debates/debates2025-11-12f conversation_26
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-12)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-12f conversation_26

Kevin Bonavia:I pay tribute to a new veterans group in Stevenage, The Muster Point, which was founded by Stuart Mendelson and Steve Black. Last week, I joined them in a continuous 72-hour vigil at Stevenage war memorial, where veterans shared stories of family and friends lost in war. But veterans deserve more than just our tributes, so will the Prime Minister commit to working with veterans in Stevenage and across the UK in delivering this Government’s new veterans strategy in full? \p Keir Starmer: One of the greatest honours in this role is meeting and thanking our armed forces for their service, which we have been able to do during the course of this weekend and week. Our ambition is to bring the armed forces covenant fully into law in the next armed forces Bill, and we will do so. We are also renewing the contract with those who served through our veterans strategy, including Homes for Heroes, and a new network of support centres connecting charities and services with veterans. Labour patriots stand with all those who serve and have served our country. \p Stuart Anderson: On that point, with the upcoming vote on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, nine of the most respected and experienced generals of a generation have publicly attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they have said will erode trust in the justice system, and is a threat to national security. As a veteran who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles, I ask this: does the Prime Minister think they are all wrong, and when will he start standing up for our veterans? \p Keir Starmer: I begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his service to our country. When former service chiefs raise an issue, we will of course engage with them—of course I respect their service and their views, and will do so. We are having to get rid of unlawful legislation, and we are putting in place a system with clear rights and protections for veterans. We will continue to try to get that balance right. \p Fleur Anderson: Four years ago I introduced a private Member’s Bill to ban the sale of wet wipes with plastic in them. The previous Government dragged their feet, but these wet wipes cause fatbergs in our sewers, put millions of pounds on our water bills for all our constituents and pollute rivers and seas. This Government promised to bring in the ban, and they are doing so now. Will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating a Labour promise delivered, and share the message that we should always bin wet wipes and other wipes, not flush them? \p Keir Starmer: I commend my hon. Friend who has been a long-standing campaigner on this important issue. The public are right to be furious about how the last Government allowed sewage to pour into our lakes, rivers and seas. Alongside tough new powers to combat pollution, this ban will put an end to plastic wet wipes that litter our beaches, clog up our sewers and harm wildlife. \p David Chadwick: Lloyds bank has more than 31,000 customers in my constituency, yet many of them, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable, are struggling to get out their own cash. That is because Lloyds has closed its branches in Brecon, Presteigne, Ystradgynlais, and before the end of this month in Pontardawe, despite making billions in profits and paying its CEO £5 million. Will the Prime Minister write to Lloyds bank and ask it to keep that last branch in Pontardawe open? \p Keir Starmer: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that, and I will look at the particular example he has raised. As he will know, we are rolling out hubs. Some of those are already in place and there are more to come, and I will happily update him on where they are likely to be. \p Richard Quigley: Following the work of the eating disorders all-party group, I was horrified to hear that 19-year-old Lilly Cliff, who suffers from anorexia, has been placed on an end-of-life care pathway, after Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humber NHS foundation trust obtained a Court of Protection ruling to withdraw her treatment. The decision directly contradicts guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the statement from the Minister for Care in September that eating disorders are not a terminal illness. Will the Prime Minister urgently review that case to ensure that Lilly and her family receive the support they need, and that Lilly is given every possible chance to recover and live, and remind all integrated care boards, the NHS and hospitals, that suffering from an eating disorder is not a terminal illness? \p Keir Starmer: My thoughts are with Lilly and her family. The details that my hon. Friend raises are deeply concerning. I know that he has raised this with Health Ministers and I will ensure that he gets a swift  response. He is a powerful advocate for change, and I share his determination that everyone with an eating disorder gets the care and support that they need. \p Louie French: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her involvement in the appointments process for the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. \p Lisa Nandy: In 2021, the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, set up the fan-led review of football, and selected Dame Tracey Crouch to chair it. This led to a clear recommendation for an independent football regulator, which was strongly endorsed by Members from all sides of the House. The previous Government promised that they would deliver this regulator, but they did not, leaving fans in the lurch as a result. This Government made it a priority and passed that legislation within our first year, because we are fully committed to protecting football clubs across the country.

To make that a reality, the Minister for Sport confirmed David Kogan as the chair of the Independent Football Regulator on 6 October. David Kogan was the exceptional candidate, warmly endorsed across the world of football and by the cross-party Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport.

As the House will be aware, the Commissioner for Public Appointments conducted an investigation into the appointment itself, which was released last week. I am pleased that the report does not question the suitability of Mr Kogan as chair of the IFR. The report also makes it clear that I did not personally know about the donations to my leadership campaign at the time that I selected him as the preferred candidate. It also recognises that, as soon as I became aware of the donations, I chose to declare them and chose to recuse myself from the remainder of the process.

However, as I have made clear, I acknowledge the findings of the report. The Commissioner was clear that the breach around donations to my campaign was unknowing, but I recognise that the highest standards were not met. As the Secretary of State for the Department that ran this appointment, I take full responsibility for that, and it is for that reason that I wrote to the Prime Minister and apologised for the error. I will, of course, ensure that lessons are learned from this process with my Department.

Our focus now is to make sure that no fan ever has to go through what my constituents and I lived through in Wigan. Implementing this regime to help protect clubs in financial peril, and putting the interests of fans up and down the country first, is a priority for this Government and, led by David Kogan, the Independent Football Regulator will get on with the job.

We are here today to debate process, but this is also about real-world impact. Fans up and down the country need us to get on with delivering on our promise and making a difference. This is for Derby County and Scunthorpe United, for Morecambe and Sheffield Wednesday, for Wigan, Reading, Macclesfield Town and Bury. We are putting fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong. \p Louie French: Last Thursday, the Commissioner for Public Appointments published his report into the appointment of the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. That report found that the Secretary of State breached the governance code for public appointments, updated by her Government, not once or twice, but three times. The Secretary of State has claimed that she did not know about Mr Kogan’s donations, but the commissioner’s report clearly shows that she was briefed twice by her Department regarding this conflict before she decided to appoint him to a role that must be independent. The report also makes it clear that Mr Kogan was not shortlisted by the previous Government and that it was this Government who put him in the running.

Not until the Secretary of State had already recommended Mr Kogan’s appointment—and the night before his appearance before the Select Committee on 7 May—did she conveniently consider checking whether she had also taken thousands of pounds off him. I find that highly unlikely, and the commissioner makes it clear that the Secretary of State was in a position readily to ascertain the details of donations made by Mr Kogan before she made her choice, but that she failed to do so. It was after the political fallout and six days later that she finally recused herself from the end of the process. To show how brazen this crony appointment was, her Department confirmed it while the independent investigation was still taking place—really shameful stuff. This was not a fair and open recruitment process. The report confirms that Mr Kogan was her preferred candidate, subject to No. 10 giving the green light, and that Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials were asked to make the necessary arrangements for an appointment without competition.

The Prime Minister’s fingerprints are also clear from the commissioner’s report. We understand that Mr Kogan donated to the Prime Minister’s constituency Labour party as well as to his leadership campaign. I almost feel sorry for the Secretary of State; she has apologised to the Prime Minister for three breaches of the rules for choosing his candidate. How is it proper for the Prime Minister personally to have given the green light to a donor? Surely, if the Secretary of State was meant to have been recused for the 2020 donation of Mr Kogan, that must apply to the Prime Minister too—or does the Prime Minister believe that the offside rule does not apply to him?

Who is to blame for this sorry mess? How much did Mr Kogan give to the Prime Minister, and did he declare it? Does the Secretary of State agree that Mr Kogan’s deeply flawed appointment must be rescinded, given the risks to football? Finally, will she stick by her words and say that rule breakers cannot be rule makers? \p Lisa Nandy: I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn. First, this process was subject to a thorough investigation by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, and when he questions the findings of that report, he should reflect on whether that is the proper role of this House. The report was absolutely crystal clear on that point. It was also clear—in contrast to what the hon. Gentleman just asserted—that I personally fell short of what was expected on one occasion. There were two other technical breaches from the Department, but as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, I take full responsibility.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the Prime Minister. As he will know, if he has read the report, I personally took the decision to ask Mr Kogan to put that information in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at his hearing to ensure that it had full information as soon as I had it, within hours of finding out about the donation. Mr Kogan was open and transparent about the fact that he had donated to both my campaign and the Prime Minister’s campaign, but I am the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; my Department ran this process, and it is for me to take full responsibility for it.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asserts that Mr Kogan was not part of the process. I find that astonishing, and I presume that at some point he will come back to correct the record. When he speaks to his colleagues, he will know that one of them—the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—oversaw the process before the general election, at a time when they were proudly extolling the virtues of having a football regulator and governance Act, which they later opposed.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) will know that Mr Kogan was approached for this job under the last Conservative Government and put on the list, which I inherited from the last Government. I want to be crystal clear on this point. Mr Kogan was not added to the list after the general election; he was on the list from the last Conservative Government.

The hon. Gentleman talks about cronies. [Interruption.] The Opposition can chunter all they like, but the hon. Gentleman is talking about a man who has extensive media experience and represented the Premier League, the English Football League, the National Football League and others throughout his long and distinguished career. He was put on the list by the last Government in the full knowledge that he was a Labour donor. If he is such a crony and unfit to hold this sort of office, why on earth did the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), appoint him to the board of Channel 4? It just does not stack up. Mr Kogan was so good that the last Government approached him themselves.

Finally, I am happy to answer extensive questions about this issue. That is why I have chosen to come to the House and answer these questions, despite the fact that the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), made the final decision. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is a Charlton Athletic fan, and I am a bit surprised that, given its experience of bad owners, he is setting himself and his party against football fans in his constituency and the length and breadth of the country by trying to attack a man whose credentials are unquestionable. \p Clive Betts: May I say to my right hon. Friend that in the terrible time that Sheffield Wednesday fans have been through in the last few months, not one of them has ever asked me what is happening with this report and review? They say to me, “How quickly can we get a regulator in place who will deal with owners like Chansiri who are ruining our club?” Does the Secretary of State agree that in the appointment of David Kogan, we have someone who is knowledgeable, tough, determined and independent of  bad football owners and who will act on behalf of football fans? Is not the fundamental difference here between those of us on the Government Benches who support independent regulation, and those on the Opposition Benches who have given up on it and will simply kowtow to bad owners of football clubs? \p Lisa Nandy: As always, my hon. Friend has taken this debate back to focusing on the people who matter most: the fans. They have been through hell over recent years as the last Government committed to act, then dragged their feet, and then refused to fulfil that promise to those fans. It was shameful to see Conservative Members go through the Lobby to vote against their own Bill, but I put on record my thanks to Dame Tracey Crouch for all the work she did and continues to do to uphold that promise. I also sincerely thank my hon. Friend; he and I have had numerous conversations over the course of the saga that has developed at Sheffield Wednesday, and I know how active he has been. That is the approach that this Government will always take. We will not stand by and let football fans pay the price when bad owners take over their clubs; we are putting those fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Anna Sabine: The Lib Dems have welcomed the introduction of the new Independent Football Regulator. Our football clubs are huge, historic institutions that unite generations, bring local economies to life and inspire millions, both at home and abroad. As such, the Secretary of State carries a significant responsibility to earn the confidence of our world-leading football clubs and guide them through the introduction of these vital regulatory reforms.

The news that the Secretary of State broke the governance code by failing to declare in a timely manner donations received from the newly appointed head of the regulator, David Kogan, has undermined trust at a crucial moment. This regulator is about securing the future of our national game, ensuring that clubs remain sustainable, rooted in their communities and capable of thriving for generations to come. She cannot shy away from the potential conflict of interest involved in the breaches of the code that have emerged in recent days. This oversight requires genuine accountability from the Government in order to restore confidence in the new regulator. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to order an independent investigation into the appointment of David Kogan and, if necessary, rerun the selection process for the IFR chair? \p Lisa Nandy: All the way through this process, I have complied fully with the independent commissioner, because I believe that that is important. That stands in contrast to the last Government, multiple members of which broke not just the public appointments code but the ministerial code. The Conservatives still have a member of their Front-Bench team who broke the ministerial code—she now sits on their Front Bench as the shadow Foreign Secretary. Unlike them, we comply with these processes and accept the consequences. However, there has been an independent investigation—it has been going on for six months. I do not know how the hon. Lady has missed it; that is what we are discussing today.

She has also said to me that we need to earn the trust of the footballing world. Throughout the passage of the Football Governance Act 2025, as Conservative Members well know from when they were supporting it, numerous people were concerned about the appointment of anybody to take on the role of chair. One of those was Karren Brady, a very distinguished Member of the House of Lords, with extensive experience in football. Recently, she said that David Kogan has

“dealt with the EFL, Uefa, the women’s game and international bodies. That matters, because football isn’t just about the elite—it’s a pyramid, and if the top crumbles, the base cracks with it…And, more importantly, he’s worked in governance roles that demand accountability.”

If Members want any further evidence of the confidence that the appointment of David Kogan commands across the footballing world, it is that the staunchest critics of the Government’s approach to implementing a football regulator in the first place have come out strongly in support of the man who is already cracking on with putting football fans back at the heart of the game. \p Clive Efford: When Tracey Crouch was appointed to lead the review of football governance, there was no opposition from Labour Members or the fans to the idea that a Conservative was going to lead that review; there was co-operation right across this House. When it was expedient for them, the Conservatives supported the fan-led review, but when the Bill went before Parliament and push came to shove, they opposed it. They are using it as a political football, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the football fans do not give a damn about this Westminster bubble argument? What they want is a regulator that is going to be on their side. \p Lisa Nandy: I thank my hon. Friend for the years of work that he put into ensuring that we reached this point. I thank him personally as well, because when my club, Wigan Athletic, was in trouble, not once but twice, he and other members of the Select Committee could not have been more supportive in making sure that we got the right outcome and saved our club.

I also thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, because even though he has latterly decided that this is a terrible appointment and that the Football Governance Act is a terrible thing, a couple of years ago he said this to the then Sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew):

“Following years of misery and uncertainty for fans at local clubs such as Charlton Athletic, I welcome the news on an independent football regulator. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the regulator will have sufficient powers to deal with regulatory breaches and strengthen those ownership tests?”—[Official Report, 23 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 343.]

I am not sure whether the then Minister could give an answer at that time, but I am happy to say that we certainly will. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. \p Caroline Dinenage: I want the independent regulator to succeed—not least because of clubs like mine, Portsmouth football club, whose fans  had to step in and buy it after it had gone into administration twice—but we need transparency and trust in public appointments. The Secretary of State has said repeatedly that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee found Mr Kogan appointable, and that is correct; we did so under the remit with which we were asked to work. However, we did so taking the unprecedented step of including a recommendation for him to take

“concrete steps to reassure the football community”

of his neutrality, because it was Mr Kogan—not the Department, and not the Secretary of State—who told the Committee about the donations, at the very meeting that was held to decide whether or not he was appointable.

The commissioner’s report points to a wider issue relating to the Department’s public appointments process. All but one of the last 10 public appointments involving parliamentary scrutiny have featured problems with the candidate or the process at some point, which are undermining the organisations concerned and the people who are picked to lead them. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Department must do better when it comes to public appointments, and may I ask her what concrete steps it is taking to achieve that? \p Lisa Nandy: I agree with the hon. Lady that it is essential for the public to be able to have confidence in the public appointments that we make, not least because of the many debacles that we saw under the last Government. That is why I personally requested that Mr Kogan make that information available to the Select Committee within hours of being notified of it myself. The hon. Lady is also right to say that the Committee made a recommendation to Mr Kogan that he must take steps to ensure that he was independent of Government. Although that was not a recommendation aimed at me as the Secretary of State, I heard it loud and clear, and it was one of the reasons why I was so quick to recuse myself from the process and take no further decisions in it.

The hon. Lady has indeed raised with me, and with the permanent secretary, the occasions on which the Department has fallen short. We take that very seriously, and we have committed to come back to her with a full list of concrete actions that we are taking. This is not to make excuses, because it is my responsibility to ensure that we get it right, but I might add that the DCMS is responsible for the vast majority of public appointments—I think that we make nearly 50% of all such appointments across Government—and that is even more reason for us to ensure that the proper processes are in place. We are looking at that at the moment, and will come back to the hon. Lady very quickly.

May I also take this opportunity to thank the hon. Lady’s constituents? I remember that when we were in trouble at Wigan Athletic, Portsmouth fans jumped on to a Zoom call with us at very short notice, and could not have been more supportive in giving us advice and guidance to help us to pull through a difficult time. I remember that time as if it were yesterday. I remember how much pain and anxiety we were going through. The footballing world was there for us, and my commitment to the hon. Lady’s constituents, and all our constituents, is that this Government will be there for them too. \p Jeff Smith: We now have an excellent, highly qualified individual who has been appointed to chair the football regulator, and we have an excellent Secretary of State who made a mistake for which she has apologised. Even the commissioner said that the breach of the code

“was not a knowing breach.”

What football fans want is not this debate in Parliament today; what they want is for the Secretary of State to get on with the job, to protect clubs and to protect supporters. Can I encourage her to ignore the Opposition, who are playing politics with our national game, and just get on with the job? \p Lisa Nandy: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and I am pleased that he has joined the Select Committee. He has extensive knowledge of football and has been a consistent champion of football fans, and I very much support what he has said. This Government are absolutely determined to appoint the right people to the right positions, so that when fans go through the difficulties caused by poor owners, as they did at Charlton, they do not feel that they have nowhere to turn. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: It is not my style to attack the integrity of any Member of Parliament, so may I just ask a general question about the whole process of securing public confidence? Can we now consider tightening the ministerial code, and indeed the whole process, so that at the beginning of the process civil servants check on whether a Minister has received any donations, and if that is the case, the Minister recuses himself or herself at the very start? \p Lisa Nandy: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, entirely right to say that we need the tightest possible processes. That is why the Prime Minister took steps, when he was first elected as Prime Minister, to strengthen the ministerial code and also to strengthen the oversight powers of the independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, in relation to the code. However, as the report makes clear, in this particular case I did ask for information about all donations to my leadership campaign. I was given the information but it turned out to be incomplete, and as soon as I was notified that that was the case, I took the decision to declare it, to ensure that the Select Committee was aware of it, and to recuse myself from the process. \p Julie Minns: Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than obstructing and delaying the work of the Independent Football Regulator, the Opposition need to do right by the fans and let David Kogan get on with the job? May I also request—slightly selfishly, as a Carlisle United fan—that one of the first things he does is press the English Football League to lift the limit on the number of places for promotion from the national league? \p Lisa Nandy: I know that my hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for her constituents, and that this is something they care about. Both the Minister for Sport and I have heard the strength of feeling from the national league. This matter is not within the scope of the Independent Football Regulator—we deliberately kept its remit tight  so it could focus on the many issues that have been raised, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—but I know that what has been said has been heard by the EFL, and the Government will continue to follow this closely. \p Oliver Dowden: I like and respect the right hon. Lady and I do not doubt her sincerity, but I do wonder whether she would have been quite so forgiving had I chosen to appoint a Tory donor to lead this regulatory body. Moreover, although I supported the establishment of the regulator and, indeed, initiated it at the time of the risk of a European Super League, I fear that since then the regulator has become excessively bureaucratic. It risks deterring international investment and the broader investment in the game that has been so beneficial for it. Does the right hon. Lady think that it might be time to look again at this regulator, and to put more emphasis on self-governance in football? I think that in recent years, it has shown itself to be capable of stepping up to the challenge. \p Lisa Nandy: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone that he has taken, but I must say to him that if he does not think that David Kogan was fit to be considered because he was a Labour donor, his party should not have put him on the list while knowing full well that he was a Labour donor, or, indeed, appointed him to the board of Channel 4. I appreciate that it is inconvenient for the Opposition, but I am afraid that that is the fact of the matter.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it is time to reconsider the Independent Football Regulator. Football fans were promised in 2021 that the last Government would act to deal with the many problems that we had seen in football clubs throughout the country, but they had to wait for a Labour Government to make good on that promise. In October this year, the Minister for Sport was able to confirm that Mr Kogan had been appointed and that we would start that work immediately. He has had a few weeks in which to get on with the job, and he has already achieved more in that time than the last Conservative Government achieved in 14 years. \p Ian Lavery: The Football Governance Act is an excellent Act which was driven through this place by the Tory Government, but at the very last minute, on Third Reading, they decided to oppose it. That was horrendous behaviour. It is worth wondering why that happened. On the appointment of Mr Kogan, it has been said in many places that he was on a list, had been approached by the Conservative Government about taking up the position, and was then offered it by the Labour Government. What evidence do the Labour Government have to prove that was the case? \p Lisa Nandy: Well, I can confirm that Mr Kogan was on the list that was held by the Department; there are obviously records of that. I was also presented with that list when I took up this post in the summer of 2024. Not only was Mr Kogan on that list, having been approached by a Conservative Government about the job, but he was appointed to the board of Channel 4 by the last Conservative Government, so the Conservatives are obviously well aware of his credentials for the job.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) mentioned Dame Tracey Crouch, I take this opportunity to thank her for the work that she has done. I was reflecting recently on how far the Opposition have fallen from the days when they had Members of Parliament like Dame Tracey Crouch, who could command the respect of the whole House. \p Liz Jarvis: During the Select Committee pre-appointment hearing with David Kogan, I raised the issue of whether his appointment would be construed as being politically biased. Does the Secretary of State accept that appointing a known Labour donor to lead an independent regulator has created exactly the perception of political bias that I warned about during that hearing? \p Lisa Nandy: As I have made clear, David Kogan was approached under the last Government and is eminently qualified for the job. Of course, as soon as I knew about the donations, I chose to declare them and recuse myself, and I then played no further part in the process, but I have a responsibility to football fans the length and breadth of this country to appoint the right person to this job, and there is no question but that David Kogan was the outstanding candidate—as he is already proving, having wasted no time in getting on with the job. \p Connor Rand: The shadow Minister spoke of risks to football. We need to be clear that the only risk to brilliant, grassroots, local community football clubs, such as Altrincham FC, is the Conservative party’s constant attempts to oppose and obstruct an Independent Football Regulator. The Secretary of State has taken on board the findings of the investigation and has taken responsibility. Does she agree that it is unedifying to watch the Opposition Front Benchers use this as another opportunity to obstruct an Independent Football Regulator, and stand against the best interests of the game? \p Lisa Nandy: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for being such a fantastic champion for his constituents; it was a pleasure to meet some of them when I came to his constituency not that long ago. I agree with him that the Conservatives appear to have no respect for football fans, for independent processes, or even for their own manifesto, which made it crystal clear that they supported the Football Governance Act 2025. \p Gavin Williamson: Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister, or anyone acting on his authority, declared his conflict of interest before Mr Kogan was asked to reinstate his withdrawn application? If a conflict of interest was declared, who declared it, and when? \p Lisa Nandy: I think I have answered that question. I have been absolutely crystal clear: it is my Department that appoints the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. I was responsible for this process, and I take full responsibility for it. Just to be absolutely crystal clear, because hon. Members do not seem to be listening and seem to be all asking the same thing, I recused myself from the process, so it was the Minister for Sport  who ultimately made the appointment decision, but I am the Secretary of State responsible for the process as a whole. \p Amanda Martin: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While this Government are focused on finally delivering for fans and securing the future of our national game, the record of the party opposite tells a very different story. We have for years seen Conservative donors and insiders appointed to organisations across the board—to the NHS, to the UK Health Security Agency, and to the British Museum. We have also seen major donors becoming peers, and the Conservatives opening covid VIP lanes for their pals. It is the same old question—the one that Margaret Thatcher famously asked—“Is he one of ours?” Football fans do not care who is one of “theirs”; they care about saving their clubs and having a regulator who will do that. Does the Secretary of State agree that David Kogan, as chair of the Independent Football Regulator—chosen for his experience and merit, not for party loyalty—is finally putting fans first and protecting our beautiful game? \p Lisa Nandy: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for all the work she has done to support football fans for many years, even before being elected to this place. I completely accept that appointments will be made, under any Government, involving people who have made political donations—by definition, those people want to be involved in public life—and I have never criticised the Conservatives for making appointments on that basis. When I have criticised them, it has been when there was a strong dispute about whether the candidate had any qualifications for the job. There is no such dispute in the case of David Kogan.

When I have particularly criticised the Conservatives, it has been for not being prepared to comply with and respect independent processes. That is the difference between us and them. The independent Commissioner for Public Appointments decided to open an inquiry on what happened during this process. I complied with it fully throughout, and I have accepted the consequences. \p Shockat Adam: I and like-minded football fans welcome the much-needed creation of an independent regulator. Indeed, I am not even questioning the merit of the individual appointed as its chair. The issue is this: the Secretary of State, by her own admission, forgot that she was given money by the new chair before he was appointed. That comes alongside the £33,410 that he has given to the Labour party over the past five years. Despite what the Secretary of State has just said, she has previously called out the Tories for double standards, said that Boris Johnson trashed the UK’s global reputation, and has, over many years, called for the Tories to “come clean”. Should she not consider her own reputation, rather than joining those sleazy ranks? \p Lisa Nandy: It is difficult to know where to start, given the number of inaccuracies in that statement, but I will have a go. First of all, I did not “forget” to declare the donations; if the hon. Gentleman had read the report—he obviously has not—he would know that the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments was convinced that I did not know about those donations,  and that as soon as I did know about them, I chose to declare them and recused myself from the process. He might want to reflect on that. Secondly, I think that his quote about Boris Johnson related to the abolition of the Department for International Development; he might want to go and check that as well. I have heard quite a few comments from him recently, on social media and elsewhere, about the accuracy of things said at this Dispatch Box. I absolutely stand by what I have said, and the next time he comes to this House, he might want to do a bit of homework first. \p James Wild: I have to say, I am quite surprised at the lack of contrition from the Secretary of State, given a very damning report. In November 2024, Mr Kogan withdrew from the application process because, he said, there was

“a lot of noise going around about Labour donors”,

but in March, in a move that the commissioner said was “highly unusual”, Mr Kogan’s candidacy was reinstated, and he was rapidly sifted, interviewed and appointed. Are the public really expected to believe that this was an open and fair process, when the decision-makers took donations from the candidate? \p Lisa Nandy: Again, I think the hon. Gentleman should have more respect for the independence of these processes. The independent Commissioner for Public Appointments investigated this thoroughly and found that the breach of the code was unknowing. Nevertheless, I have taken full responsibility for it.

I have to say that the Conservatives have some brass neck; when their shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), was in government, she broke the ministerial code and was told to resign, but refused to do so, and she is now one of their most senior Ministers. \p Jim Shannon: First of all, I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. She is a right honourable Lady; I know that, and I hope that everybody in this Chamber does, as well. I very much welcome the Independent Football Regulator, but my constituents have asked me to ask a question, so I will; that is my job. Yesterday it was the BBC, and today it is the football regulator appointment. The general public are sceptical of appointments that, it seems to them, may breach the code on public appointments. Public confidence is truly at an all-time low, so how can the Secretary of State ensure that positions are fit for purpose, and that political affiliation or support will never be a material consideration in appointments? \p Lisa Nandy: The Prime Minister has made it clear, and the Cabinet strongly believes, that although mistakes will always be made, we have to comply fully and openly with independent processes when those mistakes are made. We have to respect those processes, and we have to accept the consequences. The hon. Gentleman will note that in the report that was written and published by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, not a single recommendation was made to me. There were recommendations for the Department, but there was not a recommendation for me. Nevertheless, I have chosen to apologise to the Prime Minister, because I believe that the right thing to do is to take responsibility for the things that we are responsible for.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the BBC. I imagine that he is alluding to an issue that was raised yesterday by many Members of this House: the political appointments that were made to the board, and the appointment of one board member in particular, which has been highlighted by many Members as being of concern. He will know that those appointments were made under the last Conservative Government. The last Conservative Government also chose to extend the term of the board member in question, just a few weeks before they called the general election, so that board member has been in post for several years. However, there is an opportunity to look at the issue in the upcoming charter review, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will. \p Kieran Mullan: I thank the Secretary of State for explaining, and I am sure that people are glad to hear about the involvement of a sponsoring Department and a sponsoring Minister in a public appointment. In answering my question, she need not revisit the points made about her role—we all understand them, and she has explained them clearly. She will know that when a Secretary of State has made a provisional appointment, it is not unusual for it to go to No. 10 for further review. Putting aside her role, can she confirm whether anybody in No. 10 was involved in any way, shape or form in this appointment? \p Lisa Nandy: I am happy to clarify that this was not a prime ministerial appointment; it was an appointment made by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As the hon. Gentleman knows, as soon as I discovered the donation and that the information given at the start of the process was incomplete, I chose to declare that. I recused myself from the process, and the final decision was made not by the Prime Minister, but by the Minister for Sport. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Along with many others, I fully supported the Football Governance Act and the introduction of the Independent Football Regulator. I accept the Secretary of State’s comment that she sincerely was not aware of the donation, but does she understand the public’s perception that an “independent” appointee was chosen because of their donations to the party in government? What steps will she and the Government take to review the process and make improvement, so that it commands the public’s trust and is completely unimpeachable? I understand her comment about donors wanting to participate in public life, but the Government should consider putting down a really clear marker about the kind of roles donors can and cannot perform in support of the Government. \p Lisa Nandy: Oversight of the whole process and the way that public appointments are made is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions and comments about the need to uphold the highest standards. In relation to this appointment, we did not meet the highest standards. It was a complicated process, and the post required a specialist skillset, and the appointment took place under two different Governments. That is not to make excuses; it is just to explain that this process was highly unusual. We have learned lessons from it, and we are implementing the commissioner’s recommendations in full.

