia. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: Nobody would disagree with the Lord Chancellor’s diagnosis—the criminal courts are in crisis. It is the treatment that is in dispute. The question is whether the watering down of jury trials will be the solution, when in fact the problem is a lack of judges, court space and infrastructure, and inefficiencies in the system. Crucially, it is about a lack of appropriately trained defence and prosecution counsel who can deal with the complexities of these cases. Is this not a case of the Government choosing to prioritise other areas of spending, such as welfare, over our courts system? \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman’s party did not come up with any solutions, and the backlog continued to rise. We commissioned an independent review, led by one of the country’s most eminent judges. Having reflected on that review, we are getting on with the business of recognising what he said: there is not a silver bullet, we have to do it all, and we are building on the reform that he asked us to do. \p John Martin McDonnell: May I welcome the additional money for the criminal legal aid advocates and for more pupillages? If we are to rely more on judges, often sitting alone, is there not a need for greater transparency with regard to the selection of those judges, even to the point of individual selection on individual cases? I wrote to the Secretary of State this morning on behalf of a number of our members about a particular instance of the disappearance of a judge. I would be grateful if he could read that letter and possibly meet a group of MPs concerned about that matter. \p David Lammy: I will read that letter and commit to a meeting with my right hon. Friend and other MPs, either with me or with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services. He is absolutely right; transparency is core. When I looked at this issue in the Lammy review, I was very concerned that too often there was no transcript of what happened in our magistrates courts and Crown courts and that it was not easy. That is absolutely part of what we are now investing in, particularly with AI technology, and we will come forward with it. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Caernarfon justice centre is only 16 years old, but the roof leaks when it rains, and the heating does not work. Let me list some of the root causes for criminal courts processing fewer cases: high workloads, staff shortages and inexperience, poor administration, crumbling buildings. How does the Justice Secretary think that undermining one of the basic tenets of English and Welsh law will be a solution to those problems? \p David Lammy: I refer the right hon. Lady to paragraph 9 of Sir Brian’s review, which says:

“it is important to underline that greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”

We are investing, but it will take time. It is not fair to ask victims to wait. \p Linsey Farnsworth: I spent two decades working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, and I can tell hon. Members that this crisis has  been building for years and years and years. I spoke to one of my former colleagues today to ask him how things are. He said:

“Something has to be done. The backlog and delay is distorting the justice system as people need to wait so long for justice that defendants are pleading not guilty in the hope that the case ends up being considered not in the public interest. Meanwhile the public, victims and witnesses pay the price. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

Right now, my former colleague is working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, so let us support the people working in that system, and let us support our victims of crime so that they get justice quickly and fairly. My request to the Secretary of State is please to be bold. \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts her remarks so well. Let us be clear that there are defendants playing the system, and if we continue to allow them to do so, vulnerable victims of the most serious offences in our country will pay the price. That is why this is not just about financial investment; it has to be about reform, and I am determined to see this through. \p Ashley Fox: In his report, Sir Brian Leveson made a number of recommendations to reduce the Crown court backlog. Many of those recommendations are welcome, but curtailing the right to a jury trial is not one of them. Will the Secretary of State instruct his Department to publish the modelling it will have undertaken, so that we can see how much of an effect on the backlog each individual recommendation will have, and this House can take a view on the efficacy of his legislation before we vote on it? \p David Lammy: I undertake that there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation. \p Pam Cox: The governance of jury trials has changed considerably over time—dramatically so in the 19th century, and again in the 1970s. In both cases, that was to improve public access to justice. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that if our traditions are to endure, including our legal traditions, they need to adapt? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Demand is soaring. Quite rightly, we are asking our police to arrest more, and we all know that smartphones, DNA, and phenotyping to tell the colour of a person’s eyes increase the workload. We have to reform the system, or we will break it. \p Brian Mathew: Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but we have a proud history of juries in this country. If juries are to be suspended for cases in which a sentence of less than three years is expected in order to clear the backlog, will that just be for a limited time, and when will normal jury service be resumed? \p David Lammy: For the reasons of complexity that Sir Brian has set out, and because the process of passing legislation means that I think we will only see the numbers starting to fall by the next general election, no, this change has to be permanent. \p Andy McDonald: Given that the Bar Council has said it has seen “no evidence” that removing the right to elect to have a jury trial will significantly reduce the Crown court backlog, and that both the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have said that the real cause of delays is years of underfunding and reduced sitting days, will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are pursuing the removal of jury trials without publishing any modelling to show that juries—rather than chronic under-resourcing—are responsible for backlogs? Will he release the evidence base underpinning this proposed reform? Releasing impact assessments after the reform is made will be too late. \p David Lammy: I say to my hon. Friend, who has tremendous expertise in these areas, that the evidence is contained in Sir Brian’s very lengthy review. That review looks at all the issues and says it is likely that the new division within the Crown court and the changes to magistrates courts will speed up the process by 20%. \p Saqib Bhatti: The idea that we have to scrap jury trials to save jury trials is simply farcical. A legal framework 800 years old is being upended, and not to reduce backlogs or save money; this is a reframing of rights and of where power lies, taking power away from the people. Does the Lord Chancellor accept that jury trials—being judged by one’s peers—protects the vulnerable and enables fairness, and that as the Mother of the House said, this decision will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice? \p David Lammy: Our criminal law cannot be set in aspic. The system that we have now largely came about as the result of legislation in 1971. Just prior to that, this House decriminalised homosexuality, and it was only in 1991 that we outlawed marital rape. Of course we make change, and it is right that we make change in this circumstance. \p Sarah Russell: I have immense sympathy for the difficult position that the Lord Chancellor and the many victims of crime in this country are in. There is, however, a category of offences relating to the right to protest—a right that has been restricted by multiple Governments over time. It is very important that we maintain jury trials in anything that touches on that area, so can the Lord Chancellor commit to retaining jury trials in cases where the offence would currently go to the Crown court or would be an either-way offence? \p David Lammy: I recognise that there will be a range of cases beyond those that will now sit with the magistrates, in which the sentence would be more than 18 months and up to three years. However, I believe it must be left to our magistrates and judiciary to make the appropriate determination. \p Carla Lockhart: We are supposed to have a legal system we are proud of, and the purpose of jury service is to ensure a fair and impartial justice system. Although there are dire backlogs in Crown court hearings in England, as well as delays in Northern Ireland, would the Lord Chancellor consider other options—such as fully funding and resourcing the system to address backlogs—as opposed to removing a civic obligation that people in this country believe in and have upheld for the sake of a fair judicial system? \p David Lammy: The evidence is in Sir Brian’s review. This is an independent review, and I will read once again what Sir Brian has said:

“it is important to underline that greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.” \p Nadia Whittome: I welcome the £550 million investment in victims, but trial by a jury of your peers is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system in this country. Court backlogs are a serious problem—I know that first hand—but the evidence shows that this is because of issues such as a chronic lack of funding, rather than the use of juries. Surely the Secretary of State can see that it would be a grave error to erode a principle that has stood the test of hundreds of years and is widely regarded as producing the fairest outcomes, including by his own 2017 review, all for the sake of time-saving and cost-saving measures that might in practice save neither time nor cost. \p David Lammy: I recognise the sincerity of my hon. Friend’s remarks, but I have really reflected on what Sir Brian has said. There is no silver bullet in this area—I am not suggesting that the changes we are making to the threshold for a jury trial will fix this entire problem. It will take more investment, and we are making that investment. It will take modernisation, particularly in relation to transcripts and audio, but it will also take reform. We have reformed the criminal justice system in the past; we can do so again in a way that is fair and right for everybody. \p Gagan Mohindra: In the event that a volunteer magistrate makes a mistake and jails someone for two years, that person’s automatic right to a rehearing will have been removed. Can the Justice Secretary confirm whether he believes this is efficiency, or just easier wrongful imprisonment? \p David Lammy: Of course that person would get permission to appeal if the circumstances were legally correct. \p Warinder Juss: I welcome the proposals to tackle the court backlogs and delays, which the previous Government did nothing to address. Will the Secretary of State please confirm that this Government will preserve the sanctity of jury trials, and that the proposed changes relate only to some either-way offences—those that are considered to be less serious and can therefore be properly dealt with by magistrates, who already deal with 90% of criminal cases? \p David Lammy: Yes, I can. For every victim of a crime, the crime is serious, but the decisions that I am announcing at the Dispatch Box are about the length of sentences—about asking our magistrates to go up from one year to 18 months, and asking the new division in the Crown courts to deal with sentences of 18 months to three years. \p Sarah Pochin: Does the Secretary of State not agree that his policy of abolishing trial by jury in all but the most serious cases undermines the whole foundation of law and order in this country, and risks the further politicisation of our judicial system, with judges acting alone as the state and no longer being held to account by the people in the form of a jury? \p David Lammy: No, I do not. \p Catherine Atkinson: Victims are waiting for years for their cases to go to trial. Christmas after Christmas, they are unable to heal or move on. The backlog of cases is now a record 78,000, and it was growing under the Conservative Government before the covid pandemic. Does the Secretary of State find the hypocrisy and faux outrage of the Conservative Opposition as galling as I do, given that reform is needed to clear up the mess that they made of our criminal justice system? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend has put it very well. As I have said, it worried me when the shadow Justice Secretary did not mention victims at all, and he did not talk about the Conservatives’ record in office, either. Much has been said about further investment, but behind those questions is the suggestion that we should ask victims to wait for another decade for it, and I do not think we can do that. \p Siân Berry: I appreciate the focus on victims, but has the Secretary of State considered the risks of removing juries when charges involve state or corporate victims if we are to preserve dissent, whistleblowing and protest? Given that big concerns have been raised about representation among judges, is he concerned about the potential for damaging attacks on, and politicisation of, individual judges and their decisions? \p David Lammy: We must protect our judges, and there is a climate of increased concern about their security because of statements—some of them made in the House—that would undermine the independence of our judiciary. \p Kim Johnson: The proposed new “swift courts” will mean that decisions regarding guilt will be made by judges alone, who will have received vital, inadmissible and potentially prejudicial evidence. Can the Secretary of State assure us that judges’ decisions are not influenced by inadmissible evidence, given the significant consequences for both victims and defendants involved in cases that are no longer eligible for jury trials? If this policy goes ahead, will he consider a non-extendable sunset clause? \p David Lammy: I am grateful for that question, and I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about evidence, but as I have said, I do not believe that a sunset clause would be right in this area because of the demand and the complexity to which Sir Brian has referred, and also because legislation will take some time. I hope to see the backlog reducing by the next election, but I do believe that these changes have to be permanent. \p Martin Vickers: Tony Blair’s Administration put forward similar proposals, but were eventually forced to abandon them, thanks to opposition in the House and beyond. A similar coalition of opposition appears to be building up yet again. On the reply that the Justice Secretary has just given, may I urge him to reconsider the sunset clause, which might be the only way that he can get these proposals through the House? \p David Lammy: I came out of practice at the beginning of the Tony Blair period, and the number of cases then was nowhere near what it is now. There was no backlog—cases could come on within a year—so the circumstances were vastly different, and we did not then commission a lengthy review to look at all these issues in the way we have today. \p Harpreet Uppal: In September, I attended a roundtable meeting with survivors of child sexual exploitation, hosted by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, and one of the key issues that they raised was the delays in court proceedings. It is unacceptable that perpetrators are not being brought to justice more quickly. I welcome these reforms, but how will we ensure that court delays are reduced as much as possible and perpetrators are brought to justice as quickly as possible? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right. Implementing the recommendations, moving to legislation as soon as we can, continued investment in the court system, the concordat, and my obligation to bring about more sitting days are all important, as is the modernisation of our courts through, for instance, the use of AI and technology throughout the system. The discussion today is about our criminal courts, but we also need investment in our civil and family courts. \p Adnan Hussain: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a practising barrister and a law firm owner.

Our centuries-old right to jury trial is not an ornament of the past. It is the living guarantee of a fair trial. It is the safeguard that ensures that no citizen is judged except by their peers. It is the cornerstone of our legal heritage, and the bedrock of public confidence in criminal justice. It must not be curtailed for administrative convenience, and let us be clear: curtailing jury trials will not cut the backlog, or, if it does, it will simply shift that backlog straight to the appeal courts. Why, then, have the Government chosen not to prioritise court capacity, judicial recruitment and proper case-management reform, but instead to curtail jury trials? \p David Lammy: We are doing all of it, I would say. I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman and his experience as a criminal practitioner, and of course I have heard a great many messages over the last few days from friends of mine who are at the Bar or are criminal legal aid solicitors. Change is hard, but the Government’s responsibility is to look at the whole system and at all that has been said, and to put victims at the centre. What I am not hearing in the Chamber from those who oppose what we are doing is what else can be done. What I am hearing is, “More money might fix this problem.” Sir Brian has made it clear that investment alone will not fix the problem, and it is not acceptable to ask victims to wait another decade for that investment to kick in. \p Rachel Hopkins: I welcome the news that the Government will match-fund criminal barrister pupillages, and I agree that there should be a focus on opening up a career at the criminal Bar to even more young people from across society and from all socioeconomic backgrounds. What  additional plans does the Lord Chancellor have to make law a more accessible sector for young people from all backgrounds? \p David Lammy: The day I was called to the Bar, back in the mid-1990s, was a huge moment in my life. I came from a working-class, poorer background, raised by a single mother, and I am deeply saddened that over the last few years young people from all backgrounds have been put off from becoming criminal legal aid solicitors or barristers. We must do something about that, and I have found the money not only to raise fees for barristers and other lawyers in this area, but also to ensure that the next generation of lawyers comes through. I hope that is not lost in some of the misconceptions about jury trials. \p Joe Robertson: The Justice Secretary blames the court backlog on a reduction in funding by the past Government, yet he plans to reduce access to jury trials permanently. Is not the truth of it that he does not want to fund courts because his Government have prioritised welfare for the few over justice for the many? \p David Lammy: No. Absolutely not. We are implementing and building on the work of Sir Brian Leveson, and we are determined to bring the backlog down. It takes investment, it reform and modernisation. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. Residents in my constituency of Harlow are rightly concerned about the court backlog. Waiting six years for justice is not justice. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that these changes will bring down the court backlog, and can he reassure us that for the major crimes he spoke about, there will still be trial by jury? \p David Lammy: I can confirm that the jury remains the cornerstone of our system, and must do for obvious reasons. I want to see the backlog coming down, but this is a mountain to climb, and that is why I have said that I want reductions by the next general election. The trend at the moment is upwards, and we have to throw everything at the problem if we are to solve it. \p Will Forster: I have previously raised the case of my Woking constituent Dani, a victim of grooming and sexual abuse, who is having to wait more than six years for justice. Although I am concerned about these proposals from the Justice Secretary, I and others can probably be convinced if they do genuinely put the victims first without undermining our justice system. To persuade me, please will he agree to publish the impact assessment in full and let the Justice Committee fully scrutinise these proposals before a Bill is introduced? \p David Lammy: As the hon. Member would expect, there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation, and full scrutiny of these proposals both in this place and in the other place. I just say to him: listen to victims’ voices today, to our Victims’ Commissioner, and to the groups that support victims. They support these proposals because they know that, combined, they are our best attempt to recalibrate the system and bring it back to where it should be. \p Robin Swann: Justice is devolved to Northern Ireland, with the exception of the regulation of non-jury trials. On 9 June, the then Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said in a Committee of this place on the extension of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland that

“the Secretary of State has asked officials over the next two years to examine how Northern Ireland could move away from those provisions”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 9 June 2025; c. 5.]

Is that still the Government’s mind? \p David Lammy: Northern Ireland is of course in a special and unique position on this issue, and I am happy to get the appropriate Minister to meet the hon. Member and any colleagues to discuss these issues. \p Alison Bennett: I am hoping that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Justice Secretary can rule out any changes to inquests with a jury, which are required when the deceased has been detained by the state. These inquests are also subject to agonising delays for bereaved families. Given those delays, what plans does he have to address backlogs in the coroner’s court? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful for the question, and I can rule that out. I am happy to have a Minister discuss with the hon. Member what we are doing in the coroner’s court. \p Ayoub Khan: I declare an interest as a practising criminal barrister. Before the Justice Secretary tears up clause 39 of Magna Carta, which guaranteed that no free person shall be imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of their peers, I ask him to consider that, when I was in the Crown court in Birmingham only a few weeks ago, a matter was delayed and adjourned because we did not have courtroom availability, so eliminating jurors will not solve the backlog in the way he has described, but it will erode public confidence in the principles that have protected our justice system for over 800 years. I accept that justice delayed is justice denied, but I am sure that he understands that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that can only be done through juries. \p David Lammy: The hon. Member accepts that justice delayed is justice denied, but then does not come up with a solution. Does he respect Sir Brian Leveson and his work? Does he recognise that it is important that we reform the system, so that it is fit for purpose and for the next generation? Does he accept—he must, as a criminal practitioner—the huge demand, and the changes that we have seen in criminal practice since I qualified as a lawyer 30 years ago? Of course he does. \p Jim Allister: Having spent my professional life practising in the criminal courts in Northern Ireland, where we have had both jury trials and non-jury trials to deal with terrorist offences, I must say to the Justice Secretary that whatever the intellectual capacity of judges, they do not have the practical life experience of 12 jurors collectively, and that is what brings superior credibility to a jury verdict. Dissipating juries will strain the quality of our justice, particularly  in circumstances where the presiding judge will have to decide on the admissibility of evidence, and then put from his mind evidence that he might have dismissed when reaching a verdict, but none the less convey to the public that justice has been seen to be done? \p David Lammy: I am hugely respectful of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s experience in these areas. We do ask our judges to make life-changing decisions across a whole range of areas. I am the father of an adopted daughter, and believe me, there is no greater decision someone can make than to take a child away from its birth parents. Judges do have to make difficult judgments, and they do so with the assistance of those who give evidence before them. So I believe we can do this, and I just ask him to reflect on the three-year threshold and the sorts of crimes about which we are asking our magistracy and our judges to make those fine judgments. \p Iqbal Mohamed: The previous Government should hang their head in shame for leaving our judicial system—the courts, the backlog and the prison system—in such disarray. A 2022 survey of 373 legal professionals, conducted by barrister Keir Monteith KC and the University of Manchester, found that 56% of respondents had witnessed at least one judge acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant, while 52% had witnessed discrimination in judicial decision making, and concluded that there is

“institutional racism in the justice system”.

Given that the Justice Secretary now seeks to remove juries, does he foresee greater injustice, prejudice and racial discrimination in our courtrooms, and what steps is he taking to tackle the existing and likely increase in institutional racism? \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman knows that the former Prime Minister David Cameron and the former Justice Secretary Michael Gove asked me to conduct the Lammy review. In that review, I recommended that training, which was not happening in the way it should, should happen, and it is now happening. I was concerned about the diversity of our judiciary and our magistracy. That has improved, but there is more to do. In London, for example, 31% of our magistrates are now from an ethnic minority background. It is also important that, with the changes we are making, we will now get a judge’s reasoning, which lawyers such as those on the Back Benches can challenge. Where we have a jury, we do not get the reasoning, which I think is important as we look at issues of accountability. \p Kieran Mullan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the questioning, the Justice Secretary referred to the Victims’ Commissioner supporting these proposals. For the record, will he make it clear that, sadly, the Victims’ Commissioner passed away a number of weeks ago and cannot possibly have seen these proposals? He may have been referring to the incoming Victims’ Commissioner, who starts in January, but the statement she has released today makes no reference to the Justice Secretary’s proposals on changes to jury trials. I wonder if he might have inadvertently misled the House about that. \p David Lammy: rose— \p Judith Cummins: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the Secretary of State wants to respond. \p David Lammy: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to clarify, I did discuss these proposals with the incoming Victims’ Commissioner. Today, an event on violence against women has been held at No. 10 with many victims organisations. From them and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—she is in her place to make the next statement—there is a wide welcome for these proposals. \p Judith Cummins: That concludes the statement. \p Judith Cummins: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025

Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 \p Jess Phillips: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Angiolini inquiry.

I cannot begin anywhere else than with acknowledging the abhorrent crime that led to the establishment of this important inquiry in the first place. Sarah Everard’s murder by a serving police officer was a betrayal of trust so wretched that it defies belief. None of us will ever forget the collective sense of sorrow, outrage and revulsion that swept across the country in the aftermath. There were far-reaching implications for policing and the public’s confidence in those who are meant to serve and protect our communities. Let us always remember that this began with a young woman losing her life: a beloved daughter, sister and friend gone because of an act of pure evil. Today, I am thinking of Sarah, of the years denied to her and of her loved ones. They are all in our hearts, as are the other victims of violence against women and girls who have lost their lives. As the Justice Secretary said, I have been with some of them this morning and we hold them—I am sure I speak for the whole House—very closely in our hearts.

Part 1 of the Angiolini inquiry focused on the career and conduct of Sarah’s killer, while part 2 was commissioned to examine broader issues in relation to policing and the safety of women. The first of two reports that will make up part 2 of the inquiry has been laid before the House and published today. It examines what more can be done to prevent sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces. The report starkly highlights that many women do not feel safe due to the actions and behaviours of predatory men, and that they are assuming the burden of their own protection themselves through avoidance measures such as not going out at night, avoiding dark streets and modifying their use of public transport. This is, as we all know, utterly unacceptable. As the inquiry chair, Lady Elish Angiolini, puts it so clearly in the report:

“Somehow, we have simply come to accept that many women do not feel safe walking in their streets.”

This is a substantial and significant report, and I urge all Members to read it in full. It acknowledges that there is a range of ongoing work which seeks to prevent these terrible crimes and disrupt predators, but it also highlights that there is no quick fix and demands a more consistent approach across the whole of society to address and prevent this violence.

At this point, I would like to place on record my heartfelt thanks to Lady Elish and her team for their work. They have approached, and continue to approach, their task with skill, sensitivity and determination. Today’s publication underlines why it is so vital that every agency and every sector does more to protect women from harm. This Government are resolute: the fact that women do not feel safe going about their everyday lives is a national emergency. The House will also be aware of our landmark commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, which will require us to address the root causes of abuse and violence to prevent offending and relentlessly pursue those who perpetrate these appalling crimes.

Since the general election, we have played a more active role to ensure that women and girls receive more consistent protection from policing. We have provided £13.1 million to deliver a more co-ordinated approach and national leadership to drive up investigative and operational standards through the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection. The new centre is ensuring that expertise, including from programmes such as Operation Soteria and Project Vigilant, is put into practice in forces across the country. They were both highlighted in Lady Angiolini’s report. We are also clear that those who commit these heinous crimes have absolutely no place in policing. To address that, and to help fulfil recommendations from part 1 of the inquiry, we are putting police vetting standards on a statutory footing, which will enable forces to exclude those with a caution or conviction for VAWG offences from policing. We are also strengthening requirements on forces to suspend officers under investigation for these crimes.

I know there is a great deal of interest in our upcoming VAWG strategy. I was in No. 10 with the Prime Minister and stakeholders working on it today. It will deliver a bold step change in how we, as a Government and a society, address VAWG over the next decade. As the inquiry’s report highlights, we cannot address entrenched issues in isolation. We must draw on all of society and I place emphasis on this being a truly cross-Government strategy. Prevention is fundamental to our approach, alongside strengthening our response to target perpetrators and stop them causing harm. Having lived and breathed its development over several months, I am as eager as everyone else to get it out there. It will undoubtedly answer some of the issues raised in this important report. It is on its way very soon and I am confident that it will live up to expectations.

As Lady Elish highlights, too little has been done to deliver consistent protections for women and girls, and progress has fallen short. We find ourselves at a moment of reckoning. As someone who has spent their working life trying to secure real lasting change, I know it will not be easy, but in honour of the victims and their families, and for the sake of women and girls across England and Wales, we must succeed. This Government will not stop until we have. I commend the statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Matt Vickers: I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and for coming to the House to speak to the incredibly disturbing and damaging issues outlined in today’s report.

Over four years ago, the reprehensible abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard shocked us all. It forced the police to confront their failure to remove Wayne Couzens as a police officer. The crime was vile and abhorrent, extinguishing the life of an incredible young lady in the most awful way. We should never forget the impact of this crime, with Sarah’s mother describing the final hours of her life as a constant   torment to the family. I know that Sarah, her family and her friends remain in the thoughts of the whole House and people across the country today.

This incident underlines our responsibility to confront not only the problems outlined in this case, but to go beyond any single evil person and tackle challenges in our police and society more widely. Sarah’s murder had a profound effect on women. As the report outlines, women changed their travel plans, their routines and their lives out of fear for their safety. I am sure the whole House will agree that that is simply not acceptable. This reflection is critical. We will always support the police and have advocated the need to give them the powers required to tackle crime in our society. However, that support is predicated on a deep responsibility that extends beyond the responsibilities to which many in our society are bound. As the code of practice for ethical policing notes:

“Effective policing is built on public trust and confidence. This depends on a policing profession that is ethical and professional in the way that it respects, listens, responds, improves and serves the public.”

As the Minister will be aware, the terms of reference for part 2 were set and published in May 2023 by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). The scope appropriately asked the Government to cover the three broad areas set out by the Minister today: recruitment and vetting; police culture and standards; and the prevention of sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces. The report highlights our responsibility to ensure that women and girls feel safe in public spaces, where there is clearly a significant gap today. The Minister, in her role, rightly mentions some of the steps the Government are taking to tackle violence against women and girls. In that spirit, I recognise the important steps taken by the previous Government, which brought forward Operation Soteria, a programme highlighted by Lady Elish in her statement this morning, which sought to radically transform the way the police and the Crown Prosecution Service investigate rape, and which I understand the Government are implementing the principles of in training. This was among a range of other measures set out when the first part was published, but as was acknowledged we need to go much, much further. Therefore, I hope the Minister can follow through on what she outlined today and ensure that the violence against women and girls strategy is published, having been delayed over the past year.

The Minister’s statement does not mention the use of data, a point the report suggests is lacking. Can she provide assurances that the Government, in the strategy, will have a comprehensive plan for implementing better data recording, encompassing and publishing a wider array of data pertaining to violence against women and girls?

As shadow Policing Minister, I would also reflect on what we can do at speed to instil trust within the public that the police will tackle this problem. The dreadful murder of Sarah Everard did huge damage to public trust in the police, especially among young women. In particular, I refer to the proposals around officer vetting and conduct, which I expect to be raised in the second half of the report. The truth is that, for a variety of reasons that the Minister and I can both acknowledge, the measures to bring forward changes to our vetting  and dismissal procedures have not been implemented at sufficient speed. Will the Minister therefore discuss with her ministerial colleagues the need to implement the changes swiftly once the legislation is passed?

The inquiry report demonstrates the necessity of tackling violence against women and girls in our public spaces. Unfortunately, we know that there are survivors of grooming gangs who were failed by the police and local authorities, often in plain sight. I therefore implore the Minister to provide answers about the terms of reference and timings of the grooming gangs inquiry, and to ensure that there is justice for all those affected by these heinous crimes.

Additionally, I ask the Minister about her level of confidence in implementing the recommendations set out in Lady Elish Angiolini’s report today. As Lady Elish rightly highlighted, this is a “whole-society” issue that requires a whole-society response. The Minister has herself highlighted some of the challenges in achieving cross-Government responses to the violence against women and girls strategy. I hope that she will now be able to drive forward the change needed to protect women and girls. \p Jess Phillips: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tone and his genuinely constructive questioning. The first thing to say is that, absolutely, Operation Soteria started under the previous Government—I worked on it alongside Ministers, as well as police forces, at the time—and in that spirit, I always welcome such cross-party working. It seems that Operation Soteria has been a game changer, as Lady Elish’s review certainly highlights. The review also states that it needs to be on a consistent footing, so we very much hope that putting it in the new centre will provide consistent footing to the very good work started under the previous Government, which I absolutely give them credit for.

On the issue of data, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What data we measure and how data needs to be improved will absolutely be part of the strategy. The Government have said that they are going to halve violence against women and girls within a decade—the first time that any Government have tried to put any numbers on it—and we cannot have numbers unless we have a lot of data, so looking at data will be very important.

The hon. Gentleman highlights the issue, which Lady Elish herself talks about, that progress has not been fast enough. The recommendations for the Government in the previous report are being undertaken, but a clear issue throughout the report is the nature of the 43 police forces, as everybody will see when they read it. One of the reasons for having the new national centre for violence against women and girls is to try and do something about that. We also need fundamental reform with regard to policing and standards, so that we do not end up with a postcode lottery across our country. The Home Secretary has already announced some reforms around police and crime commissioners, but broader policing reforms will be coming in the new year, for the exact reason that Lady Elish outlines, which is the postcode lottery across police forces. How confident am I? I am always confident that we will undertake as much as possible. That will never be as fast as I or anyone would like it to be, because this is hard work,  and we cannot just change things for good announcements. We have to change the culture, and that is going to take a lot. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. \p Sarah Owen: I echo the statements made by both the Minister and the shadow Minister with regard to Sarah Everard’s loved ones; our thoughts are with them today. For any victim to come forward, especially those who have experienced gender-based violence or sexual violence, the public must trust the police—and more than they do currently. The Angiolini inquiry found that a quarter of police forces lack even basic policies for investigating sexual offences. As trust and transparency hopefully improve and increase, so will the number of reports to the police. Will that impact how the Government measure the halving of violence against women and girls? Will the Minister also share progress on vetting to remove police officers who pose a threat to the public? \p Jess Phillips: Obviously, it was a manifesto commitment of this Government to ensure that there were specialist RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—teams in every police force, for the exact reason that my hon. Friend has outlined. It is not in the gift of Ministers standing here to ensure that something exists in every police force, because—quite rightly—of operational independence. However, there is a need for standardisation. For example, we would not allow the same lack of standardisation in response to terrorism—a point that Lady Elish makes in her review—and yet we allow it with regard to crimes against women. That is fundamental. Of course, I want to see an increase in police charging and police reporting, but that is not how we will measure whether we are decreasing incidents. Only 10% of victims of violence against women and girls ever talk to the police, so that in and of itself would never be a good measure. Of course, I want to see rates increasing, but that does not mean that the crime is always going up; it might just mean we are getting better at detecting it. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Max Wilkinson: All our thoughts today will be with the family of Sarah Everard. More than four years on from her horrific murder, too many women are still suffering life-changing crimes on our streets. The inquiry makes it painfully clear that women continue to feel unsafe. They change their daily routines just to avoid very real threats. That is unacceptable in Britain today.

Part one of the inquiry showed that Wayne Couzens should never have been allowed to become a police officer. Multiple opportunities to stop a dangerous sexual predator were missed or ignored. As Lady Elish Angiolini warned, without radical action,

“there is nothing to stop another Couzens operating in plain sight.”

Today’s report underlines just how radical that action must be. The lack of basic data on sexually motivated crimes against women and the fact that over a quarter of forces still lack fundamental policies for investigating sexual offences are nothing short of horrifying. The inquiry finds that sexually motivated crimes against  women in public are not prioritised to the same extent as other serious offences. We are told that prevention “remains just words” while perpetrators slip through the cracks. Those are shocking findings that shame our nation.

Will the Minister commit to implementing all 13 of Lady Angiolini’s recommendations, and will she set out a timeline for their implementation? This Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, yet the strategy has still not been published. Will the Minister reassure us that this manifesto promise will be met, as she has said? Will she tell us today when it will be published? She says it will be soon; I think people will be reassured by a date. \p Jess Phillips: Okay, I will say “very soon”—that is the answer to that. When all hon. Members get to read Lady Elish’s full report, as I have—I obviously get it sooner—they will see that she particularly criticises Ministers or the police service standing up after part one of the report and saying, “Yes, we will just do everything,” and then going away and thinking, “Hang on—a bit of this, a bit of that.” I am going to give Lady Elish the respect that she deserves by taking away all the recommendations before I say exactly what I am going to do. When others get to read the strategy—I was interviewed by Lady Elish as part of this review—it will answer many of the questions in the report. The timing is awkward: had the strategy come out at the same time, I would be able to answer the question more fully. But Lady Elish deserves the respect of our actually looking at what is possible, rather than just going, “Yes, I will take them all,” and then not being able to deliver on them. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for this statement and join colleagues in their remarks about Sarah Everard’s family. Her mother is quoted in The Guardian as saying that she is still “tormented” by the horror of what her daughter suffered at the hands of Wayne Couzens. I think too of the many other victims who have suffered at the hands of men and boys, including, as the Minister knows, and as I have referenced, Elianne Andam and Johanita Dogbey. Meeting a family who are grieving the loss of their daughter, sister, mother or friend—there are no words, especially when we think of the horrific way those women were killed.