In the end, the test of whether the public can have confidence in this appointment is whether Mr Kogan and the Independent Football Regulator are able to deliver on the promise that we will deal with bad owners and put fans back at the heart of the game. I am confident that we have made the right appointment, as evidenced by the fact that since he was appointed on 6 October, he has wasted no time at all in getting on with the job. \p Louie French: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. During today’s urgent question, the Secretary of State provided a number of answers that seem to contradict parts of the commissioner’s report, particularly around the role of the Prime Minister. In particular, she made reference to a conversation between herself and the new chairman of the Independent Football Regulator before his appearance at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have read the report very carefully, and I cannot find any reference to that conversation in the commissioner’s report. I seek guidance from you on how hon. Members can find out why that is not in the report. \p Judith Cummins: Does the Secretary of State wish to respond? \p Lisa Nandy: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to clarify that point for the hon. Gentleman. The request that I made to officials in my Department was relayed to Mr Kogan. It was, of course, his choice whether to take that advice, but he did. I have to be clear with the hon. Gentleman: from the moment I discovered that donations had been made to my campaign, I did not have any discussions with Mr Kogan about this or any other matter, and I recused myself from the process. I took that seriously. It was for the Minister for Sport to make the final decision, which she did, but from that point, I did not have direct conversations with Mr Kogan until the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments had been able to do his work. I hope that clarifies the matter. \p Jacob Collier: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition recently visited my constituency for her tool theft campaign, but I do not think that she has been informed that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) has already secured changes through the Sentencing Bill. The right hon. Lady did not notify me of her visit, and given that she is a long-standing Member of this House, I seek your advice on how she can be reminded of the courtesies to be afforded to Members. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Member for notice of his point of order. Has he given notice to the Leader of the Opposition that he was going to raise this matter? \p Jacob Collier: indicated assent. \p Judith Cummins: The hon. Member has put his point on the record. \p Shockat Adam: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the urgent question, the Secretary of State mentioned that she was aware of my social media posts attacking and targeting her. I have never made a post about the Secretary of State.  Perhaps she would like to clarify that point. My colleagues may have posted about her; we may all look the same, but we are not. \p Judith Cummins: That is not a point of order or a matter for the Chair. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Orders Nos. 50 and 57)

Secretary Peter Kyle, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary David Lammy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Darren Jones, Secretary Ed Miliband, Anna Turley and Josh Simons, presented a Bill to amend section 8(5) of the Industrial Development Act 1982 and section 6 of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 321) with explanatory notes (Bill 321-EN). \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Liz Kendall, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Darren Jones, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Secretary Wes Streeting, Secretary Heidi Alexander, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Emma Reynolds and Kanishka Narayan, presented a Bill to make provision, including provision amending the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, about the security and resilience of network and information systems used or relied on in connection with the carrying on of essential activities.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 329) with explanatory notes (Bill 329-EN). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Jenny Riddell-Carpenter: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about road safety measures near schools; and for connected purposes.

Every parent knows that heart-stopping moment when they watch their child cross the road and just pray that drivers are paying attention. For too many families in my constituency, that silent prayer takes place daily, as they drop off their children at school and pick them up at the end of the day. Road traffic accidents are, tragically, the leading cause of death for children in the UK, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents estimates that every single month 1,200 children are injured in traffic accidents that happen within 500 metres of the school gates. Those two statistics hit me hard when I first heard them, and I can imagine that they hit Members from across the House just as hard.

I was first told by the parents about their worries over their children’s safety when dropping them off and collecting them after school, then by the schools, and finally by the children themselves. When I looked at the data, it was telling me the same story: 14% of child fatalities occur during the morning school run between 7 and 9 o’clock, and 23% happen after school between 3 and 5 o’clock.

In February this year, 10-year-old Roman Osborne was hit by a van when leaving his primary school at pick-up, in Trimley St Martin. The driver was not speeding or driving recklessly; in fact, witnesses told me that he was travelling at about 20 mph. Luckily, Roman recovered, but the impact was so severe that he spent three days in hospital with a broken hip and many more months recovering. His parents told me that if he had not landed on his rucksack, which shielded him from a far more serious injury and potential head trauma, the outcome would have been tragic.

Roman’s story reminds us that improving road safety around our schools is not simply about reducing speeds to 20 mph, though I dread to imagine how much worse it could have been if the driver had been going at 30 mph, 40 mph or faster. In truth, road safety is about making the environment around schools far safer, and by any means necessary. That means proper crossings, clear road markings, enforcing parking restrictions, visible signage and, yes, the presence of school-crossing patrols—our much-loved lollipop men and women.

What frustrates me most is that many of those options are available to councils, but only if they choose to implement them. Following Roman’s accident, Suffolk county council told me that the road had been assessed, but that it did not meet the criteria for additional safety measures. Madam Deputy Speaker, you do not need me to tell you that that is not good enough. When a child is injured outside their own school, how can any system say that the criteria to make that road safer have not been met? It should not be at the discretion of any council to turn a blind eye.

Bucklesham primary school in my constituency—those from the school are watching in the Gallery—knows this challenge all too well. The school sits on the junction  of a 60 mph and a 30 mph road. It is an isolated rural school, with no footpaths or homes around it, and parents have no choice but to drive to school each and every day, while navigating awful conditions in the process. Parents and staff have been pleading for improvements for two decades. They have gathered petitions, met councillors, written letters and still, after 20 years, no permanent safety measures have been put in place. I presented a petition to the House in September with over 300 signatures, to highlight the road safety issues outside Bucklesham primary school.

These stories and the many others I have heard since being elected are exactly why I have been campaigning relentlessly to improve road safety around our schools. I have taken that campaign to No. 10 Downing Street, and today I bring it formally to Parliament through this ten-minute rule Bill. The purpose of this Bill is simple: to make it a requirement, not an option, for local authorities to take proactive steps to improve safety around schools where there is evidence of potential risk. This Bill would place a duty on councils to work directly with schools and communities to assess road conditions, listen to local concerns and identify practical solutions. Those measures will of course differ from place to place, because a rural lane in Suffolk looks very different from an urban street in Manchester, but the principle must remain the same that every child, no matter where they live in this country, deserves to travel safely to school.

As my Bill sets out, a package of local solutions might include more double yellow lines and enforced parking restrictions; improved signage and road markings; dedicated school crossings; more lollipop men and women; and reduced-speed zones during drop-off and pick-up hours. In short, schools should not have to campaign for safer roads, and neither should their pleas fall on deaf ears. They should be able to expect safer roads. Our children should be able to travel to and from school each day without fearing the roads outside their schools.

Suffolk has one of the poorest road safety records of any rural county in England. Over the past 20 years, across Suffolk there have been 597 fatalities and 7,000 people have been seriously injured—7,500 lives lost or changed forever. In Suffolk Coastal alone, more than 1,000 people have been either killed or seriously injured on our roads. Tragically, 17 of them were children. These are our children on our roads, and this is our responsibility.

The evidence shows that we can prevent many of these tragedies. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has found strong evidence that 20 mph speed limits and zones reduce casualties and fatalities. After Wales introduced a default 20 mph national speed limit on restricted roads, casualties fell by 24% between April and June last year compared with the same period the year before. Parents know this instinctively. Surveys show that 36% of parents feel that roads are too busy for their children to walk to school, and 43% say traffic is too fast even when there is a 20 mph limit. According  to Brake, the road safety charity that I have worked with on my campaign and on this Bill, 78% of parents want a 20 mph limit near homes and schools and 85% want the Government to do more to make local roads safer.

Yet the frameworks guiding local road safety decisions mean that too many councils are able to ignore local concerns, even when tragedy strikes. My Bill would end that absurdity and end the crisis at our school gates. It would also make transparency a duty: councils would be required to publish annual statements outlining what safety reviews have been conducted, what measures have been implemented and how they are working with schools and our communities to improve standards. The Government are due to publish a new road safety strategy early next year, the first in a decade. I welcome that, and many of the families and schools I speak to welcome it too, but that strategy must put road safety around our schools at the very top of the list. This Bill would make that possible by setting clear expectations for local authorities and giving schools a voice in shaping the solutions they need.

The answer is painfully simple: we know what makes our roads safer—the measures are well understood and so often inexpensive—but we lack urgency and accountability. We should not accept that parents and schools have been campaigning for 20 years to make drop-off and pick-up safer, yet still have their school hugging a 60 mph road. We should not accept that a child is hit by a van and the road is assessed, yet it still fails to meet self-determined thresholds for intervention. We should never forget that it is in our gift to reduce the leading cause of death among children in this country, simply by improving road safety around our schools.

This is not about politics. I am sure that every Member of this House has stood at a school gate and seen cars speeding too fast and too close, and I am sure every Member has heard the same plea from parents. Roman told me that all he wants is a pedestrian crossing at his school gate. This Bill would seek to give Roman that and to give every school the power to bring forward safety enhancements for their own school. This is a modest Bill, but it is practical, and most importantly it would save lives and help to tackle the biggest cause of death among children. With this Bill, we have the chance to make sure that campaigning is no longer necessary, because safety should be guaranteed by design, duty and law.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, Sarah Coombes, Terry Jermy, Ben Goldsborough, Sarah Dyke, Maya Ellis, Amanda Hack, Mr Richard Quigley, Samantha Niblett, Alison Hume, Steve Witherden and Jodie Gosling present the Bill.

Jenny Riddell-Carpenter accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed (Bill 327). \p Judith Cummins: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected either of the amendments tabled. I call the shadow Chancellor. \p Mel Stride: I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to control public expenditure in order to keep the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Confederation of British Industry conference on 25 November 2024 that, after the last Budget, the Government would not raise taxes; and further calls on the Government not to break its manifesto commitment that it would not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax or VAT.

Right at the centre of this motion is the single word “trust”—the trust that Labour Members lost with the British electorate. They lost it when they promised not to put taxes on farms, and did so; when they said they would not be means-testing the winter fuel payment, yet did; and when they said they would not be putting up taxes left, right and centre, but did exactly that when they came into office. Indeed, in their own manifesto there were around £7 billion of tax increases, which by the time of the first Budget translated into some £40 billion of additional taxes. Of course, much of that related to employer national insurance—a clear breach of the Labour party manifesto. Do not take my word for it. Take the word of Paul Johnson, the former head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that that particular tax increase was a “straightforward breach” of the Labour party manifesto.

The Chancellor also said that she would not take decisions that would affect working people, yet we know from the figures released just yesterday that unemployment is at a five-year high. There are 180,000 fewer jobs on payrolls on her watch. Some sectors are particularly badly impacted. Some 90,000 jobs in hospitality have been destroyed, which particularly affects the youngest people in our country, who are desperate to get on the first rung of the career ladder but are deprived of that opportunity by Ministers.

After that calamitous Budget, there were further pledges and further promises from the Chancellor. She said to the Treasury Committee:

“we are not going to be coming back with more tax increases”.

She said on Sky News that she had “wiped the slate clean”. On 25 November, at the CBI’s annual conference, she said:

“I’m not coming back with more borrowing or taxes.”

There has been little of that language of late, and I think we all know why.

At the October Budget, the Chancellor said something else that was telling and extremely important. It is worth my repeating it in full. It relates to her clear pledge not to extend the freeze in the personal allowance under the income tax regime. She said:

“I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will he reconfirm that solemn pledge the Chancellor made in the last Budget? [Interruption.] He could intervene now—that is true.

We know that the Chancellor has messed up the economy, yet now, only about a year into the Government, we are already into the blame game. The Chancellor made an extraordinary and rather confusing address to the nation recently in No. 10 Downing Street, in which she sought to blame everybody for this fiasco except herself. She blamed Brexit. She blamed Donald Trump. And when it came to future downgrades of productivity by the Office for Budget Responsibility, she even had the temerity to blame those of us on the Conservative Benches—blaming the past for the future. I was half expecting her to blame world war two or the great war, or the Boer war, or perhaps the battle of Hastings, which surely, with the harrying of the north, must have scarred our economy and must still be being felt 1,000 years later. \p Desmond Swayne: No, it was definitely the Korean war! \p Mel Stride: It was the Korean war—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

It is the Chancellor’s choices that have led to this situation. She was the person who chose to put up taxes on jobs, which has led to growth being anaemic. We know that taxes such as national insurance feed through to lower investment, higher inflation, higher unemployment and lower real wages. We know that the Government talked down the economy with the absurd and fictitious £22 billion black hole. In a sweet irony, when they asked the OBR to come in and opine on that number, it said that it would not legitimise it. \p Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real downfall of the Government dates from when they did not face down their own Back Benchers and deal with the rocketing benefits bill? Frankly, the country is going broke and the Government must have the courage to deal with millions of people who are not contributing to society. \p Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I shall come to those matters shortly, because there are alternatives to what the Government have decided to do.

It was this Government who went on a reckless borrowing spree. This year, we have borrowed £100 billion—the highest borrowing in our history, excluding the pandemic. Why has that happened? Because the Chancellor has fiddled the fiscal rules. She changed the debt definition from public sector net debt, as it was under us, to public sector net financial liabilities, which allows far more borrowing. In fact, under the original definition that we had—which she, incidentally, said she would not change—she would have been underwater in just about every year of the forecast on the debt target. That recklessness has led to the Labour party having plans to borrow half a trillion pounds more over the period of this Parliament than we had in our plans that it inherited. \p Luke Evans: To put it in simple terms for those listening at home, the Chancellor raised taxes by £40 billion, she spent £30 billion and she borrowed £70 billion. Cumulatively, that will make people think, “How am I going to get the return on that investment if we are not growing the economy? How do I ensure that the interest will be paid?” That is why interest payments go up and we as a country end up paying more debt—because of the decisions the Chancellor has made. \p Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we borrow more money, we pay more for that borrowing. Of course, that has fed through to inflation. We know that inflation this year, according to the International Monetary Fund, will be the highest in the G7. The IMF also says it will be the highest in the G7 next year. The consequence of that in monetary policy is interest rates being higher for longer. Of course, if we have a mountain of debt and add to it ruinously, the cost of servicing that debt goes through the roof. It now stands at about £100 billion a year, rising to £130 billion at the end of the scorecard. That is more than twice what we spend on defence every year. \p Kit Malthouse: The shadow Chancellor is laying out compellingly the calamitous choices that were made at the last Budget. Does he agree that fundamentally underlying them is the most calamitous choice of all, which was the strategic decision that the public sector would be expanded and the private sector contracted? The crowding out of the private sector is resulting in this doom loop that we are trapped in. We have fewer and fewer wealth creators and businesses paying for this bloated public sector, and their ability to shoulder that burden gets weaker by the day. \p Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely incisive and correct point. If a Government spend huge amounts of money, there is an opportunity cost to that and it comes through in various forms, including, as he rightly says, raising the cost of capital and crowding out labour, skills and so on. It is a fine and important balance to get right and this Government, palpably, have got it wrong. \p Noah Law: The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) makes a fair point. When raising public revenue, one should at least expect a decent return on that spend, whether it be a social return or otherwise. Does the right hon. Member not consider investing in our NHS to be such a decent return? \p Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman’s question identifies the core of the fallacy of his Government’s approach, which is to assume that getting better outputs is all about spending ever more money. It is not. It is about what you do with that money; it is about productivity. One of the Government’s many mistakes when they came to office was to splash out on pay rises for their trade union paymasters—14% for the railways drivers and 22% for the junior doctors—with not one string attached in terms of improved productivity. Therein lies the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. \p Noah Law: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he acknowledge the massive dead-weight loss caused by the strikes that were going on, unbelievably, under the previous Government, and the negative returns as a result of the previous Government’s actions? \p Mel Stride: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would follow up what was not the strongest first question with that.

The Government are naive enough to think that by simply buying people off with no strings attached, the problem would go away. It is like feeding meat to the wolf: when the wolf is fed meat, it will come back to the door the next day, and that is precisely what has happened here. Industrial relations are not improving at the moment. We have various unions in the public sector threatening to strike, including in the NHS, where the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) started in his first question.

Where has all this led? It has led to lower growth. No matter how much those on the Front Bench may trumpet increased growth, the reality is that growth per capita—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) says it is the highest in the G7, but our growth per capita is the second lowest in the G7. What matters is growth per capita, because that is what drives an improvement in living standards. [Interruption.] I have more bad news for the hon. Gentleman, who continues to chunter from a sedentary position: the IMF says that growth per capita will deteriorate even further next year and be the lowest in the G7. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the shadow Chancellor and the Conservative party for bringing forward this debate. Is he aware of the stat that the average British family is as much as £15,000 poorer than they were five years ago? The biggest increases have been in energy and food, of course, and while there have been wage increases, all that has been swallowed up by the cost of living. Does the shadow Chancellor share my concern for middle and working-class families, who are worse off now than ever before, including those in my constituency, that any tax increases from the Labour party will push them towards the poverty line? It could mean that some of them will be unable to pay the bills that they are just about paying at the moment. \p Mel Stride: I agree. Of course, higher taxes are bearing down on living standards, but so is inflation. We have the highest level of inflation in the G7 and are forecast to have the highest in the G7 next year, too. Within that sits food inflation, which is running way above the headline rate of inflation. Who does that impact the most? It impacts the very people that Labour professes to stand up for the strongest: the poorest in our society. It is a direct consequence of the policies pursued by this Chancellor. \p Alex Ballinger: Does the shadow Chancellor recognise that the previous Government were the only Government in living memory to oversee a reduction in real living standards over the course of five years? Does he accept that the difficult situation with the cost of living is in large part due to his Government’s decisions over those five years? \p Mel Stride: There were many great things that the previous Government did, not least creating employment as a job-making machine and, despite the Russia-Ukraine war, bringing inflation down at the back end of 2022 from 11% to 2%—bang on target—on the day of the general election. Where is inflation now? It is almost twice that level. We also improved education in our country beyond all measure; Labour is now undoing those reforms, and we will see the consequences of that for generations to come. We did many things of which we should be proud, not least getting us through covid and through the inflationary times. On the day of the general election, we had the highest growth in the G7, we had near record levels of employment and a near record low level of unemployment, and we had seen 13 consecutive months of improving real living standards. That is not a bad record. \p Andrew Murrison: So far, Labour Members do not appear to have mentioned covid. We reduced the deficit by 80%, which enabled us to spend £373 billion to support households and businesses during those years. I have businesses in my constituency that would no longer be in business had it not been for that support. What does the shadow Chancellor think would happen if, God forbid, we had a similar event right now? The answer is, as I suspect he is about to tell me, that the Government simply would not be able to sustain households and the economy in the way that we did. \p Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The conclusion that one must draw on the mess that this Government have made of our economy is that it has become brittle, fragile and vulnerable to the kind of external shocks that it was able to withstand when the Conservatives were stewards of it.

While per capita growth is almost on the floor, unemployment is at a five-year high; as we know, every Labour Government in history have left unemployment higher on leaving office than it was on entering office. Inflation is high and business confidence is at rock bottom. In a recent survey, the Institute of Directors found that business confidence among its members was the lowest in history. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) refers to covid—according to the IoD, business confidence is even lower now than it was during covid, when the economy contracted by more than 10% overnight. That is how bad business sentiment is out there. \p Luke Evans: Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was to hear the Prime Minister say again today at Prime Minister’s questions that his No. 1 goal is growth, when all the evidence is pointing against it? \p Mel Stride: To be fair, I think the Prime Minister was referring to facial hair growth, rather than growth in the economy. They are distinctly different things. \p Luke Evans: He is struggling on both. \p Mel Stride: Well, he may or may not be—it remains to be seen.

What all this ends up with, of course, is lost fiscal headroom. That is the story so far. We had a Budget last October with about £10 billion against the debt target; that vanishes, with 50% on top as well. It is rebuilt in the  spring, and now it has all disappeared, and we are waiting to find out how deep that black hole is. We have entered something of a doom loop, with higher taxes destroying growth, leading to a loss of fiscal headroom, requiring—in the Chancellor’s terms at least—further tax increases, leading to further destruction of growth, and around and around we go. \p Sam Carling: The shadow Chancellor has spent a lot of time in his speech talking about what people have said and done. I wonder if I could remind him that just a month ago he said that if he were in the Chancellor’s position, he would raise income tax. How does he square that with the speech he is currently giving? \p Mel Stride: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to correct the record, because I know this has been spun by the Labour party. At a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference, there was a long, extended debate about just how bad things are, with speculations about all the “what ifs” and “maybes” of different scenarios. If the hon. Gentleman reads the full transcript of those exchanges, he will see that the point I was very clearly making was that there is an alternative to putting up taxes, which is controlling spending. That is the point I was making.

What is happening to the wealth creators in our country? About 16,000 of them have fled—they are going by the day. These are the people who generate the wealth, jobs and growth that we are all striving to achieve. Look at the cumulative tax take that has just walked out of the door with the 16,000 who have gone—it would probably require a third of a million to half a million people on average earnings to fill that gap. It is not sustainable.

There is an alternative. The Conservatives set out this alternative at our party conference: a way forward through control of Government spending. Government spending could be controlled to the tune of at least £47 billion, which were the savings we identified. Of the £47 billion, £23 billion can be found from the welfare budget by getting people off benefits and into work. It is better for the economy, but equally, for those who have mild mental health conditions such as mild anxiety, mild depression and ADHD, it is a better outcome than parking them on benefits, which the Government are doing through time. By focusing on actual need rather than simply transfer payments and on medical diagnosis rather than self-assessments and by not paying benefits to non-UK citizens, we can make real savings. In some cases they are tough choices, absolutely. However, these are decisions that the Government have made. \p Alex Ballinger: I thank the shadow Chancellor for giving way. He will of course remember his time as the Work and Pensions Minister, when he oversaw a £33 billion increase in the welfare budget. Of course he is talking about cuts now, but not about welfare cuts, because he had the opportunity to make those cuts and failed to do so. He is talking about cuts to teachers, nurses and our armed forces. Which of those three areas is he talking about cutting right now? \p Mel Stride: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised my tenure at the Department for Work and Pensions, when I was the Secretary of State. I was very clear that we needed to arrest the rising welfare bill, and— \p Alex Ballinger: Why didn’t you, then? \p Mel Stride: We did, actually. We did arrest it. We made changes to the work capability assessment, which the OBR scored at £5 billion-worth of savings. The OBR also scored the fact that there would be 450,000—almost half a million—fewer people going on to those benefits as a consequence. We had already started a consultation on personal independence payment, which I will come back to in a moment, but it was interrupted by the general election. The first thing the Labour Government did when they came into office was scrap all of that and then come forward with some ill-thought-through proposals that did not survive contact with their own Back Benchers.

There are other areas where we can make savings. The size of the civil service is one. The civil service has grown by 37% since 2016. We could cut it back by 25% and make about £8 billion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) should listen carefully to this, because he is about to sit on those benches on the 26th of this month and listen to his Chancellor come up with some pretty unpalatable things. These are good alternatives that should be taken seriously.

Raising taxes is simply a choice. The Labour Government are too weak to make the choice to control spending, so they fall back on taxes. They had to U-turn on the welfare reforms they brought through, and £5 billion was added to Labour’s black hole in an instant. We have seen the terms of reference for the Timms review of personal independence payment. They show quite clearly that there is no intention of saving any money from the PIP budget. That is grossly irresponsible. It is spiralling ever skyward.

From what we hear, it is highly likely that the two-child limit will be scrapped and abolished. Why? Probably because the Prime Minister, shackled to his Chancellor, is feeling that he is being squeezed halfway out the door of No. 10 and thinks he had better do something to settle the troops on the Back Benches. But that comes with a price tag of £3.5 billion. The only choice that this Chancellor is taking is to fail to get on top of spending and to put up taxes in order to fund ever more welfare. \p Jerome Mayhew: The Chancellor often talks about taking difficult decisions and tough choices. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not a tough choice to raise taxes on other people; the tough choice is cutting spending? \p Mel Stride: My hon. Friend absolutely gets to the core of it. This is an extraordinary point to have arrived at, but this Government, despite their majority, do not have the plan, political will or, seemingly, even the ability now to command enough support on their own Benches to push through vital spending controls that would allow us to get the taxman off the back of businesses and people up and down our country. \p Sam Rushworth: Child poverty increased enormously on the Conservatives’ watch. [Interruption.] Yes, it did. Where was their political will to deal with it? \p Mel Stride: If the hon. Gentleman looks at absolute poverty after housing costs, he will find very significant reductions for children, pensioners and across the piece during the vast majority of our time in office. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Will the shadow Chancellor give way? \p Jerome Mayhew: He has only just walked in! \p Judith Cummins: Order. I do expect Members to be here for slightly longer before intervening. \p Mel Stride: Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a great shame. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for any of the debate, but that does not mean that he might not have given the best possible intervention from the Labour Benches so far. Perhaps he may like to come in a little later.

We have a Government who are engaged in serial breaches, who have no backbone to take the right decisions, and who will always fold to pressure, including from their own Back Benchers—and all at the expense of businesses and hard-working people up and down our country. \p Luke Evans: The Chancellor set out in a speech only last year an absolute commitment not to raise taxes. She said, “We’ve set the spending envelope for this Parliament, we don’t need to increase taxes”. Yet here we are on the cusp of taxes going up. Is not the crux of this the fact that she cannot even stick to what she promised? \p Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have heard the various quotations at the beginning of my contribution exactly to that effect.