The extracts from the report that I have read make for difficult reading. I know that this is an area that the Minister is very committed to. Lady Angiolini says that sexual offenders should be banned from the police, but this has not happened. She also says that there is a troubling lack of momentum, funding and ambition for this prevention work. That is worrying. As mentioned by the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, a quarter of police forces have still not implemented the most basic policies in this really key area. It does make for troubling reading.

One of the other troubling things mentioned in the report is the connection with online abuse—it is not just in a physical atmosphere that women are getting abused. Can the Minister shed more light on how we are going to really tackle the disgraceful misogyny and abuse that women face online? \p Jess Phillips: We owe it to Sarah and to Sarah’s family, and to every family in our own constituencies that we have met, to ensure that this work actually gets done. I hear my hon. Friend’s anger at what progress has been made. Obviously this Labour Government will legislate and are putting on a statutory footing the issues around vetting, with what can and cannot be allowed and who can and cannot be a police officer, and hopefully that will lead to a sea change. I have to say, though, that the idea that there are police forces in this country that are not undertaking the most basic work in this space, with what Lady Angiolini has found about numbers, is inexcusable. I say to every chief constable in the country that this is a priority—make it a priority. I say that from this Dispatch Box with as much power as possible and with the Home Office behind me. Of course the Home Office has a role, and of course funding on things like prevention is absolutely the responsibility of the Government, but the basics of keeping women safe—we are more than half the population—should be absolutely basic policing. \p Saqib Bhatti: I associate myself with the remarks of everybody who has paid tribute to Sarah Everard and her family. I remember where I was when I heard the news; I know that it shook many of my constituents, as it shook all of us. The Minister says that in the spirit of respecting Lady Elish, she is going to go away and look at the recommendations in detail. The question of funding has been raised by women’s charities. Does she think she has enough money to do this now, or is she going to need more? I am sure we will support her on that. \p Jess Phillips: Do I think I will get enough money? Any Minister who stands before the House and says yes to that question is lying. Look, I would, of course, always want more money, but actually there are fundamental problems in our system and in the culture of organisations that more money will not solve. Take us having more police—we have more police now, let us say, than we did 100 years ago, and that has not stopped this happening. There are absolutely fundamental things that need to change. I suppose I am here for a long time, not a good time, in that regard. We have to change absolute fundamentals.

When the Justice Secretary was here before me giving his statement, he announced the £550 million—half a billion pounds—three-year settlement for victims funding, which will increase year on year with the rising rates of inflation. I was very heartened to hear that level of security and those increases. Do I think I will have as much as I would want? Never. Do I think I will have enough and that I will make do? Yes, I do. \p Stella Creasy: I think all our hearts will have been broken by the words of Sarah Everard’s family. The honest truth is that what this report covers did not happen in a vacuum. This weekend women in Walthamstow will hold a vigil to reclaim Hollow Ponds, which is a lovely open space, but there have been repeated concerns about sexual harassment and offences there. I cannot tell the Minister whether those concerns are merited, because my local police, Waltham Forest police, have refused a freedom of information request about the number of crime reports or offences at the site, just as they refused an FOI to  explain why they were using community protection notices to deal with violence against women offences. I mention FOIs because the police refused to respond to me, as the local MP, and to local women about how they are dealing with violence on our streets and concerns about street safety, which Lady Angiolini includes in her report.

There is a problem with the Metropolitan police. We have known that for many years, and many reports show that. That is why for many years, many of us have campaigned to make misogyny part of our hate crime rubric, because we have seen the difference it has made to how other police forces approach these issues. The Minister will be aware that it is now nearly three years since this House passed the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 to bring those measures into power and finally hold organisations like Waltham Forest police to account for their disrespect for the safety of women in my community. Can the Minister give my residents some assurance that misogyny will be implemented as a hate crime and that we will see the cultural change that will tackle the fundamentals she is talking about? \p Jess Phillips: I only wish that writing things on to the statute book changed the culture—it has been illegal to rape someone for quite some time, and it has been illegal to murder for even longer. I only wish that simply putting things on to the statute book made a difference. I would say to my hon. Friend’s police force that I always encourage good communications, including with the women involved. Policing is based on consent, and that is something we hold dear in our country. I implore the police to have discussions with my hon. Friend and the local community—about the community’s concerns and about what the police are going to do. I have seen this work all over the country. Project Vigilant by Thames Valley police is a brilliant example of work done with local businesses and local women’s groups to do exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about; I implore her force to implement a similar scheme.

My hon. Friend mentions the use of community protection notices. In her review, Elish Angiolini has some interesting things to say about what police should be doing in public spaces using certain orders, so I ask my hon. Friend to have a look at some of those things. We will be talking in the violence against women and girls strategy about some of the issues that she has raised today. However, as I have said, just putting things on the statute book does not necessarily mean that, operationally, they will be brilliant. My job is to make sure that before I commence anything, it can actually work in practice. \p Sarah Dyke: I associate myself with the comments from across the House today. My thoughts are with Sarah Everard’s family and all those whose lives have been impacted by violence against women and girls.

The landmark 2019 study into rural domestic violence found that abuse in rural areas lasts longer, is more complex and is harder to tackle, while the policing response in those areas is largely inadequate. Years later, the figures do not suggest any significant improvement in outcomes for victims and survivors in rural areas. At a time when stresses faced by farmers could see victims  left trapped in isolated rural communities, how will the refreshed violence against women and girls strategy improve outcomes for victims in rural areas? \p Jess Phillips: Although I am an expert in this particular field, I am by no means an expert on rural communities, with the disparity and the need for better “by and for” services; we have “by and for” services for other under-represented communities. I really feel that there needs to be a considerably greater lobby around rurality and violence against women and girls; I am not the person to do this, so I implore the hon. Lady to act. I am totally here to hear it and to work alongside her, because what she says is absolutely the case.

On the idea that stresses faced by a particular community cause violence against women and girls, I must point out, though, that the vast majority of people face stresses in their lives—and the vast majority of men—do not go on to abuse. The causes of violence against women and girls—Lady Elish points out there is little prevention, and I very much hope to change that; that is my main focus—are actually rooted in something quite different. \p Pam Cox: I welcome the work of the Angiolini inquiry into the appalling murder of Sarah Everard. I also welcome the Minister’s update on the Government’s strategy to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. She knows that representatives from four Select Committees met recently to help to do our bit to advance that work, and she can be assured of our support with it. Can she indicate what kind of implementation and engagement will follow the publication of the strategy? \p Jess Phillips: I can give an example from this morning, when I met around 60 stakeholders from organisations that work with children, with women and girls, and with perpetrators—lots of civil society organisations and businesses. We were in Downing Street with the Prime Minister, but it was not an event that was about drinking warm wine and eating nibbles; it was a working event to look at how we actually implement things. I know that people criticise the delay in the strategy, and that is fair enough, but the strategy is a piece of paper. How we actually make it work is much more important to me, and that is why we are working on it with stakeholders and providers. I genuinely welcome engagement with Members in this House, but I have learned something over the years; if you don’t mind me saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have felt slightly gaslit when people tell me that the sky is blue but then every case I handle tells me something else. \p Julian Lewis: The House is rightly united in horror at what happened to Sarah Everard and in sympathy for her family.

Returning to an earlier exchange about vetting, which I understand will be coming up in the next stage of the Angiolini process, can the Minister tell us whether it will examine the effect of extreme pornography online and of toxic masculinity influencers online, and whether there is any prospect that a vetting process would enable people to be, at the time of recruitment, spotted as having watched this stuff and commented favourably on it, even on the dark web? \p Jess Phillips: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. In part 1 of the Angiolini inquiry, Lady Elish made recommendations with regard to psychological testing prior to police recruitment, based on that exact issue. She also references heavily in this part 2 report Baroness Bertin’s review into violent and misogynistic pornography. This absolutely is an issue. The police faithfully said that they would undertake all of the part 1 report recommendations, and the next stage is to look not just at Wayne Couzens and vetting but at the case of David Carrick and his vetting as well. Undoubtedly, Lady Elish is already thinking about psychology in this regard, and it is at the forefront of her mind. \p Jennifer Craft: I would also like to extend my sympathies to the family of Sarah Everard.

Like many people, I found that my trust in the police service was fundamentally shaken by the events that led up to Sarah Everard’s murder. That was reinforced later when I saw how badly the vigil was handled—or mishandled—by the Metropolitan police and how women who had gathered to grieve and show their solidarity and support for Sarah Everard’s family were treated compared with how a football celebration, predominantly attended by men, was policed. It filled me with rage, shook my trust and made me question who the police are operating for and whether they take seriously the concerns of women, particularly of women who face violence and sexual abuse.

Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have heard far too often from my own constituents that when they have approached the police, particularly with complaints about coercive control, they have felt dismissed, not listened to and not taken seriously. Will the upcoming violence against women and girls strategy look at the root cause of violence against women and girls, which is rampant misogyny in our institutions and society? \p Jess Phillips: With regard to my hon. Friend’s comments on trust in policing, what I would say is that nobody dislikes a bad copper like a good copper. When I go all over the country, the ones I meet are the those who are doing innovative and brilliant things in their local police forces—that is why I go out and see them. To her comments about the women in her constituency, the women who I have worked with do not have any choice but to trust the police, as it is a life-and-death situation.

The best thing that we can do across the board to improve trust in policing is to make sure that the response to the crimes highlighted by my hon. Friend is good and responsive. We are not going to get what we want in every single case—where somebody gets thrown in prison—but we have to make sure that our systems have options for safety and security for every woman wherever they come forward. That is what the violence against women and girls strategy is about. \p Tristan Osborne: May I join colleagues across the House in saying that our thoughts are with the family of Sarah Everard? I also thank Lady Elish for her inquiry and the part 2 report published today.

The Public Accounts Committee recently conducted an inquiry that looked at the National Audit Office report on policing around the country. We found that  there is a total inconsistency across all forces when it comes not only to data metrics but to how they deal with and interact with such cases. Is the Minister working closely with the Minister for Policing on the forthcoming policing reform legislation in order to ensure that there is consistency across all forces so that we can deal with this problem head-on and not allow forces to get away with piecemeal and different approaches across our country? \p Jess Phillips: The Minister for Policing is in the office right next to mine. I get up in literally everybody’s grill, but I am very welcome in her office. Policing reform has to be rooted in exactly what we are trying to do around violence against women and girls, because the issue is endemic, as are other failings to do with postcode lotteries across the country. I am heavily involved in the violence against women and girls strategy, which will also coalesce with policing reform. \p Paul Waugh: Like many Members, my thoughts today are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard.

Sexual predators like Wayne Couzens and David Carrick were a disgrace to the police uniform that they wore. As the Minister has said, I know that many police officers were as disgusted by those crimes as members of the public were and believe that they should never have been allowed in the police force in the first place.

In Rochdale, we are lucky to have police members of our multi-agency Sunrise Team, which does fantastic work in the area of complex safeguarding with victims of grooming, domestic violence, and any kind of sexual assault and crime. I recommend that other forces look at Rochdale to see how we have learned and how our forces have improved services for women.

Lady Elish’s report highlights, shockingly, that 26% of forces do not have basic services when it comes to investigating sexual assault, as well as the severe under-funding by the last Government in this area. I am proud that this Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls. Can the Minister reassure me that funding will be there under this Government and that the findings of the report will inform her forthcoming strategy? \p Jess Phillips: The findings of the report will absolutely inform the strategy. I do speak to Lady Elish—but I am not waiting for Lady Elish’s various reports to do things or not. I cannot wait for reports if something absolutely needs to be done. With regard to policing in Rochdale, I will ensure that the new National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection looks into what my hon. Friend mentions.

I look across the country at areas where police forces may have historically had quite public failings—as with the case of Sarah Everard—and it is really good to see the level of learning that there has been in lots of those places, but we want to see more. I only wish that we did not wait for terrible tragedies and total failings before we changed, so I stand again at this Dispatch Box and implore every agency and police force across the country to stretch every muscle to prioritise this issue. \p Sam Carling: I hope that after the statement, we will all go away and check whether our police forces are in that 26% who still do not have those basic policies in place and, if that is  the case, seek to address it. The statistics on young women as victims of these crimes are particularly shocking. Will the Minister outline more about what we will do about that specifically, and say whether the upcoming strategy will include measures to combat the rise in misogyny among young men? \p Jess Phillips: I do not want to give too many trails on the strategy, but yes. For a long time, I have spent my career trying to put nicer, better plasters on cuts that do not get any smaller. That work is vital, but I want to stop the cuts from happening—I do not want to make nicer plasters any more—and that means doing things that have never been done before. Lady Elish said brilliantly in the report that plenty of things have been allowed, whether in policing or other areas, to try to make progress without the need for a completely solid evidence base. I want that for this area. \p John Slinger: Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry notes that women and girls do not feel safe in public spaces due to the behaviour of predatory men. Does the Minister agree that “predatory” does not just mean following, stalking or attempting unwanted physical contact, and that it must be expanded to include leering, staring and catcalling? That behaviour is also predatory and it negatively impacts women and girls, as those in my constituency have told me. Does she further agree that of course we need more enforcement, but in particular we need better education of boys and men from an early age and for them to call out the behaviour of other boys and men—something that the White Ribbon campaign advocates brilliantly? \p Jess Phillips: It certainly does. There will not be a woman sitting in the Chamber today who has not experienced this—we have all felt unsafe. Lady Elish speaks for every single woman in the country when she says that. Actually, in my years of experience both personally and from working in this field, I have found the most frightening moment is not the moment of impact or the moment somebody gropes you; it is the things that lead up to it that leave you scared and leave you waiting. It is the leering that is frightening, actually—it is more frightening than the fact. That is the experience of literally every woman in our country at some point or another. Of course, we must not undermine that.

As the mother of teenage sons, I stand here and say that while I want boys and men absolutely to be part of this, I do not feel that they have been included. Somebody else spoke to them when we did not, and that somebody else—those somebody elses—did not have their best interests at heart. So absolutely, like with the White Ribbon campaign, we should talk to our men and boys about this, because they want to help. \p David Davis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since 2017, Members’ hands have been tied when it comes to amending the Finance Bill because successive Governments have failed to include a general amendment of the law as the first resolution, which for centuries allowed unrestricted amendment of the Budget. For example, a Back-Bench amendment to the 1977 Finance Bill forced the Government to index income tax personal allowances against inflation—something that is topical now. That sort of change is much more difficult under the current arrangements. The Hansard Society and I have both written to the Chief Whip about this matter, but can you provide advice on how the House can ensure that in future years we can recover those fundamental rights that have been arrogated by the Government? \p Judith Cummins: There is no matter of order for the Chair arising from the absence of an amendment of the law motion. As the right hon. Member notes, there has been no such motion after a Budget since at least 2017; that has had no effect on the scope of debate. The reasons for, and the implications of, the absence of an amendment of the law resolution are themselves a proper matter for debate. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Simon Opher: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to issue a call for evidence relating to the promotion and funding of the installation of domestic energy efficiency measures; to require the Secretary of State to publish a response to the evidence received; and for connected purposes.

We are now firmly within the year’s heating season. As the UK braces against the cold and the media continue to be flooded with stories of people unable to pay their bills living in some of the leakiest homes in Europe, the case for domestic energy efficiency is as strong as ever. The current understanding is that insulation subsidy, and the organisation and technical details around this work, have become confusing, chaotic and in some cases costly. We need a clearer understanding of what mechanisms of subsidy and which technical solutions deliver best value for money.

The average household is facing an annual fuel bill of over £1,700, and around 2 million households are in arrears. Surging energy prices have plunged many deeper into fuel poverty, widening the average fuel poverty gap nearly twofold since 2020. The estimated number of households living in fuel poverty now stands at 6.1 million.

I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to tackle this crisis at the Budget. Thanks to the Government, households will see an average reduction of £150 in their energy bills from April next year. We have also expanded the warm home discount, which means that in total 6 million households will receive £150 off their energy bills this winter. But if we are to protect ourselves from rising energy costs due to Putin’s terrible illegal war in Ukraine, we must reduce our exposure to high energy use. If we do not address winter peak demand through energy efficiency measures, we can expect electricity requirements to more than double.

As a GP, I know that energy efficiency is key to improving health outcomes. Cold homes double the risk that adults will develop new mental health conditions and put one in four children at risk of multiple mental health symptoms. Physical health problems caused by cold homes are common. Mould caused by cold, damp homes can cause allergic-type reactions and the development of or worsening of asthma, respiratory infections, coughs, wheezing and shortness of breath. Cold also raises blood pressure and increases cardiac failure. The Building Research Establishment has found that poor homes that expose residents to excess cold could be costing the NHS £857 million a year in treatment bills.

I would like to mention the Severn Wye Energy Agency in my Stroud constituency, which works with us in the NHS to provide help for patients whose housing is causing ill health. I particularly commend its warmth on prescription scheme as a national exemplar of the NHS and energy efficiency working in tandem. I also commend SGS Berkeley Green university technical college—a fine institution that trains its students in implementing modern energy efficiency measures. The   Government are committed to creating 400,000 extra clean energy jobs by 2030, and I know that we will see many of its students taking up those posts.

Our current framework of encouraging domestic energy efficiency through subsidies is unsustainable. Dependency on subsidies can lead to disaster striking, as we saw in the solar industry 10 years ago. We must therefore look at ways to diversify our package of support for energy efficiency to prevent such disastrous impacts on the supply chain, which impact on the strength of the workforce that will be needed in future.

Schemes under successive Governments have tended to use up-front payments to deliver energy efficiency measures. Those capital grant schemes are subject to the Treasury’s five-year spending reviews and short-term political intervention, creating boom and bust cycles that undermine confidence among both investors and consumers.

Our recent experience of installation has been poor. A report by the National Audit Office found that 98% of homes with external wall insulation installed under Government schemes have major issues requiring remediation, and 6% of those homes present immediate health risks. It is therefore critical that we look again at our incentives for energy efficiency. Everyone deserves to live in a home that is warm and safe without having to go through a remediation process for a botched installation.

The Sustainable Energy Association has developed a proposal for an energy efficiency incentive that can unlock greater investment by rewarding in-use performance of energy efficiency measures over several years through a revenue-based mechanism. The proposal would lower fuel bills across the country, keeping money in people’s pockets. In-use performance can be measured through technologies such as smart meter-enabled thermal efficiency ratings. Measuring performance is likely to drive up the quality of measures, as the financiers of those measures will have a strong financial interest in ensuring quality of product and installation.

The SEA’s modelling has found that fast-yielding technologies such as cavity and loft insulation and double glazing will require a seven-year subsidy framework, while slow-yielding technologies such as solid wall insulation will require a 25-year subsidy framework. Investors have been crying out for long-term policy certainty. The long-term nature of this subsidy framework provides investors with the confidence to invest, opening up a whole host of green financing options for retrofit schemes.

Other ideas that have been discussed include green loans that pay for the up-front cost of insulation. As energy needs decrease, the loan can be paid off to the benefit of householders. Some have proposed a national insulation bank, while others back schemes that link stamp duty reductions to the amount spent on home insulation, so that the benefits of installation are not lost if we move, encouraging low-carbon energy efficiency upgrades.

A call for evidence would certainly invite other innovative proposals to be brought the table. Although I hope the Bill will be unnecessary, what it proposes is a no-brainer that would provide solutions to problems that unite us as a House: soaring energy bills, energy security and the health of the UK population. I invite the Minister for Energy Consumers—the Under-Secretary of State for  Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey)—to back my campaign and issue a call for evidence.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Maya Ellis, Irene Campbell, Paula Barker, Andy McDonald, Cat Eccles, Christine Jardine, Paul Davies, Fleur Anderson, Amanda Hack, Luke Myer, Steve Darling and Dr Simon Opher present the Bill.

Dr Simon Opher accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 340). \p UNKNOWN: Debate resumed (Order, 1 December).

Question again proposed,

That income tax is charged for the tax year 2026-27.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p Judith Cummins: I draw the House’s attention to two minor corrections that have been made to the text of resolution 59 and the title of resolution 98. A revised version of the resolutions paper is available in the Vote Office and online. It includes a note setting out the corrections that have been made.

With the exception of Front Bench speeches, there will be an immediate four-minute time limit. I call the Secretary of State. \p Wes Streeting: I begin by addressing the British Medical Association’s reckless call for resident doctors to strike in the run-up to Christmas. That is a cynical choice, coming as flu cases surge and we enter the most dangerous time of year for hospitals, and it is completely unjustified. After a 28.9% pay rise, the Government offered to create more jobs and put money back in resident doctors’ pockets. The BMA rejected that out of hand. My door has always been open, I have never walked away from the table and I stand ready to do a deal that puts patients first. We will prepare for this round of strike action.

I am extremely proud of the hard work and performance of NHS leaders and frontline staff who did so well to minimise costs and disruption during recent rounds of strike action. In fact, during the most recent round, we were able to maintain planned elective activity to cut waiting lists at 95%. Yet I must be honest with the House and with the country: if this strike goes ahead, this time will be different. Our hospitals are running hot and the pressures are enormous. That is why I urge the BMA not to go ahead. Not only does it put the progress we are making together in the NHS at risk; it threatens to do so in the worst way and at the worst time possible. \p Florence Eshalomi: Does the Secretary of State agree that the hard-working staff at St Thomas’ hospital across the bridge, who deal with patients from right across the country, including many who have had surgeries and operations booked for many months, still kept the show going during the last rounds of strikes? Will he please do everything in his power to make sure that the strike does not go ahead? \p 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. \p Calum Miller: 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? \p 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. \p Paul Holmes: Will the Secretary of State give way? \p Wes Streeting: Gladly. Please do defend keeping children in poverty. \p Paul Holmes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for intervening, but this is my intervention, not his. Why was he part of a Cabinet that stood by and punished his  colleagues for voting against the two-child benefit cap? Why do we now see this sudden conversion and revisionism? Why does he think that most people in this country who were polled are against the removal of the child benefit cap? \p Wes Streeting: Let me say two things in response. I am almost certain that my hon. Friends will be delighted that he has intervened in defence of their plight at the hands of the Labour Whips, but he knows as well as I do that the Whip was removed from some of my hon. Friends not because of the substance of the issue they were raising but because we never, ever accept people voting against a King’s or Queen’s Speech. [Interruption.] That was the issue. He asked me a fair question, and he has got an honest answer. He should take it on the chin.

The hon. Member also asked why many people in our country believe that the two-child cap was right. It is because our Conservative predecessors peddled the myth and the lie that people in receipt of welfare are on the take, and are just looking for handouts, rather than help. We Labour Members take a different view; we recognise, as I have set out, that so many people affected by the two-child cap are in work and in poverty. That is one of the many scandals of the damage that more than a decade of Conservative rule did. The Conservatives broke the link between a hard day’s work and a fair day’s pay. In addition to the measures that we are taking on child poverty to remove the two-child limit, we are also increasing the national minimum wage. We are increasing it even higher for young people. We are doing this because this is the party of work, the party that wants to make work pay, and the party that is genuinely committed to waging war on poverty.

Just as we must win the argument for lifting children out of poverty, we must win the argument for the founding principles of our NHS. Having left the NHS in the worst crisis in its history, the right now argues that it is unaffordable and should be abandoned. The NHS was broken, but it is not beaten, and Labour is already breathing new life into our health service. Waiting lists are falling for the first time in 15 years. Ambulances are arriving 10 minutes faster in stroke, sepsis and heart attack cases.

Patient satisfaction with GPs is up from 60% to 74%, and nearly 200,000 more patients were given a cancer diagnosis or the all-clear on time.

With Labour, the NHS is on the road to recovery. That is in no small part because the Chancellor is reversing 14 years of austerity and investing in our NHS. We promised an extra 2 million appointments; we have delivered 5 million. We promised to recruit an extra 1,000 GPs; we have recruited 2,500. We promised to end the 8 am scramble; we have widened the window that patients have to request appointments and have made booking available online. A lot done and a lot more to do.

At this Budget, we announced the next steps on the road to recovery: 250 new neighbourhood health centres with the first ones in Birmingham, Barrow, Truro and Southall, and £300 million more to invest in technology to modernise healthcare. Next year, we will receive recommendations from Baroness Casey on laying the foundations to build a national care service.

The NHS does not just face an existential political challenge from the Conservatives and Reform UK; it faces a sustainability challenge. \p James Naish: I appreciate the announcement about the 250 new neighbourhood health centres, but I am concerned for my constituency—a more affluent constituency that has health centres that were built in the ’60s. They are genuinely falling apart and need significant investment to ensure that GPs can continue to deliver outstanding service to my constituents. Could the Secretary of State provide some reassurance, or agree to meet me to discuss how we can ensure that deprivation is not the only aspect considered in that excellent initiative? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we want to ensure that investment is deprivation linked. We want to reverse the damage the Conservatives did when they pursued what I would characterise as the Royal Tunbridge Wells strategy, when our former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), declared with pride to Conservative party activists that he had taken funding from the poorest communities in the country and funnelled it to the richest. There could be no shorter or clearer exposition of Conservative party values and politics in action than that claim.

To my hon. Friend’s point, he is absolutely right that within many affluent communities there are also pockets of deprivation, and we have to ensure that the NHS is there for everyone in every part of the country. We are dealing with enormous undercapitalisation in the NHS, totalling some £37 billion as identified by the noble Lord Darzi. It will take time to address that challenge, but I think my hon. Friend’s constituents know from his assiduous hard work and visible campaigning as a constituency MP that he will ensure that their needs and interests are not forgotten or overlooked by this Government.

Of course, as we improve the health of our health service, we also need to address the health of our nation. Children in England face some of the poorest health outcomes in Europe. Obesity in four and five-year-olds is reaching record levels—a health time bomb that leaves them at greater risk from cancer and heart disease later in life. What kind of start in life are we giving our children, and if we allow it to continue, what kind of future are we leaving to them? Our children will lead shorter, less healthy lives; our NHS will buckle under a tidal wave of chronic conditions; and our economy will suffer because businesses will be denied the potential of the next generation.

This Labour Government are tackling the sickness in our society. Whether it is the extension of the soft drinks industry levy, free school meals, a warm home discount that reaches millions more, the generational ban on smoking, Awaab’s law, cutting pollution and cleaning up the air that our children breathe, we are combating the drivers of ill health in children’s lives: poor diets, damp homes, dirty air and a lack of opportunity. In short, we are tackling poverty, because every child deserves a healthy start in life, and prevention is better than cure.

The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton, says we should instead be educating people to make healthier choices—I assume that he will not be leading from the front on that campaign. But we know that Reform and the Conservatives oppose our agenda to improve public health. They oppose our investment in the NHS. They should just be honest and admit that they now oppose the NHS itself. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like it, but I challenge them to dispute a single claim I just read. Let me repeat the charge sheet for their benefit: they oppose our investment in the NHS. Have they not opposed every budget spending review since Labour came to office? [Interruption.] Honestly, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), who does not want to intervene because I think he knows he is leading with his chin on this, wants to suggest that somehow the Conservative party left a legacy that they could be proud of. They inherited the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history. They left us the longest waiting lists and lowest patient satisfaction on record. No wonder so few of them have turned up to defend that shoddy record.

The Conservatives oppose our public health agenda, do they not? I thought this was an area where we had built consensus, but not under their present leadership. I have already quoted what their leader, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said. Maybe they were not listening—the country certainly is not. I would have thought, though, that their own side would at least listen to what she said. She says she wants a debate about charging for healthcare. I do not know whether they have heard that or whether they stand by it. Maybe we could just see a simple show of hands—how many of her own side want to see charging for healthcare in the NHS? Not a single hand has gone up. That does not bode well for the future of the Leader of the Opposition, but let’s leave the Conservative party to revel in its irrelevance.

In fact, I was probably one of the few people who paid any attention to what the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), said at the Conservative party conference. I noticed that he did not mention a single policy. I say to the Conservatives: if we are doing such a bad job, why would they not do anything differently? Would they cut the £26 billion this Labour Government are investing in the NHS, and if not, if they oppose this Budget, how would they pay for it? The Conservatives seem to think that the British people are so stupid that they will forget which party wrecked the NHS and led it to the worst crisis in its history.

To conclude, this is a Government who are cutting waiting lists, giving children a healthier start in life and lifting 500,000 children out of poverty. In doing so, we are restating the case for universal healthcare that is publicly owned, publicly funded and free at the point of use. We are showing that progress is possible after 14 years of decline, that things can get better. Abolishing the two-child limit is not a handout, it is a hand up. Our country cannot prosper while 6 million people languish on waiting lists, 4.5 million children grow up in poverty and 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. But if we protect people’s health, give them the opportunities to put their talents to use and give them a strong foundation, they will  build a good life for themselves and a better Britain for all, and we can fulfil the lost promise that tomorrow will be better than today. \p Judith Cummins: I remind all Members that the courtesies of this House require Members to inform other Members if they intend to name them in the Chamber.

I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Stuart Andrew: This Government are trying to tell the public that this Budget was all about taking tough decisions to deliver change, about raising taxes to support the NHS and about pursuing growth and backing business. Those are commendable aims, but it is simply not the reality of what was delivered in the autumn Budget. This was a Budget for benefits paid for by hard-working people.

Last year, taxes were hiked by £40 billion, borrowing went up, inflation went up, unemployment went up and living standards fell, but at least we were promised by the Chancellor that this was a one-off. She categorically said that she would not be coming back for more. But like the promises made during the general election, that was just not true. Then, as Halloween approached, we had briefing after briefing, that infamous press conference, markets affected and consumer spending depressed, particularly in the hospitality sector, all leading to one Cabinet Minister reportedly saying that

“The handling of this budget has been a disaster from start to finish.”

I wonder who that could have been.

Now we have another £26 billion in tax rises to fund more welfare, because the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to stand up to Labour MPs and make the real hard choices. At the previous Budget and spending review, big promises were made to the public about how the Labour Government would solve the challenges in the NHS through a financial settlement that they said would improve patient care, including by bringing waiting times back to the 18-week standard within five years. We warned at the time that that money would be swallowed up, in large part by decisions of the Government’s own making. The then chief financial officer of NHS England said that it would go almost entirely on pay awards, national insurance contributions and drug price increases.

What does Labour actually have to show for that? Elective care waiting lists have fallen by less than 2% since October last year. Meanwhile, waiting lists for community health services and diagnostic scans are rising. Waits to start cancer treatment are increasing. Trauma and orthopaedic waits are up; ophthalmology—up; neurosurgery—up; gynaecology—up. Winter pressures are growing, and long waits in A&E have hit record highs. The truth is that the Labour Government do not have a plan for the NHS; they have fallen into the classic Labour trap of thinking that issuing a press release about cutting waiting lists will magically make it so, just because they are in charge. I am afraid that is not how government works.

What has the Secretary of State been focused on? A top-down reorganisation of the NHS—which not only did he not tell anyone about before the election but  he explicitly said he would not do. As Conservatives, we support the principle of cutting duplication, reducing bureaucracy and saving on administration costs. The House will remember that a recent Conservative Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), reduced in a single year the number of civil servants in the Department for Health and Social Care by around one in six.

Let us be clear: this is yet another announcement made by the Government without any plan for delivery. For months, not one Minister has been able to answer any of our questions about how much NHS restructuring will cost or who will be expected to cover redundancy packages. For months, integrated care boards have been warning that frontline patient services were at risk because they simply do not have the money to do what is asked of them. For months, staff were left in limbo, not knowing whether their job would still exist or for how much longer. We welcome the fact that the Budget finally provided some clarity, but shifting money between years means significant risk. The NHS is already behind on its efficiency targets. If this reorganisation falls short of its goals—no small risk given the Government’s performance—there is an even more significant shortfall to make up in future years, which will hit patient care.

There are other elements of the Budget that we welcome for the health service. Focusing on improving productivity is the right thing to do, but whether the extra investment will make any difference in the grand scheme of things remains to be seen. Neighbourhood health centres can be cautiously welcomed. They build on the great success of the Conservatives’ efforts to bring care closer to where people live through the community diagnostics centre programme. However, has Labour truly learned the lessons of all the private financial initiative deals that it botched back in the 2000s, which NHS trusts are still paying for decades later? Will the Government simply move resources around or will there be genuinely innovative new ways or working, joining up services and improving the patient care experience? I hope that it is the latter, because shuffling the deck chairs into new buildings will not deliver the benefits that patients deserve.