The motion on the Order Paper asks a simple question. It is essentially this: even at this late stage, will the Government stand by their word, or will they dragoon those on the Benches behind them through the wrong Lobby tonight? If they vote with us, millions will heave a huge sigh of relief. If they vote against, the people will have their answer, and they will never forget. \p James Murray: I thank the shadow Chancellor for opening today’s debate. It is two weeks until Budget day, and it is just over two weeks since the last motion tabled by the official Opposition that sought to debate the content of the Budget before it is announced. We know that Conservative shadow Ministers want the British people to forget the mess they left from their time in office, but surely shadow Ministers cannot have forgotten how the Budget process works. If indeed that is the case, I am sure shadow Treasury Ministers will recall that we would not reveal any details of the Budget two weeks before the Budget, and that any decisions on the Budget will be revealed by the Chancellor on Budget day. \p Jerome Mayhew: I have a simple question for the Minister: does he think that manifesto promises are important? \p James Murray: As a Treasury Minister, what I am very used to in the run-up to a Budget is members of the media and Opposition Members finding more and more convoluted ways of trying to work out what is going to happen in the Budget. My answer would be the same at every turn: they simply have to wait until 26 November to see what the Chancellor announces in her Budget. The official Opposition are entirely entitled to put forward what they say they would do differently. \p Kit Malthouse: I hear what the Minister is saying about us waiting for the Budget. Could he reassure the House that he has not discussed anything that might be in the Budget with any journalist, and certainly that he has not authorised any members of his office or anybody within the Treasury press team to brief out some of the kites that have been flown about the Budget in the media over the past few weeks? \p James Murray: Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation, I am not going to engage in speculation ahead of the Budget. I am not going to feed the speculation that he is trying to wind up. I understand that the Budget is an important day in the parliamentary calendar, and it is an important day for the Government. Rightly, Conservative Members and Members of all parties want to know what is in the Budget, but they simply must wait until 26 November to find out. \p Kit Malthouse: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Minister has said that he is unwilling to discuss what might be in the Budget with the House. He did not, however, deny that he may have done so with journalists, or that he may have authorised others to brief to the media what may or may not be in the Budget. In the absence of that denial, are we within our rights to demand that the House be privy to what those conversations contained, in the same way that the business pages of The Times may have been? \p Judith Cummins: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. I can calm Members’ nerves by saying that it is not many more sleeps until Budget day. \p James Murray: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Julian Lewis: As somebody who has been around a long time and remembers when Chancellors used to have to resign for leaking things about the Budget in advance, may I ask the Minister to explain how it has been possible for the present Chancellor to make speeches about what may or may not be in her Budget in advance with no consequences forthcoming whatsoever? \p James Murray: I am very happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman and all Members that what the Chancellor set out in her speech last Tuesday were the values and principles that will guide her in taking the right decisions going into the Budget at the end of the month. The importance of protecting the NHS, bringing down the cost of living and getting debt down—those will be the guiding principles for the Chancellor going into the Budget. That is important, because it sets out to the British people the challenges we face—some of them deep  scars in the economy caused by the Conservatives—as well as the values that will guide us and the Chancellor in taking those decisions on 26 November.

The official Opposition is entirely entitled to ask questions and indeed put forward what it would do differently, but the problem with this Opposition is that when it does so, it simply exposes its total lack of any credibility. Remember last year, when we took the difficult decision, referred to earlier, to raise employer national insurance to support the NHS? The Opposition claimed to oppose that tax change but have refused to say whether they would reverse it—or, indeed, whether they would cut the NHS. As the shadow Chancellor pointed out earlier, more recently, at the Conservative party conference, they said that they thought they could find some £47 billion of cuts to public spending. \p Ben Spencer: The Minister just said at the Dispatch Box that national insurance contributions for employers were raised “to support the NHS”. Was that hypothecated or not? \p James Murray: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the way the system works is that national insurance generally supports the NHS and pensions, but, more broadly— \p Ben Spencer: rose— \p James Murray: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish? More broadly, the revenue that goes into the Treasury is not formally hypothecated. But the point is that if we are going to support public services, get the NHS back on its feet and get waiting lists down, we need to take the difficult decisions to raise the tax revenue to put into that. That was an important principle that we had to take last year in the Budget. \p Ellie Chowns: The Minister talked about difficult decisions, but what about an obvious one? Two thirds of the British population are now backing wealth taxes. Is it not time for the Treasury to abandon its self-imposed fiscal straitjacket and commit to lifting children out of poverty, to investing in our public services and to future-proofing our communities by transforming the tax system so that it better serves ordinary people and so that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share? \p James Murray: I point the hon. Lady to last year’s Budget, at which we decided to get rid of the non-dom tax status, to remove the VAT tax rate on private school fees, to increase the air passenger duty on private jets and to change the rate of capital gains tax and inheritance tax—all measures that will raise £8 billion by the end of this Parliament from taxes on assets and the wealthy. That is what a fair tax system looks like.

While our plans are a credible way to settle the public finances, get public services back on their feet and support the economic stability so vital for investment and growth, the Conservatives come up with numbers out of thin air. At least half the £47 billion of fantasy savings they mentioned come from a welfare plan that amounts to a menu with no prices: they say that the list of measures would raise £23 billion in total, but no breakdown is apparent.

We remember how, in June last year, just as the Conservatives were on their way out of Downing Street, they said that they could cut £12 billion from the welfare bill. Now they have doubled that, without any explanation whatever. Frankly, however he protests, the shadow Chancellor is not the person to be making that argument about welfare. When he was the Work and Pensions Secretary, he personally oversaw the biggest increase in benefits spending in decades. \p Jerome Mayhew: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He wonders why the ability to cut more money from the welfare bill has been identified by the Opposition. Does he not recognise that more than 5,000 people a day are joining long-term disability and incapacity benefits? That is how he can save more money from welfare. Why does he not do it? \p James Murray: I agree with one of the sentiments in the points that the hon. Gentleman made: we need to ensure that people get into work wherever they can and that the safety net is there for people who can never work or are unable to work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is leading that work to ensure that we get young people into work rather than being on a life of benefits and written off as they were by the Conservative party in office.

As I was saying, it was frankly quite some cheek for the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) to lecture about welfare spending, given the enormous increase in welfare spending on his watch when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If the £47 billion came from cuts in public services instead of from some of these fantasy welfare cuts, what would that mean? It would mean 85,700 fewer nurses; cutting every police officer in the country twice; or cutting the entire armed forces. Funnily enough, none of that detail was mentioned in the shadow Chancellor’s speech.

When we took office, the Chancellor introduced tough new fiscal rules. Those required day-to-day spending to be paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing, while protecting the long-term investment in our country. Now, I realise that fiscal discipline is an alien concept for some Members on the Conservative Benches. \p Ben Spencer: The Minister has just talked about the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. Who was it who changed the fiscal rules? \p James Murray: The hon. Gentleman said “the Chancellor’s fiscal rules”, so I suspect that it was the Chancellor who introduced those fiscal rules. He gave it away in how he phrased the question.

The point is that when the Chancellor was setting out her economic strategy at the Budget last year, it was on the basis of the fiscal rules: day-to-day spending to be paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing and debt to be falling as a proportion of GDP, to enable investment in the long-term future of the country. I see that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) is struggling to get his head around why that sense of fiscal reality and credibility is important, but we on the Government side believe that having those fiscal rules is crucial to that fiscal   stability, to ensuring that we have that responsible attitude in government and to providing the stability for businesses to invest and grow the economy. \p Alex Ballinger: My constituents, of course, remember Liz Truss’s devastating mini-Budget, when those rules were not followed. That had a massive impact on not just our public services but the mortgages and cost of living that my constituents are still feeling today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that going back to that irresponsible financial management would be a disaster for this country? \p James Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the damage that recklessness in public office can cause families right across the country—not just for one day, but for months and years beyond that. The Conservative party is desperate for us to forget what happened when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng were in Downing Street. But the British people will not forget, and they have been feeling the impacts for many years.

The Conservative party talks about public spending but its record on public spending is abysmal. It spent years in office with money lining the pockets of dodgy PPE providers as the bill for asylum seekers’ hotels soared. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) just said, no debate on the Conservative record on tax and spend can be complete without mentioning the mini-Budget. Conservative Members are desperate for the British people to forget what happened three years ago and what the Conservative party foisted on the country. They are desperate to forget that their reckless unfunded tax cuts crashed our economy, damaged our international reputation and added hundreds of pounds to families’ mortgage costs. While British homeowners have been living with the consequences of the Conservatives every day, Conservative Members are all too conspicuous in their efforts to sweep their record under the rug.

True leadership is about not ducking the difficult decisions but confronting them head-on with a clear focus on priorities and values. That is what the Chancellor has promised to do in this Budget. As she set out last week, we will secure this country’s future with a Budget for growth led by this Government’s values of fairness and opportunity. We will do not what is politically expedient but what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and high interest rates; to protect and strengthen our public services, rejecting the austerity that Conservative Members seem keen to impose on our country once again; and to ensure that the economy that we leave to future generations is secure, with debt under control.

Our focus on cutting debt is crucial. We inherited a national debt of about 100% of GDP and since the spring the cost of borrowing has risen for Governments around the world. Today one in every £10 of taxpayers’ money in the UK is used to pay the interest on our national debt. That money should be going to our NHS, our schools, our police and our armed forces. Instead, it is going to our creditors. That is not what people pay taxes for. \p Stuart Anderson: The Minister talks about the building up of debt. Does he understand that when Labour was last in power, debt went up from  36% of GDP to about 76% of GDP? That massive increase built the foundation of the debt that we have today. \p James Murray: I am very aware of the foundation of debt that we inherited at the election last year—of around 100% of GDP. That, combined with global borrowing prices, leaves us in this position. We are determined to change that because we know that the less we have to spend on debt interest, the more we can spend on the priorities of working people, the more we can invest in our infrastructure and industry, and the more resilient we can make our public finances, building the headroom to withstand global turbulence while giving businesses the confidence to invest. \p Joe Robertson: The Minister seems to be telling us that we can expect debt cutting measures in the Budget. Will he also confirm from the Dispatch Box that there will not be measures to increase national insurance, taxes on hard working people, or VAT? \p James Murray: We are back to questions about what will be in the Budget. The answer, again, is very straightforward. The Chancellor set out the values that will guide her in taking the decisions at the Budget on 26 November. She set out the challenges that we face, being straight with the British people about that. The details will all be announced by the Chancellor on Budget day in the normal way.

We know that there is much more for us to do as a Government, but we can see the tough choices we made last year showing early signs of progress. We are set to deliver the largest primary deficit reduction in both the G7 and the G20 over the next five years. Our stewardship of the economy has helped the Bank of England cut interest rates five times, meaning lower mortgage payments and cheaper borrowing for families and businesses; real wages rose more in the first 10 months since the election than in the first 10 years of the previous Government; and the average person’s disposable income is now £800 higher in real terms than just before the election, meaning living standards have begun to rise. We have increased public capital investment by £120 billion over the Parliament and supported the NHS to achieve a reduction in the total elective waiting list of more than 206,000 since July 2024. \p Luke Evans: We on the Conservative Benches have been struggling to get an answer on the question of the 50% reduction in integrated care boards, for which the expected redundancy bill is about £1 billion. Today, the Government have issued a press release that says that they have dealt with that. Yet in response to my written question on the subject, the Health Department said that it could not provide an answer because it does not know the numbers, so I have received a holding answer. How much will the redundancy payments cost, and will it come from the Health budget or the Treasury budget? \p James Murray: It is for the Health Department to set out the details in response to any questions that the hon. Gentleman has tabled. The point about the merger between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care is that it is a way of cutting costs and ensuring that that money is reinvested in frontline services.  Rather than having duplicative structures within our system, we want to ensure that we are merging NHS England and the Department of Health to make those savings, which we can reinvest in patient care.

As I said, there are still many challenges ahead and we are impatient to see things improve. Globally, inflation remains high and confidence is low, deterring investment and hindering growth. As geopolitical uncertainty grows, we are also faced with a critical need to invest in our defence spending. Domestically, we must continue to cut NHS waiting lists, lower the cost of living and improve our country’s productivity. We must invest in our roads, transport, housing, infrastructure, public services, towns and cities and the businesses for which the last Government failed so completely to provide.

Conservative Members will see the Budget two weeks from today. They will have plenty of opportunity to scrutinise it and participate in a serious debate about it later this month. We will, of course, oppose today’s motion, which speculates on what the Budget might contain. The effort of rebuilding a country requires the contributions of everyone in that country. Together, we can renew the UK and build an economy that is fair and thriving. That is what this Government were elected to do and that is what the Budget in two weeks’ time will play its crucial part in achieving. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Charlie Maynard: There is a real irony in the fact that the Conservative party has tabled a motion calling for the control of public expenditure and for trust to be returned just three years after a notorious mini-Budget that saw the biggest set of unfunded spending commitments in recent memory and that continues to damage the markets’ confidence in UK fiscal credibility. We still pay the so-called moron premium, driving up interest expenses on Government borrowing, which are now running at £131 billion a year. That is money out of the pockets of everyone across this country and we are still living with the real-world impact of that, because debt in the UK has gone from £0.5 trillion in 2005 to £2.9 trillion today. That is up six times in 20 years—and who has been running the country for the majority of those years? \p Stuart Anderson: It is interesting that the hon. Member raises the moron increase. I point out that we are no longer in government. The hon. Member’s party was also in government from 2010 to 2015. \p Charlie Maynard: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the moron premium relates to Liz Truss. People are feeling pressures and that has a huge impact on everybody individually. Pay cheques go less far, tax bills are higher and small luxuries such as having a slice of cake or a pint, or taking the family to the pub, are increasingly out of reach for many people. That hurts, and it is all on the back of stagnant economic growth. Those facts are all the enduring legacy of the disastrous decisions that the Conservative party made. [Hon. Members: “The coalition!”] It is fun to keep saying “coalition” but, sorry, this is more recent than that. We want to back— \p Jerome Mayhew: rose— \p Julian Lewis: rose— \p Charlie Maynard: If hon. or right hon. Members would like to intervene, will they please do so? \p Julian Lewis: May I try to find some common ground with the hon. Gentleman? As has been pointed out, his party was in coalition with the Conservatives for five years. Can we at least agree that Nick Clegg’s decision to vote for trebling tuition fees, thus breaking a manifesto commitment, was a disaster for his party’s ratings? Can we also agree that if the Government do the same in respect of what they have pledged to do, it will be a disaster for their ratings as well? \p Charlie Maynard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. We want to back—[Interruption.] It was unquestionably a disaster for our ratings—I will happily give the right hon. Gentleman that—and I do not want the Government to break their promises. That is absolutely right and correct. \p Jerome Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he does not want the Government to break their promises. If he looks at the Liberal Democrat amendment, that is exactly what it does: it takes away the injunction to control public expenditure in order to keep the promises made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he now accept that it is right that the Government should keep their promises and not follow his amendment? \p Charlie Maynard: I have already said that the Government should keep their promises, so there we are. May I continue, please?

We want to back hard-pressed households and small businesses and push for practical steps that will help ease the burden on families and get our high streets thriving again. We have called on the Government to respond to the crisis in our hospitality sector through an emergency VAT cut. That would boost footfall on our high streets, thus protecting jobs in a sector that employs people from all walks of life: young, old, those returning to work, those vulnerable part-time workers and everyone in between.

We also propose bringing down household energy costs as winter is coming by removing the biggest levy baked into people’s electricity bills and, in effect, putting more than £90 a year into the pockets of the average family. Indeed, that will be closer to £250 for some of the least well-off, who rely more on electricity for their heating. This is about supporting local businesses at the heart of our communities, which we all represent, and making a real difference to people’s lives by making it cheaper for them to heat their homes. For too long, our high streets and the small business owners on them have been crippled by the policies of successive Governments.

All that needs to be paid for and needs to be done in a way that is pro-growth and pro-business and which shields households from even greater bills each month. That is not an easy circle to square—I will not pretend that it is. We, as Liberal Democrats, seek to bring deliverable and progressive ideas to the table. If the Chancellor chose such ideas, she could deliver them in  her Budget, which is just days away, and the impact would be felt by households across the country with almost immediate effect.

First, we call for a time-limited tax on big commercial banks levied on the massive windfall profits that they receive due to unintended consequences of our financial system. Because of high interest rates and the way the quantitative tightening programme works, the Treasury hands over billions of pounds to the big banks every year via the Bank of England, effectively subsidising banking profits at the expense of the taxpayer. Figures from the OBR confirm that, as things stand, we are on course to hand the big banks £50 billion over the course of this Parliament. Banks never expected to receive that windfall, they never relied on it and never took any risk to reap it. They have only received the payments because inflation and interest rates shot up. That needs to be corrected. It is fair and reasonable to return a portion of that unexpected windfall to the taxpayer and it will do nothing to undermine the health of our financial sector to claim it back. \p Sarah Olney: Does my hon. Friend agree that interest rates shot up in the way he has just described as a direct result of that mini-Budget three years ago, and that that is precisely why the taxpayer is now paying such large interest rate payments to the banks? Is it not therefore right that the Conservative party should get behind our plan to tax the banks, to reclaim some of that money for the taxpayer? \p Charlie Maynard: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] People might be joking about it, but our reputation as a country matters. That is why people invest in our country, and that is why traditionally our debt prices have been low. When we self-sabotage, we pay for it not just for a few weeks or months but for years, and we are paying for it now. \p Joe Robertson: When we are just two weeks away from a Budget where the Chancellor is preparing all sorts of unpleasantness for families and businesses, is the hon. Member not just a little concerned that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) is quizzing him about a Budget from three years ago? Does he not think the British people are more interested in what is about to happen in two weeks’ time? \p Charlie Maynard: They are interested in what costs them money, and their mortgages are more expensive because of the decisions the Conservatives took three years ago—[Interruption.] Well, read the Financial Times.

Moving on, I suggest that the digital services tax is another way we should be looking at to raise revenues. We would increase it from 2% to 10%, which would raise roughly £4 billion a year and get some of the biggest and wealthiest corporations in the world to finally contribute their fair share of tax here in the UK. We would also increase gambling taxes, because gambling really beggars some of the most vulnerable in society. Of course, the biggest one of all is that we should rejoin the customs union with the EU. Nobody voted to leave the customs union, but we are now in a market that is more than seven times smaller than the one we used to be in. As somebody who founded and ran a business for 24 years, I know that that hurts. It has done huge  damage to small, medium-sized and big businesses and we are living with that loss. The quickest thing we could do is to negotiate a new, bespoke customs union with the EU. This would unleash the potential of British business.

With every month and year that goes by, it becomes clearer just how economically damaging the previous Government’s Brexit deal has been. The OBR has forecast that it will harm economic growth, reducing long-term GDP by 4%. However, according to Frontier Economics, a much closer trading relationship with Europe—not even a customs union—could boost UK GDP by 2.2%. These are enormous numbers, so when we are looking around for solutions, there is one right in front of us. It stands to reason that a new customs union would probably raise more than £25 billion a year for the Exchequer. There it is. Grab it, please. With the autumn Budget just two weeks away, the Liberal Democrats’ message to the Chancellor is clear. Instead of asking hard-working households and struggling small businesses to pay even more tax, she must take growth seriously and repair our broken trading relationship with Europe. \p Luke Evans: The hon. Gentleman talks about the trading union, but if we were to go back into the EU, one of the things we would have to take is freedom of movement. How does that tally with the Lib Dems’ position on dealing with immigration? \p Charlie Maynard: I think we should have all the economic benefits of Europe while controlling our borders and controlling movement—[Interruption.] Well, look at Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. There are lots of options out there. Let’s go and negotiate something that makes sense for us.

My final point is that we need an office for value for money—an effective regulator with proper scrutiny and proper teeth that really looks into our Budget. I ask the Government to take inspiration from the Swedish model of tax scrutiny. I understand that after introducing these changes 30 years ago, and aided by strong economic growth, Sweden has reduced its national debt from nearly 80% of debt to GDP to 32%. Meanwhile, our public debt is around 95%, which means that billions that we could be spending on our public services are instead going towards servicing our debt.

A key component is significantly strengthening the scrutiny powers of this Chamber when it comes to the Government’s financial management. The Chancellor’s practice of keeping the Budget secret until the day, at which point everyone else has to scramble to assess the detail and has no time to provide a proper, meaningful critique, is far from the best way to scrutinise the Government’s economic policy. This is not how many of our international peers go about their economic policy. Proper, detailed scrutiny of the Budget, as opposed to the wave-through regime we currently have, with no proper transparency before approval, needs to be addressed— \p Mark Garnier: The OBR? \p Charlie Maynard: Okay, can I just respond to my colleague chuntering in the background? He keeps saying “the OBR”. We are Parliament. We have a responsibility to scrutinise the Budget, and I believe that we, as a  Parliament, should be doing that properly, line by line and taking out what is wasted—[Interruption.] I would do it tomorrow if we had the chance, yes. I will finish in a moment, then I will be off— \p Mark Garnier: Even the Lib Dems agreed with the OBR. Danny Alexander agreed with the OBR. I will stop chuntering now. \p Charlie Maynard: Just because we have always done things a certain way does not mean that there is not room for fresh thinking, a more collaborative approach and greater ambition. Realistically, if we are going to repair the economic damage of the last few years, we need fresh thinking and new ideas. \p Sam Rushworth: I would also like to thank the Opposition for giving us this opportunity to set out two competing visions for Britain: growth, modernisation, new infrastructure and stronger public services under Labour; or a return to austerity, Government waste and decline under the Tories—of both their shades of blue. The Tories’ 14 years of power is a tale of two halves. First came—[Interruption.] They do not like to hear it. First came austerity, which broke our public services, leading to the social problems that have increased cost pressures on Government today, but in their final years they did away with austerity, and we saw astonishing levels of profligate waste, dodgy covid contracts, vanity projects and promises that were made to our constituents but never funded.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) described Liz Truss’s Kwamikaze Budget as

“the best Conservative budget since 1986”,

but I think most people in this place would agree that we have to live within our means. The Chancellor has inherited a difficult challenge because, on the one hand, she inherited an economy with a debt to GDP ratio of over 99%—the highest debt since the 1960s. On the other hand, she inherited a broken state. \p Bradley Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the bundle of contradictions that we have heard over the last year from Labour Members? I recall that, in July 2024, we heard from the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), that Labour had to abolish winter fuel payments for older people because there would be a run on the pound, and then they were reinstated because the economy had allegedly stabilised. We are hearing from the Chancellor and from Ministers that the economy is in a state that requires additional taxation and additional spending. We are hearing all these noises from the Labour party around the need to— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be making a speech in due course. That was a very long intervention. \p Sam Rushworth: I am not sure that I fully understood the hon. Gentleman’s question or what contradiction he sees, but I will go on to talk about why I feel that we need to see major investment in our public services and our infrastructure. \p Lincoln Jopp: The hon. Member says that he does not really understand the contradictions. Would he like to state how much growth there has been in the UK economy since the last Budget? \p Sam Rushworth: Obviously, we are in a global economy. We have the fastest growth in the G7; I think that is well known—[Interruption.] I am going to make some progress, because it is important to set out why we need to be making investment in our public services and infrastructure.

We have only to look at what austerity did to the NHS. The Conservatives inherited an NHS with the highest satisfaction levels and the lowest waiting times ever, and they reversed both of those two things. Look at the state of our town centres. In fact, look at the state of my own constituency of Bishop Auckland compared with 15 years ago. Look at the state of dentistry. In the year before the general election we lost two NHS dental surgeries but, worse than that, children in the existing practices were sent letters telling them they could no longer be provided with an NHS dentistry service. Look at the rising crime in many of our communities, which exactly mirrors the cuts to frontline police. Look at what the Conservatives did to our defence capabilities, which left us the smallest Army since the Napoleonic era. \p Jerome Mayhew: I quite understand the hon. Member’s philosophical approach: he wants to spend more money on public services. He knew of all those issues before the last general election, yet when he stood for election, he said to his constituents, “Vote for me because we will not raise income tax, national insurance and VAT.” Will he stick by his own promise? \p Sam Rushworth: I have confidence in the Chancellor to produce a Budget that will do the things that my constituents need it to. What my constituents are asking for, and what they voted for at the general election, is change.

Look what the Conservatives did to our justice system: prisons are 99.9% full, and we have a court backlog that makes victims wait years for justice. We all know that our surgeries are crammed with these cases. Look at what they did to the asylum system, which has an enormous backlog. Whoever negotiated the contract on asylum hotels must have been the person who did the dodgy covid contracts, given the amount that they wasted. Millions a day were spent on hotels.

Look at what the Conservatives did to childhood. Contrary to what was said earlier, child poverty in our country has increased. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that both relative and absolute poverty have increased. The pattern between 1997-98 and 2022-23 can be described as a U-curve; poverty fell under the 13 years of the last Labour Government, and then relative and absolute child poverty increased. Look at what that means for the communities I represent: 16 Sure Start centres closed; primary school budgets are below their 2010 levels; transport for college students is expensive, and their education maintenance allowance was cut; youth services, boxing gyms and swimming pools have closed; and social infrastructure has disappeared from our communities over the last 15 years.

These are real challenges, but the problem is not just with our public services. Because the Conservatives robbed the capital budget to pay for day-to-day spending,  they left Britain in the slow lane. Cancelling Labour’s Building Schools for the Future project left our schools and public buildings infested with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Cancelling nuclear projects left us reliant on expensive fossil fuels, which led to 11% inflation at one point under the Conservatives. Cancelling High Speed 2 to secure a media headline on the eve of a conference has left us without the critical transport infrastructure we need.

All these problems come with a higher social cost. When His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff are sacked, we get more tax avoidance and fraud. When people have to wait two years for a routine operation, businesses have a bigger sick bill. When prisons are not built and the police are cut, there is more crime. When civil servants were cut, the previous Government had to spend £3 billion on agency staff. \p Luke Evans: The hon. Gentleman has missed something from his list: the Government’s own assessment shows that when winter fuel payments are cut, it puts 50,000 people into absolute poverty and 100,000 people into relative poverty. A 2017 report by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), now the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said that cuts to the payment would kill 4,000 people. Was that factored into the hon. Gentleman’s assessment when he went through the Lobby to vote on the measure? \p Sam Rushworth: The only vote we ever had on the issue was a vote for or against an Opposition day motion. I was always clear that the original threshold that the Government set was far too low. I do not think that millionaires and asset-rich, wealthy pensioners should receive the payment. The policy, as it now stands, and as it will be for pensioners in my community this winter, is as it should be. \p Stuart Anderson: You voted for it when voting for the Budget. \p Sam Rushworth: I voted against a motion saying that the payment should be a universal benefit, because I do not think that it should be universal, and I argued for where I thought it should be.

The Conservatives are right about one thing: we do need to control spending. We should not listen to those on the left who think that there is a magic money tree. There is not. Many of my colleagues on the Government Benches and I know how flippin’ difficult it is to get money out of the Chancellor, because she has this difficult job of having to control public spending. Let us talk about that for a minute. The Conservatives failed to invest in our public services, infrastructure and growth when they were in government, but let us also look at what they did on profligate waste. They spent £73,000 in 2019 topping up the Government’s wine cellar; £1.7 million painting Boris Johnson’s prime ministerial planes, including £800,000 on a Union Jack; £500,000 in a single year on chauffeuring ministerial red boxes around Whitehall; £11 million changing the colour of our passports; and £120 million on their festival of Brexit. \p Joe Robertson: Why is the hon. Member going on about spending decisions of previous Governments, when his Chancellor said last year that her Budget had  wiped the slate clean? She said, “It’s on us now”. If she accepts responsibility for where she is today, why does he not? \p Sam Rushworth: The point I am making is that spending for spending’s sake is not what any responsible Government should do. We should spend every tax pound well. These examples of waste are not things that we should continue.

There was the £100,000 spent on a fake bell that only bonged 10 times during Big Ben’s maintenance. Truss spent £1.8 million on executive travel as Foreign Secretary, not to mention the £500,000 for her private jet for a single trip to Australia in 2022. Then again, she spent £3,000 on a lectern. \p Lincoln Jopp: The hon. Member is nickel-and-diming the debate. One big question faces the Chancellor: what to do about the two-child benefit cap, which costs £3.5 billion, so let us not worry about the odd £50,000 here or there. I would like to hear a clear statement from him: is he for lifting the two-child benefit cap, or for keeping it? \p Sam Rushworth: That is a fair question, and I will answer it. It is important that we do not return to the days when the Conservatives were in office and vanity projects wasted so much public money, because child poverty is the scourge of our time. We need a national mission to eradicate child poverty. Some of what we need to do will come through, for example, our looking at the two-child cap, but not all of it. I have argued in this place for us to extend free school meals, and I am pleased that the Government have listened to that and are extending them to more children. I have argued in this place for free breakfast clubs, and I am pleased that the Chancellor is listening and funding them. Unlike the Conservatives, she is funding free childcare, because these things matter, too. This is not just about benefits; it is about ensuring that we give children what they need to have a meaningful childhood. \p Bradley Thomas: I am not sure that I heard an answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp). Does the hon. Member support a two-child cap, or would he like it removed? \p Sam Rushworth: I have never supported the two-child cap. The Conservatives introduced a two-tier benefit system that penalised younger families in a way that it does not penalise older families. My genuine view is that this needs to be looked at creatively. I do not know what the Chancellor will do, but my view is that we need to do something about the problem; possibly we need a tapered system. I have a big family, and I know that my fifth child did not cost what my first child did. I have confidence that this Government, like the last Labour Government, will eradicate child poverty.

I make the point again that child poverty is not just about benefits; it is about what we do to improve childhood. It is about giving children more access to the creative arts, as the Education Secretary this week announced we would. It is about getting youth hubs back; we are working on that. It is about free breakfast clubs, and the warm home discount being extended to more people. \p Caroline Dinenage: I apologise—I may be a little hard of hearing. Could I ask the hon. Member once more for a quick yes-or-no answer? Would he vote to get rid of the two-child benefit cap? \p Sam Rushworth: That is not a vote before the House right now, but I have been pretty clear in my answer. I never agreed with the cap when the Conservatives introduced it. They did terrible things that put too many children in my community into poverty. The Government are addressing child poverty in multiple ways, including through the welfare system. However, children are not poor just because we do not have good enough benefits. In Bishop Auckland, people do not want better benefits; they want better jobs, a stronger local economy, better infrastructure, better education and a better health service. All that will require public spending. If I may say so—[Interruption.] Do you want to make an intervention? \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I do not want to make an intervention. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) does, but I certainly do not. \p Sam Rushworth: I was distracted by the chuntering of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and thought that he may have wanted to make an intervention.

I will finish as I started. For me, the choice is really this: do we return to the dark days of austerity, which created the challenges that scourge the community that I represent, or do we lift people out of poverty, give them hope and the public services that they need, and invest in the critical infrastructure that brings our economy and our country into the 21st century? I know where I stand on that. Do the Conservatives know where they stand? \p Stuart Anderson: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who clearly has an ideology that he believes.

As a Conservative, I believe in lower taxes, and that people have a better understanding than Governments of how to spend their own money. I want to see more South Shropshire constituents keep more of what they earn. Last year’s Halloween Budget hoicked taxes by £40 billion a year. It included a hugely damaging rise in employer national insurance contributions, which has added almost £1,000 to the cost of employing someone. We are stunting the wealth creators, and that is not acceptable. The Chancellor did that with one hand, and withdrew support from our suffering high streets with the other. Pubs will have to pay an extra £3,000 on average because of the changes to business rates, and they are feeling it.

The latest statistics have confirmed that economic growth has flatlined, despite the Chancellor’s promise to

“lead the most pro-growth, pro-business Treasury our country has ever seen, with a laser focus on delivering for the working people”.

How is that going? Since last year’s Budget, a huge number of people—the figure is approaching 180,000—are out of work. Jobs have been lost, and unemployment is up to 5%.

A year ago, the Chancellor told the country that she would not come back with any more tax hikes. The slate had been wiped clean. She clearly said on TV: “This is what I will be doing, and I will not have to come back.” No matter what reason they come up with, if the Government break that manifesto promise, I believe it will hurt them beyond what they believe possible. They have run out of road in their continual blaming of the previous Government. However, it seems almost certain that that is what will happen, so pensions, savings, cars and houses are all sadly in the frame for Labour’s Budget.

South Shropshire is a big rural constituency, so let us consider rural prosperity. The Chancellor’s policies have killed growth, fuelled inflation and reduced opportunities for South Shropshire residents. On average, productivity, earnings and ease of access to further education are all lower in rural than in urban areas. Closing those gaps could add billions to England’s economy. A stronger economy is needed to enhance public services. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that we need strong public services, but we cannot stifle private industry and businesses to get them.

The shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), has shown how huge savings can be made at the same time as cutting taxes for working people. If the shadow Chancellor and shadow Treasury team set out clear objectives, we should put party politics behind us and adopt some of them for the good of the country.

The family farms tax is crippling farmers in South Shropshire. I have a huge rural constituency—25% of my constituents work in the agriculture industry—and the tax is really hurting it. The Budget must reverse the cruel family farm tax, which needs to change. Farmer confidence has dropped to its lowest-ever level on record. More than 6,000 farms have already closed under this Government. That is concerning, and it is a threat to food security.

The Budget must also reverse some measures to release the stranglehold on the high street. Every Member would struggle to find a business in their constituency that says, “I am enjoying the measures that have been put in.” More than a thousand pubs and restaurants on our high streets have already gone—that is the equivalent to two every single day. That is an issue. I welcome the fact that a future Conservative Government would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. That would stimulate growth, and we could then invest in the areas where we need to. \p Luke Evans: This toxic concoction creates a cumulative cycle. The pubs that do survive have to reduce staffing and hours. In rural areas, that might increase loneliness and reduce opportunities for young people to get jobs. That cyclical nature means a spiral into decline. I am concerned about that in my area. Does my hon. Friend share that concern for his area? \p Stuart Anderson: I certainly do. You raise a huge point— \p Caroline Nokes: He raises. \p Stuart Anderson: He raises a huge point. In my constituency of 700 square miles, the local pub and village hall are community hubs. After Remembrance Sunday, I took my family to the Queens in Ludlow. I have met many publicans across South Shropshire. Experienced publicans are still just able to keep trading on reserves, but they are not really making a profit. The ones who are just setting out to build up that reserve are going broke. It is just not a viable situation for them at the moment.

Council tax bills doubled in the time that Labour was last in power, representing an extra £751 on an average band D home. The Conservatives put in veto powers to ensure that council tax did not increase over a certain amount. We allowed local areas to receive the funding that they wanted by raising council tax within 5%, but without excessive rises. At the moment, less funding is going into rural areas but council tax is going up by a dramatic amount, so people are paying more and getting less.

The County Councils Network has named Shropshire council as one of 16 local authority areas that will see significant cuts in direct Government funding. It suggests that there will be about £9 million of cuts to Government funding over the next three years. That will affect many different services, including Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service, which has said so on record.

I have written to many constituents as part of my “shop local” survey, and I have heard from almost 10% of them—thousands of people have responded. People say that they love going to the local high street and want to do so. However, the footfall numbers are dropping. Businesses say that they do not have confidence, and that it is getting harder and harder to trade. That is causing major issues on the high street. We must release the stranglehold on the high street and encourage growth. The biggest factor, businesses tell me, is the tax hikes, which are crippling. I make a plea to the Government to change their approach to taxing small businesses, or they will destroy the country. \p Lincoln Jopp: Will my hon. and gallant Friend take an intervention from any Labour Member who is prepared to say that they have spoken to a business in their constituency that welcomes the NI tax increase? \p Stuart Anderson: I will gladly take an intervention from any Labour Member whose local businesses say that the tax on local business is good. Anyone? \p Sam Rushworth: I spoke to a business in my constituency that said it understands why the Chancellor made that decision. One of its biggest concerns is the number of days that it loses to sickness, and it understands the importance of improving public services and of having a better educated and healthier workforce. \p Stuart Anderson: I am happy that you intervened, and if you support tax hikes for your— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. \p Stuart Anderson: I will start that again, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy that the hon. Gentleman intervened. If he speaks to businesses across his constituency, they might say that they understand the tax hike, but I am asking if any of them support it. I am happy if he wants to intervene to say that they do.

Despite the huge pressures, I will continue to campaign for funding and support that enables businesses to thrive. The biggest area is tax cuts, and it remains a vital part of my focus to unleash rural prosperity for South Shropshire. I urge colleagues across the House to vote down any future tax rises. \p Christopher Vince: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for opening it. As Members will know, I take any opportunity to speak or to intervene, but a couple of weeks ago I missed an opportunity when the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) asked whether any Labour Members wanted to lower taxes. I have two excuses for not intervening on that occasion. The first was that I had only just walked into the Chamber, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) has found, someone cannot intervene if they have only just walked in. The second reason I did not intervene on the right hon. Gentleman was that I have to declare an interest when it comes to tax: I am the son of not one but two of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tax inspectors—[Interruption.] I know; I am turning into the Prime Minister and talking about what my parents did for a living. I am also the grandson of an HMRC tax inspector, so I have to declare an interest as I would not be standing here if it were not for tax. \p Ben Spencer: Tax collection and working for HMRC are important jobs. Obviously the tax collector gets a bad rap in popular culture, but I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman’s parents and family for what they do. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention. I like the fact that, even in a debate about tax in which we have opposing views, we have been able to come to some sort of consensus—my speech has already done its job, one might argue.

The answer that I thought of giving the right hon. Member for Braintree about tax was that I would love residents in Harlow, particularly those in low-income families—23% of under-16s in Harlow live in low-income families—to pay less tax. However, we have seen underfunding in our local services, with the hospital and schools falling apart, and roads that frankly look like the surface of the moon. If we were to live in a low-tax haven—I do not suggest that all Opposition Members say we should—it would lead to those local services suffering, and it is those lower-income families who cannot afford private healthcare, private schools, or to get their car fixed every time they go over a pothole, who would suffer. \p Jerome Mayhew: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Christopher Vince: I will, as long as the hon. Gentleman does not ask me about renationalisation. \p Jerome Mayhew: I know that the hon. Member cannot pronounce that word. I quite understand the points that he makes—he is heartfelt in making them, and he thinks there should be Government spending on those issues. However, he was aware of every single one of those issues before the 2024 general election, when he  stood on a manifesto commitment not to raise income tax, not to raise national insurance, and not to raise VAT. Does he accept that if his Government resile from those promises, it will be a huge breach of trust with the British people? \p Christopher Vince: I thank the hon. Gentleman for again mentioning that I cannot say “renationalisation”—well, apparently I can; I just cannot say it when we are on “BBC Look East” together.

I stood on a manifesto to ensure that I got investment into my town, and I am delighted that this Government have promised, for the first time, a realistic and fully funded timetable for a new hospital for Harlow, with a guarantee that Harlow will be the home of the UK Health Security Agency—I appreciate that I am now turning into a party political broadcast. My priority is to ensure that every young person in Harlow has the best possible opportunities, and I know that that is what this Government will do. I know that difficult choices need to be made by the Chancellor, and I will not pre-empt the Budget—Opposition Members will not be surprised to know that, as a humble Back Bencher, I do not know what the Budget says.

I mentioned that my mother was an HMRC compliance officer, and I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for paying tribute to her. I asked my mother to talk to me a little about what she did at the Inland Revenue, and later at HMRC. She said, “I will write a couple of bits down for you.” Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I am not going to read out the four pages that she wrote, but I will give a few selected highlights. I will miss out the bit where she says, “Hello Darling, thanks for asking”, but she wrote that she joined the Inland Revenue as an inspector of taxes in 1975—I thought that was very honest of my mum. That was pre-computers, and she was

“manually calculating assessments, processing returns and issuing code numbers, i.e. PAYE.”

Apparently it took 18 months of training to do that, and she successfully passed the exam, as hon. Members will have gathered.

If we fast forward, she took a career break—if hon. Members are wondering why she took a career break, I am standing right here. She initially worked at the national insurance organisation, until that merged with HMRC. Her role was to help people with gaps in their national insurance records—basic investigation work and contacting employers. In 2003, she

“returned to HMRC ‘proper’—to employer compliance investigation team.”

He job was to visit employers and check their records. Very positively she found that

“most companies were compliant, but they made mistakes.”

There was a scheme—this is something I would suggest to the Minister if he was in his place—that ran courses to ensure that businesses got it right. That could be really important. When we talk about tax evasion, there are people who do that on purpose, but there are also some who just need that help and support.

At compliance reviews, my mother also checked that foreign employees had the right to work in the UK. She was subsequently promoted to regional manager—well done mum—where she managed 100 staff and eight  managers who were below her. Her team met taxpayers face-to-face in their offices, or in their homes if they were vulnerable, and they

“helped people complete tax returns, claim allowances, and ensure they paid the correct tax.”

They also administered what were then child tax credits. She was also

“able to authorise hardship payments in this context.”

Sadly, in 2014, 20,000 staff in HMRC customer services were made redundant, and as Members across the House will know, that included my mother—[Hon. Members: “Ahh!”] Thank you. HMRC decided that customers—that is taxpayers—should telephone for assistance, but telephone staff were not given 18 months of training, and if people could not get through on the phone they were told to go online. Across Essex, there were a number of cuts to local offices, including in Chelmsford, Witham, Colchester, Harlow, Bishop’s Stortford—that’s not in Essex—and Hertford. \p Joe Robertson: I confess that I am struggling to understand the relevance of this. If it is so important to Budget setting, has the hon. Member given his mother’s note to the Chancellor for her to read? \p Christopher Vince: I thank the hon. Gentleman—I had not thought to do that, but I will do so. I am sure my mother will appreciate that I am having that conversation. I briefly spoke to the Chancellor before this speech, to let her know about my mum’s circumstances. I just put that on the record, and I thank the hon. Member for his intervention— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I think there will be another intervention, but I want to bring us loosely back to the subject of taxes. While I can see that the career of the hon. Member’s mother at HMRC is related to taxes, it would be unfortunate, would it not, if I had to put a tight time limit on other Members? \p Christopher Vince: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I cannot talk about my father’s and grandfather’s experiences—[Interruption.] No, okay. \p Laurence Turner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for becoming the human face of tax collection in this debate. A number of my constituents also work for HMRC, and they have told me that the period of cuts has impeded the agency’s ability to collect corporate taxation and get into the public purse revenues that are rightly due. Is that not a relevant factor when talking about the Opposition’s plan to cut 132,000 civil servants? \p Christopher Vince: The ultimate point here is that an estimated £5.5 billion was lost to the Treasury in 2022-23 as a result of tax evasion, and an estimated £6.6 billion was lost in 2023-24. What impact does the Minister think the previous cuts to HMRC will have on the amount of revenue collected, based on the current taxation rules, which were also agreed to by the Conservative party? How different would the amount in the coffers be if those cuts to HMRC had not been made? Will he  consider that fact in the Budget and look at how we can support HMRC to ensure that we collect the correct taxes? Let us talk about the tax that should be collected but is not being collected because of the starving of funding for HMRC. From personal experience, I know that my mum and her colleagues made money for the Government. I appreciate that I went a little bit off topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope you understand the point I was trying to make.

To reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his opening remarks, the Budget will be set on 26 November, which is why we will vote down this motion. \p Gregory Stafford: On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Christopher Vince: No, I have finished my remarks. \p Caroline Nokes: After the next speaker, I will impose a seven-minute time limit. \p Caroline Dinenage: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). I thank him for cantering us through his mother’s career at HMRC—on behalf of the whole House, I thank her for her service, and I ask him to pass on our very best wishes.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as a near neighbour to my constituency, I am sure that you will know that the history of Gosport has always been umbilically linked to the fortunes of our armed forces. The town was effectively nationalised by the Royal Navy two or three centuries ago. As the size and structure of our defence base changed, with that, over many decades, went many of the jobs and livelihoods that depended on it. Job density on the Gosport peninsula is almost 50% lower than in the wider south-east region, which is an issue that I have spent 15 years as an MP trying to help drive solutions for. There is nothing more important to an area like mine than maintaining the conditions that give businesses the confidence to invest, employ and grow, but the overwhelming foundation stone for growth, and for the innovation and investment that will solve the productivity puzzle that the UK is facing, is that businesses need to be able to make long-term decisions and plan for the future.

Employers in my constituency, both large ones like StandardAero, QinetiQ and STS Defence and the numerous small and growing businesses, need to be able to rely on stable borrowing costs and to know that the cost of materials will not rise unsustainably in order to have the confidence to take on new staff and start apprenticeship programmes. Investors like those who took the plunge and moved to the Solent enterprise zone at Daedalus airfield, creating hundreds of local jobs in the process, need to know that if they put their capital at risk by investing, the Government will not reach in on a whim to take a large slice of any reward. The fact is that employer tax rises put all of that at risk. That is what we have seen since last year’s Budget and why local people are nervous about this year’s Budget too.

Tax fulfils two purposes: one, which the Chancellor knows well, is to raise revenue for the Government, but I am not convinced that she has given much thought to the other, which is influencing changes in behaviour.  The pessimism and growth downgrades in our economy over the past year have provided hard and fast evidence that changes to the tax regime are at least as powerful at achieving the second goal as the first. Some £40 billion of tax rises very effectively mowed down those green shoots of post-pandemic recovery, but worse than that, they incentivised businesses in my Gosport constituency to make decisions that run in direct contrast to what our area needs. There are fewer employment opportunities and fewer chances for young people to build good-quality careers.

I have heard worrying stories about the impact that the employer national insurance rises announced in last year’s Budget of unintended consequences have had in my constituency. The common thread is that the national insurance change hit the businesses for which labour is the highest cost hardest, putting services that my constituents rely on every day at risk. A fifth of everyone who works in Gosport works in caring, leisure and other service occupations. Those are by far the biggest employment sectors, and account for almost three times the average for England, so my constituents felt the Chancellor’s national insurance rises the hardest. \p Luke Evans: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about what happened a year ago. Another problem is that all the kite flying in the Treasury at the moment means that people are now making decisions to withdraw their pensions schemes, not employ people and not invest. Is my hon. Friend seeing that in her constituency, as I am in mine? All that kite flying has real-world consequences, even before we get to the Budget in three weeks’ time. \p Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend is 100% right to point out that people are making knee-jerk decisions because of fear about what the Chancellor will do, and they are delaying business decisions that they might otherwise have made that would have brought growth to my constituency.

My constituency lies on the south coast. The stunning Solent coastline may mean that Lee-on-the-Solent, Stubbington and the wider Gosport area is a wonderful place to retire. As I often repeat, we have the largest proportion by percentage of veterans of any place in the United Kingdom, but that requires adequate health and care provision. However, care providers, whose main cost is personnel, are struggling.

The Nuffield Trust has calculated that the national insurance rise costs England’s 18,000 independent adult social care providers £940 million, which has severe consequences for the elderly and vulnerable people who need the service. One local provider, who operates a 44-bed care home offering residential care for the frail elderly and those living with dementia, suggested that they had no choice but to pass those national insurance rises directly on to their customers. As a result, one constituent told me that he was seeing an increase of nearly 8% in his brother’s care home fees.

At the other end of the spectrum, Hopscotch nursery, which looks after 1,900 children across our local region and provides fantastic care and support, told me that the jobs tax added £1 million to its overheads—that is a 10% increase, which means a 10% fee increase is being passed on to many of my constituents. Working parents need childcare, so working parents have to pay. What is  the impact? Reduced household spending and a slower economy or, even worse, a parent dropping out of work to look after the children. Perhaps that is why we have seen growth flatline, borrowing costs rise and, this week, unemployment reach its highest level since lockdown.

On 26 November, will the Chancellor demonstrate that she has learned the lesson that tax rises that hit employers’ bottom lines have serious implications for our businesses, communities and economy? I would be shocked if she has not, but we are still hearing reports that hiring costs are going to increase yet again. None of the hospitality and retail businesses in my constituency will welcome that. After all, the sector has already seen 80,000 job losses.

I am particularly concerned for young people. A recent Telegraph article said that young people were giving up on Gosport because of the lack of employment opportunities. For many, a job in hospitality or retail is the first step on the route into work. Businesses in the sectors that take on so many young people across my constituency, from adult social care and childcare to hair and beauty, are telling me that they are not taking on more staff as a result of the Chancellor’s changes to national insurance contributions. In fact, the National Hair and Beauty Federation told me that, at the current rate of decline, there would be no new apprenticeships in that sector at all within the next few years. It is not a coincidence that this year my constituency saw the number of young people between 18 and 24 years old claiming unemployment-related benefits rise by 31%. So when the Government conduct their new independent review into why this is happening, they might want to start by looking in their own backyard.

When the Chancellor is considering the vast array of tax measures at her disposal to fill the £30 billion black hole, will she consider the impact on the employment of young people of any proposals to further penalise retail and hospitality businesses? She might even consider taking a Conservative growth policy, and announce that business rates will be scrapped for high street businesses such as pubs.

It is not only businesses that support growth. Across Gosport, Lee-on-the-Solent, Stubbington and Hill Head, many people dedicate their own time to volunteering, towards supporting sports clubs, charities, health forums and community organisations. Those groups are the backbones of our communities, but like any organisation they cost money to run. The Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, which I chair, has heard how increasing costs have impacted the ability of charities and voluntary organisations to deliver the services that local people rely on and love.

We often forget that charities face employment costs too. Despite 83% of charities recording an increase in demand for their services over the past 12 months, last year’s tax hike added a combined £1.4 billion to the wage bills of more than 44,000 charities. A huge amount of pessimism is growing in the sector. A third of charities are reducing their workforce as a result of the tax rises, and a similar number think that the sector is in an unhealthy space.

The increase might be easier to shoulder were it not for the parallel drop-off in funding streams. Tax rises mean less money for charitable giving, especially if the Chancellor is going to go after pensioners with her increase in income tax. I cannot stress enough how  much tax rises have hurt and will continue to hurt the charitable sector, and the unintended consequences are huge. We have less charitable giving and fewer hours volunteered, as people work longer and salary sacrifice schemes are raided, while increased costs threaten jobs at national charities such as Oxfam, Scope and the National Trust, which face the loss of £50 million through restrictions on their ability to claim gift aid.

Sports clubs do a fantastic job of alleviating pressure on charities and the NHS, but they can also reduce the burden on the Chancellor to pay out-of-work benefits. On current estimates, spending on working-age disability and incapacity benefits is expected to increase by £25 billion to more than £70 billion by the end of this Parliament, and an estimated 148.9 million working days were lost due to sickness or injury in 2024. Physical activity can play such a vital role in the prevention of so many conditions, and so many of our sports clubs lean in, but the tax rises in last year’s Budget mean that the sector is in a precarious position and unable to meet its potential. The facilities that teams use to practise, play and socialise need staff as well as revenue streams. Tax undermines the work being done by our sports clubs to increase the take-up of physical exercise, reduce the burden on the NHS and keep our communities together.

We do not yet know what the Chancellor plans to announce at the Budget in a couple of weeks’ time. Last year we saw £40 billion-worth of tax rises. It was the highest tax-raising Budget in a generation, and I know that many people in my constituency were shocked. That was not what the Government promised when they were in opposition or at the general election. We now fear that the Chancellor will go big on tax rises, despite categorically saying last year that she had wiped the slate clean and would not be coming back for more. My concern for my constituents is that they have seen no tangible benefit from last year’s Budget, just pain, and they will undoubtedly shoulder the burden whenever new measures are announced. \p John Slinger: I commend the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on his constituency, which I drove through. I enjoyed a drink or two in one of the pubs in his town of Ludlow, and it was really good to be there. Fortunately, I sat next to some Labour supporters in the pub, so I am grateful for that too.

There has been quite a lot of bluster from the Conservatives today. However, sadly for them, a party that repeatedly broke its manifesto promises, crashed the economy and brought public services to their knees has no credibility. It is all brass neck and no contrition. This Labour Government are still cleaning up the mess that the Conservatives left—a mess that has deep consequences for our economy, with the impact of austerity, their bodged Boris Brexit deal, and Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, which homeowners and many others have been paying the price for.

Changes to fiscal policy are made at the Budget, which will be set out on 26 November, not today. That is just one of the many reasons why we will vote against this motion. What I can say is that my colleagues in the Treasury will ensure that the Budget is underpinned by  Labour’s values of fairness and opportunity and focused on the priorities of the British people: protecting our NHS, reducing the national debt and improving the cost of living. \p Lincoln Jopp: It would make things so much simpler for the House if the hon. Gentleman would put a date on when those on the Government Benches will take responsibility for running the country. I do not mind if it is in six months’ time or a year’s time, but we can then all go home—I have lots of things to do in Spelthorne until then. When the Government finally come to terms with the fact that they are in charge and are responsible, we will all be grateful. \p John Slinger: Frankly, it took 14 years for the Conservatives not to apologise for any of the decisions they took, so I do not think we need any lectures from the hon. Member or from other Conservatives.

Contrast our values with the values of the Conservatives: austerity, financial recklessness under Liz Truss, and a dodgy Brexit deal. We cannot return to austerity and economic chaos. \p Stuart Anderson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking highly of my constituency—Ludlow is lovely. Does he realise that austerity started under the Labour Government when they were last in power? They started measures to make cuts in 2008-09. \p John Slinger: I absolutely accept that the previous Labour Government took difficult decisions towards the end of their tenure in office following the global financial crisis. What happened from 2010 onwards was unnecessary and reckless, and we are all still paying the price to this day. \p Bradley Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p John Slinger: I will not; I may give way in a little bit, but let me make some progress.

We will ensure that we avoid another decade of under-investment in public services and infrastructure. I am sure we all agree that we owe it to future generations to ensure that the economy we hand down is secure, with debt under control. I would like to hear more from Conservative Members—perhaps they would like to intervene on me. Their motion makes no mention of the public services that would be cut. How many doctors, teachers, soldiers and police officers would they want to cut? I am happy to take an intervention. \p Jerome Mayhew: If the hon. Gentleman is looking for ideas about how to cut spending, he could do worse than to look at the proposals set out at the Conservative party conference, in which we identified £47 billion of public sector cuts that would not require any of the cuts that he suggests. \p John Slinger: That £47 billion seems rather like a number plucked out of thin air. Frankly, I do not think that that number holds any credibility.

The previous Government cut national insurance in 2024, which was deliberate sabotage. They cut public services from 2010 onwards, which was deliberate ideological recklessness and is still damaging the services that our constituents rely on. \p Bradley Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p John Slinger: No, I will not.

The consequence? Chaos. Under the Conservatives, prisons were full. We had a lack of prison places and a crisis so bad that it led the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), it is said, to go to the country early. Local government was underfunded. Schools were literally at risk of collapse. Waiting lists were at a record high. Every time I knock on a door, people tell me of the lengthy waits they are undergoing. They often say that there is no difference between the parties and that all politicians are the same. Well, the Conservatives increased waiting lists, and we are getting them down faster than we promised; they are at the lowest level for two years.

On promises, the Conservatives are in no position to lecture us. In 2019, they pledged to build 40 new hospitals. Where are they? I am waiting. In 2019, the former Prime Minister, Mr Johnson, said:

“We will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared.”

Where is it? How did that go?

In 2010, 2015 and 2017, the Conservatives promised to bring net migration down to the “tens of thousands”. When was it that net migration peaked? It was in June 2023, when it peaked at 906,000. \p Ben Spencer: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting argument. As I understand what he is saying, does he stick to the manifesto promises on which he was elected? \p John Slinger: I absolutely believe we should implement the manifesto that we stood on, and I am proud to do that. \p Hon. Members:: Tax rises! \p John Slinger: Since hon. Members mention taxes from a sedentary position, let me say that the Conservatives broke their tax pledge by increasing national insurance in 2021. \p Bradley Thomas: rose— \p Jerome Mayhew: rose— \p John Slinger: I will not give way.

The Conservatives broke their triple lock promise in 2022 and 2023. \p Bradley Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p John Slinger: I will not give way; I will make a little progress.

The Conservatives paint themselves as economically competent and as the party of low taxes. Well, Liz Truss blew the first claim out of the water. On the second claim, the tax burden under the Conservatives reached a record high of 36.3% in ’22-23. \p Bradley Thomas: On a very brief point of clarification, is the hon. Gentleman saying to this House that he would like this Labour Government to not increase taxes and therefore stick by their manifesto? \p John Slinger: I am saying to this House that my right hon. Friends in the Government have to take very difficult decisions to deal with the problems this country faces, many of which were caused by decisions taken by the Conservatives. They left mines in our national finances, our public services, our system of taxation, and more besides. This Government are not just manoeuvring around those mines, leaving them for future generations; we are defusing them. We are getting on with the job of renewal and, unlike Opposition parties, we will not take risks with the next generation through undue debt. We will invest in the national interest, and we will reform things, as we are showing with NHS England. We will take the tough long-term decisions that are necessary to rebuild Britain. We are doing this with our Labour values at the forefront: fairness; opportunity for all; protecting the vulnerable; empowering people, businesses and organisations; challenging vested interests; long-term investment; an industrial strategy; skills for the future. \p Lincoln Jopp: On the topic of tough decisions, I have a really simple question for the hon. Gentleman, which will probably do him some good in the coup that is currently going on. Is he for lifting the two-child benefit cap, or for keeping it in place? \p John Slinger: I am for doing absolutely everything we can to reduce child poverty. One way in which we can achieve that is by ending the two-child cap—there are other measures. However, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor; it is not for me to decide right now in the Chamber.