Despite those few bright spots, it simply is not right for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and others to justify this latest tax grab by saying that it is to protect the NHS. As the NHS Confederation noted, this year’s Budget did not have a health focus. That means that we are left with a lot of unanswered questions. The Office for Budget Responsibility specifically raised two risks to health spending. The first was the doctors’ strikes, which the Health Secretary has failed to resolve, despite making that sound very easy to do when he was in opposition. I will give him credit, because he did briefly end them, for a few short months, but only by caving in to the demands of the British Medical Association, in return for no productivity or modernisation reforms. We warned him that giving in to the trade unions would only see them come back for more—and indeed, here we are, with patients and taxpayers paying the price, and no end in sight. The OBR confirmed that strikes have already cost £500 million, and warned about further strikes. Now it has been confirmed, just before Christmas—the worst time of year for it—that the doctors are out again. \p Noah Law: Does the right hon. Member care to remind us how much the NHS strikes cost under his Government’s watch? \p Stuart Andrew: Well, we did not spend tens of billions of pounds in pay rises just for the same old problem to come back. There should have been proper reform, and conditions for those pay rises, but the Government did not make that happen, and here we are again.

The NHS Confederation has also warned that local services cannot continue to absorb the costs of ongoing strikes by the BMA without consequences for patient care. I pay tribute to frontline staff, who have been trying to keep everything going. I remind the Secretary of State that we have the answer: ban doctors from striking, like the Army and the police, and introduce minimum service levels, using the legislation that our Government passed. That would protect patients and taxpayers, so why won’t he do it? Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will make things much worse, because it reduces the vote threshold for calling a strike, and there will be no minimal service levels.

In addition, the Government have shown that they cannot stand up to the unions. By pushing up inflation, the Budget will make it harder to reach pay settlements across the rest of the NHS workforce. Even an additional rise in NHS pay of just 1% of what the Secretary of State included in his pay review body evidence would create another £1.5 billion hole in his budget. Is he confident that he can head off wider industrial action with a 2.5% offer, especially given that benefits are rising much faster under this Government?

The OBR has also raised the unknown risk of increasing drug prices. My understanding is that the spending review assumed that spending on branded medicines would rise by 25%—or £3.3 billion—between 2025-26 and 2028-29. In winding up, will the Minister clarify what happens when the negotiated price costs more than what was assumed in the spending review? The rest of the money is surely intended to be used to deliver more care and to cut waiting lists, so are frontline services at risk? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful to the shadow Health Secretary for giving way. We should be clear that the deal struck with the United States is the first and only deal with the United States that secures 0% tariffs and mitigations against most-favoured-nation pricing. It will ensure that patients get access to good drugs. For the avoidance of doubt, although some costs are unpredictable because of the complexity of medicine pricing, of course we will not cut NHS budgets to fund the pharma deal. \p Stuart Andrew: We will see what happens. It would be interesting to know exactly where the money will come from. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State just said that if the prices go up, there will be no cuts to the NHS budget, but where will the money come from? Which other part of the national health service and social care will the money come from? We will have to wait and see.

The Budget last week made no mention of social care. After all, Labour’s only plan is to delay coming up with a plan for a few more years, despite the urgency and the scale of the challenge. Many of us entered the cross-party talks in really good faith, and they were encouraging, but we have only met once. Surely we  should be getting on with it. The message was loud and clear that we want to work together, but we want to get on with it. Please can we have another meeting, so that we can get on with tackling this really important issue?

It is not quite true to say that social care is unaffected by what was announced. The increase in the national living wage will be welcomed by those on the lowest incomes, but the Nuffield Trust estimates that it will cost the social care sector £1.2 billion. The sector is already struggling with last year’s national insurance contributions hike, so who will pay for this? Will there be funding cuts to other parts of the health budget? Will self-funders have to fork out yet more again, or will it be passed on to local authorities, inevitably leading to council tax rises? What impact will this national living wage increase have on wider pay in the sector? \p Jennifer Craft: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about two completely opposite ends. He says his party wants to invest in and find a way forward on social care, but he is opposing something minimal that will raise the living standards of those who work in the industry. Which one is it: does he want to invest in social care or not? \p Stuart Andrew: I am asking the question of who is going to pay for it. There is no detail in anything this Government do. They are full of plans and no delivery. The sectors I have been meeting are asking those questions—where is the money coming from? \p Alec Shelbrooke: My right hon. Friend worked in the hospice sector, and particularly the children’s hospice sector, long before he came to this place. Does he agree that the pressures on hospices, which are basically run by charitable contributions, have not been taken into account in all the Budget measures introduced since this Government came to power? \p Stuart Andrew: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me tell the House, from 16 years of working in the hospice movement, primarily as the head of fundraising, that if you are suddenly asked to find nearly £100,000 overnight, it is almost impossible. It is therefore not surprising that hospices up and down this country are cutting the number of beds that are available. In some instances, up to 40% of beds are being cut, and those people will end up having to be in hospital beds, putting more pressure on our hospitals as we go into winter. \p Clive Lewis: The right hon. Member asked who will pay for the national living wage increase in the adult social care sector, but something he omitted—and it is quite telling—is the number of private equity companies that are extracting vast profit from adult social care. He did not mention them. He did not mention them taking a hit to their profit. Perhaps they could pay for some of it as well. \p Stuart Andrew: I understood from the Secretary of State’s 10-year plan that he wants more involvement from the private sector. Perhaps the hon. Member needs to have a conversation with the Secretary of State and see how that goes. In fact, if he wants, he can invite me along, because I would be quite happy to observe that conversation.

Finally, the Budget did not mention any of the issues that matter to many of our constituents, such as mental health, the hospice and palliative care sector—although I do welcome the announcement of the framework and look forward to seeing it—dentistry and general practice. What about the Government’s upcoming plans and strategies? The workforce plan is delayed. The cancer plan is delayed. The independent review of maternity and neonatal services is delayed. Nothing new was announced, suggesting that any resources to deliver those plans will have to come from existing budgets.

What are this Government actually doing for the NHS—not just press releases and reviews, but actual action? It is more money without a plan for reform and no strategy to end the strikes or help patients and staff this winter. They cannot deliver the reforms to social care the country needs because the Prime Minister came into office without a plan and does not have the backbone to make the tough decisions. They are still too distracted with working out how to abolish NHS England to cut waiting lists.

The Secretary of State claims Labour is investing in the NHS, but that suggests we get some kind of return on our money. It is clear that Labour does not have a plan to achieve its targets. This is a Budget where taxpayers are being asked to pay for benefits, not the NHS, and the Government need to own that. Of course, we wish them well. We want them to cut waiting lists, we want care to improve, and we want patients to get better quicker, but their actions do not match their rhetoric, and their plan is little more than an objective, with no method for getting there. For the sake of all our constituents, I hope the Health Secretary can put his leadership ambitions to one side and focus on the job he has, not the next one he wants, because if he fails to deliver, this will be his last. \p Debbie Abrahams: This was a positive, progressive Budget with fairness at its heart. These fiscal decisions will benefit most people, but particularly those who have been really struggling with the cost of living crisis over recent years. Those with the broadest shoulders have been asked to do their fair share of the heavy lifting, with all but the top 10% income households seeing the proportion of their net income increase by 2028-29. Fairer policies benefit us all, not just the recipients. As the International Monetary Fund has shown, reducing income inequality stimulates growth, but we also know that fairer societies improve educational attainment, social mobility, trust between communities, health status and much more.

Collectively, these tax reforms are forecast to raise over £8 billion in 2029-30 from wealth and the wealthy. The total package of tax changes has allowed the Chancellor to make some incredibly important decisions to help with the cost of living crisis and boost living standards, including increasing the minimum wage and living wage, increasing the state pension, freezing rail fares and fuel duty, and cutting £150 from next year’s energy bills.

I particularly want to talk about the abolition of the so-called two child limit. It is now believed that this measure drive the increase in child poverty from 3.6 million in 2010 to 4.5 million in 2024, causing a multitude of  poverty-related harms, including an increase in the prevalence of young people not in education, employment or training. A person is five times more likely to be NEET if they experience childhood poverty, and more than half of the current NEET population belong to this cohort. Getting rid of this harmful, damaging policy will lift 350,000 children out of poverty almost immediately, and another 150,000 will be prevented from being drawn into poverty over the life of this Parliament.

I commend the former Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), and the former Employment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), for bringing forward spending on employment support. I know that the current Employment Minister is keen to continue that work and escalate it. Analysis commissioned by the Work and Pensions Committee showed that supportive employment programmes such as the new deal for young people and the new deal for disabled people introduced by the former Labour Government in the noughties led to between 5% and 11% of that group getting into sustained employment for a minimum of three years. Applying this approach to the current group of unemployed and economically inactive people would ensure that schemes such as Connect to Work, WorkWell, and Individual Placement and Support, could increase employment by at least 5%, generating savings to the Exchequer of £20 billion by the end of this Parliament. \p Melanie Ward: Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising the work of charities such as Kirkcaldy Foodbank and Kirkcaldy YMCA, which joined me in Parliament earlier this year to call on the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who they met, to lift the two-child cap? They underlined the need for this cruel policy to be scrapped. Indeed, Kirkcaldy Foodbank has fed 833 children so far this year, and it has welcomed the lifting of the cap. Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising that lifting the two-child cap was the only possible step to ensure that child poverty levels go down, instead of up? \p Debbie Abrahams: I absolutely agree. It is a shame that we need food banks at all—this is the state of what we have inherited, unfortunately.

I commend the Health Secretary for the work that has been done to increase capital investment in the NHS, which will boost NHS productivity. A recent Health Equity North report, “Health for Wealth”, showed that by reducing the inequalities between the north and the south, and by improving health in the north, we can increase productivity by £18 billion a year. On health inequalities, I hope we can focus on the weighting given to resource allocation.

My final point is about the commitment to index pre-1997 accrued pensions for inflation, capped at 2.5%, where scheme rules allow. This means that pensioners whose pension schemes became insolvent through no fault of their own, and that have failed to keep pace with inflation, will now have the situation rectified. That will benefit more than 250,000 pension protection fund and financial assurance scheme members, and I give credit to the Pensions Action Group and the Deprived Pensioners Association, and to the Pensions Minister for listening to me.

This is a very good Budget. It gives hope, particularly to my constituents and others like them, so I am very grateful. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Morgan: The NHS continues to face a historic crisis after years of mismanagement by the last Conservative Government. Their dire legacy is still felt across the country, with hospitals crumbling and dental deserts across England—not least in my constituency—as well as a mental health crisis and many people struggling to access their GP, waiting hours for an ambulance or suffering in crammed hospital corridors. The British people deserve better.

The Liberal Democrats welcome efforts to bring down the sky-high waiting lists left by the previous Government, and there have been green shoots of recovery across the country. In the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust, which serves my constituents, performance against the 28-day faster diagnosis standard has reached 80.1%—the highest on record. I thank all the hard-working hospital staff there and across the country, who are working tirelessly at the moment to improve the situation.

There are some welcome announcements in the Budget. The prescription price freeze is clearly the right thing to do, and we strongly support protecting victims of the infected blood scandal and their families from inheritance tax. It is an unacceptable injustice for bereaved families to lose out just because their loved ones died waiting for compensation. We also support the lifting of the two-child benefit cap, because it is the type of investment that will reap savings in the future and correct a moral injury.

I am afraid, though, that overall this Budget does not meet the moment. The Government are treading water on their spending commitments, and hundreds of millions of pounds are set to be drained from services to fund a medicines price hike. From the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report, it is not clear whether frontline NHS services will be raided to pay higher prices for branded medicines at the behest of President Trump, on top of the billions already anticipated in the spending review. No. 10’s briefing suggests that the money will come from the NHS budget, yet we have just heard from the Secretary of State that it will not. A statement to this House to clarify the details would be most welcome.

Yesterday we learned that the Government have capitulated to the US Government and will increase spending on medicines by 0.3% of GDP—more than the value derived from some trade deals—or from about 9.5% of the NHS budget to 12%. We desperately need to understand how that will be paid for; I hope it will not be by cutting frontline services. The Secretary of State has previously said that he would not allow the NHS to be ripped off by drug companies, and I hope the Minister will confirm that position.

The life sciences sector is vital to the UK. Rather than defunding vital NHS services, the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to take real actions to strengthen it by implementing a new, bespoke customs union with the EU to slash red tape, along with a major boost to  research and development funding so that new drugs can be brought online as quickly as possible. NHS spending should be targeted at where our health service really needs it: ending the crisis in GP services so that everyone has a right to see a GP in seven days, or in 24 hours if it is urgent; guaranteeing that 100% of patients are treated for cancer within 62 days of an urgent referral; and ending unacceptable and degrading corridor care. I urge the Government to adopt these proposals without delay in order to protect patients and prevent trust in our NHS from being irreparably broken.

One of the most visible symptoms of decline is our crumbling hospitals and the degrading scenes that became commonplace under the Conservatives. Those patients falsely promised a new hospital by the Conservatives will continue to be bitterly disappointed. We all know that the 40 new hospitals promised to patients did not number 40, that they were not necessarily new, that they were not all hospitals, and that there was no plan to fund them. However, this Government have chosen not to pledge new investment, which means that the maintenance backlog will continue to balloon at eye-watering levels, having climbed from £13.8 billion in 2023-24 to an astonishing £15.9 billion in 2024-25.

The Chancellor should have guaranteed that no patient, doctor or nurse faces the indignity of substandard, broken and, frankly, unsafe estates. We appreciate that there is pressure on the public finances, but holding back on these improvements is a false economy when a fortune is being spent papering over the cracks to keep substandard buildings that should be condemned limping on. The repair backlog at the sites of new hospitals is set to reach nearly £6 billion by the time construction is due to start. The Liberal Democrats will continue to champion investment in our crumbling NHS buildings in order to protect patients, hard-working NHS staff and the taxpayer. \p Andrew Murrison: The hon. Lady is outlining an extensive programme of capital expenditure on the national health service. Between last year and this year, we have had the largest set of Budget increases in the history of this country, but are the Liberal Democrats proposing that we should tax the British public even further to pay for the kind of thing that she has just described? \p Helen Morgan: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to our leader’s response to the Budget, he would understand that the Liberal Democrats do not propose to tax the British taxpayer further. We would sign a customs union deal with the EU and create £25 billion in extra tax revenue every year without going back to the British taxpayer.

The crisis in our NHS is perhaps most acute in our community services. For all the welcome promises on shifting care from hospital to community and treatment to prevention, the truth is that local health services are on their knees, with record waits to see a GP. Liberal Democrats have championed new investment and we welcome the Government’s announcement on neighbourhood health centres, but unless we see health centres in every community, with investment to ensure that everyone can see a GP within a week as a legal right, and the restoration of public health funding, this risks being an expensive failure. \p Sarah Dyke: On neighbourhood health plans, St Dunstan’s House health and wellbeing centre and West Mendip primary care network are seeking to put together a preventive approach to crime, social and mental health issues in the Glastonbury area. Does my hon. Friend agree that this innovative, community-based project should be included in the second wave of neighbourhood health scheme applications? \p Helen Morgan: We would all welcome that kind of innovative, community-led approach to improve local health services across the country.

The commitment to set up 250 neighbourhood health centres in communities by 2025 is clearly a welcome step, but there are 543 constituencies in England, so many communities will remain under-served. For example, my own constituency of North Shropshire is part of the pilot for neighbourhood health centres, for which we are grateful, but the numbers indicate that there may be only one neighbourhood health centre, although the constituency has five market towns, spread over a large distance and with different catchment areas. It is not one neighbourhood. Investment in our general practices is essential to ensure that people can continue to access primary care when they need it.

Neighbourhood health is not just about buildings—it is about how teams operate—but when so many local practices are constrained by the physical space in which they must work, buildings are an important part of the puzzle. There is a danger that rural and coastal communities continue to remain under-served and isolated, unable to access services that may be many miles away and only reachable by private car. \p Steffan Aquarone: My hon. Friend and I both represent rural constituencies that face similar challenges. Businesses in North Norfolk already face extra struggles to stay afloat, including training and retaining staff, finding affordable premises, and even things as simple as getting a strong and reliable phone and internet connection. Does she share my frustration that rather than tackling those problems, last week’s Budget has just lumbered rural businesses with more tax, more costs and more stress for the future? \p Helen Morgan: I share my hon. Friend’s frustration.

Perhaps the most glaring and alarming omission of all in this Budget is that the words “adult social care” do not appear. The sector is already stretched to breaking point and is now suffering from the Government’s 2024 hike in employer national insurance contributions, which is unfunded for most businesses operating in that sector. The pressure is clearly reflected in the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services’ 2025 spring survey, which found that three quarters of directors have only

“partial or no confidence that their budgets are sufficient to meet their legal duties for prevention and wellbeing.”

That is not only terrible for disabled and vulnerable people; it is a disaster for the NHS. One in seven hospital beds are taken by someone who should be discharged but for whom there is no appropriate social care package. The situation could not be more pressing.

We need the cross-party talks to move far more quickly. As we have heard, there has been only one meeting, back in September, and there are no current plans for further engagement. I ask Ministers to ask the  Prime Minister to lead those talks and to treat them with the seriousness and urgency that they deserve. We also need a solution to provide the social care beds needed to stop a devastating winter crisis; 2028 is too late for that.

In addition to spiralling NIC costs, there is increasing demand and huge staff shortages in the sector. With an immigration policy that is clearly designed to disincentivise overseas workers in this area, there is no clear plan to ensure how those vacancies will be filled. In formulating their 10-year workforce plan, the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to introduce a funded and higher minimum wage for carers, and a new royal college of care workers to improve training and career progression and to give carers the recognition that they deserve.

When social care is not available, family carers must step in to fill the need. A fairer deal for family carers, such as guaranteeing more respite care and introducing paid carer’s leave, would enable many to continue caring for longer at home. We want to see more support for young carers in school by introducing a young carers pupil premium. These are simple but potentially transformational steps in supporting the millions of carers without whom our health service would collapse.

Winter is quickly closing in, and there are signs that the annual winter crisis could be even worse this year, having already become a year-round permacrisis. The Budget should have funded an emergency package to prevent A&Es collapsing this winter. Liberal Democrats have called for 1,000 extra hospital beds, emergency social care places to free up places in hospitals, a recruitment and retention drive to increase the number of out-of-hours GPs, and a qualified clinician in every A&E waiting room to protect patients who are at risk but stuck on trollies. Without those measures, there is a significant risk of another winter of harrowing scenes of corridor care and ambulances queuing outside hospitals, which should have no place in our society.

Let us take a step back and ask what this Budget really means for the NHS. The topic of today’s debate is investment and renewal, but this Budget means cost pressures are left unaddressed and reforms that are confused and disorientating. Inflation is forecast to run higher than the budget set by the Department of Health and Social Care back in March 2025 for the spending review. As a result, average real-terms growth in departmental budgets has shrunk by 0.1% since then.

The OBR notes that spending on branded medicines alone is expected to rise by 25%—an extra £3.3 billion—between 2025-26 and 2028-29. For context, that is equivalent to the budget for maternity care in England. Yesterday’s recent agreement confirms that it will be at least that sum, and possibly as much as another £6 billion a year, which is an eye-watering amount. Industrial action could add a further £1.2 billion by 2028-29. It is hard to see what would be left to repair our GP services, expand social care or take any of the other measures needed to lift the NHS off the floor.

On top of that, we have no clarity on the impact of the reorganisation of NHS England and ICBs. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has warned that the Department has removed

“a key piece of machinery without articulating a clear plan for what comes next”

and compared the reforms with those of HS2.

The 10-year plan sets out a vision that Liberal Democrats share, but it is missing any clear explanation of how it will be funded within the spending review settlement. Nowhere, across 170 pages, is there a credible costing or delivery plan. Five months on, we still have no idea whether the Government can deliver the essential reforms that they have promised. Unless the Government adopt a genuine “spend to save” approach, investing now to prevent greater costs and worse outcomes later, we are at risk of seeing only managed decline, mounting pressure and the continued loss of faith in the health service.

Rather than Labour’s unfair tax rises, we have set out a number of fair ways to fund our public services properly. Most importantly, this Government are refusing properly to fix our broken relationship with Europe. We are calling for a new EU-UK customs union, which could raise more than £25 billion a year. The Government would have plenty of time to put the deal in place by 2030, raising billions in extra tax revenue in a fair way after 2030. We have also called for a targeted windfall tax on the big banks, which would raise £30 billion in total by 2030.

Let me take this opportunity to say to the Government that if we are to rescue the NHS, they must tackle the crisis at its front door and at its back door. That means investing in public health and early access to community services, including GPs, pharmacists and dentists, so that fewer people need to go to hospital in the first place. It also means fixing the crisis in social care to stop so many people being stuck in hospital beds. Only these measures can bring down waiting lists, improve the quality of care and help people live longer, healthier lives. The NHS needs transformational change; the Government must wake up from their complacency, or it will be patients who pay the price. \p Margaret Mullane: Today, as this House continues to debate last week’s Labour Budget, we turn a spotlight on investment and renewal. Thankfully, we have moved on since the Liz Truss Budget—we are no longer talking about growing pies. This Labour Government are in the business of growing the economy, which has gone up by 1.5% this year, alongside less borrowing and lower levels of inflation. That is helping homeowners with their mortgage rates and enabling businesses to invest.

The Conservatives and Reform would take Britain back to austerity, but we have closed that door. While the popular trend on social media is to wander around with a microphone and do down areas such as Dagenham and Rainham, those divisive campaigns offer no solutions. Labour is making fair choices, such as the incoming mansion tax, allowing us to reinvest in our national health service and build on the progress we have already made on appointments and neighbourhood health centres. As new investment becomes available off the back of this Budget, I will keep banging the drum for Queen’s hospital, in the hope of securing the £35 million needed to expand its emergency department and bring down waiting times for my constituents.

Dagenham and Rainham has felt the pinch for too long, suffering a cost of living crisis in which hard-working families have been pushed to the breadline. It does not  have to be like this; we are choosing a different path, but that is not without its challenges. We knew that there would be tough choices to balance the books after 14 years of catastrophe, but thankfully some choices are easier for Labour politicians to make. Above all else, this Budget was a renewal of our Government’s contract with the ordinary working people who form the backbone of Britain. Raising the living wage and the minimum wage and increasing the wages of young workers is putting pounds back into the pockets of my constituents. Those measures, coupled with our action to reduce energy bills by £150 and the continued freeze on fuel duty, mean that working-class communities across the country will have more to show for their hard work at the end of the month.

When it comes to investment in my seat, I could talk about London’s largest film studio, University College London’s state-of-the-art person-environment-activity research laboratory in east Dagenham, or the upcoming new rail station at Beam Park that I am sure will be delivered under a Labour Government. I could mention that only last week, I welcomed the Minister for Energy Consumers—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey)—to my seat for a hydrogen summit at the Centre for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence, where they unveiled £73 million of investment in jobs and opportunities to build the low-carbon economy of tomorrow.

There are lots of promising investment and growth opportunities in the south of my constituency within the Thames freeport area. Working with Ford, the City of London, the freeport and our Government, I am sure that through this and future Budgets, we can deliver on my election promise to bring jobs that people can raise a family on back to Dagenham and Rainham.

For me, though, the real story of investment at this Budget is our investment in the next generation—an investment that will lift 450,000 children across Britain, including 5,050 children in Dagenham and Rainham, out of poverty as we scrap the two-child benefit cap next April.

I will wrap up with a quote that was often cited by my predecessor:

“To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing.”

That is the mission of a Labour Government, and for Dagenham and Rainham, I think this Budget begins that work. \p Andrew Murrison: I will start on a positive note by commending the lines on productivity in the Red Book, and the recent comments that various Ministers have made about that. Productivity has to be the No. 1 objective in getting our NHS to where it needs to be to deliver for our constituents. I have to say to the Health Secretary that objectives two and three are probably dentistry and adult social care, and on those, I have heard less positive news.

Dentistry in particular is still struggling as a result of the units of dental activity created by Gordon Brown back in the day—a system that has bedevilled the provision of dentistry in this country and is in urgent need of reform. Without that reform, we will  make no progress at all on one of the principal issues in the health service that concern my constituents at the moment.

I think that a degree of humility is important when we talk about the NHS, and I say that with all due respect to the Health Secretary, because otherwise he will be setting himself up for a fall. Reform in the NHS is fiendishly difficult, and we all remember the ghost of PFI, which still stalks the corridors of our hospitals and clinics and will do so for some time to come.

The day before the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave her pre-Budget speech, her boss—the Prime Minister, no less—took the very unusual step of personally moving the Second Reading of a Bill. The Bill was admittedly a very important one indeed, and the Prime Minister might have thought, perfectly understandably, that it was too important to be delivered by his Justice Secretary. It was the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which begins its Committee stage today.

At the heart of the Bill is a new duty of candour, and despite its name, it extends well beyond the holders of public office. It carries a legal obligation to act transparently, creates new criminal offences of misleading the public, and contains new codes of conduct based on the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, leadership and honesty, and it imposes appropriate sanctions. Lying is a very strong test, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you would call me out of order if I applied it to any right hon. or hon. Member, but this Government, through their Bill, are insisting on another test. They are insisting on a test of candour, and a duty of candour is a noble principle, but nobility cannot be confined to one area of the public realm; it has to be universally applicable, and it has to be applied from the top.

Now, I am not accusing anyone of lying, but it should be abundantly clear that in preparing for this Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not approach her duties with the candour that she and her colleagues are demanding of others—which the public have a right to expect—and that is incorporated, in principle at least, in the Bill that the Prime Minister introduced on Second Reading just a few days ago. I suggest that before that Bill comes back to the Floor of the House, the Chancellor might like to reflect on the duty of candour as far as it applies to Ministers. I feel that a new clause that would make it more difficult for her and her successors to stray into the kind of shenanigans that we have seen over the past couple of months would be greatly welcomed by the House. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman means to be discussing the Budget, not the Bill that is in Committee. \p Andrew Murrison: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

What has unfolded since September reflects badly not just on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Prime Minister, or the Government, but on all of us. On 17 September, the OBR— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I call Marie Rimmer. \p Marie Rimmer: I want to turn to another measure in the Budget that speaks to fundamental fairness in our society: the high value council tax surcharge, known as the mansion tax. Under the last Government, a band D home in Darlington or Blackpool would cost nearly £300 more in council tax than a £10 million mansion in Mayfair, which cannot be right. Working families are paying more to support their local public services than owners of luxury penthouses, but the Chancellor’s Budget will put an end to that. Her high value council tax surcharge will ensure that those living in multimillion-pound homes who have long escaped their fair contribution pay more, easing the burden on other households.

However, this is about more than domestic fairness. For decades, London’s most expensive properties have served as safety deposit boxes for corrupt wealth from around the world. Russian oligarchs have poured billions into luxury London property—not to live in, not to contribute to our communities, but simply to park their wealth beyond scrutiny. These properties sit empty, increasing in value, while some families struggle with overcrowding and soaring rents and many people attempt to sleep on the streets. The mansion tax sends a clear message: if people own property in Britain, they will contribute to Britain; if they use our capital as a private vault, they will pay their fair share; and if their wealth is tied to Putin’s regime, corruption and the exploitation of the Russian people, London will no longer offer sanctuary.

Our Government have intensified pressure on Russia through widespread sanctions. Just in the last year, we have sanctioned Russia’s two largest oil companies—Rosneft and Lukoil—as well as the vessels it has been using to transport its oil and gas around the globe, but we must go further. It is not enough to freeze Russian assets; we must ensure that those assets are put to work rebuilding what Russia has destroyed. In October, our Government joined forces with those of France and Germany to signal our readiness to use frozen Russian Government assets to help Ukraine, and now the time has come for us to put words into action. I urge the Government to continue working with our European partners to establish a clear mechanism for using those frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction. The principle is simple: Russia bombed it and wrecked it, and Russia should pay for its damage. The proceeds from sanctioned oligarchs’ frozen wealth should not remain static while Ukrainian families live without electricity, heating or homes, and with minimal food.

This Budget shows that our Government are prepared to make difficult choices in pursuit of fairness. The mansion tax and our strengthened sanctions regime are two sides of the same coin. They represent a Britain that will not tolerate a system rigged in favour of the corrupt and the powerful. \p Adam Dance: The topic of today’s debate is investment and renewal, but that is not what people in Yeovil are thinking about after this Budget. For my constituents, including many local business people who came to meet me yesterday, this is the “Why bother?” Budget. “Why bother?”, people in Yeovil ask  after the weeks of leaks, briefings and flip-flopping on the Budget. As David, who supports small and medium-sized business in my constituency, said, all it did in Yeovil was create uncertainty and damage investment. Once we got the Budget, people in Yeovil were left asking, “Why do we bother to trust this Government?”

There were some welcome but long overdue measures, such as those that make online gambling companies pay their fair share, which is good; reduce energy bills, which is good; and lift children out of poverty. However, the Government promised to grow our economy without taxing working people, and the OBR is clear that the Budget has almost no meaningful growth measures at all. What it has is a freeze on income tax thresholds, which is a stealth tax on working people in Yeovil. Similarly, a 3p a mile tax on electric cars will have a disproportionate impact on drivers in my rural constituency, leaving them thinking, “Why bother going electric at all?”

From speaking to business people across my constituency over the last few days, it is clear that so many are left asking, “Why do we bother at all?” Gareth, who owns the Cow and Apple, told me that he asks himself why he bothered battling to keep his business going over the last five years, just for the Government to take and take without even listening, let alone supporting businesses like his. Businesses such as the Cake Box in Yeovil are left in an impossible position. Last year, its business rates went through the roof, and it had to make staff redundant. Because of this Budget, it may have to make more redundancies or increase prices, both of which would damage business. While the Government want to introduce lower business rates multipliers, that is not enough, particularly if higher valuations just cancel out those lower multipliers.

Ultimately, people in my constituency are left asking, “Why bother with a Budget that doesn’t deliver what this country really needs?” What we really need is growth in the economy, and we needed some ambition from the Chancellor, so here are some policies the Government should have bothered with: a windfall tax on the quantitative easing parts of the profits that big banks have received, raising £30 billion for taxpayers over five and a half years; an increase in the digital services tax on social media giants; replacing the broken business rates system with a commercial landowner levy; a reversal of the damaging national insurance and family farm tax rises; and a 5% reduction in VAT for businesses in the hospitality sector over the next 17 months to keep them afloat—that is it: to keep them afloat. Finally, we need a better trade deal with the EU, as Liberal Democrats have been calling for, which could raise more than £25 billion.

The Government have failed to deliver any new ideas just when we need them most, so they should please just steal ours. Our communities need more and they deserve better. \p Ian Lavery: I am listening to this debate and I am discombobulated—I really, really am. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) spoke for 20 minutes, but he never mentioned why his party—and others—absolutely opposes withdrawing the two-child cap. In this country,  we have kids suffering from scurvy, beriberi and rickets, among many other diseases caused by malnutrition. And you know what? He has opposed lifting children out of poverty. You’re an absolute disgrace. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Mr Lavery, you will be aware that you have just called me an absolute disgrace with that phrase. I am taking it badly. \p Ian Lavery: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would never dream of calling you a disgrace—you are far from that—but I was pointing at the two Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Daventry and the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).

Getting back to the reality, why did the right hon. Gentleman not mention why the Opposition oppose that, in a country where we are one of the richest economies in the world? Why are we not feeding the kids? Why are we not making sure that kids in every constituency in this country are fed when they get into school and get equal opportunities to fill their bellies and learn, and get better opportunities later on? Why? Why did the Conservative party and the media in the press over the weekend continually have a go at the Labour party about “benefit street”? Typical. Reverting to type. Well, I’ll tell you something, Madam Deputy Speaker: 3,000 kids in my constituency of Blyth and Ashington will benefit greatly as a result of just that one policy. I am proud that we looked at that and that we have done exactly what we have done. I just cannot believe people oppose it. I used to have loads of respect for at least one of those on the Opposition Front Bench.

With the time I have left, I would like to mention the efforts of Labour Front Benchers on the inclusion of the BCSSS—the British coal staff superannuation scheme—and the pensions for many mineworkers who worked underground. As the Labour party promised in the 2024 manifesto, the mineworkers’ pension scheme has now agreed to pay the money back from the special reserve fund to the pensioners themselves. It is a great move. People will remember this. For 14 years, the Conservative party refused to pay a single ha’penny to miners who had worked their socks off in the pursuit of black coal for this country.

There is a lot to do. We need to look at a wealth tax. We need to make sure that these billionaires and millionaires are not left out. And if they want to go to Dubai, Madam Deputy Speaker, then bye, bye—nick off to Dubai! \p Stephen Gethins: It is good to be able to make my presentation today, after the past few days of drama. The Budget is meant to be a showcase for this place. The Conservatives will be well aware of past years when Budgets unravelled in the days just after they were delivered, but I think we all found it quite something to see a Budget unravel in the days before it was even delivered.

Now, there are a couple of more serious points. The Scottish Government get most of their finances from Westminster. We continue to live in an overly centralised state. I say this constructively, because the Health Secretary  is a constructive person: engagement with the devolved Administrations should happen before a Budget, not after. It is unacceptable for the First Minister to offer meetings and get no response. That is unacceptable not just for the First Minister of Scotland, but for the First Ministers of Northern Ireland and Wales, who should be afforded a similar courtesy.

We have had a lot of silence from Scottish Labour about the Chancellor over the past few days—a lot of silence. \p Melanie Ward: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Stephen Gethins: Ah! Is the hon. Lady about to disagree with her Scottish leader? Please, I would love to hear it. \p Melanie Ward: The hon. Member says that he has not heard much from Scottish Labour MPs about the Chancellor, so let me take this chance to put on record my thanks, and the thanks of my constituents, to the Chancellor for ensuring that this Budget gave £20 million to Kirkcaldy to begin the renewal of our town, after almost two decades of his party’s rule in Scotland. \p Stephen Gethins: We would have had the money that the hon. Lady talks about had we remained in the European Union and had access to European regional funding, which she does not want any more.

I am astonished at the split in the Labour party over what happens to the Chancellor. I am glad that the Chancellor has the hon. Lady’s confidence, but even the BBC is reporting that “we were misled”. We can all agree that the Chancellor holds a serious post. With the chair of the OBR gone, and the director general of the BBC having recently gone, we have to be sure that the Chancellor has the confidence of this House and those around her. Given the chaos of the past few days, we cannot be sure that that is the case anymore.

On a more positive note, I give the Health Secretary his due: the question of child poverty is close to his heart, as it is to mine, and he speaks passionately and eloquently about it. The Labour party was chucking out Members of Parliament for voting to get rid of the two-child cap, and it voted against our motion just a few weeks ago. A couple of years ago, the leader of the Scottish Labour party even said that getting rid of it would “spook the markets”. The markets have not been spooked. It has been done.

The Scottish Government were ahead of the game. What is the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling? Scotland. What is the only part of the UK that has a Scottish child payment that is driving down child poverty? Scotland. I know that the Health Secretary is constructive and takes this to heart. \p Scott Arthur: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Stephen Gethins: I have already given way. I urge the Health Secretary to look at the benefits of the Scottish child payment. I am a believer in solidarity, and would love to see it being rolled out to the rest of the UK, given its successes in Scotland. I say that constructively, and I hope that the Health Secretary will consider it.

We are talking about renewal. On the energy sector, we have heard about Harbour Energy, which is the latest to announce job losses as a direct consequence of the energy profits levy. Offshore Energies UK has talked about the loss of thousands of jobs as a result of the levy. I remind the House that the UK is about the only state in the world that found oil and gas and never introduced a future generations fund. Why have such a fund? Because oil and gas are finite resources, and a fund allows us to invest in the future instead of taxing them out of existence, which is what is happening at the moment. I hear that from my constituents, and we hear it from across north-east Scotland.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister mentioned the failure of Brexit, and the Health Secretary has done the same. According to House of Commons figures, it is costing the public purse £250 million every day. That is a disgrace. It is a Tory and Reform failure that all of us are paying for. Trade is down. Brexit is responsible for a large chunk of the tax rises and, according to the Mayor of London’s research, made the economy £140 billion smaller. I appeal to the Labour party: start doing something differently from the Conservatives and Reform. They failed; please do not. \p Joani Reid: Nobody is more pessimistic about Scotland’s future than the SNP. John Swinney has been working extremely hard the past couple of days to ensure that no inappropriate celebrations are held. One of his complaints, covered in the press today, is that Labour is cutting energy bills by only £150, with that doubling for the poorest households. But we on the Government Benches are not pessimistic when it comes to Scotland’s future—we are optimistic, and we are backing that optimism with cold, hard cash.

Some £10 billion of additional funding for Scotland has been announced since the Labour party took office last July. That money is available because in the United Kingdom, we pool resources and we share strength. That money could be used to improve our schools—once our greatest pride, they have slid down the international league tables. That money, coming from a Labour Budget, could be used to deliver significant improvements in the NHS, and yet under the SNP, waiting times keep on rising. That money could be used to tackle crime, something that is needed given the alarming rise in violence. \p Jamie Stone: Further to the remarks of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) about Scotland, where pregnant mothers in my constituency have to make a 200-mile round trip to give birth, would it not be great if some of this money was spent to make the maternity service fair for mums? \p Joani Reid: I could not agree more. More than that, the SNP needs to deliver on promise after promise that it has made about the NHS while absolutely failing to deliver any improvements, despite the fact that Scotland has been given a record settlement. The money is out there, but under the tired and wired SNP, the ideas to use it effectively are not.

It is my belief that Labour’s victory in Scotland’s general election rested on the support of three core groups. The first were young families and couples paying  their first mortgage. I have met hundreds of such families on the doorstep in East Kilbride, Strathaven and across our villages. I know that the past 18 months have been tough, but we are now delivering for those families; mortgage costs are down and wages are up, and the Budget brings new action to cut fuel bills by between £150 and £300 a year.

Our second key group of supporters were people who are in work but rely on benefits to help to pay their bills. For 14 years, they were soft targets for austerity and denounced by right wingers as scroungers. Despite many of them working every hour they could, they increasingly struggled to support themselves and their families, and many were desperate for help to arrive—and help has now arrived. I am proud to support this redistributive Budget and proud to back a Government who do things like twice announcing substantial increases in the minimum wage, abolishing the two-child benefit cap, with the despicable rape clause, and legislating for a real-terms increase in universal credit. The last measure alone will directly benefit 450,000 households in Scotland.

The third group who voted for us back in July last year were those aged between 18 and 24—the hundreds of thousands of young people whom the SNP Government have completely ignored. They are not the ones living in Glasgow’s west end or Edinburgh’s Morningside, who do not look to further education colleges to give them the training and skills that they need to get on in life. Here I admit that the news is mixed, because yes, a UK Government can invest directly in Grangemouth to lead the way in bringing in the skills needed for the clean energy future, or back Inchgreen dry dock to help access to defence-related jobs—both are happening thanks to this Budget—but no Budget can change the SNP’s policy of starving FE colleges of money or doing everything it can to block the renewal of Scotland’s nuclear fleet. To change any of that, we need to get Anas Sarwar into Bute House as the First Minister next May, and it is our belief that we can see that happen. That is our final piece of optimism for Scotland. \p Neil Hudson: This Budget is entitled “Strong foundations, secure future”; sadly, it is anything but, with weak foundations and an insecure future. For all this talk of fair decisions, this Budget’s biggest scandal is that my constituents are not being given a fair deal in any way whatsoever. My constituents, like those of Members across the House, who work hard to support themselves and their families and who innovate and start businesses that provide jobs, have been deeply let down by this Budget and Labour’s previous Budget. My constituents and people right across the country will pay more while being deprived of investment in the services they need due to this Government’s political decisions.

My constituents, and those of the Health Secretary himself, were promised by Labour a full rebuild of Whipps Cross hospital, as started by the previous Conservative Government. The health secretary went as far as to say that he supported the “Whipps Won’t Wait” campaign before the election, but as soon as his Government were elected he changed his tune to “Whipps Must Wait”. As a result, Whipps Cross now faces a  £170 million backlog of maintenance costs due to the Government’s delay. This rebuild and that of Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow—again promised by Labour—are needed by my constituents now.

Folk in Epping Forest have some words for the Transport Secretary. The Central line is consistently delayed, overcrowded, and over-hot in summer, with screeching rail noise. The trains are in need of modernisation, and all this is compounded by horrendous graffiti like something out of Gotham City, which is getting worse day by day. Could the Transport Secretary have a word with the Mayor of London about investment in the Central line and deterrents for graffiti?

All those decisions come on top of choices that the Government had already inflicted before last week, none of which they have reversed with this Budget. The Government’s plan to jeopardise the heart and lungs of Epping Forest—its precious green belt—under the misleadingly termed “grey belt” is completely at odds with our constituency’s environment and natural beauty. We need the right homes in the right places, but we cannot have this top-down approach.

The rise in national insurance contributions in last year’s Budget means that businesses in Epping Forest face a dilemma: stop hiring new staff or freeze pay for existing staff. That cannot go on. While the Government choose to be ambiguous when it comes to spending, it is very clear where they can make savings. They could save £1.8 billion by cancelling their flawed policy on digital ID, or they could save £35 billion on their flawed Chagos islands policy.

Labour is also now waging a war on motorists by hiking fuel duty and disincentivising electric and plug-in hybrid car drivers with a mileage charge. That is not sustainable moving forward. We have seen political choices from a desperate Labour Government. It is sad that they have completely disregarded Conservative plans that would help our economy, such as scrapping stamp duty and abolishing business rates for retail, hospitality or leisure businesses.

The people of Epping Forest and the UK deserve better than the retrograde decisions made by this Labour Government. We need to push back against this high-tax, low-delivery Budget. \p Gerald Jones: I rise to welcome the Budget. We know that we have experienced difficult economic times of late, but despite that we have a Budget that is both solid and fair. Wages have grown more since the start of this Parliament than since 2010, and interest rates have gone down five times since the general election.

I particularly welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken to help with the cost of living and energy bills—and, of course, the decision to scrap the two-child benefit cap and raise half a million children out of poverty. Earlier this year I hosted a roundtable discussion with key stakeholders in Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare. Housing providers, Citizens Advice, food banks and others came to Merthyr Town football club to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), who was at that time the Employment Minister and consulting on the child poverty strategy.

The key message from that event was that the single most important thing the Government could do to alleviate child poverty was scrap the cap. I am so pleased that the Chancellor listened and took action. In my constituency alone around 2,590 children face a better future and will have better life chances due to this decision. \p Connor Rand: Like my hon. Friend, I have heard relentlessly from organisations about this. Trafford South food bank, G-Force and other organisations in my constituency, and national charities, have all spoken about the importance of lifting children out of poverty and the impact that the measure will have, including for 1,000 children in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend find it surprising that Conservative Members have not heard those calls from their constituency organisations? \p Gerald Jones: I thank my hon. Friend and could not agree more. All I can say is, we see that every day in our constituencies, so they must be walking around with their eyes closed and their ears shut. Action needed to be taken, and I am so glad that this Labour Government have taken that action. In addition, freezing fuel duty, increasing the minimum wage and the living wage and increasing pensions by 4.8% in April will help reduce the pressures on many of my constituents.

Over many months, I have been working with dozens of my constituents and the coalfield group of MPs to make the case for changes to the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. The £2.3 billion transferred back to the pension pot will mean about £100 a week for around 376 BCSSS members in Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare, building on the decision in last year’s Budget to right a similar injustice with the mineworkers’ pension fund. Mineworkers powered our country and many Welsh communities for decades. I am proud that this Labour Government are doing right by them. \p Melanie Ward: On the BCSSS move, will my hon. Friend join me in recognising the 290 people in my constituency who will benefit and in paying tribute to Billy Ogg from Kingseat in my constituency who has done so much work campaigning for the change alongside many other former coal board staff? \p Gerald Jones: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating her constituent. So many people in our constituencies have wanted this and worked hard for it, and it will make such a difference to them in their lives and for their prosperity. I absolutely welcome the decision.

Fuel prices in some parts of my constituency are often 10p per litre higher than in other parts—in some cases even within the same chain. For example, fuel at Asda in Merthyr Tydfil is often 7p to 10p per litre dearer than at Asda in Aberdare, which is bizarre, and it is not the only company that does that. I wrote to the suppliers asking for an explanation, and when those explanations were not satisfactory I wrote to the Competition and Markets Authority urging it to undertake a local inquiry. Continuing to freeze fuel duty will help, and I am pleased that the new fuel finder will be implemented shortly to bring additional pressure to bear on suppliers to keep prices competitive.

Thanks to the Government’s Pride in Place initiative, both Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf local authorities will each receive £21.5 million, which will be spent on priorities identified by local residents. I am so pleased that we are moving towards doing things with communities rather than to communities. Empowering local residents is so much more beneficial to our local areas.

For many years, as touched on earlier, coal extraction built wealth right across the UK—it powered the Welsh and the UK economy for decades—but the previous UK Conservative Government failed to support any costs associated with the remediation of coal tips owing to that being a devolved area. This Labour Government recognise that the legacy of coal and coal tip safety is very much a shared responsibility. I welcome the £25 million that the Government provided in their first Labour Budget last year along with, building over three years, a further £118 million to support the vital work to keep our coal tips safe. That represents all the funding that the Welsh Government requested for safety works for the rest of this Parliament.

With a significant number of category D tips across Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf, that investment is hugely important for my constituents. This is a Government determined to act where Tory inaction left communities unsafe. The funding announcement, along with significant investment from the Welsh Government, shows the impact of two Labour Governments working together for Wales after years of Tory failure.

After years of the previous Conservative Government starving Wales of resources, I am pleased that the Government are building on the biggest settlement to Wales since devolution, with the Budget providing an additional £1 billion of spending power to the Welsh Government through the Barnett formula and by reforming the fiscal framework. That funding will help the Welsh NHS and public services across Wales, and benefit my constituents in Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare.

There is much more I that could say on artificial intelligence growth, the local growth fund, defence sector deals and the youth guarantee. The Budget will help so many in my constituency—families, young people and pensioners—and I urge hon. Members to support it this evening. \p Max Wilkinson: Just this weekend, The Telegraph reported a secret plot to reverse Brexit by taking this country into a customs union with the EU. Sign me up for that, because we would generate plenty of investment and renewal if we did. If only that were the case. As everyone on the Government Benches and in this House knows, there is an alternative to some of the pain in the Budget. The Labour party knows that it does not really need to hike taxes on hard-pressed households or batter businesses. There is a better way.

Depending on which economist we ask, the impact of Brexit has been a hit to GDP of as low as 4% or as high as 8%. What is the Government’s answer? A deal with Europe amounting to a boost to GDP of about 0.3% and a trade deal with India amounting to about 0.13%. Let us not forget the deal with Trump’s America that might be worth something or not very much at all, yesterday, today or tomorrow, depending on how well the President’s Happy Meal is going down.

Those piddling trade deals are used as evidence for not pursuing closer integration with the economic bloc that covers 41% of our exports and 51% of our imports. Such freedoms we have gained: the freedom for Britain to punch itself in the mouth for ever while Reform and the Conservatives tell us that the pain we feel is the sweet taste of freedom champagne and liberty oysters. At least the Government now acknowledge that there is a problem, but the delusion continues while they argue that anything other than the obvious is the solution.

What is the result of that delusion? British businesses are mired in post-Brexit regulation. The cost of living is up, the size of the state has ballooned, much to the annoyance of the Conservatives who told us it would get smaller, tax is at record levels and our economy is more vulnerable to international shocks. We are all poorer, apart from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not here but whose profitable grift continues. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. May I just point out that the hon. Member might like to withdraw the choice of word he used to describe the actions of the hon. Member for Clacton? \p Max Wilkinson: He is making a lot of money on social media, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am happy to clarify that.

To compound the problem, we have the sort of Budgets that this Government are giving the nation. Last year, they decided to make it more expensive for businesses to employ people. The Government also tell us that their No. 1 priority is growth but persist with needless and harmful trade barriers and increase the cost of employing people. That is at best absurd and at worst a dereliction of duty.

A short time ago, deep into the weeks of endless leaks and speculation, I met concerned local businesses. They wanted the Government to do something to ease the tax burden, to tread carefully when raising minimum wages—they did not say they were against them, though—and to make it easier for their businesses to grow. The opposite has happened. Despite the spin applied last week, here is the feedback. Edward Anderson, who runs three pubs in Cheltenham, tells me his combined business rates for the three premises will increase by £27,000 a year from April. Andrew Coates tells me that the rates across his three premises will rise by £34,500, on top of the impact of the minimum wage rises costing him £25,000. Why?

On occasion, those of us who ask the Government difficult questions about sensitive and divisive matters are shouted down and told we are ignoring the problem. On this matter, it is the Government who are ignoring the problem, and Ministers know it. Without properly dealing with the consequences of Brexit by striking a new trade deal with Europe—a customs union leading to single market access and stronger realignment in future—this country will continue in the slow lane. If this Government continue to be wilfully ignorant of the impact of their actions on the private sector, this country will continue in the slow lane. If the No. 1 priority for this Government truly were prosperity, they would unleash the opportunity of a trade deal with Europe and make it easier to do business here. \p Ruth Jones: This Budget is a good Budget, and as a proud Welsh MP I am pleased to say that this Budget delivers for the people of Wales. It cuts the cost of living, invests in frontline public services and strengthens our plan for growth. Wales’s frontline public services will be the big beneficiaries of the Labour choices at the heart of the Budget. By asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear their fair share of tax, getting debt falling and restoring stability to the national finances, the Welsh Government will benefit from the largest financial settlement in the history of devolution.

While the Conservatives chose to impose real-term cuts on Wales, this Labour Government choose to invest in Wales. I greatly welcome the additional £505 million in funding for Welsh schools, hospitals and other public services delivered through the Budget. I also welcome reforms to the Welsh fiscal framework, as committed to in our manifesto, which will provide £425 million in additional spending power, with borrowing limits for capital projects increasing every year.

These are important steps to righting the historic wrongs of how Wales has been funded. After 14 years of Conservative failure, Wales has the highest child poverty of any devolved nation in the UK, with almost a third of Welsh children growing up in poverty. That is a stain on our national history, but this Budget reverses the trend. Decisions made by this Labour Government will see child poverty in Wales falling once again. The scrapping of the two-child benefit cap is one of the biggest steps we will take in our mission to end the injustice of child poverty.

Labour choices will see 69,000 children in Wales—more than one in every 10—lifted out of poverty and benefiting from greater financial security. Scrapping the cap is not only the right thing to do; it is economically essential. Poverty and inequality remain a massive drain on our economy and our national potential. People in Wales know this instinctively. Fairness is a key national value. It is who we are. The Conservatives and Reform do not get this. That is why they do not understand Wales.

This Budget also rights another historic wrong, as we have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones). I am thankful to the Chancellor for listening to him and to other coalfield MPs, like myself, and returning the investment reserve of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to its members. Having recently met BCSSS members at the Newbridge Memo, I know how significant this £2.3 billion change will be. One of the people I met there was Alan Watkins, who worked at Oakdale colliery in my constituency for 24 years. He started when he was just 16 years old, working at the pit until it closed in 1989. He is now 76. People like Alan have had to wait far too long for justice, but thanks to the change by this Labour Government, that wrong will finally be righted. My thanks go to all the scheme’s members and trustees, and especially to Bleddyn Hancock for his persistence and for never giving up over decades of work.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for semiconductors, I am proud that this Budget will see an additional £10 million being invested to strengthen skills in the Welsh semiconductor cluster. It is the  world’s first compound semiconductor cluster and a real success story for Wales and my constituency of Newport West and Islwyn.

In addition to the two Governments at each end of the M4 working together, I hope to see more joint working between Network Rail and Transport for Wales. The additional £445 million of investment that the Labour Government have already announced in Wales’s rail infrastructure, including five new stations in south Wales, will be beneficial to all across south Wales, but I urge Network Rail and Transport for Wales to go further in working to deliver those ambitions.

This Budget follows a long Labour tradition of being prudent with a purpose. It is based on Labour choices, with Labour values running through it, and our purpose is clear: action on the cost of living, investment in our public services and the delivery of future growth. I commend it to the House. \p Adrian Ramsay: This Budget was billed as a plan for renewal. In Waveney Valley, renewal is measured by what people actually feel: lower bills, better services, affordable local food and the protection of our irreplaceable natural environment, yet Kevin, a trustee of the Waveney food bank, told me a few days ago that demand continues to grow, reflecting hardship nationwide. Trussell reports that around 14 million people, including 3.8 million children, faced food insecurity last year. Scrapping the two-child limit in universal credit is very welcome indeed, and something I have long called for, but it alone cannot tackle structural poverty.

The Budget raises £26 billion, but most is held back to expand fiscal headroom rather than easing household pressures. Threshold freezes hit low and middle-income families, creating a disproportionate burden on ordinary households, while the wealthiest are still not paying their fair share. Opportunities to tax extreme wealth have been missed, and this decision punishes the many to protect the privileges of the few while families and public services continue to struggle.

Schools are facing severe financial pressure. Headteachers in my constituency report cutbacks to subject options and support services, and recruitment and retention remain challenging. Special educational needs are under particular strain. Demand for special educational needs and disabilities services has doubled, with deficits rising from £6.6 billion to £13.4 billion in three years and councils warning of insolvency. Thousands of children face long waits for assessments, and schools must meet needs without sufficient staff, training or funding. Urgent action is needed to stabilise SEND and schools funding in order to improve access and support.

The Budget was also a missed opportunity for farmers already struggling with rising costs and succession pressures. Agricultural property relief remains capped at £1 million per person, hitting ordinary family farms rather than the people I know the Government are trying to target: those buying up farmland to avoid tax. Along with experts such as Dan Neidle, I have argued that the APR threshold should rise to around £10 million to clamp down on tax avoidance without penalising family farms that make little money day to day.

Core farm costs have also been frozen. The environmental land management schemes remain underfunded, complex and difficult for smaller farms to access, preventing  investment in nature restoration, climate-resilient practices and improved animal welfare. The sustainable farming incentive remains closed to new applicants, stalling access to properly funded schemes that are essential for environmental protection and a secure food supply.

The Budget promises 250 new neighbourhood health centres, which I very much welcome—they could restore rural services, and I look forward to seeing them in market towns across Waveney Valley—but there is no clarity on what it will mean for dentistry, which is already at a crisis point. Financing the health centres through public-private partnerships raises concerns and questions about long-term costs given the failures of PFI. Public investment must serve patients, not private profit.

This Budget makes promises with some welcome elements, but does not deliver the scale of renewal that our country needs. Public services are stretched, farmers are struggling, schools and councils face unsustainable pressures, and families across Waveney Valley continue to battle hardship. Kevin at the Waveney food bank hopes that one day he will be able to close the food bank for good, but on the basis of this Budget, there is a long way to go. \p Noah Law: On the subject of today’s debate—investment and renewal—may I express my delight at the establishment of a local, publicly owned investment fund for Cornwall? It is only by investing in the SMEs and supply chains that underlie our most promising industries that we will ensure that the benefits of growth are spread throughout our communities.

After a longer period of frenetic fiscal debate than I can remember, I would say that we have landed on the consensus that investment is needed to turn our country around and that, where revenue needs to be raised, it must be done in a way that is beyond a shadow of a doubt progressive and does not impact substantially on the finances of working people. I thank the Chancellor not just for going the extra mile for Cornwall, but for ensuring that we are putting more pounds in the pockets of working people and allowing them to get on with their lives by cutting their energy bills, freezing prescriptions and the cost of rail travel, and—as I have argued for many times in this place—protecting pensioners on low incomes from the effects of fiscal drag.

I welcome the fact that some of my calls for farmers, and the calls of rural colleagues, have been heard, although we all know that we must go further to match the intended spirit of the reforms and that those businesses that just happen to be based on agricultural land should pay their taxes like everyone else. We also need to ensure that we put family farms on the best footing possible to invest in the future of our food production.

Some of the best return on investment we can get comes from investing in our NHS, as we heard so eloquently from the Secretary of State at the start of the debate. In fact, investing in our NHS can sometimes yield gross value added returns of over £10 on every pound spent. The same is true of investment in early childhood education. I very much welcome the prioritisation of those things in the Budget.

In August, I set canny young economists the research challenge of squaring the very tricky circle of a tax policy that is efficient, pro-growth and progressive.  Delivering on each of those is no mean feat at a time of global instability and during this most prolonged period of weak growth, gifted by the last Government. I commend the Chancellor on her management of those trade-offs and for delivering a Budget that will allow the UK to grow faster than its peers, and one that is truly a Labour Budget. \p Layla Moran: The Secretary of State was absolutely right: the NHS does need to innovate and renew—and indeed any investment in any Budget is welcome—but how this renewal happens and what is prioritised also matters. While I of course agree that the focus on hospital waiting lists is right, I can also be concerned that the focus on physical health risks deprioritising an under-loved but equally important area: mental health.

Today, the Health and Social Care Committee published its report on community mental health services, with a focus on severe mental health. The report is clear: we must take a radical new approach to mental health and its funding. Although parity of esteem has been enshrined in the NHS constitution for over a decade, we have not made enough progress. As Lord Darzi outlined, although mental health accounts for over 20% of the disease burden, it receives less than 10% of NHS spend. Worryingly, the share of NHS spending on mental health has fallen again this year. For five years it went up, slowly but surely, from 8.05% in 2018 to 9% in 2023. That may not sound like much, but it represents billions in extra spending. That started to make a bit of a difference, particularly in workforce numbers, but anyone who uses the system knows that we have a long way to go.

I am bitterly disappointed that the mental health investment standard, which is the principle of increasing the share of ICB spend on mental health each year, has been watered down to be based on flat, real funding growth—just keeping up with inflation. This is an unwelcome finessing of the definition, and it is a backwards step. The Committee urges the Government to change course and, further, to enshrine the original definition in law.

Why spend all that money? There are so many reasons. There is a strong link between mental illness and demand for social care. People with severe mental ill health die on average 15 to 20 years earlier. A Care Quality Commission survey showed that up to 90% of people with mental health issues want to work, but only 37% are working. For people with severe mental illness, that figure falls to 8%. They are not lazy; they are sick. Investing in mental health grows the economy and boosts productivity.

Of course, money is not everything. It is right that we do this for the people—something that I know only too well as the proud partner of someone who happens to have a bipolar diagnosis. They fall through the cracks, denied care for being too well, too ill or not in crisis. They wait years for services, and, unlike for physical health, there are no targets. We need national access and waiting time standards now. The consequences of the system can be tragic—just ask Dianne, one of my constituents. Her son Leon was discharged from the  community and he deteriorated. Despite desperate pleas, doctors would not review his case, and he completed suicide.

There is a ray of hope in the system: 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres. Such centres are open access, with an integrated, holistic model, rooted in communities—everything that our experts asked for. One staff member said:

“This place helps people feel like a skilled person, not just an ill person.”

We need the funding for those centres to continue, and for them to be rolled out across the country. I urge the Government to be bold, take on the leadership and ensure that the money is there. If they do, our Committee will back them every step of the way. \p Terry Jermy: In my maiden speech, I said that one third of all children in my constituency live in poverty. I reflect upon that often, and it causes me great concern. In among the fields, trees and pretty villages, poverty is a real issue. There are many reasons that poverty might exist, but not a single one of them is the fault of the children themselves. That is why I support the removal of the two-child cap.

I welcome the above-inflation increase in the state pension because pensioner poverty is of great concern, too, particularly in rural areas like mine, which struggle with low wages and poor-quality housing. The Government’s commitment to freezing fuel duty and rail fares will greatly help those of my constituents who continue to endure cost of living pressures and the additional expense of living in a rural area with limited public transport options. I welcome the progress that the Labour Government are making on those important issues, picking up the pieces after so many years of Conservative austerity left public services at breaking point.

The proposals relating to agricultural property relief, however, continue to concern me. Although I welcome the concession, it does not address the fundamental flaws. Farming is in crisis. Just this year, we have seen the second worst harvest on record, and confidence is at an all-time low. Longer, hotter summers, drought and flooding, delays to schemes such as the sustainable farming incentive, biosecurity threats, frustration with planning, permits and licensing, and the dominance of the supermarkets all erode the sustainability of the sector and weaken our food security immeasurably. While the Conservatives might be desperate to paint themselves as the face of rural Britain, farmers in my constituency remember all too well the failures of the last Tory Government and the lack of progress over many years. Rather than getting better, life got worse under the Tories in rural Britain, and in a change election, rural Britain revolted.

Nowhere was that change more extreme than in my constituency, which recorded the largest swing from Conservatives to Labour ever in a general election. While a short stint as Prime Minister did my opponent’s re-election chances no favours, it was her direct role in selling out British farmers that had already broken the support of many, for it was Liz Truss’s signature on many of the Tory Government’s trade deals that did so much damage, on top of a litany of other failures. It is no wonder that in the fields of South West Norfolk,  where once there were Tory signs aplenty, at last year’s election they were harder to spot than a Reform party policy. This Government have the chance to reset the relationship with rural Britain, and I yearn for those progressive Labour values translated across our green and pleasant lands. \p Jenny Riddell-Carpenter: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things this Labour Government could do is to bring forward a dedicated rural strategy, which would address many of the issues he is referring to and build a stronger, better rural Britain? \p Terry Jermy: My hon. Friend is right that Government policies do not always fall equally across the country, and I absolutely welcome the idea of a rural strategy.

Importantly, if the changes to APR go ahead, they will fail to address one of the key issues, because after 1 April it will still be financially advantageous for the super-rich to purchase agricultural land to avoid inheritance tax. At a rate of 20%, as opposed to 40%, it will remain a tax-efficient form of investment. In Norfolk, as elsewhere, we continue to see large swathes of land purchased by big corporations and the very well-off. This change will therefore not stop that abuse by the celebrities and the billionaires.

APR has contributed to over-inflated land prices, despite the profitability of farming continuing to be a major challenge. Farmers in my constituency rarely make a return on capital of more than 1%, and farming is so often misunderstood and caught out by the view that land ownership equals wealth. If a farmer owns 200 to 400 acres of land, as many of the 500 farmers in my constituency do, they may well be wealthy if they did something with that land other than farm it, but if they continue to farm the land, that value is theoretical and will return very little profit. That should be of huge concern to this country and this Government.

Farmers in my constituency regard themselves as custodians of the land, and in many ways, they provide a public service. I accept, as many in the farming community do, that we need to reform APR. With a few specific changes, this policy can be improved to better target its impact and provide the support for British farming that I know our Government want to provide. While I accept the economic situation and the appalling legacy of the last Conservative Government, the future of farming in this country depends on this Government’s policy being right. \p Jamie Stone: Last week I had the pleasure of visiting a very remote part of Wester Ross—a new part of my constituency—with the intrepid Olivia and Susie from my office. We went first to Badluarach on the south side of Little Loch Broom. There, I spoke with a crofter, Lisa Stewart, across the wall of her croft. She was initially rather startled when I appeared, partly because I was dressed like this, and I think she mistook me for a Mormon missionary.

We spoke of many things, one of which was that we had in the past an outreach clinic at Dundonnell where nurses and doctors would attend, and local people—  elderly people in particular—could go with their ailments without having to make the long return trip to Ullapool. After covid, that once-a-week service was reduced to once a month, and Madam Deputy Speaker, you can imagine what concern that causes my constituents in this remote area, particularly the elderly and particularly during winter weather.

Our intrepid trio then travelled in a little open ferry to Scoraig, on the other side of Little Loch Broom. The weather was choppy, the wind was getting up and I, in my suit, got rather soaked by the spray. In Scoraig, the locals told us about their deep concern at the state of their little jetty and of the similar one at Badluarach, which we had left earlier. I might point out that although Scoraig is on the mainland—it is on a peninsula—it is entirely inaccessible by any road; one can only get there by ferry. If one of these little jetties goes down, people cannot get to see the doctor or the nurse, and secondary pupils who spend the week in Ullapool cannot return to their homes for the weekend.

There is a point behind all this, Madam Deputy Speaker. We heard in the Budget that His Majesty’s Government are giving the Scottish Government £820 million, and people in the remote parts of my constituency want to know where that money goes, because we see precious little of it ever coming to where we need it. We need the money to be spent on doing up the little jetties, and it would not cost much to do them up. We need the money to keep the clinic in Dundonnell open. It is incredibly important to people, but we always seem to see the money spent further south.