Our approach is paying off. We were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year, and the average person’s disposable income is £800 higher now in real terms than just before the election, but there is not time for me to go through the long list of our achievements. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out more in the Budget. In my view, ours is a can-do approach, not a kicking-the-can-down-the-road approach. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I call Joe Robertson. \p Joe Robertson: Too many of my constituents know 26 November 2025 already. Usually, Budgets come and go without making a huge impact on the public consciousness of people living their daily lives, but this year is different. It is different because businesses and families are terrified about what the Chancellor is cooking up for them.

What the Chancellor and the Prime Minister could have done a couple of weeks ago—indeed, a couple of months ago—is to put their fears at rest, confirm the Labour manifesto and confirm the promise not to increase tax on income, national insurance or VAT. The Prime Minister was prepared to do so in the summer; he did not revert to this absolute nonsense that he is not going to write the Budget. No one is asking him to write the Budget, and no one is asking the Minister to write the Budget from the Dispatch Box today. What we are asking for is confirmation of a manifesto promise that he and others got elected on less than 18 months ago. The Prime Minister committed to that promise in July, but failed to do so two weeks ago. Either he and his Government are indifferent to the worries of my  constituents and the British people, or they are cooking up plans to tear up their manifesto and increase taxes they said they would not. I suspect that it can only be the latter. \p Julian Lewis: There is, of course, a third possibility, which some people with twisted minds have been suggesting: that the Government plan to do some pretty terrible things in the Budget but are setting up a strawman that they are going to break their manifesto promises. Then, when they do not do so, everybody will swallow those other terrible things. Is that too Machiavellian? \p Joe Robertson: My right hon. Friend, whose constituency is just across the water from mine, is far more experienced in this place than I am. I admit to a certain naivety in not imagining that Machiavellian intention within the Government to set up such a strawman, but the point remains the same. If they are doing so, they are indifferent to the economic worries of my constituents and others, particularly hard-working families and businesses.

The question that we as the Opposition have raised today is what the Chancellor is going to do with the situation that she has created. Having sat through this debate, it is surprising to have heard so much deflection from Government Members—so much determination, in November 2025, to talk about previous Budgets under previous Governments. It is an obvious deflection technique, but in so doing, they speak against their own Chancellor. In November last year, she was very proud of herself in saying that her previous Budget had dealt with the black hole—a mystery black hole that she had identified, but let us take her at her word—and she wanted credit for having closed it off and wiped the slate clean. Her actual words to Sky News were “It’s now on us”, meaning that from that date, any problems in the economy and in future Budgets would be hers to deal with, and would have been caused by her decisions.

Last year, the Chancellor blamed the Conservatives for a £22 billion black hole. On a political level, one can understand that—why would she not? She had just come into government; she felt she could get away with it. This year’s black hole is bigger. It is £30 billion, and it is on her. That is why she is faced with the choice of raising money from hard-working families. What she could do is seek savings from the ballooning disability welfare bill, which, according to the OBR’s figures, is set to reach £100 billion by the end of the decade. She tried to do that earlier this summer, but her Back Benchers were not having any of it, so she and the Prime Minister had to shelve those plans.

We learn today that not only have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor lost the confidence of many of their Back Benchers, they have also lost their grip on No. 10, with its staffers briefing out against the Health Secretary. Today, the Prime Minister has had to admit to this place that he did not authorise any of that. In so doing, he has demonstrated that he has lost control of No. 10, his own operation. He is now having to suck up to the Health Secretary, the man who wants his job, in order to try to hold his operation together. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor could try to make savings—the shadow Chancellor has very kindly identified £47 billion of savings for them. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: You have mentioned the £47 billion of savings, but you have neglected to identify the number of teachers— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been here for more of the debate, he would have heard that I am being particularly pernickety about the use of the word “you”. I have not identified anything this afternoon, and I do not intend to do so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make his intervention short, given his short tenure in the Chamber this afternoon. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. The hon. Member has not mentioned how many teachers, how many doctors and how many police would be involved. \p Joe Robertson: The reason I have not identified any doctors, teachers or police is the fact that there are none to identify. The savings of £47 billion have been listed by the shadow Chancellor. They include cuts to the civil service in Whitehall—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman’s Government may be dragged kicking and screaming to cut it, in some way at some point, by us—and they also include £23 billion of cuts in the welfare bill. It is the right thing to do to incentivise work and lift people from welfare into work, something in which the hon. Gentleman’s party used to believe. One way of doing that is making employers want to employ people, but the Chancellor, in her last Budget, disincentivised work, because she taxed work by raising national insurance contributions. As we stand today, there are 180,000 fewer people on the payroll than there were when this Government came in, and it is no surprise that the economy is grinding to a halt.

In fact, the Government are doing worse through the Department for Business and Trade, by introducing an Employment Rights Bill that will further disincentivise work. It has disincentivised people, young people in my constituency, from finding a seasonal summer job, because it has lowered the hourly threshold at which national insurance contributions come in, so it is less beneficial to employ people for fewer hours and, indeed, younger people, who used to be cheaper to employ while they were between education and full-time work.

As was explained so eloquently earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), it is the unintended consequences that have really damaged the economy and made it harder to employ people—although she was, I think, generous in describing them as unintended consequences, given that the Chancellor, the Treasury and the Government should know the consequences of their policy decisions. It makes me wonder whether they were in fact reckless, and were quite happy for businesses to soak up the additional cost and come back to the taxpayer for more money.

I urge those on the Government Benches—very few of whom are present today—to maximise all possible pressure on their Chancellor to do the right thing by their constituents and the British people. \p Laurence Turner: Opposition motions are usually detailed—as, indeed, is the next motion on the Order Paper, relating to energy—so the brevity of this motion deserves comment. The most important line is, I think, the first:

“That this House calls on the Government to control public expenditure”.

In the hands of this Opposition, that short and seemingly innocuous phrase is a euphemism for cuts to essential services, and a return to the austerity agenda that the public rejected so decisively a year ago. All that follows in the motion hangs on that intent. After all, the Opposition accept that were the positions reversed, they themselves would probably be putting up taxes.

Earlier in the debate the shadow Chancellor, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, said that he had been quoted out of context. According to the longer transcript, as reported by City AM, he said:

“If I was in exactly her position”

—the Chancellor’s, that is—

“and I had to deal with tax, and I was down the end of the spectrum where the black hole was really big, I would probably go for income tax…I wouldn’t want to be in that position but that’s the cleanest thing to do.” \p Jerome Mayhew: As we are looking for clarity, what the shadow Chancellor was saying was that if he was in the Chancellor’s position, that is, if he could not cut spending and had to raise tax, perhaps that is what he would do, but that is not what his intention is. His intention, very properly, is to control spending, as any responsible Government would. Why will the hon. Gentleman’s Government not do the same? \p Laurence Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it brings me to my next point. The Opposition have come to the House today stating that all these difficult matters have been resolved and there is no need for tax increases at all. They say that they have a plan for cutting £47 billion of public expenditure. I have a copy of that plan with me, but it is not much of a boast, because it is a very sparse document. The right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) said, “Further detail will follow,” but a month has passed and we are still waiting. Perhaps the shadow Minister who winds up the debate can let us know whether the Opposition will be publishing a more detailed document. \p Gregory Stafford: To bring the hon. Member back to the controlling of spending, may I ask him a question that other Members on his side have failed to answer? Would he be in favour of keeping or scrapping the two-child benefit cap? \p Laurence Turner: I have said it a number of times on the record and in this House before, so it is no evasion to say that I am no fan of the cap at all. As an incrementalist, I would like to see at least some solid progress on lifting that cap, and I hope that we will be in a position to remove it completely. \p Lincoln Jopp: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Laurence Turner: No. I have already taken two interventions and I want to make a bit of progress with my speech, but I might come back to the hon. Member.

I hope that the Opposition do publish more detail, because, if they do not, it will be widely suspected in the country and the House that they know that their claims do not withstand the lightest of scrutiny. It will also be concluded that the real function of that document is to  act as an exercise in wishful thinking, and that it is designed to avoid the taking of difficult and unpopular decisions.

Some parts of the Opposition’s claims can be dispensed with briefly. They tell us that they would save £3.5 billion by closing asylum hotels; I think my constituents would choke on their cornflakes on that one, because they know that the Conservative party was the originator of hotel use, just as small boat crossings were not an issue before 2019. I am glad that, under Labour, hotel placements in Birmingham are down by 50% compared with their peak, and I look forward to their use being eliminated completely.

The greater part of the Opposition’s claimed savings is £23 billion of supposed cuts to the welfare bill, but, again, we have had only the scarcest of details. Let us be clear about the scale of what is being discussed: £23 billion is the equivalent of a quarter of the universal credit bill, more than half the disability social security bill, and two thirds of housing costs.

To give her credit, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said last week that she would be happy to share a further breakdown of those savings. Again, that has not been brought forward. If the Opposition are to ask the House to have any confidence in their proposals, they must provide that information—not examples of proposed cuts, but the cuts in their totality. \p Ben Spencer: One of the striking features of this debate is how much time the Government Benchers have spent discussing our record in Government and our future plans. It is almost as if they are lingering, cheering on, and desperately in need of a change of Prime Minister. Will they facilitate that? \p Laurence Turner: When Opposition Members talk about defenestration, I do listen—because of their greater expertise in these matters. And, of course, “What’s past is prologue”—the hon. Gentleman tempts me to get on to the Zinoviev letter, but that might be one for another day. However, I have actually made only one brief reference to the last Government’s record. We are scrutinising their motion and their proposals; this is an Opposition day debate, and that is a proper function of Parliament.

The other part of the Opposition’s document that I want to comment on is their intention to axe 132,000 civil servants. Some of those people are my constituents—as has already been noted. Not only is this pledge a rehash of a “here today, gone tomorrow” promise once announced by Boris Johnson and never seen again, but it is unclear where exactly the Opposition see those job cuts falling. Is it the additional trade and customs officials hired since 2016? Is it the additional Department for Education staff hired as a result of academisation—effectively a transfer of functions from local government to central Government? Is it the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government staff hired as a result of the growth in statutory burdens on our local authorities? I think all our constituents who work in those roles deserve at least clarity on what the Opposition’s intentions are. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is interesting that the Conservatives have put forward lots of fantasy proposals about various cuts  they cannot make, yet strangely failed to mention any of the covid money that went missing on their watch, or its recovery? \p Laurence Turner: My hon. Friend is right, and we could all point to examples of waste and inefficient spending under the previous Government. That is, of course, part of the context of where we find ourselves today, as are the £9.5 billion of undisclosed spending pressures that were withheld by the Treasury on their watch from the Office for Budget Responsibility.

I will just say this before concluding, because it has been part of the debate: we are today in a pre-Budget debate, and no Back Bencher knows the contents of what will be announced. But when we do look back on the past in that reflective way, I think the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) had— \p Bradley Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Laurence Turner: I will give way to my constituency neighbour. \p Bradley Thomas: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could tell the House whether he would be content if income tax, national insurance or VAT were to rise in the Budget in two weeks’ time. \p Laurence Turner: I will happily say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think any of us come to this place wanting to raise taxes. I will just draw attention to one thing in the Labour party manifesto: an important statement that a growing economy needs strong public services. I welcome the record investment in our NHS—the biggest in 20 years—which has seen waiting lists in Birmingham fall by 20%. That is a philosophical difference between my side and his, but it was also a very important part of the manifesto that I stood on.

Earlier, the right hon. Member for New Forest East suggested that he remembered when Hugh Dalton resigned in 1947. I am not sure that the numbers can be right on that one, but I will just say this. Every Conservative Government and leadership from 2010 onwards claimed mitigating circumstances—some were great, such as the pandemic, and some less so—when they deviated from manifesto commitments. There is no doubt that the weakening of international trade, the imposition of tariffs and the forthcoming OBR revision on productivity estimates are new and relevant factors. That is why difficult conversations are currently happening in Governments and Parliaments across Europe. When the Conservatives demand consistency from others, they would do well to reflect on their own confounding record. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: This debate is much broader than mere numbers on a spreadsheet buried in the Treasury; it is about trust, stewardship and the future of our country. That matters because, at the last general election, the now Government and all those elected on their manifesto said they would not raise taxes on “working people”, yet at last year’s Budget, they did precisely that. They introduced £40 billion-worth of tax rises—under the  guise of national insurance in the majority of cases—which have a trickle-down effect on working people up and down the country.

To compound matters, on 25 November last year the Chancellor addressed the Confederation of British Industry and made a cast-iron promise: no more borrowing, and no more taxes. That was a pledge to every family, every community and every business in this country, yet we are now on the precipice of the Government breaking their promise. To do so would irreversibly damage the public’s confidence in the Government’s ability to manage our economy. Simply put, every tax rise hits families, pensioners and small businesses. There is a simple maxim: borrowing today is merely debt for tomorrow. Every pound borrowed has to be repaid, and it has to be repaid with interest.

I know that those on the Government Benches do not necessarily regularly take the words of Margaret Thatcher to heart, but she said:

“Pennies don’t fall from heaven. They have to be earned”.

That is what people up and down this country are doing every day: they are grafting to provide for their families and their future. She was absolutely right. History teaches us that unchecked spending commitments undermine growth, reduce confidence and erode the state’s ability to serve those who are most vulnerable. By contrast, having control over public expenditure is not an ideology or something to be feared; it is simply common sense. It is about cutting waste, and it is about making hard choices today so that future generations are not saddled with crushing debt. That is responsible government.

It was Churchill who said that

“the price of greatness is responsibility”.

When the Government came into power with great fanfare, there was a sense that they wanted to be a great reforming Government. Well, is there any greater responsibility than to families, who budget carefully; to citizens, who trust the Government to keep their word; and to the public, who expect manifesto promises to be kept? People live within their means. \p Sam Rushworth: Was the hon. Member a Conservative in 2010, when George Osborne promised not to put up VAT, or in 2019, when Boris Johnson promised not to put up any taxes—both of them made promises that they went on to break because, they said, the circumstances of the country required it—or is he a recent convert to his position? \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: The hon. Member may have forgotten the covid pandemic that swept this country, which of course turned the tables, and difficult decisions had to be made. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: No, I want to make this point. The difference is that the Chancellor told the media last year that the buck stops with her. She has to own these decisions.

As I say, people in this country are asked to live within their means, and they make sacrifices and plan for contingencies. They expect the Government to do  the same, so when the Chancellor promises not to borrow more and not to tax more, the country should be able to take her at her word. Such promises are bonds of trust between the Government and the people.

I have a certain degree of sympathy for Labour Members, who have been put in an invidious position. They have been asked to break a promise that they made to their constituents and their country. I ask them to look into their hearts, and to think about whether this is really what they want to be remembered for. Will they show the leadership, the independence of thought and the resolve to vote for this motion? \p Jerome Mayhew: This will be a very simple speech, because it has only a single fundamental point, which is that honesty in politics matters. That should not be a controversial statement. In debates in this place, we are advocates for a political philosophy, and for certain political tactics, and yes, we should put forward our case as attractively as possible, perhaps using statistics that make our case more effectively than others, but if we downright mislead the public, a line is crossed. That is wrong, because it is taking the public for fools.

In the election of 2024, the Labour party had a manifesto on which every single one of its Members was elected. There was an identified £7 billion that they intended to raise through tax rises, but a core promise at the very heart of the manifesto was that apart from that, there would be no tax rises—in particular, no increases to national insurance contributions, income tax or VAT. That is the very basis of their electoral mandate, and even then, they only managed to secure 34% of the vote. The first breach of those promises came in October last year: the tax rises were for not £7 billion, but £40 billion. That was justified by a wholly fictitious £22 billion black hole, a figure that the Office for Budget Responsibility refused to support, and that the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Financial Times, among others, could not identify.

The Government raised taxes on employers; it was a tax on jobs of fully £25 billion. The IFS said that was a “straightforward breach” of their manifesto. We were told that this was a one-off, and that the Government had “wiped the slate clean”. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s words were that they were

“not coming back with…more taxes”;

they had fixed

“the foundations of our economy”,

and she said, “It’s now on us.” Those are not my words, but the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The second Budget is in just two weeks’ time, and no global event has blown this Government’s plans off course. There has been no pandemic, and there has been no European invasion sending electricity and energy prices through the roof. If things have changed, it has been as a direct consequence of the political and economic decisions of the Government. \p Ashley Fox: Would my hon. Friend agree that what has actually changed is the inability of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to  control their Back Benchers, who now feel free to demand whatever public expenditure they think is convenient? \p Jerome Mayhew: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Prime Minister tried—half-heartedly, admittedly—to save £4.5 billion from the welfare budget. He put his Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the ridiculous position of starting a debate arguing for £4.5 billion of savings from long-term disability and health benefits, only for her to end the very same debate advocating for a £300 million increase in those same benefits. The Prime Minister has lost control of his Back Benchers, and he has lost control of his Government’s spending.

We have had no global event, but we do have Government policies that have been economically disastrous. Labour is truly the tax-and-spend party. It has raised the tax burden to the highest in history—certainly since the second world war. As for spend, it raised £40 billion in tax, borrowed a further £30 billion, and increased spending by £70 billion. According to the Government’s own plans, they intend to borrow half a trillion pounds extra during the course of this Parliament. And for what? Has there been reform of public services? No. Public sector productivity has declined. We are getting less for our money—even more so in healthcare, where the decline in productivity is fully 8.3%. What they have done is increase wage inflation. For public sector pay, it is more than 6%, whereas in the private sector, it is a third less.

The Government are coming back for more. They intend, we are told through multiple briefings to newspapers, to breach their core election manifesto pledge and raise taxes, because they cannot reduce spending. \p Sam Rushworth: What the hon. Gentleman says about healthcare is not quite credible. I appreciate that his researchers will have tried to find a statistic that works for his speech, but it is undeniable that we have delivered significantly more NHS appointments. Waiting times are coming down, and satisfaction levels are going back up again for the first time since the Conservatives broke the NHS. \p Jerome Mayhew: One quick clarification: waiting times have actually increased in each of the past three months, so they are not going down at the moment. If we hose enough money at a system, we can get increased results, but what we get per pound spent has declined by over 8%. That is a very serious point. \p Gareth Bacon: Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), is my hon. Friend aware of the Office for National Statistics report from last week, which showed that NHS productivity has declined since the Labour party took office? Would he like to invite the hon. Member to retract what he just said? \p Jerome Mayhew: I could not have put it better myself. These are not statistics made up by my researchers; they are from the Office for National Statistics.

The decisions that we are told the Chancellor is about to make in two weeks are not inevitable. There is another choice. She can grow a backbone—so can the Prime Minister—and impose some control over public spending.  We have set out a plan to reduce spending by £47 billion. I have heard the criticisms and challenges from Labour Members. They have a budget of £1.3 trillion to work with; are they seriously saying that they cannot find £20 billion of necessary savings from a £1.3 trillion budget? If they cannot, then they do not deserve to be in government.

The motion is not a sleight of hand. It is a simple, short motion, which merely asks Government Members, when they choose which Lobby to go through tonight, to decide whether they will stick with their promises—their manifesto commitments. Will they treat their constituents as fools, or will they vote with the Opposition and defend their, albeit shaky, democratic mandate? \p Gregory Stafford: Under Labour, Britain is living in a doom loop of high spend, historically high debt, and higher taxes. That is killing growth, fuelling inflation, reducing opportunities and absolutely weakening our economy.

I have spoken to numerous businesses across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and our surrounding villages, and they are all anxiously awaiting the undoubtedly business-crushing Budget in two weeks’ time. The Government’s lack of understanding of business should surprise no one; Government Front Benchers have more experience of the trade union movement than of business. Indeed, when the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), was asked which companies supported her damaging Employment Rights Bill, which will cost businesses £8.3 billion and cause around 326,000 job losses, she could not name a single one.

The avoidance of engagement runs goes right to the top of this Government. We have seen that in this debate. We have had what I would call a utopian socialist vision from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who mentioned that Labour came into power at the last general election to change. Given how much Labour has resiled from its manifesto, “change” is about the only word left that it is still sticking to. Speak to people and businesses in my constituency—and, I am sure, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—and they will say that things have not changed for the better.

I have to say that the Liberal Democrats’ lack of interest continues. Not a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher has chosen to speak in this debate on the fundamentals of how we will grow and run our economy. Not a single one thought it important to talk in it. That is shameful. I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), for whom I have a lot of respect, speaks to his colleagues about this.

Our motion asks the Government to stick to their promises; I am concerned to see that that wording would be removed by the Liberal Democrat amendment, which thankfully was not selected by Mr Speaker. It is an extraordinary situation. \p Sam Rushworth: I will refer to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about my contribution. Perhaps because our constituencies are different, his constituents do not face the same challenges as mine. The sorts of changes I am  talking about are things like getting NHS dentists back, reopening Sure Start centres, fixing the problems on our high street, improving our schools and getting the waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services down. These are the serious things that my constituents are looking to me to deliver. The hon. Gentleman and I know as much as each other does about what will be in the Budget, but I will be looking for a Budget that invests in the public services that we need, and in infrastructure, which has sadly been neglected for far too long. \p Gregory Stafford: The hon. Gentleman has aptly described the social utopia that I accused him of describing. The fundamental point is that if we do not have businesses contributing to the economy, we cannot fund public services. If 90,000 people in the hospitality sector are made unemployed, they are not paying income tax, and we cannot support public services. The idea that the Government can just raise money out of nowhere forever, inevitably, without consequence, is not sustainable, and we are seeing that in our economy. \p Charlie Maynard: I have already said this, and will say it again: I absolutely—and I speak on behalf of my colleagues—expect the Chancellor to stand by her promises. \p Gregory Stafford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Hopefully, that means that the Liberal Democrats will vote for our motion later. \p Charlie Maynard: indicated dissent. \p Gregory Stafford: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head—our motion probably does not fit the narrative that he is looking for.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland just said that neither he nor I know what is in the Budget. While that is technically correct, the Government have been flying many kites about what will be in this Budget, pretty much since the summer—more kites than Mary Poppins—and I think that gives us some indication of what will be in the Budget. As has been said, that has caused great uncertainty and worry. Businesses are either deciding not to invest because they are so worried about what will happen, or delaying investment decisions because of the Budget. \p Tom Hayes: I would like to quote the chief executive of the CBI, who says:

“Scrapping the Climate Change Act would be a backwards step in achieving our shared objectives of reaching economic growth, boosting energy security, protecting our environment and making life healthier for future generations.”

The chief executive of Energy UK says:

“Treating the Climate Change Act as a political football is a surefire way to scare off investors.”

Does the hon. Gentleman support his party leader’s objective of scrapping the Climate Change Act 2008, given that these two respected authorities say that doing so would damage investment in our economy? \p Gregory Stafford: I do not think I have mentioned the Climate Change Act, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. I think what my constituents want—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon.  Gentleman’s point, and he is barracking me before I have even had a chance to answer. My constituents tell me that they want green policies and sensible moves to reduce carbon and pollution, but they do not want them to hobble our economy and hit them in their pockets at a very difficult time when they are being taxed to death by the Government. The owners of Rutland London in my constituency spoke to me about the Government’s much-vaunted policy paper “Backing your business: our plan for small and medium-sized businesses”, which came out recently. They said that the plan “while promised to cut red tape, lacks delivery details, relies on third-party co-operation, and depends on enforcement rather than details, plans or even an outline, none of which have been set out to us.” Once again, we have another supposedly amazing thing that this Government have done, but businesses do not want it.

During the general election, Labour told the public that it would not raise taxes—it said that 41 times. Then, as we have heard, the Government raised taxes to raise £40 billion. At that point we could have had a sensible discussion about how we were going to reduce the size of the state, reduce inefficiencies and increase productivity, but we had none of those discussions. Essentially, we had a tiny change to welfare, which this Government, because of their Back Benchers, could not get through.

While I disagree with the Labour Back Benchers on that, I am asking them now to find the backbone that made them stand up to their Front Bench last time and to do so again. If the Chancellor comes to this House and raises taxes on working people, I ask them to find that backbone and vote against the tax rise. Their constituents will thank them, and the country will thank them.

In the minute or two I have left, I want to focus on local leadership. I think it is incumbent on us as local leaders to meet and listen to constituents and businesses. That is why I am running a business roundtable next week, and I am very grateful that the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), is coming to speak at it. I recommend speaking to businesses not just because we are local leaders, but because Members on the Labour Benches would learn something. They would learn that their constituents are not in favour of this.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made some reference to our constituencies not being the same, but I can tell him that in my constituency, as I am sure is the case in his, there are business owners suffering, families struggling, farmers worried about what they will do with their taxes and small businesses that will be broken up because of this Government’s tax. There are also thousands upon thousands of people who have either lost their job or will not get into employment because of what this Government have done.

It is time for this Government to act—stop tinkering, stop the gimmicks, and stop punishing hard-working families and small businesses. This country deserves more than promises. It deserves action, certainty, and a Government who are on the side of those who work, innovate and contribute every day. What we need from the Chancellor in two weeks’ time is a Budget that  actually invests in growth, supports jobs, protects household incomes and cuts the red tape on businesses that I described earlier.

I urge the Minister to take this opportunity seriously and ensure that the Chancellor and the Government listen to their constituents and my constituents and produce a Budget that restores confidence, ambition and hope in this nation. \p Ben Spencer: One thing that this Government are really good at is creating a feeling of fear and worry, particularly among my constituents. They are looking at what has happened to them as a consequence of decisions that were taken in the last Budget. I am talking about people from all walks of life, across the board—people who employ people, people who are employed, people who work in hospitality and people who work in the charities sector, who have had to make very difficult decisions as a consequence of the impact of the last Budget. \p Jerome Mayhew: We have talked about the fear that our constituents have, but there is another fear held by businesses. My hon. Friend will know that business confidence has plummeted to the worst level on record, and investment decisions taken by businesses have been delayed because businesses are worried about the impact of this terrible Budget that we are facing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the speculation fuelled by the anonymous briefings from No. 11 are already damaging our economy? \p Ben Spencer: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That was pretty much what I was going on to say. We are seeing this constant kite-flying about various different potential taxes or cooked up schemes that could affect different walks of life, as the Government are trying to keep meeting their burgeoning and ever-growing spending commitments. That is making people lose confidence, and it has a real impact on the decisions they are making here and now, even without the policies having been enacted. Like it or not, the Budget on the 26th is already here and operating. It is operating through the media, and people are making decisions now that are having a real impact, particularly in my patch. \p Scott Arthur: This is a serious point. People who are worried about the financial situation in the country will save rather than spend, whether they are private individuals or business. But is not the very aim of this debate to fuel that speculation and make people feel more anxious? \p Ben Spencer: We were hoping that this debate would clarify the inability of the Prime Minister to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition only two weeks ago: about whether he would repeat the manifesto commitment not to raise the big three taxes. We are in a period of uncertainty that we are trying to resolve, and it has been created by this ongoing kite flying. \p Lincoln Jopp: Would my hon. Friend agree that the corollary of taxes is expenditure? We have tried to elicit some clarity from Government Members about whether they would like to raise the two-child benefit cap, which would cost £3.5 billion, or leave it where it is. Given the Chancellor’s kite-flying exercise in the media recently,  would my hon. Friend be prepared to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who suggested that we were the ones spreading uncertainty? \p Ben Spencer: I thank my constituency neighbour, and of course I am always happy to take interventions. \p Scott Arthur: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My home town is Kirkcaldy, and a former MP for Kirkcaldy is Gordon Brown, of course. In the Blair-Brown Government, he did a lot of work to cut child poverty, which is something I am really proud of, and he cut pensioner poverty as well. Conservative Members should be absolutely ashamed of what they did to child poverty in the UK. I and my colleagues on these Benches, I am sure, will do everything we can to reduce child poverty—including, I hope, removing the two-child cap. \p Ben Spencer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarity. Labour Members have been keen to talk about the past, so I am glad that he brought up Gordon Brown, who sold the gold at record levels, which led to a mess that we had to clean up.