What I am arguing for is a degree of transparency in the way the Scottish Government go about their spending. I am not saying for one instant that we in Westminster, or the UK Government, should tell the Scottish Government how to spend their money, but if we could see where the money was going, colleagues of any party whatsoever in Holyrood could start to ask the difficult questions—the questions that should be asked.

I am going to abuse my position in my last minute and simply make the following point, which I think would help the Budget. Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks is upgrading the grid all over Scotland, and I accept that that is a strategic necessity for this country. Where SSEN proposes to put in a battery or new pylons, it is offering financial incentives—money—to local communities that will be affected. The important thing is that the electricity generated in the Western Isles will come through a vast undersea cable to Little Loch Broom. It will make landfall at Dundonnell, and then possibly come to where we are today, but the communities either side of that loch—Badluarach on one side, and Scoraig on the other—will receive not a penny. I hope that SSEN is listening to us, because there is a moral argument that it should take into account those communities as well. That money would be of enormous assistance to the UK’s Budget and the Scottish Budget. \p Connor Naismith: My constituents want to know that the decisions taken in the Budget are fair, that they are necessary to tackle the long-term challenges this country faces, and that they align with their priorities and lived experience of daily  life. This Budget achieves that, and I want to talk about some specific measures, beginning with the two-child cap.

I have been incredibly frustrated by the level at which the Conservatives have sought to debate the two-child cap. They should hang their heads in shame for trying to present this as an argument between people who work and those who do not, because 60% of the families who will benefit from the abolition of the two-child cap are working families. I do not think that we in this place talk often enough about the fact that 33% of those who claim universal credit are in work. They go out to work every single day and earn their poverty. That is the Conservatives’ record in government, and they should apologise for it.

Let us talk about the 40% of people who do not work. Many of my constituents will have worked at one stage or another, and they find themselves unemployed for reasons that are outside their control. Prior to the last election, Conservative MPs at least had the opportunity to place bets on their future unemployment, but my constituents did not manage to do the same. The Conservatives should reflect on the fact that many people find themselves in that situation through no fault of their own.

Many other measures in the Budget are aimed at tackling the cost of living for my constituents, including increases to the minimum wage and reductions in energy bills. I place on the record my thanks to the Chancellor for listening to my calls to delay the implementation of changes to the employee car ownership scheme. I heard from many constituents who work at Bentley Motors in my constituency about how that would have left them out of pocket by hundreds of pounds a month. I am proud to have advocated on their behalf, alongside Unite the union, in making that case, and I thank the Chancellor for listening.

I want to touch briefly on investment. In her Budget statement, I was delighted to hear the Chancellor recommit to investing in Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is vital to my constituency as a proud rail town in the north of England. I urge the Government to be bold in their announcements on this subject and ensure that we leave the option open for a broader strategy of north-south connectivity, as well as east-west connectivity. I am delighted by the investments that we have made in the NHS. We are already seeing their benefits in reduced waiting times and improved patient experience.

Finally, I thank the Chancellor for listening to my calls to take steps to tackle the dodgy vape shops on our high streets. My constituency was the subject of a recent BBC undercover investigation on the subject, so I am proud that this Government are taking action to tackle that.

The Government have made fair choices in the Budget, which are the right choices in the economic circumstances, and I am proud to support them. \p Brian Mathew: While increased investment in the NHS and the lifting of the two-child benefit cap are welcome, for the second year  in a row, the Government have largely failed to deliver on their promise to tackle the cost of living crisis and grow the economy.

In neglecting to fix our relationship with Europe, they are overlooking the easiest solution to turbocharge our economy and repair the mess left by Brexit. A closer, more pragmatic partnership with our closest neighbours through a customs union would mean faster growth, improved competitiveness and a reduction in the red tape that is holding back small and medium-sized businesses, like those in my constituency of Melksham and Devizes. Last week, the owner of a transport company in Broughton Gifford told me that he had been up until the small hours doing the paperwork needed for his company to export to Europe. These businesses want to expand, export and hire new staff, but they are being held back by a Government that do not seem to understand, or want to understand, business.

Our hospitality sector tells the same story. In the towns and villages in my constituency, hospitality is not just an industry but an essential part of the social fabric. I have visited a number of the outstanding pubs in my constituency, including the British Lion in Devizes and the Lamb in Urchfont, and spoken to the landlords, staff and customers. They are being squeezed by high energy costs, pressures from supply chains, staffing shortages and rising prices. Wadworth, a family-run independent brewer and pub company based in Devizes that produces the much-loved 6X beer, is facing increased charges of thousands of pounds at its tenanted pubs. Despite the reduced multiplier, those pubs face an increase of 76% in their business rates, and will pay an extra £12,900 on average over the next three years, with some paying much more. That will likely lead to pub closures and job losses. I remind the Chancellor that a closed pub pays no taxes, so those measures are not only a nail in the coffin of one of our most valued assets, namely the Great British pub, but a major shot in the foot for the Chancellor and her Government.

The Liberal Democrat policy to cut 5p on VAT for the hospitality sector would help those businesses not only to survive but to ensure that people can afford the little things that brighten up life, such as a pint after work, fish and chips on a Friday or a family meal, which should not break the bank.

This low-growth, high-tax Budget is punishing people, hitting them with stealth taxes on their wages and failing to tackle the actual problems that our residents and businesses face. It fails to reverse the unpopular and self-defeating farm inheritance tax or at least to raise the threshold so that it protects working family farms. The Lib Dems wanted this Budget to be forward-thinking, going for growth with a deal for Europe, saving our high streets, and helping families with the cost of living. Instead, sadly, it was a missed opportunity and squandered the chance to deliver the change that is needed. \p Andy MacNae: Our fiscal framework is not working. This is the structure that is supposed to manage compliance with our fiscal rules and deliver stability and confidence, yet we are seeing quite the opposite. Our current framework is leading to speculation, policy volatility and short-termism, so is there a better way?

The fundamental problem with the current framework is that it requires the OBR to make binary pass-fail judgments on whether the rules are being met, using highly uncertain forecasts of what the economy might look like in 2029. To compound that, the OBR is allowed to count only the impacts of policies that have a high degree of certainty and evidence. That means that for anything new and innovative, it is likely that only the costs, not the benefits, will be included.

On the one hand, we have the requirement for a binary pass-fail judgment; on the other hand, we have massive uncertainty and significant exclusions within the forecast. How are those compatible? The honest truth is that they are not, but that is what the rules currently require, so focus turns to the midpoint of a probability range, which is called a central point estimate. It has no economic meaning beyond being the midpoint. The OBR openly acknowledges that the number has

“essentially no chance of being the actual outcome”,

yet it is used as if it is the forecast, giving rise to statements such as, “The Chancellor has £9.9 billion of headroom.” Taken at face value, such statements fundamentally misrepresent the inherent uncertainty.

The forced pass-fail system and excessive focus on point estimates has real-world consequences. For a start, binary judgments risk binary responses. A marginal fail is seen as a crisis requiring immediate action, whereas a marginal pass is taken to imply that everything is fine. Given the massive uncertainties in the forecast, the reality is that there is actually no difference between the two situations. Overall, this pressure for lurches between crisis and complacency, driving policy recalibrations in response to binary judgments or changes to forecast methodology, is simply not conducive to policy stability.

There is also a damaging effect on policy design. A pass-fail mindset inevitably incentivises funding policies that deliver easily quantified impacts within the forecast timescale while discouraging longer-term, less quantifiable ones. That is especially problematic for the kind of policies we really need the most—those that prevent ill health, reduce worklessness and manage long-term liabilities. It is essential to address all those areas if we want to bring down debt over the long term. All that inevitably dampens investment and is bad for growth, and speculation and policy volatility are hardly good for bond rates either.

Is there a better way? Many economists and institutions believe so. We need to recognise the really important step that the Chancellor took in this Budget; moving to a single formal assessment each year reduces speculation and policy volatility. That is a significant step and, as it will require the charter for Budget responsibility to be amended, it opens the possibility of further positive change. One such change is that from 2027, the charter introduces a tolerance range for the borrowing rule of plus or minus 0.5% of GDP. That is a big improvement, but there is a strong argument for bringing it forward to 2026 and considering a range for the debt rule too.

We could go further. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is exploring a traffic-light approach based around compliance with a wide range of Budget policy objectives. Thinking about longer-term risk management, we could do a lot more to capture the long-term costs of inaction and show how we are offsetting future risk and bringing down long-term debt projections. Proposals have also  been made about reforming the OBR’s overall remit and methodology, along with revising the role of the Treasury, which rightly poses fundamental questions about the best tools for judging compliance.

Our fiscal rules are vital. Maintaining fiscal discipline is an inherent part of delivering a virtuous cycle of investment, growth and renewal, but there is broad agreement that our fiscal framework, with its reliance on highly uncertain forecasts and pass-fail requirements, is leading to speculation, policy volatility and short-termism. We all pay for that through higher borrowing costs and depressed growth. It is clear that there is a better way that could provide greater stability and enable us to meet fiscal rules and build headroom, while incentivising long-term growth and demand reduction policies. That is what we should strive for, and the time to make it happen is now. \p Blake Stephenson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to nip out to my Delegated Legislation Committee without missing my spot.

I met with businesses this morning, and it is clear that the people who take risks, invest, create jobs and drive tax receipts are busy scratching their heads to find some positive from this Budget. The truth is that it is a disaster for everyone in Mid Bedfordshire and right across the country—for young people looking for their first job, for hard-working families, and for aspirational business owners and job creators. Our country does need investment and renewal, but to pay for it, we need strong businesses and a strong business environment. The Chancellor is delivering the absolute opposite. Just like last year, she has launched a calculated assault on all our constituents; they are now paying the price for spiralling welfare and higher debt costs with their jobs, all to save the Chancellor’s own. The simple truth is that this Government are backing benefits Britain, not alarm clock Britain, and with broken promise after broken promise, the Chancellor is slipping into a black hole of her own making—one that cannot come quick enough for most of us. \p Chris Hinchliff: The hon. Member asked whether there were any positives in the Budget. Does he not think that raising more children out of poverty than any other Parliament on record is a positive? Does he not welcome that—does he not think it benefits all of us? \p Blake Stephenson: I think everybody in this House wants to bring children out of poverty. The way to do that is to get more families into jobs, so that they can afford to bring their children up and take responsibility.

Conservative Members know that it is business that invests, creates jobs and grows our economy, which enables investment in our public infrastructure. The backbone of our economy includes our high streets. Labour Members may visit their local pubs and cafes and post on social media expressing how much they back their high street—even posting about visits to businesses that have since closed—but the truth is that they have been standing idly by while the Chancellor has thrown the local businesses they rely on and claim to champion under the bus. They did it last year; they  will do it again this year when they vote this Budget through; and if the Chancellor comes back for more, as she will, they will do it again.

Let us look at the damage being done to a typical high street pub in Bedfordshire. Charged £7,448 in business rates by the last Conservative Government, that figure increased after the last Budget to £24,309. While local authorities are yet to publish the charge for next year, after the three-yearly business rates revaluation and the abolition of retail, hospitality and leisure relief, the charge is likely to be around £45,000 when transitional relief ends. That is a whopping tax increase of roughly 500% over the course of this Parliament before a single penny has been taken in sales. That is an absolute disgrace. It is an attack on our ambitious small business owners—on our constituents who leap out of bed at the sound of their alarms, work hard, play by the rules and create jobs. Is it any wonder that many of them are now asking themselves, “What’s the point?” Business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses must be abolished, and that is exactly what a Conservative Government will do.

Who is paying for the price for this Budget? It is the very working people whom this Government pretend to support, especially young people starting out as I did—washing dishes in the pub, waiting on tables and working in local shops. Labour Members pat themselves on their backs with smiles all around for increasing the minimum wage, but they are doing so while crushing jobs. It makes absolutely no sense to do this at a time when the market can least afford it. Unemployment is through the roof; some 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training, and that number is rising. That is an absolute scandal that this Government’s economic plan does nothing to fix. \p Jerome Mayhew: It makes it worse. \p Blake Stephenson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it makes it worse. The benefits of an increased minimum wage are meaningless for those who do not have a wage. We should be investing in a brighter future for young people, one of aspiration, hard work, investment and wealth. Only the Conservatives have a plan to do that, by bearing down on welfare spending, cutting taxes, and repealing every job-destroying, anti-business, anti-growth measure in the Employment Rights Bill. We will kick-start young people’s working lives with a £5,000 first jobs bonus. \p Charlie Maynard: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Blake Stephenson: I have no time.

We will back young people to buy their first home. We will not stifle the chances of a good job, punish people with higher taxes when they do find employment, push graduates into higher student loan repayments or make it harder to save for retirement, which is what this Government are doing. The appeal of fleeing socialist Britain has never been more obvious, nor has it ever been so easy, and the exodus has already begun. \p Antonia Bance: I am so sorry that the shadow Health Secretary is no longer in his place. After his astonishing speech, I wanted to invite him to the Black Country, where waiting lists of more than a year are down by 45%. I think that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) managed somehow to compare a speech he disagreed with to Hillsborough; that is not worthy of him, and I hope he will withdraw it.

This is a Budget to cut the cost of living. It is a Budget to make work pay, raising the national minimum wage and giving 2.7 million workers a pay rise. Work brings dignity, and everyone who can should work, but work alone is not always enough to beat the wolves of hunger, cold and want. In this country, our deal is this: if you do the right thing and work, bring your kids up well and follow the rules, the country will help you in return. In our tradition, we believe in a strong state that helps people to lift their heads from daily struggle and gives everyone the freedom to set their own path. For so many, that means the simple aspiration of having children and building a family, which is why in this Budget we are funding more childcare, free breakfast clubs and free school meals. It is why we will build 1.5 million new homes, end no-fault eviction and ban zero-hours contracts.

With this Budget, we add one more source of security for working-class families. If you get ill or lose your job, if—heaven forbid—your partner dies, if your husband beats you up and you have to grab your kids and run, the safety net of our welfare state will once again catch you and all your kids. No child is responsible for the actions of their parents. The happy event of a little one being born should not tip a family into poverty, and whether a six-year-old eats tonight should not depend on how many sisters and brothers she has. In 2019, many of us watched a “Dispatches” documentary called “Britain’s Breadline Kids” and heard Cameron, then aged nine, say “We try not to eat too much in a day”. It shamed us all. We raged at our lack of power to change it, but now we can, and we will.

Ending the two-child limit at a stroke helps 5,540 children in Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley and 1.6 million nationally—one in every nine of our kids. Most families who are helped—six in 10—are in work, and loads of them—four in 10—have a disabled member. None of them deserve poverty. So to the mums with three or more kids who are using universal credit to top up low wages and high rents, I say this: “I know how hard you work, and how tough it is out there. I know you love your kids fiercely. This is for you.” To the parties opposite, I say, “Don’t talk to me about how families should plan. You have never met a better planner than a single mum in Friar Park making the money stretch.” To my constituents who are working hard to make ends meet, not always able to afford everything they want, I say this: “I get it, but I will not apologise. Every child deserves a fair start in life.”

This is what a Labour Government do. Not the shame and powerlessness of nine-year-old Cameron telling us that he tries not to eat too much, but, with Labour in government, lower energy bills, higher wages, growth everywhere—not just in London—and lower child poverty. This is a Labour Budget for all our families. \p Carla Lockhart: Despite all the “lines to take” that the Labour Whips have handed their MPs in an attempt to sell the Budget as something positive, the reality is very different. The content of this Budget is deeply damaging to pensioners, employees, employers and the wider economy. This is a Government who, it appears, are making up reasons to take back double or treble. While the rise in pension is welcome, it is not a new policy. Yes, the protection for pensioners’ ISA savings is welcome, but it penalises those who have not yet reached pension age and limits their ability to save. Where do hard-pressed workers get the benefit to invest their money? At the same time, saving into pension schemes has become yet another tax grab.

We have been consistently told of a £20 billion black hole, and for weeks we have been fed the line that it has ballooned into a £50 billion crisis in just one year, but now we hear that there is no black hole at all. The OBR has been keeping both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor updated on a bi-weekly basis in respect of their forecasts. We now know that when the Chancellor and other Labour Ministers were out in the media painting their stories of doom and talking down the situation, creating volatility in the stock market, the Government knew all along that their briefings were inaccurate.

What we have in this Budget penalises those who work. I noted a quote yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition about how a working family needs to earn £71,000 per year to be as well-off as a family of three on benefits. This Budget is a burden on workers, and it is clear that Labour Members are not the friends of workers. For years in opposition, they made great promises to the nation that they would lead, but the reality has been very different, with broken promises and broken manifesto pledges, and they are slowly breaking our country’s workers, who cannot give any more.

Looking closer at the Budget, the increase in the minimum wage is positive in principle, but it will mean little in practice when employers are hit with the double blow of the national insurance rise and higher wage costs. Retailers and other businesses will inevitably raise prices to cover these additional burdens, and perhaps have to make redundancies, wiping out the benefit for many workers. \p Blake Stephenson: Does the hon. Lady agree that while Labour in government pretends that it is the party of fairness, this Budget is deeply unfair to both her constituents and my own constituents? \p Carla Lockhart: I thank the hon. Member for his point.

The poorest will become poorer while workers are asked to pay more to support people who come here from overseas and go straight on to benefits, with little incentive to work. The system means it is more lucrative not to work than actually to contribute. It is time that this Government put British citizens, British workers and British employers first. It is time for the Chancellor to get tough on tax avoidance and offer genuine support to the hard-pressed workers who are doing the right thing and paying their way.

Perhaps the most appalling tax grab in this Budget is the attack on our family farms. The announcement making business property relief and agricultural property relief transferable is a meaningless gesture and an insult. The family farm death tax remains fully intact—farmers gain nothing. Across the UK, the picture is grim. The Government seem intent on taxing family farms beyond profitability. It is a tax on death and a tax on tragedy. What can be more immoral? This path will damage agriculture at its core. Farming is the backbone of our nation. Food security is national security. Undermine it, and food prices will rise and we will rely on lower-quality imports at higher cost. There is no good news for farmers in this Budget, and when we vote on that resolution later, I urge Members to do the right thing.

Furthermore, the Budget does nothing to remove the trade barrier separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. The £16.6 million package does not change the reality that businesses still face checks, paperwork, delays and extra costs when trading with Great Britain. If the Government remove the checks, they will save the £16.6 million immediately. We look with some envy at the Department of Government Efficiency in the United States, and wonder why the UK cannot match that level of waste reduction. There are quick, real-time savings available such as to cut excess immigration spending, make work genuinely rewarding, ensure everyone pays the tax they owe, pulp the costly madness of net zero and tackle waste across Government.

This Budget offers presentation rather than substance. It fails workers, employers, farmers, policing, health, hospitality and our taxpayers. There is a clear solution: get tough on immigration, tough on crime and tough on tax evasion, and get our country back to being the envy of the world. That is where we belong. \p Warinder Juss: Last week’s Budget marked a clear turn away from the damage and austerity of the previous Government towards a fairer, stronger country that will deliver on the public’s priorities. People in my constituency have already expressed their appreciation at having a Labour Budget built from Labour values to overturn 15 years of cuts and chaos.

As an OnSide youth champion and a frequent visitor to the Way Youth Zone, as well as schools, the City of Wolverhampton college, the University of Wolverhampton, Juniper Training and the Wolves Foundation in my constituency, I welcome the increased support for young people. Lifting the two-child benefit cap, paid for by a tax on gambling companies, will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, including more than 3,000 children in Wolverhampton West, and expanding free breakfast clubs, including at Penn Fields school in my constituency, as well as free school meals, will mean that children do not go to school hungry. This is what the NHS wants—to remove child poverty—and it will also help the rest of society, and if these children can learn and then earn when older, they will go on to contribute to our economy. Looking after our children therefore also makes economic sense. A child growing up in poverty is less likely to work as an adult, and earns 25% less aged 30.

The youth guarantee means that every young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be offered a guaranteed paid  work placement, with the Government investing an additional £725 million to help support apprenticeships, enabling small and medium-sized businesses to offer apprenticeships to our young people at no cost to them. \p Anna Dixon: Last week, I went to Shipley college in my constituency and met some of the students. They asked what the Labour Government were going to do to provide them with training and employment opportunities. Does my hon. Friend agree that giving free training to SMEs to take on apprentices will help to deliver better opportunities for our young people? \p Warinder Juss: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Not only is that very good for our young people—they will have apprenticeships—but for our SMEs, as they will be able to offer those apprenticeships without the cost.

Raising the minimum wage and the living wage will also help to increase the spending power of young people to contribute to the local economy.

The Government are tackling the cost of living crisis by freezing prescription charges and rail fares for the first time in 30 years, and by bringing down energy bills by £150. In Wolverhampton West, I am proud that many of our hard-working businesses will benefit by having new permanently lower business rates. That will benefit so many retail, hospitality and leisure businesses throughout Wolverhampton, fulfilling our manifesto promise and paid for by the increase in business rates for the warehouses of giant online companies. That will boost our high streets and strengthen our local economy.

I am very pleased that the Chancellor recognised the importance of horseracing—my constituency has the famous Wolverhampton racecourse—with the new exemption to the planned rises in gambling tax.

To ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share, I welcome the additional revenue from the high value council tax surcharge on homes worth over £2 million. This will reinforce our vital public services.

Pensioners who may have felt left behind in the past will be pleased to know about the triple lock pension rise of 4.8%.

The Budget shows that the Government are listening to the people and that they have made decisions based on the needs of the constituents we represent. This is a Labour Budget rooted in Labour values, and marks a significant shift towards a fairer and more equitable country. I am proud that the Chancellor and the Government have placed our children, our young people, working people, the NHS, the cost of living and the economy at the heart of every decision in the Budget. We are investing in our people, in our public services and in the country we are all so proud to call home. \p Olly Glover: I think everybody in this Chamber and in this House can agree that we need economic growth, but many question whether the Budget will really help with that. It prolongs Conservative underhand tactics, such as tax threshold freezes, which will have a comparable impact to more honest and up-front tax rises.

Small businesses in my constituency, including Love Beer Brewery in Milton, Ridgeway Cycles and the Vaults in Wantage, the Crown in Chilton and the George at Upton, are extremely worried, in some cases existentially so, about the impact of poorly thought-through business rate changes, which come on top of growing energy costs. As a result, the Liberal Democrats’ proposed 5% VAT cut for pubs and restaurants is badly needed.

The Budget is largely silent on some of the big picture strategic themes we need. A key one is change to the planning system. I know the Government agree, but we need far more real and meaningful changes that go beyond scapegoating newts and bats. Instead, we need a planning system that delivers social and genuinely affordable housing—not just blunt housing targets irrespective of how affordable those houses will be—primary healthcare that people can actually access and which will help more people to get jobs, and investment in transport to boost mobility and reduce congestion. It is not just me who says that about the need for genuinely affordable housing. Didcot B power station in my constituency cites the cost of housing as the biggest barrier it faces in retaining staff.

In my constituency, we have the tedious, multi-decade saga—it will not be a Netflix hit any time soon—of trying to get a GP surgery built in the new housing estate of Didcot Great Western Park. There is a comparable risk of a similar saga affecting a Wallingford GP surgery’s plans to expand. Didcot and Wallingford have both seen significant housing and population growth. Despite similar population growth in Wantage and Grove, there is as yet no clear Government support for a new railway station serving it on the nearby Great Western main line, and Cholsey station continues to lack accessibility improvements.

Constituents understandably clamour for more large-scale leisure facilities, such as swimming pools and leisure centres, which are very difficult to fund using section 106 contributions alone. The Government’s getting moving on social care reform, rather than yet another review, which will last the entire Parliament, would help with productivity.

My Oxfordshire constituency has a lot of potential to build on its strengths, particularly with so much exciting space, fusion, biotech, and many other science and technology contributions to the local and national economy, such as at Harwell campus, Milton Park and Culham. Many of those have already been slowed down by the consequences of Brexit, and businesses are concerned about some of the Government’s rhetoric on migration, which they feel could affect their ability to attract the vital international talent they need to succeed.

Overall, this Budget has injected despair rather than optimism. My constituents and their businesses need the Government to do better. \p Imran Hussain: The reality is that, as we take part in this debate, the wealth of billionaires continues to soar while ordinary families in our constituencies continue to struggle with a cost of living crisis that is not of their making. That is the legacy of 14 years of the Conservative party, which has decimated our services and devastated our communities.

Perhaps the cruellest of all the Conservatives’ policies was the two-child cap, which put millions of children on our streets and into poverty. Even today, we have heard Conservative Member after Conservative Member oppose the scrapping of the policy. They should be ashamed. In fact, many of them made their speeches and then ran out of the Chamber, because they cannot face the fact that they put millions of children into poverty.

This Budget finally abolishes the cruel two-child policy. I opposed the policy from day one and, frankly, it should not have taken 18 months for this Government to scrap it, but I am none the less pleased that we have. After years of campaigning, the full removal of the two-child limit is hugely welcome. It is a clear vindication of the stand taken by me and other colleagues.

What matters most is that with this Budget, at long last, the cruelty that put millions of children into poverty ends. As colleagues have said, the decision will lift millions of children out of poverty. In my constituency, 6,300 families and 22,500 children will benefit. That is a huge step forward and is long overdue, and it is a direct result of relentless pressure from campaigners and MPs who refused to back down. Not once today have I heard tribute paid to the many campaign organisations that relentlessly put the case forward and lobbied MPs to scrap the cap. I pay tribute to them, and thank them for all their hard work.

This Budget contains some welcome steps—modest moves on redistributing wealth, a tourist tax and a youth guarantee scheme, as well as many other measures—but, frankly, they do not go far enough. This Government have still failed to adopt a genuine wealth tax, and as a result, living standards for most people continue to decline and the cost of living crisis remains unresolved. We could have done so much more in the past 18 months; instead, far too much time has been wasted. That is why I back the plan for a proper wealth tax. \p Adnan Hussain: I have heard from many constituents that things just do not change for them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for real change in constituencies like ours, we need a needs-based, targeted funding approach? \p Imran Hussain: What we need is a wealth tax. Working families need help now. The Government could raise more than £50 billion a year through a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, equalising capital gains with income tax, cracking down on corporate tax avoidance and implementing a windfall tax on record bank profits—these are modest, moral and reasonable steps. They are what is needed to fund immediate support for struggling families. With that revenue, we could deliver emergency measures immediately to alleviate the cost of living, including not only scrapping the two-child cap, but having direct cost of living grants, introducing more free school meals, tripling the household support fund and relinking local housing allowance to real rents, together costing just £23 billion—less than half of what fair taxation would raise.

Frankly, we need to go further. The measures I have outlined would provide a lifeline to struggling families in all our constituencies. It is what our constituents expect of us, and it is about time we delivered that for them. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. As so many Members wish to contribute, the speaking limit has now dropped to three minutes. \p Vikki Slade: Bearing in mind that we are talking about investing in the future, I would like to focus my comments on young people.

Last week I held a youth conversation and was so impressed with the focus of the young people on broad issues including housing and their fear of the far right. I look forward to hearing more about the next steps from the Youth Select Committee, which is currently looking at alternative strategies for student funding; they all accept that their student days need to be properly funded, but they feel—and I agree—that it is completely unfair that they are paying higher rates of interest than the landlords from whom they have to rent their properties, and that dragging them into tax earlier is making it even tougher for them to get on to the ladder, even as a renter.

Sadly, many of our graduates and others who have completed their education are finding it tough to get into work at all. Historically, many would have sought opportunities abroad, but, thanks to Brexit, most of those options are now gone. I welcome the prospect of the youth mobility scheme, but it does not go far enough—if the Chancellor was serious about fixing economic stagnation, cutting red tape and creating jobs, she would announce a new customs union with the EU, generating £25 billion a year in taxation alone and really giving us a period of renewal.

Other young people leaving school or college would have moved into hospitality, but in the past year, that sector has lost 90,000 jobs, many of which were filled by young people. Meanwhile, the businesses not cutting jobs are cutting shifts—something I experienced in my own home last weekend, when, over the payday weekend before Christmas, when most young people are relying on work, two of my children had their shifts cut at two separate successful businesses.

The failure of the Government to hear the Liberal Democrat call to cut VAT means there will likely be more shifts cut for young people, and older people, as the winter months arrive. While the Government have maintained that business rates changes will protect businesses, in reality the recent revaluation will see an increase in most businesses’ value and the loss of their small business relief, so many of them will be worse off. I urge the Government to look at this matter again.

I want to briefly mention the issue of special educational needs. I am pleased that the Government are absorbing these costs from 2028, but I am deeply concerned about what will happen between now and then. I am worried that councils will have gone under before we get to that point.

Finally, as time is short, I want to mention the issue of devolution. There was over £14 billion for mayoral authorities in this Budget, but nothing for my area of Dorset. I am sure the four Government Members from Dorset present will agree that it is completely outrageous to have a period of investment renewal with no money  at all going to the area of Wessex. I urge the Government to bring forward the devolution programme for every part of the country and for every generation. \p Jayne Kirkham: This was a Budget for young people. We are lifting the two-child benefit cap, bringing half a million children out of poverty; alongside free school meals, breakfast clubs, childcare and uniforms, we are reducing child poverty more than any Government ever. Our youth guarantee will make sure that every young person can access college, apprenticeships or job support, and SMEs will no longer have to pay towards apprenticeship training for under-25s, which is vital in Cornwall.

This was a Budget to tackle the cost of living, with measures to increase the minimum wage, cut household energy bills, freeze rail fares and prescriptions, extend the bus fare cap, and increase the state pension. It was also a Budget for growth. Our economy grew 50% more than the OBR expected in March. The Government have held fast to the decision to strongly invest in our infrastructure and worked to crowd in private investment and encourage companies to grow and list in the UK. I was pleased to hear the Chancellor confirm major investment in Truro neighbourhood health centre, which will be in the initial wave of centres to be upgraded and refurbished.

This was a Budget for Cornwall. The Kernow industrial growth fund is to be given £30 million over the next two years to invest in Cornwall’s economic potential. It reflects the fact that Cornwall has an important part to play in the UK’s industrial strategy. The Government have recently announced the critical minerals strategy and provided backing and investment for it. That is a brilliant example of a key industry vital to our national security being backed to the hilt by this Government. I hope they will do the same for the floating offshore wind.

Another key industry vital to national security is farming. The Government made a concession on inheritance tax by enabling automatic transfer of the £1 million allowance between spouses and civil partners. That will relieve pressure somewhat for older farmers who did not have time to plan. The Treasury says that few farmers and estates will be affected, but perception is everything when it comes to investment. I know that the Government have put a record amount of investment into farming.

I sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and it is clear that as a country we need to set a firm direction of travel on food security. Since Brexit we have diverged, particularly in England, from other places on the way we treat food production. I hope that the publication of various reports, including that of Minette Batters, will help to provide more certainty, and that the new incarnation of sustainable farming incentives will encourage farmers to invest. \p James Naish: Although the new measures for farmers announced by the Chancellor have been welcomed by the industry, as Labour MPs we were advocating not for reduced revenue but for ensuring that the wrong farmers  were not hit. Does my hon. Friend therefore share my view that Labour Members have fought hard for farmers and that our voices should be listened to moving forward? \p Jayne Kirkham: It is important that we look very closely at the measures, as we in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said in our report. Family farms are obviously very important and we need to consider them deeply when thinking about food security.

This is a long game. Fixing what is broken will be a hard path, but this Budget keeps us on that course without deviation. We are moving towards growth and the systematic rebuilding of our public services step by step. We are focusing on making life less of a daily struggle and on pulling our children out of poverty so that they can thrive now and take all the opportunities that this Government will offer them as they grow. \p Steve Darling: Perhaps the most important commodity for a Chancellor is not finance but trust. We saw how the Conservatives wrecked the country’s trust in them with partygate and the scandal of the fast track to personal protective equipment contracts for those who were in the know. I am afraid to say that what we have seen with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a continuation of the Conservative Government but with a Labour approach. The way that the Chancellor appears to have not kept the Cabinet in the loop on the OBR guidance is shocking.

On the more positive note, I would like to reflect how the Liberal Democrats welcome the support through cuts to fuel bills, but failing to backfill the scheme with core funding is a shame. The Liberal Democrats have campaigned against the two-child limit for many years, so we clearly welcome the change. However, the stealth taxes hitting working people—again, the Labour party has echoed what the Tories did previously—are absolutely outrageous, as is how Labour is now hitting those with student loans with a stealth tax, which actually equates to the mansion tax. Why are we putting recent former students in the same bracket as those who fall under the mansion tax? It is quite shocking.

I come to something we do well for in Torbay: our large number of pensioners. Many of them have small pension pots, yet they will be hit by the fiscal impact of the drag into income tax.

The hospitality industry in the west country is extremely important, yet last year we saw it impacted by the national insurance hike. The Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust in my constituency had a bill of £100,000. That charity, which supported important beauty spots across Torbay, has gone into liquidation because of that move from the Labour Government and the failure of our Conservative council to support it appropriately. There are future challenges for hospitality with the increasing of business rates, and I fear for the future of some of our much loved pubs across Torbay.

I fear that we have seen a failure to invest in the south-west with these proposals from the Government. I ask them to think again. \p Amanda Hack: The Budget delivers on the main priorities of protecting and investing in the NHS, tackling the cost of living  and maintaining economic stability. It also delivers a key ask from my constituents: to support them, their industrial heritage and the unique challenge that brings. Just a week before the Budget, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced additional support for ex-mining and industrial communities with the launch of the respiratory pathways transformation fund—investment to address the inequalities that our communities so often face after a life working down the pits.

The Budget also releases the investment reserved for the BCSSS pensioners, righting that historic wrong. For North West Leicestershire, the decision means that more than 750 BCSSS members will now receive an average of an additional £100 a week. We owe great gratitude to the mineworkers and their families who helped power our nation for so long; this is their just deserts.

North West Leicestershire is a semi-rural constituency. The changes to allow the transfer of inheritance tax allowances to a surviving partner are welcome, but I know the worries of farmers in my constituency, so I ask Ministers to keep the IHT thresholds for farmers under review and to consider them in the light of Baroness Batters’s report on farming profitability that is due to be published.

This Budget, delivered by a Labour Chancellor and a Labour Government, invests in our people by supporting them. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment towards dealing with the cost of living. With energy support worth £150 a year, the warm homes plan, frozen prescription charges and the extension of reduced bus fares, alongside the increase in the minimum wage and through the pension triple lock, we are investing in the prevention of health crises that arrive from cold homes, missed medication and social isolation. It is that kind of renewal that our systems need: targeted support that promotes wellbeing and reduces demand on our NHS.

Let me turn to investment in our young people, and to inequality. The Labour Government are feeding kids through breakfast clubs, expanding free school meals and now lifting the two-child limit. That action alone will see 450,000 children lifted out of poverty, including more than 1,700 children in my constituency. With children more likely to be in poverty than people of any other age group across the UK, lifting kids out of poverty expands their opportunity and, crucially, eases the strain on our public services, which are already grappling with avoidable health and social care pressures.

Young people growing up in poverty are twice as likely to be NEET—not in education, employment or training. We have to get hold of that. The support that the Government are providing for children and families on the lowest incomes is an investment in our future. I also note that the removal of the two-child cap removes the vile rape clause from our statute book. It should never have been okay to put women through more trauma in order for them to get financial support.

There is so much more to do. I will continue to fight for my constituents of North West Leicestershire. \p Jim Allister: Madam Deputy Speaker, sitting here for three hours for a three-minute speech is a bit like the Budget—there is not much in it for working people. Of course, the Budget is fundamentally controversial because it increases income for benefit  families but increases taxation for working families. That is the summary of this Budget. It is a Budget born in controversy because the abiding and yet unanswered question is: since the Chancellor knew that tax receipts were up, why did she continue to conceal that in her Downing Street doom loop speech? There has not been an answer to that.

There is much in this Budget to disappoint. For hard-working family farmers, there is a big disappointment. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) laid out very clearly the disappointment of many of us at the fact that the death tax will continue for family farms. Every Member has an opportunity tonight, on resolution 50, to take a stand on that issue and I trust that many will.

On devolution, yes, there are Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland of £370 million. The problem is that the money is already spent, because Stormont so mismanages its funds that it has already overspent by £400 million. The money is gone. We have the tragic situation of the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland saying this week:

“devolution has simply not worked for policing in Northern Ireland…We have lost out as a result of devolution.”

That is the sad commentary, and that means that people in my constituency are less safe than they should be. Instead of having 7,500 police personnel as promised, we are down to 6,200 because of Stormont’s mismanagement, by and large, of the money it gets. There will probably come a point, I suggest to the Treasury, when it will have to put the Stormont Executive into special measures so that they can understand how to balance their books and account for matters as they should.

This Budget talks about four AI growth zones for the whole country, but there is none in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister tell us whether that is because Northern Ireland is going to be subject not to UK law but to the EU’s AI law? Is that why we are being excluded from those growth zones? Are we going to have another Irish sea border, this time in AI? \p Jonathan Brash: I welcome so much that is in the Budget: the measures to reduce the cost of living, most notably the £150 off energy bills; the lifting of half a million children out of poverty, including 3,210 in my constituency of Hartlepool, paid for by taxes on online gambling; and the decision to introduce a mansion tax for properties valued over £2 million, in a nod to our broken council tax system. Sadly, however, a nod is all it was and it does nothing to fix the underlying problem.

Council tax is the most unfair, most outdated and most indefensible tax in Britain today. The longer the Government refuse to reform it, the clearer it becomes that working-class towns like mine are expected to carry on paying the price for a lack of political courage. Let us be honest about what council tax really is: it is a relic of the 1990s, frozen in time, frozen in injustice and weaponised against the poorest communities in this country. Nowhere is that clearer than in Hartlepool, where a band D property costs £2,500 a year for its occupants and here in Westminster it is just £1,000. That is not just unfair; it is a scandal hiding in plain sight.

For many households in Hartlepool, council tax is not just another bill. It is the bill that breaks the family budget, it is the bill that pushes families into arrears and it is the bill that tips people from coping into crisis. What is the answer from successive Governments? We are told that it is too complicated, we are told that it is too politically difficult and we are told that now is not the right time. For the people of Hartlepool and constituencies like it, it has been the right time for decades.

The worst accusation is that if we introduce a new system, there will be winners and losers. The current system has winners and losers. The losers live in terraced houses and the winners live in mansions.

There is nothing Labour about defending a system that punishes working-class communities and protects high-value wealth. There is nothing Labour about a tax that hits hardest those with the least. There is nothing Labour about lacking the political courage to sweep the system away once and for all. Council tax does not merely fail working-class towns; it targets them. There is a solution: a proportional property tax, as backed by Fairer Share. That is what we have to introduce. I urge Ministers to summon the courage to get rid of this regressive tax that harms the people I represent. \p Marie Goldman: Like many Members across this House, my team and I deal with casework about special educational needs on an almost daily basis, so I welcome the announcement that from 2028 the Government will be centrally funding SEND, in theory ending the postcode lottery of SEND provision and lessening the pressure on financially strapped local authorities. However, there was no new money for schools in the Budget, and the OBR estimated that almost £2 billion would need to be cut from the SEND Budget in 2028-29, so how will this work?

The Government and the Education Secretary have long said that the SEND reforms will not be about cutting funds, yet when asked by The Guardian whether the SEND White Paper would have any role in this cut, it was reported that His Majesty’s Treasury said that it would. It is parents and children that must be at the heart of any reform, not cost cutting, but I worry that the Budget sets the scene for just that. I encourage the Government to assure families that their children’s needs will not be ignored because, amid the cuts, they are deemed too expensive.

Sadly, this Budget worsens the economic outlook for young people. The Resolution Foundation has noted that the rise in the minimum wage for under-20s could make it even harder for this age group to find work because, coupled with last year’s employer national insurance rise, it will make hiring even more expensive. Freezing the threshold for when student loan repayments must start is not just another stealth tax; it is one that is specifically aimed at young people. The Government’s decision to again freeze tax bands will also disproportionately impact young people, who earn most of their income through wages rather than dividends and who spend a much larger share of their income on essentials that are impacted by higher inflation, such as food and rent.

Turning to disabled people, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the long-overdue removal of the two-child benefit cap, but this change does not help families raising disabled children, who were already exempt from it and are far more likely to be living in poverty. Rhetoric suggesting that benefit claimants get luxury cars is simply misleading, unhelpful and ultimately punitive. It does nothing to fix our economy, but it does create an enemy of vulnerable people. People from disabled communities have told me that they used to be forgotten entirely, but are now upset at being scapegoated for the country’s ills, and are getting tired of it. One disabled person told me recently that they almost wished disabled people could go back to being forgotten. Research from Sense, the charity for disabled people with complex needs, points out that two in five parents of disabled children cannot properly heat their homes in winter, with the same proportion skipping meals so that their child can eat. There are so many other measures that should have been in the Budget, but it does absolutely nothing to support these communities.

Finally, on mental health, Renew Counselling, a 100-year-old charity in my constituency delivering mental health support, wrote to me after the Budget to remind me of the extra strain the rise in the minimum wage will place on it. It is not that it disagrees with paying it, but where is the support for those charities? \p Clive Lewis: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes the donations for my work on public ownership of water, crowdfunders and my articles covering some of the topics I will mention today in Byline Times, The Guardian and the New Statesman, which are available from all good newsagents.

There were decisions in this Budget that deserve recognition, as many Members have said, including ending the two-child cap, meaningful moves towards a fairer tax system, higher taxes on dividends, a surcharge on multimillion-pound properties and rightly expecting more from online gambling companies whose profits come with real social harm. Raising the minimum wage will give millions a little more breathing room, and giving local authorities powers to raise revenue through visitor levies will finally give them a long-overdue additional fiscal lever.

These choices matter. They show that tactical interventions can ease pressure on households and help redistribute income and power, but we cannot pretend that a series of tactical fixes adds up to the strategic plan that this country urgently needs. When the very economic system itself is producing the crisis, incremental adjustments will never be enough. Repainting the wallpaper will not fix the crumbling walls. Alas, by that measure, this Budget falls short. It does not answer the two fundamental questions before us: how do we renew our social democracy, and in doing so, how do we finally tackle the cost of living crisis?

The crisis of our democracy, the crisis of social democracy, is inseparable from the cost of living crisis. They are driven by the same forces: first by the climate emergency, which now one of the biggest drivers of inflation through water stress, food insecurity, rising extra costs and global supply shocks. Secondly, the  ability of Governments to act in the public interest is being weakened. Silicon valley and finance capital now wield increasing power over our daily lives. Thirdly, the loss of democratic agency leaves us exposed to corporate extraction: extreme price gouging; essential services like water, food and energy run as cash machines; and monopolies with almost no restraint.

If we fail to confront those forces—fail to tackle the profit-maximisation-at-any-cost operation that now dominates our economy—we cannot bring down the cost of living. By that metric, this Budget failed, and until this Government are prepared to tackle those structural failures, my fear is that they will continue to lose their way, as they are currently doing. The Government must change course. They must fix the structural concerns of this country, and they must do so now. \p Susan Murray: First, I welcome the £820 million increase in funding for Scotland, the largest real-terms settlement Scotland has received. I have no doubt that my constituents will be pleased to hear of the increase, and I can only hope that they will benefit from it.

Today’s theme is investment, and I would like to address the SNP’s lacklustre investment in our health infrastructure. To be clear, I want to ensure that the money sent to Scotland for devolved matters is not frittered away by SNP Scottish Government mismanagement. The residents of my constituency have been crying out for a healthcare centre for years. I have written to the Scottish Government on numerous occasions, pressing both the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for action. The response is always the same: either a resounding no or silence.

The people of Mid Dunbartonshire deserve better. Nearby in East Renfrewshire, they have received the very same type of health and care centre we have been crying out for, showing what is possible in constituencies like mine when the SNP provides adequate funding. By investing in local health and care, we could make serious long-term savings for the NHS, preventing costly long-term conditions and avoidable hospital admissions through early intervention. That would give the community access to the care, health and wellbeing it needs close to home, reducing the need for often frail or elderly constituents to make the difficult journey to Glasgow.

I urge the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to join me in writing to the Scottish Government to request that the residents of Mid Dunbartonshire get the health and care hub they deserve. \p Lauren Sullivan: May I beg your indulgence briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker? This morning, I had the honour of attending the funeral of Makhan Singh, a kind and dedicated public servant in Gravesham. He served as a councillor for 36 years and was the first Sikh mayor in Kent and a freeman. He spent his life living the essence of Sikhism: service to others before oneself. He loved politics, but he loved helping people more, so I would like to send much love to his family as he will be missed.

This Budget delivers on much of the manifesto to help residents of Gravesham. I would like to touch on a few things that will help Gravesham. First, the Budget  will help children out of poverty. Children and young people are not just our future; they are here, and the mark of any decent society is how we look after and support our children and young people.

I am delighted to see many of the measures in the Budget, including the removal of the two-child limit, which will help over 3,000 children in Gravesham, as well as money for breakfast clubs and childcare, so that families can balance the competing pressures of work and raising a family. In addition, the youth guarantee scheme will help young people who are starting out.

There is help for Gravesham’s businesses, too. The Chancellor spoke to local businesses in Gravesham about reforming business rates to ensure that high streets have the same opportunities despite the competition with large supermarkets and online retailers. The Budget starts the journey of reforming rates, helping 1,000 businesses and ensuring that warehouses and online retailers pay more, including during the transition.

The Budget will help with the cost of living. Freezing rail fares, reducing energy bills, freezing fuel duty and freezing prescription charges will help in the months ahead, as will keeping the triple lock on state pensions.

In the Budget, the Chancellor mentioned the lower Thames crossing. The Treasury and Transport teams will know of my long-running campaign on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and I will be holding the Government to account on the promises made to our communities. We have been calling in particular for the permanent restoration of the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry passenger service, which was cut by Kent county council and Thurrock council. We think that a small amount of the lower Thames crossing toll money should be ringfenced to provide that service. \p Jennifer Craft: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for mentioning our campaign. As she said, we both care very much about the return of the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry, which is a vital part of local public transport infrastructure. Our plea is for a very small proportion of the projected toll of the lower Thames crossing to be used to pay for the return of the ferry in perpetuity. \p Lauren Sullivan: I could not agree more.

After 14 years of cuts and austerity for local councils, communities like mine in Gravesham have been impacted by so many reduced services. In welcoming the Budget, I call for Gravesham’s fair share of the fair funding formula. The £1.5 million pride of place funding is a fantastic start as a downpayment for investment in Gravesham, but the Budget will be meaningful only if it reaches places like my constituency, which has carried the weight of neglect for years. Gravesham has the potential, talent and ambition to thrive, but it needs sustained investment to unlock that promise. I support the Budget and will continue pressing for the funded services and local infrastructure that my constituents have been denied for so long. \p Shockat Adam: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Government’s abolition of the two-child benefit cap, but it should not have taken 16 months—it should have been the first act of a Labour Government.

I will speak first about the national health service. It is the jewel in the UK crown, but under consecutive Governments, millions of pounds of public money has gone to waste on interest payments for PFI schemes—that is money that should have been spent on frontline care or paying for doctors and nurses. PFI was a costly failure that lined the pockets of private consultants and contractors at the expense of NHS patients and staff. Now, it appears that the Government are planning to do the same again but expect different results.

Failed PFI schemes from the noughties, for three Leicestershire hospitals, saw the NHS sued for almost £30 million by the favoured consortium despite work not being taken and not a single hospital being built. Leicester’s three hospitals are still without any new buildings, as Ministers have pushed their development into wave 2, way beyond the original 2030 target, more than 30 years after the need was first identified. Coventry hospital, which was built, costs £1 million a week alone. The law was even changed to ensure that private contractors were paid before our NHS staff. Since the inception of PFI, around £60 billion of private money has gone into 700 PFI projects. In return, the Government will pay £306 billion. Those escalating costs eat into the NHS budget and leave less for frontline services.

Secondly, I will speak about private providers. As an optometrist, I have referred people for cataracts surgery because the waiting time is much shorter and it makes sense to do so, but unfortunately the transfer of taxpayer money to the private sector reduces resources for NHS services and ultimately limits its ability to treat patients effectively. The Government have apparently set aside £2.5 billion—and that is set to rise to £16 billion—for private services That is disappointing, as they could have used the Budget to expand NHS capacity by building new facilities, rather than buying out private sector clinics, but they did not. They could support local authorities and not-for-profit organisations to take over social care, but they have not. These are political decisions that have consequences in the long run.

Thirdly, I would like to speak about the deal with Palantir on data sharing that the Health Secretary is pressing ahead with. I have had patients contact me who are really concerned about data sharing. In fact, two of them wrote to me in the last week because they are really frightened that they have to opt out of this. It seems that our data is a commodity that is going to the highest bidder.

I would also quickly like to touch on hospices. I am running out of time, but LOROS hospice in my constituency is serving 1.2 million people in Leicester with only 18 beds— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. \p Elsie Blundell: I would like to focus my remarks on how this Budget will deliver enhanced transport connectivity and further devolution, allowing towns like those I represent to grow their way out of the cuts they have been subjected to for over a decade.

Transport connectivity is the difference between our towns and those within them either getting ahead or being left behind. My constituents have long been overlooked when it comes to transport planning and spending, and I was delighted that at the spending review earlier this year, the Greater Manchester city region received over £2.5 billion to plug the gaps there in local connectivity. As a result, it was announced that the tram will now be coming to Heywood, with spades in the ground by 2028 and a commitment from the mayor that he will revisit the business case for extending the Metrolink to Middleton. This is the difference that a Labour Government make with a Labour-led city region.

This Budget went even further. I was delighted to hear last week that, thanks to the discipline and responsiveness of this Chancellor, the northern growth corridor and the trans-Pennine route upgrade will receive the investment they need. That welcome commitment came alongside the decision to freeze rail fares for the first time in 30 years, making progress in ensuring that anyone, no matter where they come from, can get from A to B. I am proud that, through the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, we have been able to keep bus and tram fares as low as possible, and it is important that rail is not left behind. I am delighted that, as Greater Manchester moves to integrate rail lines into the Bee Network, these prices will now be frozen, too.

If we stick to the plan and ensure that devolution is delivered, I envisage a point in the future when my constituents can get into Manchester city centre on safe and reliable public transport and go on to make their journeys to other cities across the north. That is why I am determined to see the promise of this investment delivered upon and swift progress made to connect the north, after the Tories cancelled the northern leg of High Speed 2. \p Tom Hayes: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for investment into her town and the wider region. Does she agree that this investment is only possible because the economy has been stabilised by a Chancellor who is investing in capital infrastructure to the tune of £120 billion and has attracted around £250 billion of private sector investment, which contrasts sharply with the Conservatives, who raided the capital investment budget for day-to-day spending and deterred that long-term investment from the private sector? \p Elsie Blundell: I absolutely agree. It is thanks to this Chancellor’s determination to be disciplined that we are able to deliver this investment in Greater Manchester and my constituency.

The people of Greater Manchester are really resilient. Many people try to talk us down, but our city region and our economy are vibrant and dynamic. Looking at this Budget, it is clear to me that this Government recognise our potential and are keen to connect Greater Manchester internally and bind it more closely with those other great cities of Leeds and Liverpool. \p Anna Dixon: I represent a constituency on the other side of the Pennines. Does my hon. Friend agree that this investment in transport in the north, linking across the Pennines to great cities like Leeds and Bradford and delivering on Northern Powerhouse Rail in full, including a station in Bradford, is necessary? \p Elsie Blundell: I absolutely agree. This Chancellor recognises that connectivity and ambition are two sides of the same coin. She knows that we do not cut our way to a stronger, more stable economy or a more equal society—we invest our way there.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Budget and its intention to build a better connected and fairer country. It will bring about the change that my constituents deserve, and I look forward to working with colleagues on delivering it. \p Samantha Niblett: I begin by thanking the Chancellor for the incredibly important steps that she has taken in the Budget. Five hundred and ten people in my constituency of South Derbyshire who spent their lives working in the mining industry—people who helped power our nation—will now receive a significant uplift in their BCSSS pension each month. That is life-changing support.

I also welcome the measures that will lift 2,020 children in South Derbyshire out of poverty. That is not an abstract number; those are real families, who will now have a fairer start and a future with more opportunities than struggles. From next April, households will see energy bills fall by £150. At a time when every pound matters, that will make a direct difference to people’s lives. I also thank the Chancellor for maintaining a clear and unwavering focus on fixing our NHS, because the health of our nation is the foundation of our prosperity.

Many of the Budget’s measures will be felt in rural and semi-rural constituencies such as mine, and by farming families, who often feel overlooked. I am grateful for the specific concession that mitigates the impact of changes to inheritance tax for married farming couples. That is a welcome change following 13 months of campaigning by many, including farmers, the National Farmers’ Union and the Labour Rural Research Group, of which I am a proud member.

However, although there is much to commend, I must also be honest: for all the good that this Budget does—and it does a lot—many farmers in my constituency simply cannot see past the broader inheritance tax changes. They remember that Labour promised no such changes before the general election and that our manifesto declared that food is the first line of defence, yet right now this country has just six days’ worth of food supplies. With global tensions rising and instability growing even closer to home in Europe, we should be doing everything possible to support the very people who help keep Britain fed.

Most farmers are not wealthy land barons; they live hand to mouth on tiny and sometimes non-existent profit margins. Many were explicitly advised not to hand over their farms to their children, and they now face enormous and unexpected tax bills. For some, that means selling off land; for others, it means delaying or abandoning plans to diversify—precisely the type of innovation we should be encouraging. I look forward to the forthcoming report by Baroness Batters, and I hope the Government take it seriously, because we must acknowledge a difficult truth: we have lost the trust of our farmers and they deserve, now more than ever, our utmost respect, our honesty and our unwavering support.

For farmers who are elderly or terminally ill, the anti-forestalling clause in the inheritance tax policy is creating a level of distress and strain that cannot be overstated. As the Prime Minister has previously said:

“If somebody makes powerful representations, then my instinct is to consider what’s being said. Getting it right is more important than ploughing on with a package which doesn’t necessarily achieve the desired outcome.”

While I welcome this Budget, I plead with the Government to look again at APR and inheritance tax for farmers. \p Jessica Toale: Although he is not in his place, I thank my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for the investment in local hospitals, the 11 GPs across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, the 13,000 emergency dental appointments that we have had across Dorset, and the £1.3 million that my constituency of Bournemouth West has received to reopen the Winton health centre, which closed under the last Government. This is the difference that a Government who prioritise investment can make.

Before I was elected, I met a couple whom I will never forget. He was a refuse collector for the local authority who was at risk of being fired and rehired on less pay, and with less job security, for the very same job that he had been doing for a decade. She was a teacher at an independent school, and they had two young children in our primary schools. They told me with absolute honesty what it felt like for them—the cost of food rising, energy bills creeping higher, the dread of their fixed-term mortgage coming to an end, and not having the time or money that they could use to treat their children. They were doing everything that society asks of them—working hard, raising children and contributing to their communities—yet they felt that they were slipping backwards.

Let me enlighten any hon. Member who asks, “How is that family better off under this Budget?”, because they are at the forefront of my mind. They will be better off because of the £150 cut to their energy bills, because of the freeze on fuel duty, prescription charges and rail fares, because of the bus service subsidies that we are maintaining, and because the national living wage has been raised. In fact, wages have gone up more in one year under this Government than they went up in the previous decade under the Conservatives. Interest rates have come down five times, which will help with the family’s mortgage. Inflation will be down because of this Budget, and these changes come alongside major investments in our energy infrastructure.

Last week I visited a school that is one of the first to have public investment in solar panels, which will save it £8,500 a year. For our roads, my local authority is getting £38 million, double what it got last year. There is investment in our NHS and cultural values. No Budget sits in isolation. This Budget comes alongside a wider programme, including a new EU-UK deal to stabilise prices and support jobs, renters’ rights and employment rights, extending free school meals and free breakfast clubs, and reforming the planning system, along with investment in house building, to deliver the affordable homes that we so desperately need.

Why have we focused so much in this Budget on cutting the cost of living? Because when households feel pressure, our whole economy feels it: local hospitality businesses have fewer customers, bus companies have fewer passengers, and our creative venues suffer when families can no longer justify the cost of tickets. As we have heard so powerfully, poverty also has a knock-on effect on children’s ability to learn, their behaviour, their health and their life chances. Some 2,000 children in my constituency will benefit from the removal of the two-child limit. Tackling the cost of living is an investment in people, their quality of life and their opportunity to contribute to our communities and economy. \p Apsana Begum: This Budget has delivered some welcome measures, including increasing the minimum wage for young adults, lowering energy bills and, of course, lifting the two-child limit. I want to be clear that I voted to add that measure to the Government’s programme—I did not vote against the King’s Speech—and I am proud to be on the right side of history, alongside other colleagues, standing with my constituents to right this wrong in the sixth largest economy in the world.

Governments are judged on how well they can create the conditions to prevent illness and to enable children and adults to live long and healthy lives. Before the last election, the NHS had already suffered years of austerity and starvation of investment, as confirmed by the Darzi report last year. However, the reality is that the overall announcements in the Budget are not on the scale needed. Patients, NHS staff and campaigners are clear that the solutions must involve proper funding for the NHS, including capital investment, and that there need to be mechanisms to raise money to address the catastrophe that the Tories drove us into. Ending outsourcing and privatisation, through a wholesale renegotiation of current PFI debts to reduce future payouts, is one way of addressing the issue of chronic underfunding. The UK already spends far less on health than do many other countries in Europe.

Politics is a matter of priorities and making choices about in whose interests decisions are made. That is why I have grave concerns about the reintroduction of the use of private capital for building NHS neighbourhood health centres, given that past arrangements, such as PFI and PF2, are still damaging the NHS. In fact, all the evidence shows that the involvement of the private sector in the NHS has been disastrous in east London. The trials and tribulations of Barts NHS trust reveal the significant threat of PFIs to NHS budgets, and consequently the ability of trusts to provide the care that NHS patients deserve and that trusts want to provide.

At its core, privatisation is a question of resourcing. The extraction of profits from the system has been shown to undermine capacity and value for money, and to take money away from vital patient services, in other words undermining investment and renewal itself. My constituents do not want to be told that there will be more of the same. They are absolutely and utterly desperate for change. It is crucial that any NHS reform prioritises building back publicly provided NHS services,  ends privatisation and does not become PFI 2.0. Big business should not be lining its pockets at the expense of our society’s health and wellbeing. The Government made a manifesto promise that the NHS will always be publicly owned and funded. Taxpayers’ money should be spent only on the service itself, because health should be a question of people not profit. \p Markus Campbell-Savours: I welcome the positive steps taken in this Budget to support our NHS, including commitments to cut waiting lists, investment in technology and the delivery of up to 250 new neighbourhood health centres across the country. Measures like that matter, especially in rural areas like Cumbria, where our health services have struggled for years.

Yet while many of the measures in the Budget are of benefit to my constituents, there remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief. In last year’s Opposition day debate on farming and inheritance tax, I set out my concerns. Over the course of a debate that has raged for more than a year, Members from across the House have made the case against these changes. They are changes that leave many, not least elderly farmers yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.

Before the election, many farmers feared that the changes were coming. Some transferred in advance and others contacted Labour candidates who reassured them, based on public commitments from the then shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that APR would not be touched. I was one of those Labour candidates, and it is for that reason that I will be voting against the Budget resolution enabling these changes.

Colleagues will agree that it is the privilege of a lifetime to be elected to this place, perhaps more so for those of us who represent the communities that we are from. When the good people of Penrith and Solway decide my time here is up, I intend to walk around my community knowing that I did all I could for them, but I cannot do that knowing that my constituency’s 1,665 farms, the farm workers and the supply chains that depend on them were let down knowing that I broke my word. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not yet clear on the Budget resolution grouping, but I would be grateful to be given the opportunity to vote specifically on resolution 50. I gave my word and I intend to keep it. \p Sojan Joseph: I congratulate the Chancellor on delivering a Budget that protects the national health service, reduces the national debt and eases the cost of living. I warmly welcome her decision to find money to reduce energy bills, freeze rail fares and freeze prescription charges. I also welcome her decision to help to lift 2,600 children out of poverty in my constituency.

It is pleasing to see the announcement in the Budget of millions of pounds of new investment to upgrade technology in healthcare. Providing funding for new digital technology to automate administrative tasks and allow swifter access to patient information will improve  NHS productivity. Instead of spending time on admin, NHS staff will be able to focus more on caring for patients.

Since being elected to this House, I have pressed for more to be done to shift healthcare to the community and help to take the burden off hospitals, such as the William Harvey hospital in Ashford, so I welcome the announcement of neighbourhood health centres in  the 10-year health plan. I am delighted that the Budget provides funding to ensure that the first of those will be rolled out across the country.

The Budget also provides support for young people taking the crucial first step into long-term employment through apprenticeship funding. That initiative builds on the Labour Government’s small businesses plan, which brought prioritised investment in apprenticeships and digital training by working with local colleges and providers. Ashford college in my constituency is doing excellent work in that area.

This Budget and its priorities stand in stark contrast with what is happening in my local area of Kent. While Labour chooses to invest in public services, rejecting the failed Tory policies of austerity, Reform-led Kent county council is continuing with reckless cuts and fantasy economics. The council, the leader of which said that it would be a “shop window” for how Reform would govern nationally, recently revealed that it had a £46 million overspend.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to turn the clock back. She has argued that the Chancellor should not have made the choices that she did in the Budget, including more than doubling the fiscal headroom. That choice has been welcomed by the financial markets and will provide greater financial resilience, but the Conservatives rejected it, arguing instead that we should return to the days of austerity and cut spending instead.

As someone who worked in the NHS, I saw the damage done by the Conservative Government’s approach to our health service and other public services. It also meant that pay for NHS workers, teachers and other public sector workers was frozen for years, which had a detrimental impact on staff morale, recruitment and retention. \p Paulette Hamilton: I welcome last week’s Budget, which finally, after 14 years of Tory neglect, puts the people of Birmingham Erdington first.

On our NHS, I was delighted to hear that the Chancellor announced further efforts to shorten NHS waiting lists, including an upgrade to Stockland Green primary care centre in Birmingham Erdington. Bringing care back into the community was always a priority for me when I worked in the NHS, and I am thrilled to see a Labour Government finally deliver it.

In addition, more than 6,000 children in Birmingham Erdington will now receive access to the crucial funds they need to thrive through the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. Growing up in poverty seriously harms a child’s life chances. They are less likely to work as an adult and earn around 25% less by the age of 30 than their peers, making us all poorer in the long run. Wages have risen more in the first year of this Government than in the first decade under the Conservatives, whose  austerity measures put so many into the poverty trap. When coupled with freezing train fares and prescription charges, this will lower living costs and make everyday life better for so many.

Another consistent area of concern for my constituents is energy bills. Taking levies off energy bills will save families £150 on average next year, and that figure rises to £300 for many of the most vulnerable households. This is exactly the kind of direct action that people have been crying out for. This Labour Government’s mission is to renew our economy and our communities; I am pleased to see that promise being kept, and will continue holding the Government to account and fighting for a better future for everyone in Erdington, Kingstanding, Castle Vale and south Oscott. I support this Budget wholeheartedly. \p Alison Taylor: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.

Before the people of Paisley and Renfrewshire North gave me the distinct honour of asking me to represent them, I had a substantial career in business. After qualifying as a chartered surveyor, I joined a practice in Glasgow. After a decade, I was given the opportunity to become the sole proprietor of that limited company, and I grew that business, doubling its staff and tripling its turnover. If I were starting out now, I would be grateful to this Labour Government for five interest rate cuts, reducing inflation, and ruling out another wasteful independence referendum in Scotland. I empathise with entrepreneurs who are working hard to build something and employ people, and who are willing to take the risk to build a business.

I am not the first Member, and surely will not be the last, to remind this House of the words of the American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes:

“Taxes are what we pay for civilized society”.

When I owned my small business in Scotland, that business benefited from the actions of Government, which were paid for through taxation. Taxes are not simply a cost to business; they provide the very foundation on which businesses can succeed. I hear Conservative Members complaining endlessly about the cost of welfare, but let us be clear that almost every penny of every extra payment to the least well-off—almost every penny of any increase to the minimum wage—is a penny spent in our local communities. It will be spent on sustaining a household, putting food on the table or buying clothes for the kids. Almost every penny of extra spending will go through the cash registers of a local business, helping to sustain local jobs and supporting those local businesses; not one penny of it will go directly to an offshore tax shelter.