Homeowners are concerned, particularly in my constituency, where many people are asset rich but cash poor. Many pensioners are worried about pension tax. People who do the right thing—make responsible decisions that we encourage, whether investing in pensions or saving for the future—are seen as targets, or potential targets, by this Government when it comes to paying for the profligate spending being offered. Those people are desperately worried. The truth is that we have to stop spending money that is not ours to spend. \p Sam Rushworth: I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I read out a list of the billions of pounds of profligate spending by the Conservative party in government. I am pleased that this Government have stopped that and that he is a convert to our cause. \p Ben Spencer: I have to say that I am getting a bit exhausted by this “14 years” narrative and this recurrent chewing over the past. I want to talk about the future and decisions now. I want to talk about bringing hope for the future again. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the past, we can talk about the past—the dodgy private finance initiative deals under the previous Labour Government, or Gordon Brown selling the gold. We can talk about the International Monetary Fund bailout. I might go back to the future, but if the hon. Gentleman wants me to continue in the past, I can do so. I am happy to take an intervention. \p Joe Robertson: My hon. Friend was seeking an intervention—from the Opposition Benches, I think, but I thank him for taking one from me. Is not the tragedy that we are stuck for the rest of this decade with this Government? They are clearly not going to hold a general election while they are bombing in the polls. The country is in their hands for the rest of the decade, but all they want to do is talk about previous decades. What must our constituents and their constituents be thinking when they hear this sort of stuff? \p Ben Spencer: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Our constituents are hurting. They are in a difficult situation and very worried about what is going to happen in two weeks’ time. They look at this place and see Government Members just wanting to talk about the past over and over again. \p Charlie Maynard: Let us talk about trade— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. When the hon. Gentleman makes an intervention, he should do that via me, facing the Chair and not the Back Benches. \p Charlie Maynard: Let us talk about trade, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find it extraordinary if we look at the future. I think it was Stephen Bush in the Financial Times who talked about the permanent lobotomy that the Tory party needs to have when talking about Brexit. If we are talking about getting money into the Exchequer, let us get our economy moving again and get growth back into the economy. Let us open up a customs union with Europe and get our economy growing. Let us look to the future. \p Ben Spencer: I have to apologise to the hon. Member. I came into the House in 2019, and it strikes me that this debate is probably better suited to 2018, before I was elected.

On the situation that we find ourselves in, many Labour Members have spoken about the Chancellor or the Government bringing in free this and free that. The Government do not have money and the Chancellor does not have money. It is not even just taxpayers’ money that they are pledging to spend; it is our children’s money. That goes to the core of the problem that we face.

The decisions that the Government are taking to keep on and not cut spending and to keep on borrowing and borrowing are not on my head. They are not on the heads of anyone in this room. Those decisions are on the heads of our children. Families know how to budget, and this is the equivalent of a parent saying, “We fancy going on holiday to—I do not know—Lanzarote this year and we are going to borrow money to do it. I am not going to borrow it on me, though; I am going to borrow it on my kids. They will take out the loan and they can pay it back in future.”

It is fundamentally and morally unacceptable that we are in this position and that the Government do not have an approach to try and drive down the deficit and pay back the debt. That is why I am so pleased that the Leader of the Opposition announced the golden rule for making sure that policies going forward recognise that we cannot keep on spending money that we do not have.

In the last Government, from 2010 onwards, we worked really hard on driving down debt, and we had almost got there, in terms of reducing the deficit, when covid kicked off. Can people imagine the situation we would have been in if covid had kicked off without the work we had done to balance the books and without the fiscal firepower that we had to get through it? I remember the debates that we had around covid, and I remember well the first year—I am sure everyone in this Chamber does, whether they were a Member or not. I remember early on being desperately worried that the shadow of  covid would loom long and loom hard, and that, over the next decade, we would see the impact of turning off the economy for two years. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I call Sir Ashley Fox. \p Ashley Fox: During the general election, the Labour party said that it would not increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. It repeated that it would not increase taxes on working people. In its manifesto, it said it would increase spending by only £9.5 billion and that that was to be paid for by £7.3 billion in extra taxes and £3.5 billion in extra borrowing. That was a modest plan with a prudent margin. It was a plan put forward to the electorate to show that the party could be trusted with the public finances. My constituents might be surprised to learn, however, that if they now look on the Labour party website, that manifesto is rather more difficult to find than it was a couple of months ago.

It is fair to say that we Conservatives did not believe them, so we were not entirely surprised when, within weeks of moving into Downing Street, the Chancellor told the country that she would have to raise taxes after all. She had apparently found a magical £22 billion black hole. I say “magical” because nobody other than the Government seemed able to locate it—certainly, the Office for Budget Responsibility could not find it. It was, of course, a fiction to give the Chancellor cover for what she always intended to do, which was a massive increase in taxes, borrowing and spending, because that is what Labour does. Dogs bark, cats miaow and Labour increases taxes, borrowing and debt.

In her first Budget last year, the Chancellor did not raise taxes by the £7.3 billion promised in the manifesto. She increased taxes by £40 billion. She increased borrowing not by the promised £3.5 billion, but by £32 billion. And believe it or not, she did not increase spending by the promised £9.5 billion. She increased it by £72 billion. The Chancellor imposed £40 billion of extra taxes on our economy. She increased employer national insurance, stamp duty and capital gains tax and she imposed extra taxes on family businesses and family farms, then she pretended that none of those were taxes on working people. \p Charlie Maynard: Will the hon. Member acknowledge that debt has risen from £0.5 trillion to £2.9 trillion from 2005 to 2026, forecast to March? That is nearly six times as much, and the great majority of that happened under the Conservatives’ watch. Yes, we can talk about covid, but covid is a very small portion of that—about £0.7 trillion—so what about the rest of it? Is anyone going to take any responsibility for that? \p Ashley Fox: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Liberal Democrats joined a coalition Government in 2010 with the Conservatives. We inherited a deficit of £156 billion in 2010—11% of GDP—and it took 10 years, to 2020, to reduce that steadily to 2% of GDP. For all the moaning and whining from the Labour Benches about austerity, what we were trying to do—as a coalition Government for five years and as a Conservative Government for the remainder—was to live within our means, and that is tough. That is really difficult. It is about improving public services, but without necessarily hosing money at them. We see that most successfully in  the field of education. In England we have seen a dramatic increase in reading standards and the standards of examination of English pupils caused by genuine reforms. That compares very favourably with what has happened in Scotland and Wales, where those reforms did not take place. The skill of government is in improving public services without always spending more money. The Liberal Democrats used to have a few Members who were called “Orange Book” Members. It is a shame there are so few of them left.

Who does the Chancellor think she is kidding when she says she has not increased taxes on working people? Try telling the farmers in my constituency that they are not working people, or the young family where both parents work and are saving to pay the stamp duty on their first home. As Labour Members will recall, that first Budget was not well received, so to draw a line under her broken promises, the Chancellor said:

“We’ve now wiped the slate clean. It’s now on us. We’ve put everything out into the open, we’ve set the spending envelope for the course of this Parliament. We don’t need to come back for more.”

Except we know that that is not true. She is coming back for more. She is now set to break that promise again by putting up taxes again. \p Jerome Mayhew: Does my hon. Friend have any idea why the Chancellor has changed her mind or what it is that has affected her decision? Just a year ago, she said that she did not need to come back for more, but now she says she does. Has there been any great global shock, or does he think the problem lies closer to home? \p Ashley Fox: I would suggest two reasons. First, our economy has slowed down as a result of the very tax increases that the Chancellor has imposed. Secondly, the feral Labour Back Benchers have made them lose their nerve. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor therefore cannot control public expenditure in any way at all. The British people are already paying the highest tax burden in 70 years and Labour wants to increase it further. It is sad to say that this Government have no clue as to how the economy works. I genuinely believe that their Front Benchers want to reduce unemployment, but have they ever considered that if they increase employer national insurance charges and the cost of employing labour, businesses might use less of it? If they pass an Employment Rights Bill that increases the cost of labour, might businesses use less labour? Might that be why unemployment has increased every month since they took office? Is that why unemployment increases under every Labour Government?

Labour is just as ignorant on the effects of taxes and spending. If the Government tax entrepreneurs, there will be less enterprise. If they increase benefits, they should not be surprised if it becomes more attractive to claim them. Unfortunately, Labour’s answer to every question is more spending because, of course, it is what they do best: spending other people’s money. We never hear about its plans to improve efficiency or get better value for the taxpayer because there are no such plans.

Labour’s higher taxes and borrowing are leading to higher unemployment and lower growth. We are in a doom loop created by the Chancellor, and if we are to revitalise our economy, the first step is for the Government to control public expenditure. That is why we have outlined our plans to reduce expenditure by £47 billion.  We will reduce welfare spending by £23 billion. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and other high-spending left-wing parties, we would keep the two-child benefit cap. We would reduce the size of the civil service to where it was in 2016, saving £8 billion, and reduce overseas aid by a further £7 billion. We would use those savings to cut both borrowing and taxes to bring about a new spirit of enterprise and confidence in our country.

It is ironic that it is the Conservatives calling today for the Government to stick to their manifesto promise not to increase taxes. The British people will notice if they break that promise for a second time. \p Caroline Nokes: That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister. \p Gareth Davies: I am grateful to be able to respond to the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition.

Let me start by thanking everybody from both sides of the House for their contributions, but in particular those on my side of the House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) pointed out the impact of the family farm tax on his farms in Shropshire and that 6,000 farms across the country have closed. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who is sadly not in his place—probably on the phone to his mother—spoke well about Harlow and his mum. I particularly enjoyed the bromance emerging between him and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer).

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) spoke well about the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions on the Gosport employment market. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said a good quote by Margaret Thatcher. As the MP for Grantham, I particularly appreciated it, but it still rings true today about spending other people’s money wisely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) rightly highlighted that not a single Liberal Democrat Back-Bench MP has turned up, which I agree is completely shameful. We did hear from the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who had the temerity to talk about our country’s reputation when it is his leader who is prancing about in a wetsuit falling off paddleboards—slightly ironic. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who made a number of important interventions, pointed out that every Labour Member should ask themselves the same question every morning when they wake up, “Who voted for this?” None of them have a mandate for further tax rises, just as they did not have a mandate for last year’s jobs tax increase. They must know this. The proof is right in front of them. Labour has over 400 Members of Parliament and fewer than 10 have shown up. I was going to say that they have come to defend the indefensible, but they have not even done that. None tried to defend the indefensible; we just heard more and more speeches about the past, while their constituents are living in the present.

I think that Labour Members know that the upcoming Budget is surely the beginning of the end. The Government have lost control. Just when the Prime Minister should be focused on fixing their mistakes, he is instead having to oversee co-ordinated briefings against the apparent plots to depose him by his own Health Secretary. It is troubling, to say the least, that the Prime Minister seems more worried about the damage coming from inside his own Cabinet than about the damage already done outside it. The truth is that the Labour party will not be forgiven. Socialism has failed everywhere and every time it has ever been tried.

We should not forget that Labour won the last election because it promised not to be a socialist Labour Government. It said that it would not fiddle with the fiscal rules to borrow more money. It said that it would not increase national insurance, income tax or VAT. It said that it would not pursue ideologically driven policies that would push up energy bills—in fact, it said that it would cut those bills by £300. Unfortunately for the country, this has very much turned out to be a socialist Labour Government after all: higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower confidence, and an economy put into reverse—back to the 1970s. That is felt in every boardroom, every workshop, every pub and every place of work across this country. The best thing that the Government can do right now is take responsibility for their actions and show leadership. After just 16 months of Labour, inflation has doubled, taxes are heading for record highs, borrowing has risen rapidly and unemployment has surged to the highest level since the pandemic. And none of that takes into account what may yet be to come.

We know that the Chancellor deliberately picked the latest time possible for her upcoming Budget, in a last-ditch hope that someone, somewhere might come up with something that makes it all better. The date of 26 November is a highly unusual one for an autumn Budget. The last time we had a Budget this late, phones still had aerials, Mark Morrison was “returning the mack”, and we had to rewind VHS tapes before taking them back to Blockbuster. If only we could rewind the past 16 months; sadly, we cannot. \p Ashley Fox: Does my hon. Friend agree that this very long lead-in period for the Budget has caused enormous uncertainty for businesses, which have faced a string of briefings in the media about every possible tax rise, and that the very date that the Chancellor has chosen for her Budget is itself causing more uncertainty and delaying investment decisions? \p Gareth Davies: I could not agree more. In fact, markets and investors have now endured week after week of reckless and irresponsible speculation, not about whether Labour will put up their taxes, but about which taxes will go up. The endless uncertainty that my hon. Friend mentions has caused relentless Treasury kite-flying that has damaged confidence. There are so many kites in the air but none of them is tied to an actual plan.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said it well: everyone seems to be looking over their shoulder to see who the Chancellor will come for next. That cannot be what Labour MPs want in the run-up to Christmas. They have a chance tonight to reaffirm the promises that they made to all their constituents. It should be their easiest vote this year. Their core manifesto commitment, which won them the  election, is printed in black and white in the motion. To fail to support the motion is to confirm to each and every one of their constituents that Labour is content to betray their trust. Be in no doubt, the country is watching. \p Dan Tomlinson: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions today, as well as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his opening remarks, and the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) for summing up for the Opposition. He was Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for a time under the last Government, and he will know just how busy the period two weeks before a Budget can be for a junior Minister in His Majesty’s Treasury. I imagine that when he was in my position, 14 days out from a Budget or autumn statement, with officials rushing in and out of his office with advice on various measures, and a day full of meetings trying to get the details right, there was nothing more he would have wanted in the world than be called to the House for an Opposition day debate. I thank him and the shadow Chancellor for calling this debate at such a crucial time in the Budget-setting process.

I expect some interventions during my remarks over the next 10 to 15 minutes, and I encourage Members across the House to play what I will call Treasury Minister bingo. If I am asked questions about the upcoming Budget, I intend to respond with, “The Chancellor will make all decisions on tax and spend at the Budget, and I will not comment on speculation.” We can see how many interventions we get, and how many times we get to play Treasury Minister bingo. That is just to forewarn those who, like me, perhaps enjoy a game of bingo— \p Joe Robertson: rose— \p Dan Tomlinson: We already have an intervention, so here we go. \p Joe Robertson: I appreciate that this is the end of a debate and the Minister is trying to be funny, but a lot of constituents I speak to do not find this period particularly funny, and would like the Minister to confirm that his Government will stick to their manifesto pledge. Please can the Minister not respond with the word “bingo”? This is a really serious matter. \p Dan Tomlinson: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Chancellor will make all decisions on tax and spend at the Budget, and I will not be commenting on speculation. I have said that is what I will say if people continue to intervene. We are two weeks out from a Budget, and I will not be commenting on speculation from the Dispatch Box today. \p Jerome Mayhew: I have heard what the Minister says and I do not ask him to comment on the Budget, but can he confirm whether he thinks that manifesto pledges are important? \p Dan Tomlinson: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask questions about the manifesto, I am glad that he is interested in the change that this Government are bringing through their manifesto. We have invested in our NHS  and introduced new taxes on non-doms. We have introduced free breakfast clubs, and invested in HMRC to reduce tax avoidance—we will come on to talk about that, after the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). We have set up Great British Energy, and we are implementing the National Wealth Fund. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Dan Tomlinson: Let me make a bit of progress if I may—I will happily take a further intervention in good time. It is a sorry fact, but it is true that Conservative Members squandered their time in power, just as they squandered much taxpayer money. After 14 years of failure they left people paying more for less, and enforced a policy of austerity for too long, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) spoke about in his contribution. That policy brought public services to their knees—something we needed to fix—and saddled us with so much debt that we now pay £1 in every £10 of public money in debt interest payments alone. I agree with the contribution from a Conservative Member who said that that is not a morally acceptable situation, but that is the situation we inherited, and one that we intend to change. Over the course of this Parliament the international comparisons bear out, and we are on track to reduce the deficit that we inherited faster than any other G7 economy. That is the stability that the Chancellor is returning to the public finances. \p Laurence Turner: The Minister has just spoken about public services and touched on productivity. At the start of the debate, the shadow Chancellor talked about the importance of timely public sector pay settlements to productivity increases. Having been a union official in the aftermath of the strikes by ambulance workers, I have some insight into this issue. Ministers in the previous Government said that they wanted productivity increases, but negotiators for the Government had nothing to suggest on productivity links and they were asking the trade union for ideas. \p Dan Tomlinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his years of work and experience supporting public sector workers and our proud trade unionists.

Conservative Members have mentioned the statistics that have been published of late. There is much that we need to do to ensure that the investment that we make in the NHS comes with improvements in productivity and output. The Health Secretary was talking about that today in reference to our reforms to NHS England, and about ensuring that we are not duplicating spending in both the Department for Health and Social Care and NHS England. I thought that Conservative Members were against quangos, but it turns out that they are against that reform. \p Jerome Mayhew: I am encouraged to hear that the Minister wants to link increased funding with productivity increases. In that spirit, why was the resident doctors’ pay rise not linked to any productivity increases? \p Dan Tomlinson: In the end, in order to sort out the strikes we needed to give public sector workers a fair deal. The situation that they were left in was not fair, with their wages going up significantly less than prices over the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power.  The Health Secretary has been clear about not wanting to go as far the pay settlement demanded, but the situation that we reached last year is right and proportionate, and we hope that we can continue to invest in reform of our NHS. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Dan Tomlinson: Let me make a bit more progress—I am only on page 2 of a six page speech—[Interruption.] I am taking many interventions, but I will take fewer.

The previous Government saddled us with much debt, as we have talked about, with £1 in every £10 of public money going towards debt interest payments, perpetuating a stop-start cycle of public investments that left us with roads full of potholes, train lines that cannot even make it between London and the north of England, and an unpredictable business environment, with business taxation going up and down all the time. All that gave us an incredibly narrow base for regional growth, with few parts of the country forging ahead, while too many in the rest of the country fell behind.

Levelling up was a Conservative slogan, not a solution. Instead, this Labour Government are growing the economy and lifting living standards in all parts of the country, investing in infrastructure to get Britain building again, and working with local leaders and Members of Parliament to build pride in place and revitalise communities. That is the change that we are bringing. The Conservatives had the opportunity to invest in our public services, to upgrade rail, roads and connectivity, and to protect our NHS, but instead they threw money around with little regard for its value.

A key factor in our stalled productivity is that, time and again, the Conservatives had the option to choose economic responsibility, but they chose political convenience instead. The austerity that they pursued after the financial crisis, when interest rates were at record lows, was a sledgehammer to our economy, gutting public services and cutting the essential flows of investment that would have aided a faster recovery. As the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) said, and as Liberal Democrat Members are wont to mention, they then went ahead and implemented a rushed and ill-conceived Brexit deal that brought extra costs to businesses and extra disruption to trade. When the pandemic arrived, our country was not ready. Our public services and our economy have been severely weakened. \p Gregory Stafford: As I told the hon. Member yesterday, he has the second worst job in Government, which I think he is feeling today. Even if what he has just said is true—I do not agree with him—after the Budget last year, the Chancellor said that the slate was wiped clean and that no more tax rises or borrowing would be needed. What has changed between then and now? \p Dan Tomlinson: I was glad to attend the hon. Member’s Westminster Hall debate last night on wine producers across the UK. I am impressed by his close reading of all the words of members of the Cabinet; I hope one day to be as diligent as him in following the utterances of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and all Ministers.

When it comes to the inheritance that this Government and the British people are dealing with, let me say that if wage growth since the financial crisis continued at the pace that it had before, it is not that families in my constituency, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and across the country would be £1,000 or £2,000 a year better off; they would be £12,000 a year better off. Imagine the difference that that would make to the businesses and communities across our country if we had not had that productivity stagnation.

In the end, we will see at the Budget that the OBR is implementing its review of productivity. I will not pre-empt that review, but it is right and proper that we ensure our fiscal forecasts are based on accurate understandings of what has happened in the past to our productivity, because the past is a guide to the future. I hope that this Government will continue to beat the outcomes that happened under the previous Government, when productivity almost flatlined, and that is exactly what this Budget will be about. \p Jerome Mayhew: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Tomlinson: I will happily give way—it might be the final time I do so. \p Jerome Mayhew: My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) asked the Minister a specific question. In October last year, the Chancellor said, “We are not coming back for more. We have wiped the slate clean. From now on, it is on us.” What has happened between then and now? What has changed? \p Dan Tomlinson: One of the things that has changed is that Conservative Members seem to have found £47 billion down the back of the sofa and are coming forward with plans that are not deliverable, just like they did when they were in government. They have done the job of a losing Opposition—we have been there in the past—whereby numbers used in opposition are not serious or credible. We all know where that ends up.

The Conservatives said recently that they would slash taxes and pay for it with £47 billion of fairyland spending cuts. For context, that is the equivalent of firing every police officer in the country. Of course, I am not saying that they will do that or that they have joined the “defund the police” brigade, but what would they do? We do not really know, because all we have is a menu without a price list. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: One unexplored area we could look at to raise some of the money we need is selling the brass neck of the Conservatives on the commodities market. Having cheered when Liz Truss delivered her mini-Budget, they now have the gall to lecture us about fiscal responsibility. \p Dan Tomlinson: And the Conservatives have the gall to lecture us about managing the public finances well. They say that they want to cut civil service numbers. Between 2016 and when the Conservatives left office, there were 130,000 more civil servants. The former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and former Prime Minister said that he would cut civil service numbers by  91,000; they then went up. In October ’23—when the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), was in my role—the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) unveiled an immediate cap on civil service numbers and pledged to cut them by 66,000; they then went up. Between May 2022 and July 2024, the numbers went up in every single quarter. I am not sure that the public would leave the Conservatives’ restaurant at all satisfied if they bought the items on their menu, because everything they have promised does not seem to turn into reality.

I will conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Mark Garnier: More! \p Dan Tomlinson: Hon. Members want more! Okay.

If this debate has taught us anything, it is simply this: not only do the Conservatives need to stay in opposition for longer, but I am sure that they will do so. So far, they have learned nothing from their time on the Government Benches. There is no humility for their mini-Budget, no plan for giving Britain a brighter future, and no grasp of the realities that the country and the world face. They also have no will to face up to reality, to show leadership or to make choices that will support our public services, businesses and citizens.

Meanwhile, this Government have given the country the fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of the year. We have raised wages and living standards, and the Bank of England has cut interest rates five times because of the economic stability we have brought, which has reduced mortgage payments and lowered the cost of borrowing. This Government have increased public investment in capital spending by over £120 billion over the course of this Parliament, building for the future—something that the Conservative party failed to do. That is the difference that a Government with British values at their heart can make. At this month’s Budget, we will put those values into practice again, with fairness and opportunity for all so that we can secure our economy, strengthen our public services and lift living standards for the British people.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 316.

Question accordingly negatived. \p Nusrat Ghani: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (b), in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State to move the motion. \p Claire Coutinho: I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to introduce a plan for cheap power by cutting public expenditure to remove the ‘Carbon Tax’ (UK Emissions Trading Scheme) from electricity generation and end Renewable Obligation subsidies; notes that the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world and the second highest domestic electricity prices; further notes that high power costs are holding back economic growth and making households poorer; believes that cheap energy is essential to enable economic growth, the expansion of the artificial intelligence sector and the electrification of heating and transport; further calls on the Government to stop the Allocation Round 7 auction, which will lock consumers into high energy bills for decades; also notes that three quarters of the UK’s energy needs are met by oil and gas, and recognises the vital contribution of the North Sea industry to the nation’s energy security, to skilled employment, and to the public finances through billions of pounds generated in tax revenue; notes that shutting down domestic oil and gas production would increase reliance on foreign imports with higher carbon emissions; and also calls on the Government to end the ban on new oil and gas licences and to scrap the Energy Profits Levy in order to maximise investment in that sector.

Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills for everyone by 20%, and under it, we take a common-sense approach to British energy security by backing the North sea. The plan recognises that the biggest problem the country faces is the cost of our electricity. It is a problem for living standards, for industry, for artificial intelligence and for electrification. The focus of any Government should be making electricity less expensive, not more expensive, as Labour’s plans will. They should be about making electricity cheap. Under our cheap power plan, we would axe the carbon tax—which has gone up by 70% this year under Labour, pushing up everybody’s energy bills—and scrap the renewable obligation subsidies, which result in some wind farms get three times the market price for electricity.

I would like to start by thanking the Liberal Democrats, who came out this morning as backing the second part of our plan. I would also like to thank Reform, which appears to have copy and pasted the plan wholesale, and the Tony Blair Institute, which just two weeks ago said that we need to ditch Labour’s disastrous clean power plan in favour of a cheap power plan that takes off carbon taxes. That sounds familiar. \p Graham Stuart: Even before my right hon. Friend came into the Department and asked for a whole-system energy cost analysis when I was the Energy Minister, our strategic objective was to be among the countries with the cheapest electricity prices in Europe by the 2030s. Does she have any idea why the Labour party has now dropped that as a strategic objective? \p Claire Coutinho: I thank my right hon. Friend, who is so knowledgeable on matters to do with energy. He is right: the only people who have not got the message are Labour Members, who are on the wrong side of this debate. The Secretary of State promised to cut bills by £300, but bills have gone up by £200 since the general  election. I warned Labour Members over and over again that this would happen, but they did not listen. Now, under their plans, energy bills will keep on rising. They might not want to hear that from me, but they should listen to the trade unions, or to energy bosses, who came to Parliament just a few weeks ago and, in a bombshell moment, said that even if gas prices went to zero, bills would still rise because of Labour’s plans. I would hazard a guess that their view is shared by the Prime Minister, given that he tried to sack the Secretary of State at the last reshuffle. What does the Prime Minister know that these guys don’t, I wonder?

Our electricity is already some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also the most expensive. If we want people to adopt electric cars or electric home heating, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want artificial intelligence or industry to succeed in this country, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want people to have a better standard of life, so that they can spend more money on their families than on their bills, we need to make electricity cheap. Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills by 20%, and not just for a favoured few, whereas Labour is pushing up bills for 22 million families to give handouts to 6 million. Our plan would cut bills for everybody—households and businesses. It would mean £165 off the average family’s bill, but even more if they spend more—and we could do it now. \p Jim Allister: When the right hon. Lady speaks about “our country”, does she include Northern Ireland? Would her motion extend to Northern Ireland? Unfortunately, we are subject to EU regulations, which on 1 January will introduce the carbon border adjustment mechanism; so in addition to the iniquitous Irish sea border, there will be a carbon border. Her party brought that about. What does she intend to do about it in the future? \p Claire Coutinho: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise the plight of Northern Ireland. As he knows, there is a single energy market on the island of Ireland, but we need to cut electricity costs for everybody, right across these isles.

The first part of our plan would be to axe the carbon tax. The carbon tax on electricity pushes up the price of gas, wind, solar and nuclear, and it has gone up by 70% this year, thanks to the Government’s policies. We asked Labour Ministers about this, and they pretended not to know anything. We warned them not to put the tax up, and they said it was a Conservative scare story, but here we are. The Secretary of State blames gas for high bills, and I am sure the Minister will do the same in his speech, but a third of what we pay for gas is a carbon tax that the Government choose to impose. If the Secretary of State thinks that the price of gas is too high, he could take off the carbon tax and cut the price of gas by a third tomorrow. Guess what? That would make wind, solar and nuclear cheaper, too. Every time someone blames gas, it is like them complaining that their bath is overrunning when they will not turn off the taps. It is in the Government’s gift to axe the carbon tax. It has gone up because of them, so what are they waiting for?

Secondly, when the wind blows, there are wind farms in this country getting three times the market price for electricity, thanks to renewables obligation subsidies.  That is clearly mad. The Secretary of State doubled those subsidies when he had his last chance to ruin the energy system. We closed the scheme in office, but it is time to scrap it.