This Budget has been a Labour Budget, but it has also been a Budget for growth. I look forward with optimism and confidence for the future, and I look forward to what more can be achieved in Budgets to come. \p Emma Foody: For too long, my communities in the towns and villages across the Cramlington and Killingworth constituency felt the full force of Conservative cuts and  lived with the consequences of austerity. This Budget is the end of that chapter, because growth only means something when communities right across the country feel it. This Budget invests in communities, in jobs, and in the people who make every part of Britain thrive.

One of the great ambitions of this Government is to tackle child poverty wherever it exists. That child poverty was allowed to grow under the previous Government should be a source of immense shame for the Conservatives. There was a 44% increase in child poverty among working households—a tragedy for each child, for each family and for society. That does not just mean missing the additional extras in life; it means going to school with holes in your shoes, being hungry at home, being cold at night and being excluded from everyday opportunities. Ending the two-child benefit cap will lift almost half a million children out of poverty in one action. In the north-east alone, it will impact 70,000 children, including 1,750 in my own constituency. Those children will now have healthier lives, achieve more at school, and go on to earn more throughout their lives. This Budget will protect the children who are most in need—those who most deserve our support.

Other measures in this Budget will address the cost of living. It will cut energy bills, bring inflation down, freeze rail fares and prescription prices, support the lowest paid through increases to the national living wage and the minimum wage, and provide an extra £575 a year to those on the new state pension. As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I am also delighted to see measures to support communities and co-operatives across the country and to deliver on our commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector, because communities deserve to build and share in their own wealth.

We are backing devolution in my region and backing emerging industries in the north-east investment zone, enabling new technologies to thrive. We are getting public services back on their feet, with an extra £15 billion for the NHS to cut waiting times. We are tackling health inequalities, including by creating 250 new neighbourhood health centres.

I want to touch on one issue before I finish my speech: Moor Farm roundabout in my constituency. Locally, some Conservatives have sought to make mischief by claiming that the Budget means that there is no funding for vital upgrades. The Tories never were ones for letting the truth get in the way of a good story. As they well know, there were never going to be any announcements in the Budget about whether the upgrades were going ahead or not; that will be announced in the first quarter of next year, as part of the road investment strategy.

With this Budget, the Government are continuing to fix the foundations following 14 years of mismanagement from previous Conservative Governments, helping to renew our economy and our communities. It is a Budget of Labour values, fairness and justice. \p Jenny Riddell-Carpenter: This autumn Budget will make a real and material difference to families across the country, including thousands in my constituency. Cutting energy bills by £150, capping rail fares and freezing NHS prescription charges are  exactly the measures that my constituents have been asking for. We are giving people the breathing space that they need as the Government continue to invest in long-term solutions to bring down the cost of living for good—in energy, transport, homes and the jobs of the future.

The debate about farming inheritance has shone a spotlight on something deeply important, the fragility of farming profitability in Britain today. At the heart of my concern is a simple economic truth: you cannot tax a business that is not profitable. Even in good years, many farmers in my constituency struggle to break even. A typical 200-acre arable family farm, worth about £2 million, makes only about £27,000 in profit. Many family farms in Suffolk Coastal would not recognise even that figure. Farmers are not opposed to reform. They know that for far too long, agricultural property relief has been used as a loophole for the very wealthy to shelter their assets. So yes, closing that loophole is right, but we must do it in a way that protects working family farms, which simply cannot absorb a tax bill that they have no means to pay.

Our farming sector is on its knees, worn down by Brexit, spiralling costs, unfair trade deals, and supermarket price wars that leave British farmers squeezed to breaking point. There are farmers in this country on universal credit, and farmers in Suffolk Coastal are doing two or three jobs just to put food on their tables. This is the human reality that APR reform must take into account. I support the spousal concession announced in the Budget, but we must go further. I am calling on the Government to commit themselves to a full review of the impact of these APR changes in 12 to 18 months. That review must look not only at how farms have funded these changes but at the wider impacts on food sustainability, the rural economy, land management and food standards. In the long term we must consider the role of supermarkets, whose combined pre-tax profits exceeded £5 billion last year, while some paid no corporation tax at all. Let me gently suggest that perhaps we have an opportunity to raise revenue here and protect our family farms.

I support this Government and I support this Budget, but on APR we must keep listening, keep engaging, and ensure that in closing loopholes we do not inadvertently harm the very communities who feed our country. \p Tristan Osborne: This Budget is about aspiration and investing in the future potential of the British people, from the health service to our small businesses to our high streets. It is about supporting infrastructure and development, whether in airports, roads or power generation.

While we are on the topic of astrology, black holes have recently been the subject of debate. I would simply point out to the Opposition that, although they are absolutely right to talk about black holes, maybe they can recall the situation in which they left this country after the last Parliament, with 11.5% inflation and 5.2% interest rates, rising gilt prices, and six Chancellors in five years. That shower, and the circus routine, have ended, and we now have stability with a Chancellor who is once again supported by the markets and engaged with businesses and across industry.

On the benefits for my constituents, not only will the headroom deliver much more market confidence, but the retail offer is reducing the pressures on the cost of living—from the £150 reduction in energy bills, supporting our manifesto commitment to reduce energy costs, to the freezing of rail fares, which will save an average of £320 a year for commuters from Chatham to London stations, and the engagement on free prescriptions, which will save thousands of residents across Kent and Medway money on their repeat prescriptions.

As many of my hon. Friends have said, the ethical mission of this Labour Government is to reduce poverty. The single act of scrapping the two-child benefit cap will reduce poverty by the biggest margin since the last Labour Government under Gordon Brown and the previous one under Denis Healey, and I am really proud to support it. In my constituency, 3,300 children will be lifted out of poverty by this move, and I think it is testament to the hard work of those on the Front Bench that we have been able to deliver that.

Lastly, this Budget is about building the foundations of a more confident, prosperous country. We have had no quarters under this Labour Government when we have not had growth, in contrast to the recession under the last Government in 2023. This country is growing and has stability, with a firm Chancellor who has a grip on the finances and is setting a clear direction for the future. I am proud, as a Labour representative, to support the Budget tonight. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: To make the final Back-Bench speech, I call Jo Platt. \p Jo Platt: The autumn Budget shapes the choices we make and the kind of society we want to build together. After 14 years of mismanagement, this Budget is about turning the page. It is about moving from uncertainty to opportunity, and about giving people the confidence that the Government are on their side. That is why I welcome the Chancellor’s autumn Budget. It marks the start of a series of measures that will make a real difference, such as helping with the cost of living, supporting our NHS and giving our communities the opportunities they need to reach their potential.

From our proud coalfield communities involved in the BCSSS scheme, who will finally receive the justice they deserve, to the 2,840 families in Leigh and Atherton who will benefit from lifting the two-child benefit cap, this Budget demonstrates that the Government are listening to communities like mine. It shows that the voices of ordinary people and the concerns raised in towns like Leigh and Atherton are being heard. I want to give special thanks to William Hancock, a local mineworker who fought tirelessly to support his fellow workers in getting the justice they deserve.

I was delighted when the Chancellor announced measures to tackle illicit activity on our high streets. For too long, fake shops and rogue traders have undermined confidence and damaged local pride. That ends now. Backed by £45 million over four years, the new crackdown will create a cross-Government taskforce, strengthen trading  standards and give law enforcement the tools it needs to protect honest businesses. This is a direct response to the campaign I have led, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), to shut down dodgy shops and restore pride to our high streets. We do need to go further, but this is a huge step forward. It is the start of the change that our communities have demanded for so long.

This Budget is not the end; it is the beginning. Together we will rebuild trust, restore pride and create the kind of society that reflects the best of who we are. That is the future we promised, and that is the future we will deliver. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Richard Fuller: Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start my comments on the subject of this debate, let me say that I am aware, and I think a number of right hon. and hon. Members are aware, that since you presided over the opening of this debate last Wednesday, you have been subject to abuse online, with a series of presumptions on your ethnicity and your place of birth. I would like to say—I think on behalf of all of us here—that you have presided over this debate fairly, competently and in the best traditions of this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Whereas—what a colossally inept and incompetent Budget process this has been. The public believe they have been misled, seasoned journalists have been shamefaced, and the head of the OBR has resigned. This is a Budget not guided by principle or a road map for the future, but by a sleight of hand on the British people. It is a Budget that means even lower growth in real disposable incomes for households up and down the country, that increases taxes and increases borrowing rather than controlling them, and contains a total of zero measures that will have any impact on economic growth.

Yet after all the chaos, after all the briefings, and after all the kite flying, leaks and resignations, the core theme of the Budget remains what it has always been: a Budget for “Benefits Street” paid for by raising taxes on working people—a Budget delivered by a Chancellor who is out of her depth, enabled by a Prime Minister who is out of touch. Held captive by Labour Back Benchers, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister decided to put party before country, but despite all the pandering, their careers are still held captive. This Budget is the most expensive botched hostage rescue operation in British history.

This Budget process has raised important issues of accountability. Labour’s election manifesto said:

“Labour will not increase taxes on working people”.

But this Budget extends the freeze in tax thresholds for a further three years. Last year, the Chancellor said:

“we now wipe the slate clean”

and that she would not need to come back for more. But this Budget increases taxes by a further £37 billion and borrowing by a further £57 billion over the next five years. The Chancellor held an unprecedented breakfast address to the nation. But the BBC’s Chris Mason said:

“the words on the day left an impression not at one with the facts we were later to discover and which the chancellor knew at the time.”

Yesterday, the chairman of the OBR resigned. Many in the country believe the Chancellor should reflect and make the same decision.

This could have been a Budget for alarm clock Britain: for the people who work hard to create a better future for their families, their children and grandchildren—the sort of people who believe in an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, and who think it is unfair for the Government to increase their taxes to pay for more benefits; for the people who understand personal responsibility, especially when it comes to having children, and do not see why people on benefits should not have to make the same choices that they have to make. \p Debbie Abrahams: When the shadow Minister talks about people in work, is he referring to the families with three or four children who, despite the fact that they are working, are living in poverty? How dare he castigate them and say those awful things, when working families are struggling because of the appalling circumstances that the previous Government left us with? \p Richard Fuller: The hon. Lady needs to recognise that people are struggling because of decisions made by this Government.

The people do want better public services, but they do not understand why, after the Government handed out a 15% pay hike to train drivers, more trains are running late this year compared to last year. People are striving to make ends meet as prices rise, perhaps putting a little aside to create a better future for their children, and they say that this Budget will make their lives worse, not better. The verdict is in: by more than two to one, the public think that this Budget is unfair, and only 2% think it will make them better off. They are right.

This Budget attacks the strivers in our society—the engines of our economic growth. It confirms the devastating attack on family farms when we need greater food security, increases taxes on dividends when we need to encourage risk taking, discourages saving for retirement, and widens the division between pension protections for public sector and private sector employees. It deals a blow to start-up businesses that want to share their success with their employees, and raises taxes on working people, breaking the Labour party’s own manifesto promise.

This Budget makes it clear that the Labour Government do not believe in personal responsibility, do not understand the spirit of enterprise, will punish aspiration and are too weak to make the hard choices that our economy so desperately needs if it is to get back on the right track. \p Jessica Toale: I am sure that the Chancellor appreciates the hon. Gentleman’s input into the Budget, given that the public roundly rejected your approach to our economy just a year and a half ago. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. The terms “you” and “yours” should not be used, and interventions need to be short, so quickly get to the point. \p Jessica Toale: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the OBR saying that a decade of austerity and the impact of Brexit have had a much more pernicious effect on productivity than we believed before? \p Richard Fuller: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to reflect on the fact that, when she stands in the next election, real household incomes will have gone up by just a quarter of the rate they went up by under 10 years of Conservative government.

If we are to fund the defence of our nation against greater threats, enable young people to have the same security in their retirement as pensioners have today, and maintain public services, we have to create wealth. This Government offer no hope of wealth creation, but the Conservative party does. A society that encourages people to succeed and take the risks that underpin success; a society that expands individual freedom and the scope for personal responsibility; a society that is prepared to make sacrifices to make the lives of our children and grandchildren a little better—we will build that wealth-creating society by bringing down energy costs, cutting spending, cutting taxes, backing business and getting Britain working again. \p James Murray: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for opening the debate.

Of course, today’s debate follows yesterday’s publication of the OBR’s report into the early release of the “Economic and fiscal outlook” and the subsequent resignation of Richard Hughes. Let me be clear that what happened last week with the EFO should never have happened, and nor should it ever happen again. We take the report’s findings very seriously. As I informed the House yesterday, we will work with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward a forensic examination of potential premature access at previous fiscal events.

The OBR is a key part of our fiscal framework, and the OBR’s Budget Responsibility Committee continues under the experienced leadership of Tom Josephs and Professor David Miles. In the coming weeks, the Treasury will launch a competitive external recruitment process to appoint a new chair. As with all appointments to the Budget Responsibility Committee, the appointment of the new chair will be made by the Chancellor and will be subject to the consent of the Treasury Committee.

This Government put the utmost weight on Budget security, including the prevention of leaks of information, and a leak inquiry is under way. The Treasury will work closely with the OBR to ensure that robust security arrangements are in place before the spring forecast and for all future forecasts, and the permanent secretary to the Treasury will conduct a review of the Treasury’s security processes to inform future fiscal events.

As the Health Secretary so powerfully set out when he opened today’s debate, cutting NHS waiting lists is a top priority for this Government. We prioritised the NHS at the Budget because a strong health service where people can get the treatment they need is a priority for the British people. Our determination to get the national health service back on its feet and invest in the future of our country stands in stark contrast to the Conservatives, who offer nothing but decline. They  offer cuts to funding for public services that are equivalent to firing every police officer in the country twice. After 14 years in power and one year in opposition, the Conservatives still refuse to take responsibility for the state they left the country in, and offer no apology for the damage they did to our public services and our economy when they were in power—and on top of that, they boast that they would do it all again.

The Government are taking the fair and necessary choices to renew our country. Last year at our first Budget, we fixed the foundations by funding the largest ever capital settlement for health, introduced fiscal rules to ensure that the books are always balanced, and chose to invest in roads, rail, energy and homes across the UK. \p Chris Hinchliff: Throughout the Budget debate, all those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the concerns of Labour MPs who represent rural constituencies, as I have, about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief. Many of us feel that those changes are not properly calibrated. Will the Minister commit to keeping those changes under close review as they are rolled out, and will he take immediate action if we begin to see farms disappear? \p James Murray: The changes that we have set out to agricultural property relief are a fair way forward. They represent generous relief for people, while raising money for the public finances. In this Budget, the Chancellor announced that any unused £1 million allowance for the 100% rate of agricultural property relief and business property relief will be transferable between spouses and civil partners.

Following the Budget last week, we are going further. Despite the challenges that we faced, with the OBR recognising the deep scars to the economy caused by the previous Government, we refused to repeat the mistakes of the past. We rejected uncontrolled borrowing and refused to slash investment. We chose to keep cutting NHS waiting lists, to cut the cost of living and to cut debt and borrowing.

The Chancellor delivered a Budget last week that made fair choices on tax, protected investment in our public services and made our economy more secure. As a result of our choices, people will see more money in their pockets, thanks to the increase in the living wage; they will see rail fares and prescription charges frozen; they will see £150 off their energy bills; and they will see action across the country as we tackle the scourge of illicit businesses blighting our high streets. In short, this was a Budget that we were elected to deliver— \p Simon Hoare: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way to you, Mr Hoare, and the rest of us want to hear what he has to say. \p James Murray: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Madam Deputy Speaker, I give way to him week in, week out in this place, so I know pretty much what he is going to say. I do not have much time, so I am going to make some progress. [Interruption.] The Opposition are very loud at the moment, but time and again there is deafening silence when they are asked to defend their record in  government. They simply refuse to own up and face up to the damage they caused to our economy by slashing investment.

Our decision not to slash investment and to reject uncontrolled borrowing means that we have had to take fair and necessary choices on tax. We are being up front that those choices will mean everyone contributes more, but, as we promised last year, we are keeping taxes on working people as low as possible. We are doing that by reforming the tax system, increasing the rate of tax on property income and on those with £2 million-plus homes, increasing tax rates for online gambling while removing bingo duty, and ensuring that HMRC has the right technology for a modern, effective tax system. We are making the changes that the Conservatives always ducked, and we are keeping taxes on working people as low as possible.

When it comes to growth, the Chancellor has already beaten the forecasts once, with improved growth reported this year. We are determined to beat the forecasts in future years too, because we will not let the previous Government’s record hold Britain back in the future. We are backing entrepreneurs with tax breaks for businesses to scale and stay in the UK. We have secured hundreds of billions of pounds of private investment, and we are making sure that investment goes to every region and nation of the UK, so that everyone across the country feels the benefits of growth.

Families across the country plan how much to spend week in, week out. They budget, save and economise to stay on top of their household finances. We will hold ourselves to the same, and higher, standards when it comes to taxpayers’ money. We will always make sure that the Government live within their means and make every penny count. We have already begun to improve the efficiency of Government, saving £14 billion a year by 2029 through greater use of AI and automation, as well as reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication through the abolition of NHS England.

At last week’s Budget, we set out our plan to make a further £4.9 billion of efficiencies by 2031, beginning by getting rid of police and crime commissioners, cutting the cost of politics and selling Government assets that we no longer need. This means we can make sure that taxpayers’ money— \p Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way? \p James Murray: Oh, go on then. \p Edward Leigh: As a matter of interest, why did Labour Chancellor Hugh Dalton resign? \p James Murray: The right hon. Gentleman may not have been here, but a colleague of his asked me that same question before. Unfortunately, I did not know the history of that story; I shall have to look it up on Wikipedia tonight to find out. [Laughter.] Clearly, it was before my time.

Our focus on spending public money wisely means we can make sure taxpayers’ money is spent on what matters: the NHS, schools, roads and railways, our armed forces and the police. This Budget means that we can continue to invest in the future. That investment in our future includes our decision to lift 450,000 children  out of poverty. Those children should not go hungry simply because of the circumstances of their birth, and their life chances should not be written off before they have even got going.

We do not want to be a country where one in ten 15-year-olds goes hungry once a week because they cannot afford a meal. We want to be a country that recognises the profound damage that child poverty causes to us all. This Labour Government are taking the opportunity to change that. We do not want to be a country where £1 in every £10 of public money is spent on the interest on our national debt alone. That is why it is crucial that we cut borrowing and increase our fiscal headroom. That is the way to make sure that our country is less vulnerable to global shocks. We are determined to make our economy more resilient and ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent on taxpayers’ priorities.

There is an old saying that to govern is to choose. Politics is about making choices, yet the Conservatives are never keen to be judged by the choices they made when they were in government. They chose to cut investment in the foundations of our society, gutting our NHS, failing our schools and abandoning great swathes of the country and the next generation. They botched the Brexit deal, which stifled British trade and wrapped our businesses in red tape. They oversaw a covid recovery that left us lagging behind our neighbours while their donors and cronies pocketed millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, and they were responsible for a mini-Budget that crashed our economy, did great damage to our global reputation and cost mortgage payers hundreds of pounds a month.

Our Government are willing to choose and ready to stand by our choices. I am proud of the choices that we have made in this Budget. Those are choices that protect the NHS and get waiting lists down; cut the cost of living and take £150 off energy bills; and reduce the national debt and bring down the cost of borrowing. We will invest in the infrastructure that will drive growth and productivity across the country. We will not leave the broken welfare system unchanged, and we will spend every penny of taxpayers’ money wisely. Those are fair choices, those are necessary choices, and those are the right choices for the future of our country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That income tax is charged for the tax year 2026-27. And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)). \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That for the tax year 2026-27 the main rates of income tax are as follows—

(a) the basic rate is 20%,

(b) the higher rate is 40%, and

(c) the additional rate is 45%.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That—

(1) For the tax year 2026-27 the default rates of income tax are as follows—

(a) the default basic rate is 20%,

(b) the default higher rate is 40%, and

(c) the default additional rate is 45%.

(2) For the tax year 2026-27 the savings rates of income tax are as follows—

(a) the savings basic rate is 20%,

(b) the savings higher rate is 40%, and

(c) the savings additional rate is 45%.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: Question put,

That—

(1) In section 8 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (which provides, among other things, for the dividend ordinary rate and dividend upper rate)—

(a) in subsection (1) (the dividend ordinary rate), for “8.75%” substitute “10.75%”, and

(b) in subsection (2) (the dividend upper rate), for “33.75%” substitute “35.75%”.

(2) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2026-27 and subsequent tax years.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 371, Noes 166.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Question put,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year making provision about savings rates, including provision determining the savings rates of income tax for the tax year 2027-28. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 369, Noes 166.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year providing for different rates of income tax to be charged on income chargeable under Part 3 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, including—

(a) provision determining the property rates of income tax for the tax year 2027-28, and

(b) provision for Scottish rates and Welsh rates to be charged on income chargeable under that Part. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That—

(1) the tax year 2026-27 the amount specified in section 12(3) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (the starting rate limit for savings) is “£5,000”.

(2) Accordingly, section 21 of that Act (indexation) does not apply in relation to the starting rate limit for savings for that tax year.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made for the amount specified in section 12(3) of the Income Tax Act 2007 to remain at “£5,000” for the tax years 2027-28, 2028-29, 2029-30 and 2030-31. \p UNKNOWN: Question put,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made for each of the following amounts to remain at their current amounts for the tax years 2028-29, 2029-30 and 2030-31—

(a) the amount specified in section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (basic

rate limit), and

(b) the amount specified in section 35(1) of that Act (personal allowance). \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 348, Noes 176.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made—

(a) for corporation tax to be charged for the financial year 2027, and

(b) for the main rate of corporation tax for that year to be 25%. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made—

(a) for the standard small profits rate to be 19% for the purposes of Part 3A of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 for the financial year 2027, and

(b) for the standard marginal relief fraction to be 3/200ths for those purposes for that year. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made—

(a) in the case of enterprise management incentives, for changing—

(i) thresholds for qualification relating to the total value of shares over which options are issued, gross assets and employee numbers, and

(ii) the period for the exercise of options, and

(b) in the case of the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts, for changing thresholds for qualification relating to the amount of relevant investments and gross assets. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made to reduce the rate of relief under Part 6 of the Income Tax Act 2007 to 20%. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made, for the purposes of Schedules 4 and 5 to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, about the treatment of variations of share options in cases where the shares are or become PISCES shares within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System Sandbox) Regulations 2025. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That—

(a) (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year extending the circumstances in which a car or van made available to an employee, or a member of an employee’s family or household, is a taxable benefit,

and

(b) provision may be made amending section 117 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 so that subsection (1) of that section does not apply where a car or van is sold or leased on arm’s length terms to an employee or a member of an employee’s family or household. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 in relation to the CO2 emissions of certain hybrid electric cars. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made amending Chapter 11 of Part 4 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 to provide exemptions from income tax in cases involving the provision of—

(a) accommodation, supplies or services intended to be used by an employee in performing employment duties,

(b) eye and eyesight tests and related special corrective appliances, and

(c) influenza vaccinations. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made to disallow deductions from earnings under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 for additional household expenses incurred in the performance of duties at home. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for statutory payments made by employers for cancelling, moving or curtailing a shift to be treated as earnings from employment. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made about the extent to which general earnings are to be treated for the purposes of income tax as being in respect of duties performed in the United Kingdom in cases where the duties are not in fact performed. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made—

(a) imposing joint and several liability to income tax on persons involved in arrangements for the use of umbrella companies to engage workers,

(b) for an individual to be treated for the purposes of income tax as holding an employment with a person in circumstances where it may appear that the person is an umbrella company and the individual is its employee, and

(c) omitting section 44(4)(b) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made in relation to liabilities of any person in connection with loans or quasi-loans falling within Schedule 11 or 12 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017—

(a) authorising the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to enter into a settlement with the person but not so as to reduce the person’s liabilities by more than £70,000 (excluding for this purpose any reduction of the person’s inheritance tax liabilities), and

(b) about the inheritance tax consequences of a person entering into a settlement. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for reducing the percentage specified in section 56(1) of the Capital Allowances Act 2001. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made amending the Capital Allowances Act 2001 to provide for a first-year allowance of 40% for expenditure (other than special rate expenditure) incurred on plant or machinery which is unused and not second-hand. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made extending the periods in which expenditure must be incurred to qualify for first-year allowances under sections 45D and 45EA of the Capital Allowances Act 2001. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made for the purposes of corporation tax about—

(a) payments made for the surrender between companies of amounts of expenditure credit,

(b) the calculation of video game expenditure credit for companies that have previously claimed video games tax relief, and

(c) the special credit for visual effects under audiovisual expenditure credit. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending section 1138A of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 so that subsection (1)(b) of that section applies only for the purposes of relief under Chapter 2 of Part 13 of that Act. \p UNKNOWN: Question put,

That—

(1) Section 236H of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (disposals to employee-ownership trusts) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (2) substitute—

“(2) Where this section applies, section 17(1) (disposals and acquisitions treated as made at market value) does not apply to the disposal and, taking account of that disapplication—

(a) if a gain accrues, subsection (2A) applies, or

(b) if no gain accrues, subsection (3) applies.

(2A) Where this subsection applies—

(a) only 50% of the gain is a chargeable gain,

(b) the disposal is not to be regarded as a qualifying business disposal for the purposes of Chapter 3 of Part 5 (business asset disposal relief),

(c) the ordinary share capital disposed of is to be regarded, immediately before the disposal, as comprised wholly of excluded shares for the purposes of Chapter 5 of that Part (investors’ relief), and

(d) the acquisition by the trustees is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as made for the consideration for the disposal less an amount equal to so much of the gain as is not a chargeable gain as a result of paragraph (a).”

(3) In subsection (3), for “The”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “Where this subsection applies, the”.

(4) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to disposals made on or after 26 November 2025.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 164.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made amending sections 103K and 137 to 139 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made requiring relief under section 162 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 to be claimed. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That—

(1) Part 4 of Schedule 1A to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (anti-avoidance relating to assets deriving 75% of value from UK land) is amended as follows.

(2) For the heading of the Part substitute “Cell companies and anti-avoidance”.

(3) Before paragraph 11 insert—

“Cell companies

10A (1) In the application of this Schedule in relation to the disposal of an asset consisting of a right or an interest in a cell company, each cell of the company is to be treated as if it were an individual company.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) a company is a “cell company” if under the law under which the company is formed, under the company’s articles of association or other document regulating the company or under arrangements entered into by or in relation to the company—

(i) some or all of the assets of the company are available primarily, or only, to meet particular liabilities of the company, and

(ii) some or all of the members of the company, and some or all of its creditors, have rights primarily, or only, in relation to particular assets of the company;

(b) “cell”, in relation to a cell company, means an identifiable part of the company that carries on distinct business activities and to which particular assets and liabilities of the company are primarily or wholly attributable.

Anti-avoidance”.

(4) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to disposals made on or after 26 November 2025. And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made in respect of chargeable gains accruing by virtue of Schedule 5AAA to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992—

(a) removing the requirement under section 6(6) of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 to claim relief in respect of disposals with a connection to collective investment vehicles, and

(b) correcting minor errors in paragraphs 10 to 12 of Schedule 2 to Finance Act 2019. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made repealing section 399 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about—

(a) relief from income tax and capital gains tax on foreign income and gains of individuals who become resident in the United Kingdom for income tax purposes,

(b) the temporary repatriation facility,

(c) former users of the remittance basis,

(d) the application in relation to trusts and other similar structures of the changes to the taxation of foreign income and gains made by Schedule 12 to the Finance Act 2025, and

(e) the treatment of income of persons who are temporarily not resident in the United Kingdom for income tax purposes. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made—

(a) amending section 8C of the Taxes Management Act 1970 and sections 1K and 62(3) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 in consequence of the ending of the remittance basis, and

(b) correcting an omission in paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 2025. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made amending sections 690 to 690E of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made replacing diverted profits tax with a new charge to corporation tax on amounts—

(a) which arise as a result of the application of corporation tax rules about transfer pricing, and

(b) which have not been taken into account in a company’s self-assessment. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for the purposes of income tax and corporation tax about transfer pricing. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made—

(a) about permanent establishments for the purposes of corporation tax,

and

(b) for the purposes of income tax corresponding to provision falling within paragraph (a). \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That—

(1) For the purposes of Part 3 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023, a tax is to be treated as a qualifying undertaxed profits tax for any accounting period that ends before the first regulations under section 257 of that Act have been made if—

(a) it is a Qualified UTPR for that accounting period for the purposes of the Pillar Two rules, or

(b) it is reasonable to conclude that it is likely to be a Qualified UTPR for that accounting period for the purposes of the Pillar Two rules.

(2) In paragraph (1) “Pillar Two rules” has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 (see section 255 of that Act).

(3) This Resolution comes into force on 2 December 2025.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That—

(1) This Resolution applies if a repayment of interest (“the relevant repayment”) is, or has been at any time, made to a company in consequence of the cancellation of an interest charging notice given to the company under Schedule 7ZA to the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010

(recovery of unlawful state aid).

(2) Interest must be paid to the company in respect of the relevant repayment.

(3) The amount of interest payable under this Resolution is the amount that would have been payable by virtue of section 826 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (interest on tax overpaid) in respect of the relevant repayment if, at the time of the relevant repayment—

(a) the relevant repayment had been among the repayments and payments listed in subsection (1) of that section, and

(b) the material date for the purposes of that section, in relation to the relevant repayment, had been the date on which the interest mentioned in paragraph (1) above was paid by the company.

(4) Interest payable under this Resolution must be paid—

(a) in respect of a relevant repayment made before 2 December 2025, as soon as reasonably practicable;

(b) in respect of a relevant repayment made on or after that day, at the same time as the relevant repayment.

(5) Nothing in paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 7ZA to the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (Treasury duty to make regulations where Commission Decision is revoked or annulled) requires the Treasury to make any further provision in relation to the repayment of interest paid by virtue of that Schedule.

(6) References in this Resolution to Schedule 7ZA to the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 are to the Schedule treated as inserted in that Act by paragraph (b) of Schedule 4 to the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Act 2020.

(7) This Resolution comes into force on 2 December 2025.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made—

(a) amending Part 10 of the Income Tax Act 2007 and Part 11 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 so as to bring within the scope of tax gifts that are made to charities by will,

(b) amending section 558 of the Income Tax Act 2007 and section 511 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 so as to change the meaning of “approved charitable investment”, and

(c) amending the provisions in relation to tainted donations in Chapter 8 of Part 13 of the Income Tax Act 2007, Part 21C of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, and section 257A of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for income tax to be chargeable in respect of winter fuel payments. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for carried interest to be chargeable to income tax as the profits of a trade. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for the purposes of income tax about collective money purchase schemes and Master Trust schemes. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending—

(a) Schedule 7A to the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (reporting companies etc), and

(b) section 407 of that Act (amounts not brought into account in determining a company’s tax-EBITDA). \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made denying a deduction for corporation tax purposes for a loss, expense or debit that arises—

(a) in connection with a liability recognised for accounting purposes following the transfer of an asset to a securitisation company or to a person that is a party to the same capital market arrangement as such a company, and

(b) as a result of arrangements where there is a main purpose of securing a tax advantage. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made amending section 80 of the Finance Act 2013 to ensure that no payment is made under decommissioning relief agreements by reference to the energy (oil and gas) profits levy. \p UNKNOWN: Question put,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending the Inheritance Tax Act 1984—

(a) for limiting the amount of agricultural property relief and business property relief,

(b) about the Scottish agricultural leases to which section 177(1) or (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 applies,

(c) to remove obsolete references to the Unlisted Securities Market, and

(d) providing that overseas property whose value is attributable to agricultural property in the United Kingdom is not excluded property. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 182.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Before I come to the next motion, I have been informed that certain Members are taking photographs in the Lobby while we are in session. Members know that taking photographs is strictly prohibited. The Members names have been given to me. I expect them to come and apologise before the evening is out. If any of those photos is published, there will be severe repercussions. \p UNKNOWN: Question put,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year about the charging of inheritance tax by reference to benefits payable under a pension scheme on the death of a member of the scheme. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 364, Noes 167.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made amending section 86 of the Finance Act 2021 so that the nil rate band, the residential enhancement and the taper threshold remain at their current amounts for the tax year 2030-31. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for the purposes of inheritance tax—

(a) limiting the application of exclusions from the charge in section 65 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984,

(b) limiting the amount that can be charged under section 64 or 65 of that Act by reference to property that was comprised in a settlement before 30 October 2024 and was before that time excluded property,

(c) about the residence status for the purposes of that Act of individuals who are or have been subject to exemptions from inheritance tax by virtue of legislation governing international organisations, diplomacy or similar matters, and

(d) correcting minor errors arising from amendments of that Act made by the Finance Act 2025. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made conferring inheritance tax relief in relation to payments made under an infected blood compensation scheme. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made limiting the exemption from inheritance tax for gifts to charities or registered clubs. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made—

(a) repealing item 14 of Group 12 in Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (zero-rate for letting of vehicles to persons in receipt of certain disability benefits),

(b) disregarding, in calculating the value of a supply for the purposes of that Act, the amount of the consideration given for the letting of vehicles so far as consisting of the payment of disability benefits paid by a public authority, and

(c) limiting the relief from insurance premium tax under paragraph 3 of Schedule 7A to the Finance Act 1994 to contracts relating to motor vehicles designed or adapted by reference to a person’s use of a wheelchair or stretcher. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That—

(1) In section 53 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (tour operators), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) But a person is not a tour operator if and so far as their business consists of making supplies of services consisting of the transport of passengers by private hire vehicle or taxi, unless those supplies are made in conjunction with, and are ancillary to, the making of supplies by the person consisting of—

(a) the provision of accommodation, or

(b) the transport of passengers by bus, coach, train, ship or aircraft.”