Those two policies would cut people’s electricity bills by 20% now, in time for winter—and in time for us to be a world leader in AI, and to stop the crippling redundancies in the industry that are coming down the track. Instead of taking up those policies, the Labour party is doing something very different: it is intent on locking us into higher prices for longer.

The results of the Secretary of State’s botched wind auction will become clear in January. When the Government promised to cut bills, the cost of electricity was £72 a megawatt-hour. Last year, they locked in a fixed rate of £82 for offshore wind, and this year they are offering up to £117. These are fixed-rate, inflation-linked contracts, and they have extended the length of those contracts, so we will be paying these prices for 20 years. Essentially, they are signing us up to a 10% fixed-rate mortgage for 20 years, because they do not want to be on a 4% variable that moves around. The problem is this: if they sign up to higher prices than the current cost of electricity—this is before we include all the extra costs of wind, such as paying to turn it off when it is too windy, and paying for back-up when it is not windy enough—how will that cut bills? There will be higher prices for longer. Those are the prices that not only you and I will pay, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that our children will pay. \p Luke Evans: We saw this in the health service, with the private finance initiative; £13 billion of investment became £80 billion of public debt to pay back. Does my right hon. Friend worry that Labour seems to be following exactly the same principle by locking in these high future costs for our children and for the country? \p Claire Coutinho: That is exactly right, and I will come on to that point in a moment. Everyone remembers those contracts. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; the Secretary of State is signing us up to this century’s PFI, but this time, the cost goes straight to our energy bills. \p Andrew Murrison: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Government could at least be consistent in their management of contracts for difference and auctions? Does she share my bemusement at the fact that they have dismissed one way of providing about 7% of our grid requirements in fairly short order, which is accepting the interconnector between Morocco and the UK? That would bring reliable solar and wind-powered energy to the UK. \p Claire Coutinho: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the reliability of electricity, which is what we need. We need electricity that will work in the winter when the sun is not shining, or when the wind is not blowing.

The question I would ask is this: why is the Labour party signing up to those high prices and locking all our constituents in for 20 years? It is because the Secretary of State is in the pocket of the wind developers. These are  the highest prices for wind power that we have seen in a decade. [Interruption.] Ministers might shake their heads, but that is just a fact. It is much higher than the price of electricity right now, so why would they be buying more than ever before at the highest prices in a generation and fixing those prices for 20 years? I say this to Labour Members: if their constituents are saying to them—which I am sure they are—that their bills are too high now, what will they say to them in January, when it will be the Labour party that locks them all into even higher prices for longer? \p Perran Moon: Can the right hon. Member remind the House which party was in power when we reached cripplingly high energy prices that led to the cost of living crisis that we have today? \p Claire Coutinho: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I was Energy Secretary, bills came down by £500. Under this Secretary of State, they have gone up by £200. What he needs to explain to his constituents is why signing up to higher prices on inflation-linked contracts for 20 years will fulfil the promise he made to those constituents to cut their bills by £300. I wish he could explain that.

It is worth Labour Members listening to this. From the Tony Blair Institute to the most respected energy economist, Sir Dieter Helm, everybody has pointed out this risk to them. It has not come to them without warning, the fact that they are signing up to prices much more expensive than gas for decades. They are on the wrong side of this debate and they are on the wrong side of consumers. Come January, when the results are published, everybody will be able to see that. And they will ask them: were you warned? Did you do your job in Parliament and speak up for me and my bills? Here is the problem. Their whole position is not driven by what is best for consumers; it is driven by ideology. Nowhere is that clearer than in their war on the North sea. When Scottish Renewables says that Labour’s policy on oil and gas is damaging the transition, surely even Labour Members must realise that they are on the wrong path. \p Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. Friend is making a very able speech explaining why the clean power 2030 action plan is so ruinous for consumers. What she has not mentioned is that trying to connect up this very dispersed array of wind farms across the North sea requires an enormous amount of new infrastructure. We now know that the load factors are being reduced, so we will require 30% more wind turbines to create the same net zero effect. The wind farm investors themselves do not have to pay the full infrastructure costs for connecting all that up; it is the consumers who pick up the bill. So, there is another hidden subsidy for wind power that is not reflected in the guaranteed prices that are already being paid. \p Claire Coutinho: My hon. Friend is, as ever, an expert on this issue. If we look at the price cap and why it went up recently, it is those hidden costs. It was the balancing costs, paying wind farms to turn off when it is too windy. Next year, the network costs are about £100 per family. He is absolutely right that we have to look at all the extra costs that are coming down the track. \p Saqib Bhatti: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am really worried about my constituents who will face higher bills going into winter and beyond. The message is clear, is it not? This Labour Government have the power to get bills down, but they are making a choice not to do so. \p Claire Coutinho: My hon. Friend is exactly right. These are political choices and the Government should reflect on them.

When it comes to the North sea, we know that we will need oil and gas for decades to come—even the Climate Change Committee acknowledges that—yet thanks to the Government’s policies, we are paying Norway billions of pounds for gas from the exact same fields they are banning the British industry from drilling. \p Bill Esterson: The right hon. Lady was kind enough to go through her plan with me. I will be honest: I think there is merit in discussing some of the proposals—[Interruption.] No, it is not what Opposition Members think. There is merit in discussing some of the proposals on a cross-party basis, and I am sure the Government will do that. The motion talks about the highest industrial energy prices in the world and the second-highest domestic energy prices, but that was true throughout the Conservatives’ time in office. They grew and became a massive problem. It is something I came across in this place in my time here. What is it about the situation that she found when she was Secretary of State, and her predecessors found, that made it so difficult to address those very high energy costs? \p Claire Coutinho: I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for his time and willingness in going through the plan. Costs were not always so high; we actually had the lowest gas prices before the crisis, and we had lower electricity prices as well. What has happened is that we have switched a lot of costs into fixed costs, and those costs are increasing. It is something everybody is looking at, from the Tony Blair Institute to the trade unions—people right across the political spectrum. We need to address this issue because there is a huge amount on the line, whether that is growth or living standards. As I have said, AI is here in the near term; we cannot wait until the 2040s, which is the Government’s plan. Even then, it is not clear that their plan would bring down bills at all. \p Wera Hobhouse: Is it not the truth that the reason energy bills are still so high is because we still produce a lot of electricity by burning gas? Burning gas, which is sold on the global market, keeps energy prices high. That is the main problem. We need to decouple electricity from gas prices, and particularly to get away from gas. \p Claire Coutinho: As the Chair of the Select Committee was happy to spend some time with me on this, I hope that the hon. Lady would be too, because she might learn something. Some 40% of our electricity prices are wholesale prices, while 60% are fixed costs, which covers things like building out the networks, which is going up phenomenally under the Government’s plans, as even Ofgem has pointed out; it also covers switching off wind farms when it gets too windy, which we spent £1 billion on this year, and will spend £8 billion on in 2030. I urge the hon. Lady to go and look at the numbers.

Our imports of foreign gas, which has four times the emissions of British gas, have soared because of what the Government are doing to the North sea; they were up 40% year on year at the beginning of this year. When the unions, the chief executive of Octopus and even the chair of Great British Energy have said that we should keep drilling in the North sea, do Government Members not wonder whether their Secretary of State has got this wrong? \p Martin McCluskey: indicated dissent. \p Claire Coutinho: The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but nothing I have said there is factually incorrect. \p Dave Doogan: Will the right hon. Lady give way? \p Claire Coutinho: I will make a little more progress.

The truth is that, with the winter fuel payment cut, the promise to cut bills by £300, shutting down the North sea and supposedly achieving clean power by 2030, their Secretary of State has told Government Members to back policy after policy that unravel as soon as they meet reality. Time and again, he has made them look like fools.

There are hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line as well as billions of pounds in tax revenue. In fact, the Government would have to pocket less tax from working people at the Budget in two weeks’ time if they just backed the North sea. Never in my life have I seen a Government deliberately shut down a successful industry like this. It is economic vandalism based on student politics—no wonder their Minister got booed when he went to Aberdeen. The Government should scrap the windfall tax, end the mad ban on new oil and gas licences, and back our cheap power plan. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Dave Doogan: Will the right hon. Lady give way? \p Claire Coutinho: I will make a bit more progress, because other Members want to get in.

We heard a lot this morning about the different factions jostling to replace the Prime Minister, but I have an idea that they can all get behind. I say to the Blue Labour faction, “If you want to protect industry, you need cheaper electricity, so back our cheap power plan.” I say to the Blairites, “If you want to make the most of AI, you need cheaper electricity, so back our cheap power plan.” I say to the soft left, “If you care about lifting people out of poverty and improving living standards, then back our cheap power plan.”

Our plan will not just help 6 million households by jacking up the bills for 22 million, which is what the Government are doing—it is what the Minister will no doubt boast about when he talks about the warm home discount. Instead, it will cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone. Government Members should think about this: at the last energy price cap, the reason bills went up was not gas—Ofgem was very clear about that—but because of the political choices of this Secretary of State. He keeps making them defend the indefensible.

Speaking of the Secretary of State, where is he? Thousands of Aberdonians are losing their jobs—where is the Secretary of State? We are being locked into higher bills for two decades—where is the Secretary of State? We are missing out on an AI future—where is the Secretary of State? Since July he has bothered to come to the House to explain himself just once. He is a walking, talking cost of living crisis, and his mistakes will be with us for decades. If I have read the news correctly, he is apparently tucked away somewhere plotting his leadership bid. But let us be honest, the country was asked that question and it was very clear what it thought about the prospect of Prime Minister Miliband. He should stop plotting and start cutting people’s bills.

The final question I would ask Labour Members is this: are they not fed up? Are they not fed up of defending these policies that keep turning to dust as soon as they meet reality, of telling their constituents they will cut their bills when instead bills keep rising, and of being political mushrooms left in the dark and fed a pile of manure? We were all mushrooms once, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If this is going to be the one and only Parliament the Labour Members have, they should at least use it to do something worthwhile. They must stand up to the Secretary of State and stop him from locking their constituents into higher prices for longer. Put cheap energy first and vote for our motion tonight to back 200,000 jobs in the North sea, get back to growth and cut all our constituents’ electricity bills by 20%. \p Nusrat Ghani: For the record, I have never been a fungi. \p Martin McCluskey: I beg to move amendment (b), to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and insert:

“welcomes the extension of the Warm Homes Discount which this winter will provide £150 off energy bills for 2.7 million more families, taking the total households supported to around six million; regrets that the previous Government’s failed energy policy resulted in the worst cost of living crisis in generations; supports the creation of Great British Energy, to take back control of the UK’s energy system and provide energy security; notes that the Government is delivering the biggest nuclear building programme in decades, kickstarting Sizewell C nuclear power station, backing small modular reactors and investing in fusion power; further welcomes the consenting of enough clean power to provide power for more than 7.5 million homes across the country; also welcomes that the Government is bringing forward a plan for the North Sea’s energy future, and the creation of tens of thousands of jobs in nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen and renewable industries as a result of the Government’s clean power mission; and recognises the Government is putting the UK back in the business of climate leadership, for energy security today and the protection of future generations to come.”

For too long the British people have paid the price for a broken energy system and an over-reliance on imported fossil fuels. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the wholesale price of gas went spiralling, and as a result our typical energy bills nearly doubled in the space of a year. This was a direct result of successive Conservative Governments refusing to invest in clean, home-grown power while leaving our electricity grid to wither. In recent years, millions have struggled with fuel poverty, and  many still face enormous debts today. Their failure was a disaster for family finances, business finances and public finances.

As we head into another winter, the effects of this are still being felt by the many, but we must be honest: this was neither unexpected nor unavoidable. Since the 1970s, half of the UK’s recessions have been caused by fossil fuel shock. The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about our energy security, but instead of making us stronger and more secure, their policy of complacency, dither and delay left us completely reliant on petrostates and dictators to keep the lights on. \p Harriet Cross: I was just wondering whether the Minister remembers what else happened in 2022, around February time, that might have impacted gas prices. \p Martin McCluskey: I have mentioned the war in Ukraine in 2022, but this was not a crisis caused only by the war in Ukraine. It was a crisis caused by 14 years of under-investment—as I just said there, it was dither and delay. \p Graham Stuart: The Minister talked about honesty, which is ironic given where he sits at the moment, in the Government of which he is a member. The Minister is better than this. He was talking specifically about renewables. Less than 7% of our electricity came from renewables in 2010, and by 2024 the figure was approximately 50%. To suggest that the Conservatives did not transform and improve our renewable energy is a falsehood, and because I know he is a better man than this, I am sure the Minister will now withdraw the allegation he made. \p Martin McCluskey: The Conservatives are turning their back on the policy they followed for 14 years, which the shadow Secretary of State supported for years.

Bills did not rise because we built too many solar farms or wind turbines. As the Conservatives’ motion helpfully points out, we are still dependent on oil and gas for three quarters of our energy. Bills rose precisely because they did not build enough clean, home-grown energy. They were not ambitious enough. They buried their heads in the sand and accepted the status quo. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Before Matt Rodda makes his intervention, I want to be clear that the language we use also means that we do not accuse each other of falsehoods. \p Matt Rodda: I commend the Minister for his speech; I hope my words will reflect the seriousness of the issue in front of us.

Does the Minister agree that, sadly, the last Government fell woefully short on building new solar in particular? I think the statistics are very much along the lines of more solar being approved in the first few weeks of the new Labour Government than was approved in the whole term of the last Conservative Government. Will the Minister update me on those figures and provide a little more light and less heat in this debate? \p Martin McCluskey: I think I am right in saying that the projects that we have consented since last July would power 7.5 million homes through solar. The work being undertaken by the Secretary of State on the solar sprint will see us go even further on solar.

Let me make some progress. A year and a half ago, fed up with the status quo that I was talking about a moment ago, the British people voted for change. From the moment when this Government came into power, we have been laser-focused on our mission to make the UK a clean-energy superpower; that is the only way to strengthen our energy security, to bring bills down, to create a whole new generation of good jobs in the energy industries of the future, and to build a more secure, prosperous Britain for generations to come. \p Claire Coutinho: The hon. Gentleman just said that the costs of building more wind and solar farms had not fed through to bills. But if we look at Ofgem’s last price cap, we see that paying wind farms to turn off when it was too windy made bills more expensive. We have spent £1 billion on that this year; by 2030, we are projected to spend £8 billion. That is an enormous added cost. Those are consented wind farms that cannot get into the grid. \p Martin McCluskey: If we had built the grid as we had planned to, we would not be paying those constraint payments—that is the whole point. Every wind turbine we put up, every solar panel we install and every piece of grid we construct are helping to reduce our reliance on gas. \p Stuart Anderson: Will the Minister give way? \p Martin McCluskey: Allow me to make some progress.

In just 18 months, we have made the biggest investment in clean, home-grown energy in British history, with more than £60 billion of Government funding and a further £50 billion of private investment. As I said, we have consented enough clean power for the equivalent of 7.5 million homes, including nine new solar farms and offshore wind farms in the Irish sea and the English channel.

We have started building the next generation of nuclear power, including Sizewell C power station in Suffolk. We have set up Great British Energy, our publicly owned energy company that the Conservatives still oppose. That is already installing solar panels on hundreds of schools and hospitals across the UK, so that money saved on energy bills can go back into key services. We have kick-started Britain’s carbon capture and hydrogen industries as we lead the way on the technologies of the future. That is the immediate difference that this Labour Government have made to our communities. \p Dave Doogan: I suggest that the Minister does not crow too much about GB Energy, given that at the Scottish Affairs Committee the Scottish Secretary let the cat out of the bag about the 1,000 jobs—“Well, we never really meant 1,000 jobs at GB Energy, just maybe 1,000 jobs somewhere, some time.”

When will Labour lower people’s energy bills by £300? It sounds to me as if that is to be at some indeterminate point in the future. The electorate could rightly and justifiably have thought that Labour meant some time in the immediate future. \p Martin McCluskey: We have committed and remain committed to the reduction in energy bills laid out by the Secretary of State. The Scottish National party can oppose GB Energy as much as it wants, but the company will deliver good, high-quality jobs in Scotland. On what the hon. Gentleman said about the Secretary of State, I should say that jobs are being and will be created by GB Energy right across the supply chain. \p Perran Moon: Robert Gordon University estimates that 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have skills with medium or high transferability to the offshore renewables sector, making them well positioned for the transition. If the SNP does not want those jobs in Scotland, can the Minister please send them to Cornwall? \p Martin McCluskey: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will carry on arguing for jobs across the UK, but particularly in Scotland and not all in Cornwall.

I will make some progress on my speech. Even in the face of rapid progress across the country, some, including many on the Opposition Benches, still cling to the status quo of stagnation and decline. Those who suggest that we should simply generate more electricity and generate more electricity with gas, leaving billpayers across Britain— \p Harriet Cross: Will the Minister give way on that point? \p Martin McCluskey: If she will allow me to make progress, I will allow her to intervene. Those would leave billpayers across Britain to deal with the consequences. The reality is, as the shadow Secretary of State must know, that with our ageing gas fleet, half of which is more than 20 years old, in any scenario we would need to invest in rebuilding our power system. The truth is that replacing old gas plants with new ones would be significantly more expensive, and those costs would be met by consumers while also leaving us more exposed than ever to the global price of fossil fuels, over which we have no control. \p Bradley Thomas: Will the Minister give way? \p Martin McCluskey: The hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress.

The data shows that solar and onshore wind remain the cheapest power sources to build and operate in this country. When faced with a choice between investing in new, expensive gas and increasing our reliance on unstable fossil fuel markets, or the alternative of clean, home-grown energy controlled by Britain, creating jobs for Britain, bringing investment to Britain and powering Britain, really, there is no choice at all. \p Harriet Cross: The Minister just referred to the oil and gas sector as “the status quo” or something that we should be moving away from. Does he also mean the 100,000 jobs supported by that sector, the millions in investment and the billions that we get in revenue from that sector? Which part of that does he not support and which part of that does he not want to protect while we transition to new energies? It sounds to me like he wants to shut it down tomorrow. Those are my constituents, the local economy in my area and energy security for the country. He seems to be very willing to get rid of them. \p Martin McCluskey: The hon. Lady makes a timely intervention because I am about to address all those points in this section of the speech.

Nowhere is the transition more important than in the North sea. For decades, its workers, businesses and communities have helped power our country and our world, using all their skill to tackle mammoth engineering challenges in some of the most extreme conditions on the planet. There will continue to be a role for oil and gas, and the workforce will continue to play its part for decades to come, but we are also following the evidence. The reality is that oil and gas production has been falling for decades, by around 75% between 1999 and 2024. The North sea oil and gas industry has lost around a third of its direct workforce in the last decade; that is, 70,000 jobs lost during the time in which the Conservative party was in government, when it had no plan to deal with the transition.

We face a choice: do we continue to let that happen, do we abandon entire communities with no plan for the future, or do we act, creating new skilled jobs and helping our workforce to take advantage of the opportunities that clean energy brings? This Government have chosen to act. \p Bernard Jenkin: The Minister will let me explain why, in the Alice in Wonderland world of the Government’s net zero policies, it is right to import liquefied natural gas, which for some reason does not count in our carbon footprint, instead of producing our own gas, which would count but which would be cheaper, far easier and more carbon-efficient to produce in our own country. Why are the Government pursuing that ludicrous policy, which is self-harming the economy, making our trade deficit worse and losing tax revenues for the Government because we are not exploiting our natural resources? \p Martin McCluskey: We have been net importers of oil and gas since 2004. The Conservatives are making the precise point for us. We want to reduce the reliance on imports and we want to reduce the reliance on oil and gas by building clean, home-grown energy here in Britain. \p Graham Stuart: Will the Minister give way on that point? \p Martin McCluskey: One moment—the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress.

We have been investing billions in carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind. We are also providing up to £20 million of funding from the UK and Scottish Governments to ensure that the existing workforce benefits from new opportunities in new industries, including through the oil and gas transition training fund, which provides thousands more offshore workers with bespoke careers advice and training. \p Paul Waugh: My hon. Friend references Scotland. I was at COP26 in Glasgow the last time we had a Conservative Prime Minister who showed real climate leadership on the global stage, yet we have now seen the sad spectacle—and we will see more of it later today—of a party that had a distinguished tradition of environmental protection and climate change reality  running away to the Reform vote, which is an empty one. Does the Minister agree with the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who said:

“Certainly in my party, it’s all about bashing the green agenda, and personally I don’t think we’ll get elected on that. I didn’t see us soaring in the polls as a result of saying what rubbish net zero is. I didn’t see a massive leap in support for the Conservatives”? \p Martin McCluskey: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and interesting point.

It is interesting to see this turnaround by the Conservatives. I am struck by something the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said before:

“Look, nobody’s saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was the eminently sensible thing to do. We need to decarbonise and we need to have an ambitious target to aim for.”

I have a page of quotes here from when he backed net zero and the policy of this Government. His former leader, Theresa May, whom I think he was Parliamentary Private Secretary for, said:

“To row back now would be a catastrophic mistake…the science remains the same…We owe it to our children and grandchildren to ensure we protect the planet for their futures, and that means giving business the reassurance it needs to find the solutions for the very grave challenges we face.”

By turning their back on all this, Conservative Members have built a coalition that includes businesses and members of their own party who are now turning against their new policy on clean energy. \p Suella Braverman: As we are trading quotes, we now learn that energy bills are set to rise by hundreds of pounds because of the Government’s green levies. That is not just my opinion; it is the evidence of Centrica, of Octopus Energy and of EDF. Is the Minister seriously coming to this Chamber and saying that some of the biggest gas and electricity suppliers to the country are wrong? \p Martin McCluskey: I am coming to this Chamber and saying that we need to continue to invest in building out the grid. That is what that levy pays for, and those companies that the right hon. Lady has mentioned know that that is what it pays for. If we fail to do it, it will lead to higher bills for consumers across the country. \p James Naish: As someone who has actually worked in this industry, I appreciate a lot of what the Minister is saying. I have also noticed the gap in the narrative coming from the Opposition, because it was in 2017 that Theresa May’s Government took the decision to close the gas storage facilities that would have helped with a lot of the pressures we have been talking about. Does my hon. Friend agree that this requires long-term vision, and that perhaps the Conservatives were not as good at this as they are now claiming to have been? \p Martin McCluskey: That really gets to the heart of the point, which is that the Conservatives are abandoning their long-term commitment, which was in the national interest and on which we had consensus across this Chamber. They are abandoning the national interest in favour of what they think is their short-term political interest. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Martin McCluskey: I would like to make some progress on what I was saying about the North sea. We are working with industry and the Scottish Government to extend the energy skills passport, making it easier and quicker for oil and gas workers to bring their expertise into new sectors. In the coming weeks, we will also publish a response to our North sea energy future consultation, setting out the framework for building a world-leading offshore clean energy industry in the North sea. \p Andrew Murrison: The Minister’s constituents, like mine, are worried about their electricity prices right now—not in 10 years’ time or 20 years’ time, but right now. They are paying the highest electricity prices, bar one, in the world and the industries and businesses on which they rely are paying the highest electricity prices. A third of the wholesale price of electricity is the carbon tax. There is a solution here, is there not? It is to reduce this ridiculous carbon levy. \p Martin McCluskey: The other solution is that we get off gas—that we move away from gas on to clean power. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the warm home discount, which is giving support to one in six households across the country this winter, is providing £150 of support—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) dismisses that, but it is essential support for families and the most vulnerable people in our country who need it.

We must not lose sight of the fact that clean energy is the economic opportunity of this century. Since July 2024, the confidence instilled by our clean energy mission has seen £50 billion of private investment announced for clean energy, creating jobs, strengthening supply chains and rejuvenating industrial communities across the country. Our carbon capture clusters will support over 35,000 highly skilled jobs in Merseyside, Teesside, the Humber and Aberdeenshire, including 1,000 apprenticeships. Sizewell C will support 10,000 jobs at peak construction. Our small modular reactor programme, for which Rolls-Royce is the preferred bidder, will support 3,000 jobs in Northern Ireland, and £100 million has gone to Belfast harbour to support two new major wind farms in the Irish sea, creating more than 300 jobs. In East Anglia, future offshore wind projects are supporting another 100 jobs. In Carrington in Greater Manchester— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. The Minister will be aware that many people hope to contribute, so I hope he will come to a conclusion shortly. \p Martin McCluskey: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With that in mind, I might not take further interventions from hon. Members.

In Carrington in Greater Manchester, there will be 200 jobs in the region—I could go on. All those jobs are what the Conservatives are turning their backs on—the new clean jobs of the future.

While we sprint towards our clean energy goals, we are also doing everything we can to protect those who have borne the brunt of this crisis. As I said, the warm home discount is providing support to an extra 3 million households this winter. We are working with Ofgem to relieve the burden of energy debt that many consumers face. To support British industry, from next year 500 of  our most energy-intensive businesses will get a cut to their bills, with thousands more firms getting discounts in 2027. \p Gareth Snell: The Minister will know that one of the most energy-intensive industries in the country is the ceramics sector, which cannot go off gas because the technology simply does not exist to change the kilns from gas to electric—that process cannot happen. Under the Conservatives, the sector was excluded from the current supercharger scheme. Will the Government please consider—we beg again—extending the current supercharger scheme to include the ceramics sector, so that we can bring down the electrical costs that it incurs while not being able to look at the gas prices? Thousands of jobs are on the line and places like Stoke-on-Trent need this help. They need it now, and we would be most grateful for anything the Government can do. \p Martin McCluskey: I know my hon. Friend is a champion for that industry and for his constituents. I will pass that on to colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, who will look at it.

The previous Government stood idly by as jobs went overseas, but we will not. Through our industrial strategy, we are taking action to reduce industrial electricity prices. We are introducing the British industrial competitiveness scheme from 2027, which will reduce electricity bills by up to 25% for over 7,000 eligible British businesses.

If we want to create new good jobs and revitalise our industrial regions, we must seize the opportunity to make Britain a world leader in clean energy. This is the economic opportunity of the century. The Conservatives seem to want to double down on their record of failure. Do they not want to remember that their failed energy policy caused the worst cost of living crisis in memory for British families? Do they not want to recognise that their plans would mean jobs, investment and growth going to other countries, rather than into our communities? Do they not realise that their plans undermine the very confidence that British businesses now have in the energy transition? Now is not the time to turn to old solutions that have utterly failed, but to seize the incredible opportunities ahead of us. Now is the time to build our clean energy future. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, to ensure that most people can get in, Back Benchers will be on a four-minute speaking limit. \p Tim Farron: When this country is at its best, we rise together to face challenges and threats. We roll up our sleeves and deploy ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit to meet those threats and challenges head on. That is what we need now: a collective patriotic endeavour to tackle climate change, cut bills and ensure that our economy is based on cleaner and cheaper British energy sources that will not run out and that are immune from the whims of foreign dictators—what is not to like? Sadly, there are colleagues in this House who do not like that, who are against that patriotic endeavour to secure the  future for our children and grandchildren. It is not for me to speculate on their motives, but for the security of our country and the good of our future, we certainly need to ensure that those people never get anywhere near power.

Let’s start with the one part of this motion that we can all agree on: energy bills are far too high. The typical family has to pay £60 a month more than it did five years ago. British businesses still face some of the highest electricity prices in the OECD. That is bad for the cost of living, bad for business and bad for economic growth, so we must bring energy bills down. The simple question is, how? \p Noah Law: The hon. Member is making a spirited speech that gets to the heart of what we are all trying to address. There are fiscal levers that we can pull to ensure that we bring down bills. Does he share my sense of disbelief about the irony in the Conservatives’ earlier motion suggesting that there should be no further tax rises of any kind while they are simultaneously willing to propose a set of multibillion-pound measures to scrap all those levies? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Back-Bench speeches are already limited to four minutes. If interventions are long, the limit will drop further. Please be mindful of that. \p Tim Farron: I will limit the number of interventions that I take, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Conservative party had a record of being, or at least presented itself as, the party of sound money. This appears to be a decision to move away from that and instead to chase after our permanently absent colleagues. \p Jim Shannon: The cost of energy bills for the average household will be £1,775 this year. Charities indicate that energy companies are owed £4.4 billion by UK households. Does the hon. Gentleman fear, as I do, that the vulnerable and needy will be unable to heat their houses this winter because of the money that they owe? They cannot take on any more debt. \p Tim Farron: Fuel poverty is a reality and a stain on our country. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it on behalf of his community.