(2) The amendment made by this Resolution has effect in relation to supplies made on or after 2 January 2026.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for donations to charities of goods within a specified financial limit not to be treated as supplies for the purposes of value added tax. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made amending section 33(3)(a) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (refunds of VAT to local authorities and combined authorities) so that it applies to combined county authorities. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That—

(1) After section 89B of the Finance Act 1986 (stamp duty reserve tax) insert—

“89C Section 87: UK listing relief

(1) Section 87 does not apply as regards an agreement to transfer chargeable securities in a listed company—

(a) that was first listed after the beginning of the period of 3 years ending with the relevant day, and

(b) whose shares are admitted to trading on a UK regulated

market, if none of the following exclusions apply.

(2) Exclusion A (listed company mergers) applies if the listing referred to in subsection (1)(a) was connected to arrangements by which—

(a) a listed company took control of another listed company,

(b) a company took control of two or more listed companies, or

(c) two or more listed companies merged all or substantially all of their businesses.

(3) Exclusion B (new holding company) applies if—

(a) the listing referred to in subsection (1)(a) was connected to arrangements by which the company took control of another company, and

(b) immediately before those arrangements, the other company was—

(i) listed other than by reference to depositary interests, and

(ii) controlled by the person or persons who, at the time of the listing referred to in subsection (1)(a), controlled the company.

(4) Exclusion C (change of control) applies if—

(a) during the period beginning with the listing referred to in subsection (1)(a) and ending with the relevant day, there was a change of control in the company, or

(b) the agreement to transfer forms part of arrangements changing control in the company.

(5) In subsection (1)(a), the reference to a company being first listed is a reference to—

(a) in the case of a company falling within subsection (6), the company first making a regulatory announcement to the effect that it has taken control of a company as described in subsection (6)(b), or

(b) in other cases, shares in the company being admitted to the official list at a time when no other shares of the company were included in the official list.

(6) A company falls within this subsection if—

(a) shares in the company were admitted to the official list at a time when the company’s assets consisted wholly or mainly of cash or short-dated securities, and

(b) the shares were admitted with a view to the company taking control of an unlisted company before the end of a certain period.

(7) In this section—

(a) a reference to a company being listed is a reference to shares in the company being included in the official list;

(b) a reference to shares being included in the official list is a reference to shares—

(i) being included in the official list in accordance with Part 6 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”) (see section 74 of that Act), or

(ii) not being included only by reason of suspension under that Part;

(c) a reference to shares being admitted to the official list has the same meaning as in that Part;

(d) a reference to shares includes a reference to depositary interests in shares.

(8) In this section—

“arrangements” includes any preliminary steps taken in connection with arrangements; “control” has the meaning given in section 1124 of the

Corporation Tax Act 2010; “depositary interest” has the meaning given in regulations made under section 119 of the Finance Act 1999 (power to exempt UK depositary interests in foreign securities); “regulatory announcement” means an announcement required by, and made in accordance with, Part 6 rules made under section 73A of FSMA; “relevant day” has the meaning given in section 87(3); “UK regulated market” has the same meaning as in Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments (see Article 2(13A)).”

(2) The amendment made by this Resolution has effect only in relation to an agreement to transfer chargeable securities in a company that is first listed on or after 27 November 2025 (with “first listed” having the same meaning as in section 89C(1)(a) of the Finance Act 1986, as inserted by paragraph (1)).

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made increasing the rate of remote gaming duty. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year introducing a new rate of general betting duty on bets made remotely. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for the abolition of bingo duty. \p UNKNOWN: Question put,

That—

(1) Part 2 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 (alcohol duty) is amended as follows.

(2) For Schedule 7 (main rates) substitute—

“SCHEDULE 7

RATES OF ALCOHOL DUTY

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

(3) For Schedule 8 (reduced rates for qualifying draught products) substitute—

“SCHEDULE 8

QUALIFYING DRAUGHT PRODUCTS:  REDUCED RATES

(4) For Schedule 9 (duty discount for small producer alcoholic products)—

“SCHEDULE 9

SMALL PRODUCER ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS:  DUTY DISCOUNT

PART 1

ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS, OTHER THAN  QUALIFYING DRAUGHT PRODUCTS, OF AN  ALCOHOLIC STRENGTH OF LESS THAN 8.5%

PART 2

QUALIFYING DRAUGHT PRODUCTS OF AN  ALCOHOLIC STRENGTH OF LESS THAN 8.5%

(5) In consequence of the amendments made by the preceding paragraphs of this Resolution, in Schedule 2 to the Travellers’ Allowances Order 1994 (which provides in certain circumstances for a simplified calculation of excise duty on goods brought into Great Britain)—

(a) in the entry relating to beer, in the second column, for “£0.91” substitute “£0.95”,

(b) in the entry relating to still wine, in the second column, for “£3.40” substitute “£3.52”,

(c) in the entry relating to sparkling wine, in the second column, for “£3.40” substitute “£3.52”,

(d) in the entry relating to cider, in the second column, for “£0.46” substitute “£0.48”,

(e) in the entry relating to sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength not exceeding 5.5% by volume, in the second column, for “£0.46” substitute “£0.48”,

(f) in the entry relating to sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% but less than 8.5% by volume, in the second column, for “£1.80” substitute “£1.86”,

(g) in the entry relating to other fermented products, in the second column, for “£3.40” substitute “£3.52”, and

(h) in the entry relating to spirits, in the second column, for “£12.30” substitute “£12.75”.

(6) The amendments made by this Resolution come into force on 1 February 2026.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 357, Noes 174.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That—

(1) In Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 (table of rates of tobacco products duty), for the Table substitute—

“TABLE

(2) In consequence of the provision made by paragraph (1), in Schedule 2 to the Travellers’ Allowances Order 1994 (which provides in certain circumstances for a simplified calculation of excise duty on goods brought into Great Britain)—

(a) in the entry relating to cigarettes, for “£446.67” substitute “£471.93”,

(b) in the entry relating to hand rolling tobacco, for “£476.83” substitute “£503.80”,

(c) in the entry relating to other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco, for “£183.49” substitute “£193.87”,

(d) in the entry relating to cigars, for “£417.33” substitute “£440.93”,

(e) in the entry relating to cigarillos, for “£417.33” substitute “£440.93”, and

(f) in the entry relating to tobacco for heating, for “£103.17” substitute “£109.01”.

(3) The amendments made by this Resolution come into force at 6pm on 26 November 2025.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made increasing the rates of tobacco products duty. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made increasing the rates of vehicle excise duty in Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That—

(1) In paragraph 1GE of Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (rates for light passenger vehicles registered on or after 1 April 2017 with a price exceeding £40,000)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for “£40,000” substitute “the applicable amount”, and

(b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) “the applicable amount” is—

(a) in the case of a vehicle whose applicable CO2 emissions figure in grams per kilometre driven is zero, £50,000, and

(b) in any other case, £40,000.”

(2) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to any licence where the period for which the licence has effect begins on or after 1 April 2026 (whenever the licence is taken out).

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made increasing the rates of HGV road user levy. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year increasing the rates of air passenger duty. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year amending the rates of climate change levy. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made increasing the rates of landfill tax. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made increasing the rate of aggregates levy. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made in connection with aggregates levy ceasing to be chargeable in Scotland. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made increasing the rate of plastic packaging tax. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year amending Part 2 of the Finance Act 2021—

(a) in relation to the application of that Part to plastic that has been chemically recycled, and

(b) so as to limit the types of plastic that can be reprocessed into recycled plastic for the purposes of that Part. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made increasing the rates of soft drinks industry levy. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made—

(a) about the provision that may be made under section 8 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 by virtue of section 32(7) of that Act in relation to rates of import duty, and

(b) allowing rates of import duty specified under section 8 of that Act to be applied instead of rates of import duty applying by virtue of section 9 or 10 of that Act. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate trade remedies investigations. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made about amounts and options that may be included in a recommendation relating to a final affirmative determination under Schedule 4 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made about the imposition of conditions in connection with the approval of wharves for the purpose of facilitating the administration, collection or enforcement of any customs duty. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made increasing the rates of economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made repealing section 106(6) of the Finance Act 2013. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for charging excise duty on vaping products. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for charging tax on emissions embodied in goods imported into the United Kingdom. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made—

(a) for prohibiting the promotion of tax arrangements that—

(i) have no reasonable prospect of providing the anticipated tax advantage, or

(ii) are unlikely to provide the anticipated tax advantage and are likely to cause harm to taxpayers,

(b) for restricting the provision of goods or services to a person who is promoting tax arrangements in breach of—

(i) a prohibition mentioned in paragraph (a), or

(ii) section 236B of the Finance Act 2014 (stop notices),

(c) about the collection of information in connection with the promotion, disclosure or enabling of tax avoidance,

(d) about civil penalties for the non-disclosure of tax avoidance schemes, and

(e) about the publication of information about lawyers in relation to tax avoidance schemes. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made in relation to the construction industry scheme—

(a) about the grounds for, and consequences of, cancelling gross payment status, and

(b) imposing liability to pay amounts to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in cases where there is a deliberate failure to comply with obligations arising under Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Finance Act 2004 or under PAYE regulations. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made—

(a) about the registration of tax advisers with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs,

(b) amending Schedule 38 to the Finance Act 2012 in connection with the conduct of tax advisers, and

(c) about the publication of information about tax advisers by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made amending section 4 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 to reduce the number of occasions for a financial year on which the Office for Budget Responsibility must prepare an assessment of the extent to which the fiscal mandate has been, or is likely to be, achieved. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made conferring power on the Treasury to require relevant data-holders (within the meaning of Schedule 23 to the Finance Act 2011) to provide data to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on an ongoing basis for the purpose of assisting them with the efficient and effective discharge of their functions relating to tax (within the meaning of that Schedule). \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made amending Schedule A1 to the Taxes Management Act 1970 and repealing Schedule 14 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for regulations under section 132 of Finance Act 1999 or section 135 of Finance Act 2002 to include provision for the making of directions. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made to require persons who use an online service provided by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to provide digital contact details. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made—

(a) about the award, expiry and cancellation of penalty points under Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2021 and the assessment of penalties under Schedule 24 or 26 to that Act,

(b) inserting a consequential reference to Schedule 26 to that Act in section 16(1)(f) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and

(c) for persons to be liable to penalties under Schedule 56 to the Finance Act 2009 and Schedule 26 to the Finance Act 2021 for failures to pay tax payable under section 56(3)(b) of the Taxes Management Act 1970. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made amending the amounts specified in paragraph 17(2) and (3) of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 1998. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to give advance clearances concerning large investment projects. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made—

(a) requiring information to be given to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs about cryptoasset users who are resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes or who are not resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes but are controlled by persons who are resident there for tax purposes, and

(b) about which matters are connected with the OECD Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework for the purposes of section 349 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made conferring power on the Treasury to test procedures that could be used for the administration of a future tax replacing stamp duty. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made for oversight in relation to the exercise of enforcement functions of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in Northern Ireland. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision may be made—

(a) repealing section 25 of the Finance Act 1925 (which refers to the liability of Dominion Governments to taxation in respect of trading operations),

(b) omitting references in Table A in section 660 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 and Table B in section 677 of that Act to social security benefits that are no longer payable, and

(c) correcting cross-references in the Table in paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007 and the Table in paragraph 1 of Schedule 41 to the Finance Act 2008. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made which is incidental to, or consequential on or otherwise connected with, provision authorised by any other Resolution. \p UNKNOWN: King’s recommendation signified

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs which is attributable to provision made in relation to video game expenditure credit, and

(b) any expenditure incurred by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State in connection with import duty.

Ordered,

That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions;

That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, James Murray, Dan Tomlinson, Lucy Rigby and Torsten Bell bring in the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading

Dan Tomlinson accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in connection with finance.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 342) with explanatory notes (Bill 342-EN). \p Wes Streeting: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to confess a sin. Earlier today, in the debate on the Budget, I referenced the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and did not notify him in advance. This was particularly egregious because I was not very nice about him. With that in mind, and out of respect for the customs and conventions of this House, I would like to apologise to the hon. Member and put this note on the record. I have, of course, written to him in similar terms. \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me advance notice of his putting this point on the record. I am not sure that it is a sin, or whether he will be absolved of it, but it has been noted. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 27 October, be approved.

That the draft Education (Scotland) Act 2025 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 28 October, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 1 September, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 7 July, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 3 November, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 30 October, be approved.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: I present this petition on behalf of my constituents on day 8 of the United Nations 16 Days of Activism.

Dangerous depictions of violence in offline pornography, such as in magazines, are rightly prohibited under UK law, yet no equivalent laws apply to online pornography, despite its scale and accessibility. The Internet Watch Foundation published over 290,000 reports, with 97% depicting violent child sexual abuse against girls.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow,

Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003138] \p Andrew Griffith: No place is more inappropriate for a 25-hectare solar farm than the nature-rich farmland in Loxwood and Wisborough Green. One hundred and seventy-four residents and four separate parish councils have objected to the proposal. Solar on this scale is better off on supermarket roofs above car parks and on brownfield sites. I am sad to say that the local Liberal Democrats have failed to take a stand, demonstrating that no green field in Sussex is safe.

The petitioners

“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with local residents’ groups and to encourage Chichester District Council to refuse planning permission for the proposed 20MW solar farm in Wisborough Green.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of Arundel and South Downs,

Declares that the proposed site on land to the south, south-west and north-west of Malham Farm and north-west of Oakwood Farm, Wisborough Green is inappropriate for the construction of a 20MW solar farm by Renewable Connections, due to its scale, location, and associated impacts on the rural setting and residents; further declares that there are no exceptional circumstances that require a solar farm to be built there, and that the local harms far outweigh the merits of this proposal.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with local residents’ groups and to encourage Chichester District Council to refuse planning permission for the proposed 20MW solar farm in Wisborough Green.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003140] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.) \p Barry Gardiner: On 1 October, it became mandatory for Government contracting authorities to include social issues like jobs and skills in their procurement processes. That in itself is a good thing, but the social value model they have prepared is flawed.

I welcome the consultation on further reforms to public procurement issued by the Cabinet Office in June. In his related press release, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made an explicit connection between the consultation and the Government’s proposals for obtaining social value benefits that are specific to the needs of a community. That aligns well with section 12 of the Procurement Act 2023 and the national procurement policy statement, which connects procurement with the Government’s core missions—for example,

“encouraging suppliers to recruit from groups that struggle to access employment opportunities”

as part of the “Take back our streets” mission;

“removing barriers to entry for young people and under-represented groups”

as part of the “Break down barriers to opportunity” mission;

“encouraging suppliers to recruit from economically inactive cohorts”

as part of the health mission; and

“opportunities for small businesses and social enterprises across the country”

as part of the “Kickstart economic growth” mission.

The Act sets clear objectives that, in effect, call for targeted recruitment and training, and local initiatives for small and medium-sized enterprises. The current position builds on an approach that evolved during the last Labour Government, when a range of local and regional initiatives were developed to target jobs and training opportunities at disadvantaged local communities. The term “community” could refer to people living in a specific geographic area or people who share disadvantages in the labour market, such as the long-term unemployed, young people, ex-offenders or care leavers.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s influential 2002 report, “Achieving community benefits through contracts: law, policy and practice” kick-started this whole approach. Later, the Labour Government published the first UK guidance, “Social issues in purchasing”, in 2006. That was followed by the Scottish Government’s “Community benefits in public procurement” document, which included policy, a methodology and model clauses, and remains widely used today.

Similar toolkits were adopted in other areas. Those included the targeted recruitment and training toolkit produced by the north-east improvement and efficiency partnership, the Can Do toolkit adopted by Welsh housing associations, and the west midlands procurement framework for jobs and skills.

As a proud Glaswegian, I am pleased to say that Scotland was an early adopter of targeted recruitment and training through procurement. A 2014 Glasgow University study that covered 24 contracts identified 1,000 people recruited from priority groups, of whom  38% were recruited as a result of the contract requirements; 200 apprentices recruited, of whom 73% were as a result of the contract conditions and all were still in employment; and 6,700 individuals who had received training, of whom 31% would not have done so without those contract conditions.

Glasgow housing association—the stock transfer recipient for roughly 100,000 social homes in the city council area—incorporated new entrant trainee requirements into its regeneration contracts at the outset. The overall achievements by 2014 were that 657 apprentices received an average of 73 weeks’ employment; 501 other new entrant trainees obtained an average of 22 weeks’ employment; a total of 60,000 person-weeks of employment for new entrant trainees were delivered—11.4% of all person-weeks utilised on the contracts; and 48% of new entrant trainee opportunities went to residents of the most disadvantaged areas of Glasgow.

That counts as a great success by any standard, as I am sure the Minister would agree. The outcomes demonstrate the benefits of getting senior management buy-in and staff resources from the outset. Targeted recruitment and training then become a normal part of commissioning, procurement and contract management. The approach set out in the Scottish Government guidance is underpinned by the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which remains good law in Scotland.

Let us come back to 2025. The Government’s “Procurement Policy Note 002: The Social Value Model” updates the 2013 social value model. Both iterations of the model originate from discussions between the Government and civil society organisations that resulted in the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. For services contracts, the model encourages contracting authorities to procure some wider community benefit from the way their services contracts are delivered, often following good practice developed by innovative community-based service providers. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on an important subject. He always provides much detail and information to help us. When it comes to procurement, cheapest is not always best. We should consider the very thing that he refers to—the social value—to ensure that we support local businesses and the community. In listening to what he says, I can see things that we in Northern Ireland could and should take advantage of. Will the Minister consider sharing these ideas with the Assembly in Northern Ireland? That would be advantageous not just for the Minister, but for us all. \p Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman is right, of course: cheapest is not always best. That is partly what the social value model is all about; it is designed to ensure that there is genuine social value, not simply the cheapest model.

The 2025 version of the social value model extends the scope to all contracts of central Government Departments, Executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies that fall within the scope of the Procurement Act 2023. It then encourages other contracting authorities to apply that approach. As a result, the social value model must now be used on most infrastructure and building contracts as well. \p Gareth Snell: When I had the privilege of leading a council in north Staffordshire, we tried to invent a model that allowed us to use the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 in exactly the way that my hon. Friend describes, so that when we were working with a registered social landlord on house building, for example, we could stipulate that a proportion of the bricks should come from the local area and that, in turn, apprentices would be working in those factories. I found that it was a matter of political will, but also that procurement officers sometimes struggled to understand how to quantify social value. Does my hon. Friend have a solution—one that the Minister could then cascade through Government—for working out the social value that we are all seeking to achieve? \p Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend gives an apposite example of some of the problems that can arise. I will not be so bold as to say I have the solution, but I will at least try to set out the problem with clarity, so that the Minister can ensure that his officers are able to provide a proper solution.

The model details eight types of social value, each with several areas of activity. Those cover fair work, training to address skills gaps, support for small business and community business, action for sustainability, crime reduction, overcoming barriers to work, and support for health and wellbeing. Contracting authorities can choose which of those are relevant to a particular procurement, but one element is mandatory: where a type of social value is selected, the standard reporting metric set out in the model must then be used for monitoring and reporting. Herein lies the problem. These monitoring requirements will influence how social value requirements are described in tenders and contracts. A contracting authority using a targeted recruitment and training toolkit would struggle to comply with the standard reporting metrics, as they would not relate to the tried and tested specifications that are used.

Many of the options in the social value model are related to the jobs, skills and SME opportunities that are contemplated in the national procurement policy statement. However, the model appears to be expecting procurement officials to create tender requirements whereby potential contractors will identify labour shortages and community needs and then propose ways to fill these gaps in the delivery of the contract. That may be possible with a services contract, but it is really not workable in a large, complex building and infrastructure development.

What are my concerns? First, apart from the way outputs are recorded, no specific elements of the social value model are mandatory for contracting authorities, so the provision of opportunities for people who are currently disadvantaged in the labour market is not mandatory. Contracting authorities can choose to focus on other activities contained in the social value model.

Secondly, the approach for every social value option is to require bidders for the contract to provide a comprehensive method statement at tender stage. That puts a heavy burden on potential contractors and is a huge barrier to small businesses bidding for contracts, which is perverse when breaking down barriers to SME engagement is one of the Procurement Act principles and a core mission of the Government. \p Mark Sewards: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and a powerful argument. I have been dealing with an advanced manufacturer of metal and steel wires in my constituency that has been put off by the very thing he describes. That company stands ready to support the Government’s mission on clean and green energy—it wants to supply its steel wires to wind farms—but things like this deter it from getting involved in the first place. Does he agree that that needs to change? \p Barry Gardiner: I am heartened. When some hon. Members approached me about this Adjournment debate, I said, “Look, it’s extremely boring—you won’t want to be in it,” but to have had three interventions that have been so apposite is really gratifying.

An alternative approach would be for most social value requirements to be included in the tender and contract documents as conditions relating to the delivery of the contract, rather than an item that is scored at the tender stage. Here, a method statement would be required shortly after the award of the contract, but only the winning contractor would have to prepare it. I hope that that goes some way to answering the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards).

My third concern is that the social value requirements may not be deliverable in large construction contracts. These have many layers of employer involved in delivering the contract and a significant turnover of employers and workforces at different stages of the contract. That is very different from the majority of service contracts. Key issues arising from this could include: ensuring that the subcontractors who employ most of the workforce deliver the social value requirements and provide the necessary monitoring information; getting highly mobile subcontractors to recruit and train locally based people; and ensuring continuity of employment and training for new entrants when subcontractors have limited engagement with the project and the training requires one or two years of on-site support. The current social value model demonstrates no awareness of those issues. If it feels impractical to achieve jobs and training on a particular project, procurement teams may opt for alternative social value outputs or opt out altogether. That could undermine the high priority given to providing opportunities for disadvantaged groups in the delivery of major projects.

Fourthly, the social value model uses terms such as “people under-represented in the labour market” and “disabled people”. Most applicants from these groups will not be identified on any register or easily categorised for recruitment and monitoring purposes. Indeed, they may not want to be labelled in this way, whatever the standard metrics require. In the toolkits to which I have referred, the focus of attention is on local people’s need for employment and for in-work training and support. Often months or years of employment is needed if new entrants are to become fully productive and embedded in their trade. Targeting comes by recruiting from training and support organisations that work with the target communities, especially local organisations.

Fifthly, the term “community” may have widely different meanings. Where there is a locality element in the model’s mandatory standard reporting metrics, “community” is  defined as a UK region, but people living close to a major infrastructure development probably see their community as having much narrower boundaries. These more targeted benefits seem closer to the Government’s missions as described.

There is an additional question. The annex to procurement policy note 2, from February this year, states that employment opportunities arising from a contract must be advertised via the Department for Work and Pensions’ “Find a job” website, as well as local jobcentres. In the past, the website has offered the employer suitable candidates from anywhere in the UK, often within hours. That creates additional barriers for local new entrants, as they are competing with candidates from a very wide area. If the requirement is still applicable, this issue needs to be addressed by the Department for Work and Pensions. \p John Slinger: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important subject to the House. Will he join me in welcoming the announcement that is hot off the press this evening from the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how councils, police and fire authorities in England will now be able to reserve bidding for lower-value contracts to local and UK suppliers? This is all about opening up Government work to small businesses and enabling—exactly as he was saying—small businesses and local people to get high-skilled jobs from such Government procurement. \p Barry Gardiner: Goodness me! It is very rare that I stand in this Chamber and get such immediate results from the Government. If this is a precedent, it is one that I wholeheartedly welcome. I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has just reported is the new Government policy. As I was saying about the Department for Work and Pensions, defining some job vacancies as “new entrant trainee opportunities” and naming local organisations as potential recruitment partners can increase opportunities for local people without damaging competition, and he has just mentioned a very good example. This is especially important in the context of the youth guarantee announced by the Government in September. Likewise, local business support organisations can help increase opportunities for local SMEs. Many combined authorities have a role to play in promoting good practice, on a shared basis, in their regions.

Finally, I am concerned that the current model provides a complex shopping list of what social value might be sought. It leaves procurement teams to unpack what each will involve and then turn that into a tender requirement. This is in a context in which many of the procurement staff involved, especially in works contracts, will be new to social value. I am struck by the critique of the social value approach that was made in the 2024 report published by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, one of the leading organisations in the field. It says that

“an entire industry has grown up around the demand for methods, measures and consultancy time to help understand and measure social value. As a result, there are concerns that the original purpose of social value and the nuanced social dynamics involved in measuring its impact may be lost to bureaucracy and rigid frameworks.”

I think that sums it up perfectly.

In my view, the current social value model will bring a bonanza for consultants. Both contracting authorities and contractors will feel that they need to seek help to engage with these relatively new requirements. It would be far more efficient to simplify the requirements and equip procurement teams with the tools, systems and training to put these into contracts and monitor delivery.

I have three urgent questions for the Minister to consider. First, will the Government review the social value model to reduce the negative impact on small businesses seeking services contracts? Secondly, will the Government, perhaps working with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, commission urgent work to develop a targeted recruitment and training approach for large works contracts, using the experiences gained through the toolkits elsewhere in the UK? Thirdly, will the Government clarify whether all vacancies on works contracts have to be listed on the DWP “Find a job” website, and if so whether employers are able to exercise a local preference when delivering a social value obligation? \p Chris Ward: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing the debate. He raised a number of important and specific points, which I will answer shortly. If he will permit me, I will briefly set out the Government’s approach to procurement, not least because it is the first opportunity that I have had to do so as the Minister responsible for procurement.

I want to emphasise that this Government and I see public procurement as an incredibly important vehicle for social and economic change, and not in the slightest bit boring. Public procurement accounts for one in every three pounds of public spending, totalling some £400 billion a year, so it is a huge opportunity and responsibility to make sure that that budget is spent wisely, and that it does everything possible to boost British jobs and growth, and delivers opportunity and fairness across the country. \p Gareth Snell: To follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) about the great announcement that police forces will be able to buy things locally, when will the Minister extend that to ensure that British police services are buying British cars, that the Government car service is buying British cars, that the Motability scheme is using British cars and that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fleet is using British cars? All those currently use foreign-made vehicles, which is not using British taxpayers’ money for British jobs. \p Chris Ward: As my hon. Friend knows, the Budget announced progress on that with the Motability scheme, and the Chancellor has spoken many times about the need to buy British. Hopefully, we can start to roll that out and make much greater progress on it. I am glad he welcomes today’s announcement, which I will come to, but whether we are talking about British steel, British shipbuilding, wind farms or, as we saw in the Budget last week, driving innovation and spurring investment across the UK, we need to do far more to ensure that we buy British.

That is also why, just this week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said, we have announced measures to allow local authorities to reserve contracts for suppliers in their area. That will help to keep more than £1 billion of potential spend in local communities, and it will benefit small and local firms considerably. This flows from our decision earlier this year to publish a national procurement policy statement that required contracting authorities to consider wider objectives, such as creating local skills, jobs and opportunities, and to maximise procurement spend with small and medium-sized enterprises.

Over the summer, the Government consulted on a range of proposals to go further, including broadening the definition of national security to economic security, allowing greater support for critical UK industries, such as shipbuilding or steel, and plans to introduce a public interest test to support and help deliver a wave of insourcing. The proposals also included further expanding support and opportunities for SMEs, including tackling the scourge of late payments, and, to go to the thrust of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West, reforming and tightening the definition of social value to see it delivered much more effectively.

We are working through the consultation responses. I have met with a number of businesses, unions and contracting authorities to discuss this further, and we are drawing up plans to bring forward legislation in the next session for a new procurement Bill to deliver these changes.

As the Minister responsible for procurement, I have two central goals. The first is to make the current procurement regime less bureaucratic and burdensome—streamlining the processes wherever possible, reducing unnecessary form-filling and, in particular, making it easier and fairer for SMEs. The second is to ensure that every pound of that £400 billion procurement budget is used to support British jobs, British industries and growth across the country. Within that second goal lies the question of social value, which my hon. Friend raised. I am sympathetic to a number of points he made, and I have discussed particularly with SMEs recently how we can do more in this space.

As my hon. Friend said, the social value model was introduced in 2019 and refreshed in 2025. It is not currently mandatory for all contracting authorities or contracts, and it is applicable only to central Government Departments, executive agencies and non-departmental bodies. As I said, we are consulting on changes that will open up procurement on social value grounds much more widely.

As my hon. Friend will know, the purpose of the social value model in the guidance, which has been in place for only a couple of months, is to ensure that contracting authorities can reward suppliers for more than simply best price, so that they can reflect quality jobs, support people into work and do training opportunities. For example, if we want to build a new road or a new infrastructure project, the contracting authority can consider more than price; it can consider what it does to help the community.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the definition of “community” needs to be improved and clarified. We need to be much clearer about community voice and  view on this issue; again, I want to try to bring that forward in the legislation. It is early days to assess the impact of those measures, but I take on board the points that he raises regarding flaws in the process and the need to go further. As I said, that chimes with some of the points that he made.

I am particularly conscious that social value does not become just a tick-box exercise, particularly where large companies can employ more people and consultants and win contracts simply by being able to fill in a form better. That is absolutely not what social value is or should be, and it will absolutely not be what this Government allow to happen when we bring forward legislation in the next Session.

We also need to look at the threshold at which social value requirements apply so that we can ensure that SMEs and community groups have a much more level playing field and we can open up the requirement much more. Again, that will be a part of the consultation process.

My hon. Friend asks about the targeted recruitment and training approach for large contracts, and again he made some very good points. I agree that it needs to be a tool to provide local communities with the skills they need. At the moment, the social value model provides some flexibility for contracting authorities in that regard—for example, things such as skills gaps or local problems in the area—but we can do more. I will consider the points he raises and get back to him, and I thank him for those.

My hon. Friend also asks whether all vacancies for works contracts are on the DWP “Find a job” website, and the answer is yes. As of February 2025, there has been a requirement for all Government suppliers to advertise jobs relating to Government contracts in the local jobcentre. As I am sure he can recognise, the aim is to ensure that local people have every opportunity to access quality jobs, but again I will look at the points he makes about how that is playing out and if we can improve it.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned Northern Ireland and how we can do more to support procurement there. I am talking with the Northern Ireland Executive about how we can work together and try to ensure that new legislation that we bring forward in the next Session can apply in Northern Ireland, should they wish it to do so.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West for securing this important debate. Procurement is one of the most important levers we have in government, and we should have far more debates in this House on it. Procurement matters to Government, to taxpayers, to British business, to workers and to people across the country. The best way that we can support UK businesses further to deliver growth is to go further and faster on reforming public procurement. That is what this Government have already done, and that is what we will continue to do. We will deliver a simpler, less bureaucratic process, better value for taxpayers and more opportunities for local jobs and skills in all parts of the country, and we will bring that forward soon. I thank again my hon. Friend and other Members for contributing to the debate tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.