Let us get to the heart of this debate. We must bring energy bills down, and the question is how. I am afraid that the plan put forward by the Conservatives is nothing more than a mirage. They say that we should cut bills by removing the renewable obligation levy—that is great. As always, we are ahead of them and have set out our plan to do just that, but the key difference is that our plan is properly funded through a windfall tax on the extra payments that the big banks are getting as a result of quantitative easing. The plan in this motion is funded by the Conservative hand wave—a classic these days—of saying, “We’ll just cut spending.” What happened to the Conservative party being the party of sound money? \p Luke Evans: rose— \p Tim Farron: I will let the hon. Gentleman explain. \p Luke Evans: In the previous debate, we talked about tax, and the funding that the hon. Gentleman mentions was also being used to deal with the tax burden on the high street. Will he explain the Liberal Democrat policy? How would they levy these taxes on social media giants and big banks, and where would that money go? It seems as if they are spending it twice in one afternoon. \p Tim Farron: That is not the case. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning two of the sources of the additional income that we would raise. It is all very well just to blandly say, “We will get the money from somewhere,” but not to say where. The Liberal Democrats have said where we will find the money. His party has done nothing of the sort. The people who support sound money and wise economics are leaving his party in droves, and many of them are coming to the Liberal Democrats. \p Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Tim Farron: I will not because we need to let other people speak later.

Given the Conservatives’ record in government and the complete lack of detail about which spending they would cut, it is very rich that they are asking us for details—we have given some. Once upon a time, the Conservatives did not believe in the magic money tree, but today their plans seem to rest entirely on its fictional bounty. The only other part of their plan that would supposedly bring down bills is the scrapping of the current auction of new renewable projects altogether.

Let us remember what that would actually mean. It would cut between £11 billion and £15 billion of private investment in cheap, clean power. \p Claire Coutinho: It is not cheap! \p Tim Farron: The right hon. Lady says that it is not cheap. Over the lifetime of the projects, yes, it is cheap. Does the Conservative party not understand that the up-front costs are one thing, but the input costs over time—over 20 years—are as cheap as chips? This is basic economics, and I struggle to comprehend how a party that was in government for so many years has lost touch with reality so very quickly. \p Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point? \p Tim Farron: I will not.

That would be a disaster for our economy, our communities and our young people. Far from bringing down energy bills, it would make us even more reliant on imported fossil fuels, which are expensive. Energy bills skyrocketed in the past few years because of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That shows what a truly terrible idea this is. What happened to the Conservative party being the party of national security? That idea is long gone, too, alongside its commitment to sound money. Putin would profit, while British families and pensioners struggle.

The whole argument being put forward by the Conservative party, and by our habitually absent colleagues on the fourth row back, is that bills are too high because we are investing too much in renewable power. They say  that we should stop investing, scrap our climate commitments, and bills will magically come down, but it is just not true. It is not the price of renewables that is pushing up bills; generating electricity from solar or wind is now significantly cheaper than gas, even when we factor in extra costs for back-up power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. However, people are not seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power, because wholesale electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas, even though half of all our electricity now comes from renewables, compared with just 30% from gas. That is because the wholesale price is set by the most expensive fuel in the mix, which in the UK is almost always gas. That is not the case in some other countries in Europe such as Spain and France. \p Graham Stuart: As this is supposed to be a debate, will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Tim Farron: The right hon. Gentleman is being very persistent—go for it. \p Graham Stuart: One of the hon. Gentleman’s fantastical suggestions is that he has a way of breaking the link between gas and electricity prices. I do not know which model he wants to follow—that of China, or perhaps a Korean model—but will he please explain how exactly we do that? When I was the Energy Minister, I looked to see whether that could be done, and we could not find a way of making it work. I am really interested to see the Liberal Democrats’ detailed work, and for them to explain it to the House. \p Tim Farron: That the right hon. Gentleman was the Energy Minister makes me question the selection standards of the previous Prime Minister. How far do we need to look? The channel is not that wide. Look at France and Spain. France has nuclear, and Spain has renewable energy—[Interruption.] If people stop chuntering, I will explain. In Spain and France there is no reliance on gas, partly because of nuclear in France, and in Spain it is down not to nuclear but entirely to renewables. If the right hon. Gentleman had looked not very far away at the other side of the Bay of Biscay down in Spain, he would see that it is entirely possible. How do we decouple ourselves from reliance on gas? It is blindingly obvious: do not make it so that we have to rely on gas, and invest in renewables—it is so obvious that it is almost beyond belief that people who held that brief not long ago do not get it. Investing in cheap renewables, and making sure that people see the benefit in their bills—that is the answer.

The Conservative’s plan would rip up our crucial national commitment on climate change. I will not repeat quotations from previous Prime Ministers such as Baroness May of Maidenhead and Boris Johnson—Boris Johnson, now a moderate and a progressive by comparison, which is utterly stunning. It is distressing that the Conservative party has left behind traditional voters who do care about the environment and our economy.

Communities such as mine bear the brunt of the impact of climate change, as well as farmers whose businesses are blighted by ever-lengthening droughts and ever more severe floods. Communities such as Kendal, Burneside, Staveley, Appleby, and Grasmere are experiencing appalling flood damage. In just three weeks, we will note the 10th anniversary of Storm Desmond, which did hundreds of millions of pounds-worth  of damage to our communities, and devastated lives, homes and communities. An apparently once-in-200-years event happened only a few years after two once-in-100-years events. It is obvious that things are changing; do not dare to tell Cumbrians that climate change is not a clear and present danger.

Fuel poverty is worse in our area too, and 27% of our housing stock was built before 1900. Those homes have solid walls, and are hard to insulate and expensive to heat. North Westmorland has the least energy-efficient housing in the whole of England, with 17% of homes classed as either F or G, but we are well placed to provide the solutions. Our coastal waters hold huge amounts of latent energy, yet like the rest of the UK they are largely untapped for tidal power. Britain has the second highest tidal range on the planet after Canada, and we are making use of nearly none of it—what an absolute waste. \p Bernard Jenkin: On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Tim Farron: I will not.

Just think about all the jobs that could be created in Cumbria if we did that, all the cheap energy that we could generate and all the bills that we could slash. We have the big scale answers in our community, as well as the small scale ones. The Coniston hydro scheme has been hugely successful, but its future could be secured and the energy bills of the local community drastically reduced if only the Government would deliver the P441 code modification to make local energy markets a reality for us in the lakes, and across the United Kingdom, in every community. Local energy markets would open the floodgates—pun intended—for local schemes in every community, in every constituency represented in this House and beyond, so that households and businesses benefit from cheaper, cleaner energy created by people they know.

What would a real plan to cut energy bills, while continuing the UK’s leadership on climate change, look like? We have set it out in our amendment on the Order Paper: do not slash investment in cheap, clean renewables, but increase it, as we Liberal Democrats did when we were in government. We quadrupled the amount of renewable power generated between 2010 and 2015. We also say: make homes warmer and cheaper to heat with an emergency upgrade programme; and work with the European Union to trade energy more efficiently, cutting costs and reducing reliance on gas. In addition, we must end those expensive, old renewable obligation contracts from 20 years ago that impose levies on people’s bills and stop them seeing the benefits of cheap renewables, and move them on to cheaper contracts for difference, pioneered by the Liberal Democrats, to bring down prices and drive investment at the same time. Now, that is a real plan that treats the British people with respect, by presenting actual solutions, rather than vacuous soundbites.

In closing, the crushing poverty that millions endure as a result of eye-watering energy bills is real, and it is an outrage. The threat to our world and to our children’s future from climate change is real, and it is an outrage. Loving our neighbour means having a real and practical plan to tackle both. The motion does not provide that, but I am determined that we will. \p Andrew Lewin: I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss energy and climate change, although I am still reeling from the speech made by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). By my count, she talked more about mushrooms than about climate change.

The debate comes just weeks after one of the most deadly storms on record caused such destruction in Jamaica. The Imperial college storm model concluded that the storm was appreciably stronger and more dangerous because of climate change. We are debating this motion in the shadow of the UN Secretary General’s comment that humanity has failed to keep global heating to below 1.5°C. With that backdrop, it is sad to see such a defeatist motion put forward by the Conservative party

That said, perhaps it is apt that we are debating the subject on an Opposition day, because the Conservative motion before us opposes many of the things that the party did in government. The Conservatives set up the UK emissions trading scheme in 2021, but now they want to scrap it. They introduced the levy on the oil and gas sector, but now they want to scrap that. The Climate Change Act 2008 was a Labour achievement that had cross-party support for many years, but now, most shockingly of all, the Conservatives want to scrap it. \p Bill Esterson: The Conservatives also privatised the national grid. We were warned at the time, in 1989, that that would not lead to massive investment from the private sector, and we are now living with the consequences of that lack of investment over something like 40 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that Conservative failure is another reason why we face such high energy bills? \p Andrew Lewin: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I will go on to talk more about why investment now is good for us, in both the short term and the long term.

We have a genuinely sad state of affairs. There have been Conservatives who have taken the climate very seriously, from Lord Deben, with his leadership of the Climate Change Committee, to the former Prime Minister Baroness May. I am even old enough to remember Lord Cameron, then Leader of the Opposition, imploring people to vote blue to go green. I know I do not look that old. The message is clear that the Conservative party is no longer interested in that, and I will address the rest of my speech to those in this place who are still serious about reducing emissions, protecting the planet and doing what is right for the next generation. \p Dave Doogan: Speaking of screeching U-turns, when the hon. Gentleman was campaigning for last year’s election, he told his potential constituents that he would lower their energy bills by £300. What is he saying to them now? \p Andrew Lewin: As I will go on to say, I am telling them that investing in a decarbonisation scheme and having warm homes is exactly the way that we get bills down. Just last week, I met Tina in Hatfield. Tina is a council house resident, and she benefited from the social housing decarbonisation scheme. Her home was retrofitted last year, with new insulation, triple glazing and a host of other improvements, and she is thrilled with the results. She told me, most importantly of all, that last winter, her monthly energy bill fell from £140 to £67 a month.

Tina’s experience proves that we can cut emissions and cut costs. It also proves that there is not a fight between fighting climate change and providing support with the cost of living; the two can and must work together. That is precisely why our Labour Government have expanded the social housing decarbonisation scheme, and why I am proud that funding for wave 3 will see more than 600 council homes in Welwyn Hatfield brought up to energy performance certificate rating C by 2028. \p Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. Under the last Conservative Government, we went from 7% to nearly 50% renewables. We cut emissions more than any other major economy on earth, but as has been said, we also saw electricity prices go very high. When I was the Minister responsible for net zero, we were looking at heat, transport and industry, and the fundamental way of decarbonising each of those is through electricity. How can we decarbonise them if we keep driving electricity prices ever higher? I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ideological fervour, but we have to get prices down if we are to take a balanced approach that looks after families and decarbonisation. \p Andrew Lewin: I recognise that improvements were made by the last Government, but if the right hon. Gentleman is listening carefully—I am sure he is—he will hear that that is the theme of my speech, and of comments from Government Members. It is so sad to see the Conservative party walk away from the Climate Acts and from being a party that takes these issues seriously. That is the sad thing, and that is what matters.

Hundreds more families in my constituency are about to enjoy the same experience as Tina, meaning that they can live in warmer homes and have dramatically lower energy bills. Upgrading our homes is the right priority; it is yielding results, and will continue to do so, but it will take time to scale that up across the country. The same is true of our investment in new nuclear power, the continued growth of all forms of renewables, and mandating that from 2027, every new home must have solar panels on the roof.

In parallel, the Government are right to recognise the urgency of now. Energy bills are down from their peak, but they are still significantly higher than before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, so it is absolutely right that we have targeted plans to ease the pressure on families on lower incomes this winter through the warm home discount scheme, which will reach 2.7 million families across the country and around 11,000 families in Welwyn Hatfield.

The Conservative motion reflects the sad journey of the Conservative party. At best, they are ignoring climate change; at worst, they are playing to the climate sceptics, who might be plentiful on Elon Musk’s X, but there are very few of them in this country or, I suspect, in the constituencies of Conservative Members. In contrast, this Labour Government are absolutely right to invest in warm homes, to back renewable energy and to declare that tackling climate change is, and will remain, a national priority. \p Stuart Anderson: I am delighted to speak in this debate, because this is such an important topic for many of my constituents across South Shropshire.  Both individuals and businesses need energy prices to come down—the cost is not sustainable, and it is on the wrong trajectory—and we need to be honest with the British people about the route for achieving that.

The Leader of the Opposition has clearly said that the net zero target is not achievable. We are being honest in this discussion. I believe that over the coming few years, all Members in this House will see that the target is not achievable, and it will be reversed. We are trying to bluff the British people—I think that is the word I would use—and make them believe that if we offset our carbon emissions and bring them down that way, it is okay to import all our energy. We have many more reserves that we can use before we need to bring in any energy from overseas; we can pull the reserves out of our ground and use them. There is a lot more that we can do on that.

Members may say, “We need to look at solar.” Let us look at rare earth metals, which I have spoken about several times in the Chamber. There are 17 rare earth metals, 90% of which are processed in or through China, which literally uses a scorched earth policy to pull them out of the ground. \p Perran Moon: The hon. and gallant Member has mentioned rare earth metals. The Government will hopefully come out with their critical minerals strategy before the end of the year. We have vast resources of critical minerals in the United Kingdom; why did the previous Government not invest, so that we are not reliant on China? \p Stuart Anderson: The hon. Member raises a very interesting point. China looked at this issue 30 years ago; when I went over to Australia about five years ago, the Australians were looking at it, and the US was looking at it, too. Every country outside of China has left this way too late. Putting in place a critical minerals strategy now is way too late, but we still need one in place. We need to look at this issue. All the magnets that we use in this country, including for MRI scans, require rare earth metals. That strategy should be in place today. We got that wrong—I am happy to admit that we did not get our rare earth metals strategy right—and it is costing us. Everybody is waking up to the need for that strategy, but we cannot say, “Let’s just pull those metals in from China; we are very happy for them to offset our carbon emissions over there.”

I also want to look at energy from a defence perspective. We need energy to ensure that we have strong defence. Recently, the Government committed to the NATO standard, which is to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence and 1.5% of GDP on defence-related areas. We should focus on article 3 of NATO—internal defence—and that 1.5% of defence-related spending should be focused on a couple of things, namely energy security and food security. I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and discussions are ongoing about how that money should be used. If our tanks do not have any fuel to get where they need to go, they cannot fight; that is before we even look at ammunition and things like that. Rather than saying, “We have to go faster on renewables,” we should be having the bigger discussion about national resilience and energy security. The world is the most unstable it has been since the second world war. We need something in place now, and we need to move to what is sustainable. Defence is key to that.

I have mentioned food security. Outside of Much Wenlock in my constituency, which has just been voted the happiest place to live in Shropshire—it is a lovely place to live—there are 600 acres of prime agricultural land that can grow food, and a beautiful view that is one of the best in the country. There is an application to replace it with 600 acres of solar panels. I have not found one person in the constituency who wants to turn that land into a site for solar energy; it is only the landowner who wants to. If we put solar panels all over it, as part of the roll-out of solar at speed—the Minister has mentioned that the Government are going quicker—we will be doing so with no regard for local people and what they want for their communities. This is really detrimental; the discussion about net zero is getting killed because local communities are being overridden.

I have talked about the speed of solar, and about defence and food security, but we also need to look at homes that are off the grid. In South Shropshire, only 42% of homes are on gas mains; many are off the grid. I think the average across the country is about 73%. Some of the Government’s plans that the Minister has set out are not working for a lot of off-grid communities. There are a lot of old homes in South Shropshire, many of them built pre-1945, that are too expensive to retrofit. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. \p Stuart Anderson: I will conclude with that. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Jeevun Sandher: Clearly, this country faces an affordability crisis. People cannot afford their energy bills or their housing bills, and that means more than just not being able to pay the bills—it means that they are losing faith in us in this place, because democracy is no longer delivering for them. We Labour Members want cleaner and cheaper energy, to ensure that people can afford their bills and do have faith in us, but there is another reason. The decisions we make now in this place will live on for decades—for generation after generation. The carbon we emit between now and 2050 will live, not just with us, but with our great-grandchildren and their grandchildren. It is so important that we get this right at this moment.

The motion tabled by the Conservative party backs expanding North sea oil and gas. That would not make our energy cheaper, and perhaps more importantly, it would not make us more secure. The Conservatives talk about a cheap power plan. They were in power for 14 years. We had the most expensive energy bills in the G7, with the highest inflation, because they left us dependent on natural gas—and what do we see today? Exactly the same plan all over again. Natural gas is setting our energy price for 98% of the time. It drove 80% of the increase in the wholesale cost, with 50% of the wholesale cost driving the increase in energy prices. How on earth can the Opposition today want us to relive and repeat those mistakes over and over again?

Let us talk about North sea oil and gas in particular. Taking all of it out, as the Opposition are proposing, would leave five years-worth of supply—and then what will we do? What will we invest in then? We will be dependent on natural gas over and over again. That is  exactly why we invest in the future. Moreover, the North sea gas bill is twice as expensive as those in the middle east, so it does not even make economic sense. \p Harriet Cross: Projections show that if we fully utilised the oil and gas in the North sea we could cover half our energy needs up to 2050, so there is a lot more in there than five years-worth, but even if it were true that there was only five years-worth, why would we be increasing our imports to cover it? Why would we not be using what we have, given that we will be a net importer for years to come in any event? Why are we closing down the North sea if, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it will all be gone in any case? It makes no sense. \p Jeevun Sandher: The gasfields that the hon. Lady is talking about are geologically unstable, and it is not even clear whether we can get them out. Only 20% of the reserves of the gasfields that we knew of in 1997 are left—and when we get to 2050, what will we do then? That is precisely why this Government are investing in clean, home-grown energy that is cheaper and more secure for the future, and we know that is the case because the Conservatives used to believe it too. You used to believe in net zero. You used to believe in the Climate Change Act. Look at how much you have changed. It is a deep shame. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I have not changed; I am still here. \p Jeevun Sandher: I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Our plan, which used to be shared across the House, is precisely to invest in cleaner, cheaper energy for all, because we know that wind and solar are 60% cheaper than natural gas. We know that because, after the capital costs, wind and solar are free. As for the network costs, we need to balance them in any case, and renew our grid. That too was an approach that we shared across the House, and it is a shame to see where we are.

Beyond investing in clean energy, which is cheaper, we are also investing in home insulation so that people use less energy at home and bills are lower for families, and they do have faith in us in this place. On top of that, we are redistributing the costs through the warm home discount and the standing charge. I am so glad that the living standards coalition put that forward. \p Gareth Snell: National Energy Action estimates that Stoke-on-Trent is No. 1 in the country for fuel poverty. According to its analysis, even if we reduce energy bills, as we will do, most of the energy will simply disappear through leaky windows, draughty doors and uninsulated homes. Does my hon. Friend accept, agree and acknowledge that there must be a twin-track approach, and that not only must we bring down the overall cost of energy, but houses must use less energy so that we are cleaner, greener and cheaper? \p Jeevun Sandher: The House will be shocked to hear that I do agree. This is about getting bills down for families, which is so important. When homes are insulated, that reduces energy demand as well, which means that our transition is easier and cheaper. When we build and insulate homes, that is not just good for bills, it is not  just good for people, but it is good for jobs as well—good non-graduate jobs, of which there are too few in our move to a post-industrial economy.

Most important of all, however, is getting carbon down for good. The decisions that we make now, and the carbon that we emit, will live with us for ever. Either we, in this place and across the country, will make these innovations and live up to our duty to this generation and those in the future—either we will stop emitting carbon, which will mean cheaper and cleaner energy, and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be thankful to us—or we will not. This is the moment for us to rise to. This is why we are investing in that cheaper, cleaner energy—yes, so that it gets bills down for good, but also to ensure that we live up to the promise we make to the generations to come. \p Katie Lam: No industrialised country has ever been able to succeed without cheap, abundant energy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) so rightly says, the Government must prioritise delivering cheap, abundant energy for households across the country. The plan that she laid out last month would knock nearly 20% off the average household energy bill by cutting the disastrous taxes that this Government continue to defend.

Not only do this Government plan to keep hitting families with extra taxes to fund their ideological commitment to unreliable and expensive energy sources, but they plan to make the situation even worse by shutting down energy production in this country and making us even more reliant on imports from abroad. Businesses can feel it: far too many are being forced to cut back or close their doors altogether, because the cost of doing business is simply too high. That means that pubs, nursing homes and family farms are all forced to make painful decisions because of this Government.

For industrial businesses, it is even worse. Some of the best well-paid jobs of the 21st century—in high-skilled manufacturing or in AI—rely on access to cheap energy. Those are jobs that can revitalise communities and enable people to build successful lives for themselves. Our competitors around the world understand that, but this Government do not. We need people to start new industrial businesses here, but why would anybody do so when the Government are only going to make their lives harder through their commitment to sky-high bills and intermittent, unreliable forms of energy?

Those on the Government Benches often talk of sustainability, but there is nothing sustainable about this situation. People across the country can feel it in their energy bills each and every month. Thanks to rising bills, many families simply do not have enough money left at the end of the month to save for a home, plan a holiday, or even send their children on a school trip. \p James Naish: This January, Centrica said this regarding Rough, the largest gas storage facility in the UK:

“If Rough had been operating at full capacity in recent years”—

which was a decision that was not taken in 2017—

“it would have saved UK households £100 from both their gas and their electricity bills”.

So does the hon. Lady agree that the sustainable thing to do would have been—and still is—to invest in gas storage facilities? \p Katie Lam: I thank the Member for his intervention, but we should still be investing in storage from the North sea; that is still the best storage that we have.

The real human cost of Labour’s plans on energy is that the cost of living crisis is being made even worse. And all the while, countries such as China and India continue to open new coal-fired factories. UK emissions are the lowest they have been since the 1850s, while China pumped out more carbon between 2013 and 2020 than Britain has produced over the past 220 years. That is not just because it is a bigger country; China’s per-person emissions are more than double the UK’s, and are rising. \p Julian Lewis: Can my hon. Friend throw any light on the apparent contradiction whereby the Government seem prepared to import fossil fuels—thus exporting our carbon footprint—but not to allow us to develop our own fossil fuel resources? Is it because they are afraid that, once we develop them, we will not want to stop using them, or is there some other explanation? \p Katie Lam: It is, unfortunately, a mystery to me. I do not understand why we would be making this trade. It is clearly a bad one. No matter how much we might wish it were otherwise, this Government cannot and will not make a dent in addressing global climate change. We are simply sending our emissions abroad while British businesses and families pay the price. People across the country are being forced to make hard choices because this Government will not face the facts and deliver the cheap, abundant energy that we so clearly and dearly need. \p Perran Moon: It is time for some home truths. The Conservative Government oversaw such a disastrous energy policy that it led to the worst cost of living crisis in generations. It started so well, and they just bottled it: they blocked wind power projects, failed to invest in nuclear, failed to invest in the grid, and were clueless when it came to solar, tidal and geothermal. Once again, it falls to this Government to clear up the mess left by the Conservative party, and we will not take any lectures from them on how to build a just transition to deliver long-term, sustainable, domestically produced energy to reduce bills.

Cornwall became a post-industrial land way before virtually any other part of the country, and anyone who visits Cornwall cannot miss the mines and wheelhouses that evocatively blend into our beautiful landscape. The Cornish Celtic tiger was tamed, but it is set to roar once again thanks to this Government’s commitment to critical minerals and the renewable transition. The hon. and gallant Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) mentioned critical minerals, and our resources of tin, which is used in virtually every electrical device, lithium, which is used in EV batteries, and tungsten will provide domestically sourced resources to accelerate our transition to renewables while creating thousands of jobs and, as he said, reducing our reliance on Chinese imports.

It is beyond me why that took so long, but it has now taken 15 months of a Labour Government to see the benefits in Cornwall. Why the previous Government did not invest in Cornwall I have no idea, but driving down the A30, we can see that our landscape has new  beautiful features, with wind turbines creating sustainable energy for local people. We have vast opportunities in wind, solar, geothermal and tidal, and Cornwall’s opportunities play a strategically prominent role in transitioning away from fossil fuels. \p Saqib Bhatti: The hon. Member is making the argument for exploiting our home resources so we do not have to import such resources from elsewhere, but that is exactly the argument when it comes to North sea oil, is it not? \p Perran Moon: No, absolutely not. I am talking about why the Conservative Government did not make the investment in critical minerals that this Labour Government identified straightaway. It was there, and has been there for decades—for centuries, in fact—and it has been ignored, so we are now reliant on Chinese imports. \p Bill Esterson: One of the challenges in bringing down energy costs is the up-front cost of the equipment people need to take advantage of cheaper electricity. My hon. Friend knows a lot about electric vehicles because he used to work in the sector, and he knows that the salary sacrifice scheme was the biggest single way of getting electric vehicles on to the road. Does he agree with me that the Government should look at a similar scheme for solar, battery, insulation and potentially heat pumps as a great way of enabling consumers to benefit from cheaper electricity? \p Perran Moon: I declare an interest, as the UK’s largest ground source heat pump company is based in my own constituency. I am a big advocate of ground source heat pumps, and I am hopeful that the Government will come forward with plans, particularly for social housing, to support that sector. My hon. Friend makes very valid points.

The opportunities in Cornwall would be scuppered without the likes of the round 7 allocation, and thousands of green job opportunities would be quashed. Opposition parties need to wake up. This Government are committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels, because to do so means that we will break free from the shackles of the wholesale gas price. We can control supply, and in doing so we will reduce domestic and business energy bills, rather than continually being exposed to the whims of the likes of Mr Putin. I know that some Members—maybe they are not here at the moment—quite admire Mr Putin, but this Labour Government, and, I suspect, those who are paying through the nose for Putin’s whims and the previous Government’s failure to invest, do not.

Talking of ideology, I must ask this question: what is it about the oil and gas-backed, climate change denying opposition parties that make them feel so threatened by the green energy transition? \p Harriet Cross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Perran Moon: I will not give way because of time, and I know that other Members are still to speak.

Opposition Members’ constituents will not thank them for blocking access to sustainable, low-cost energy, and Ministers know that we on this side of the House fully understand and support the transition, with interventions such as the warm home discount, which I do applaud. I urge Ministers to continue to ignore the siren calls and  to pursue the path to long-term, cheap renewable energy, lowering bills and regenerating areas such as Cornwall that were long abandoned by the Conservatives. The previous Government lost the plot on energy, but this Government are taking back control of our energy industry. \p Alison Griffiths: My constituents are looking at their rising energy bills, already the second highest in the world, with a real sense of fear. People should not have to choose between heating and eating because of the direct choices—the political choices—of the Labour party.

It is not just residents I am hearing from. Many local organisations, from hospices to food manufacturers to the local pub, are worried about the rising costs. The Secretary of State’s ideological attacks on North sea oil and gas production are devastating not just communities across Scotland but high streets right across the country. Businesses are already struggling with lower footfall as customers rein in spending, worried about the security of their own jobs. It is a doom loop and the Government simply do not get it, but our small businesses do—businesses such as Wicks Farm in my constituency. It produces some of the best strawberries in the country, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would love to invite you to try. David, its director of agriculture, feels that there is no plan and no support—not for energy, not for infrastructure and certainly not for growth.

Rich and Mark, who run East Beach Guest House, a beautiful boutique hotel on the shoreline of Littlehampton beach, tell me they face a cliff edge of costs imposed by the Chancellor: the jobs tax, the family business tax and the costs of the Employment Rights Bill, as well as eye-watering energy bills. The Government are an existential threat to small businesses, and the families and communities they support. Enough is enough.

The reality is that every pound spent just to keep the lights on is a pound not spent in our shops. When businesses suffer, we lose jobs, skills and the very places where people meet, work and build a community. That is why I welcome the work done by the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) in setting out what we on the Conservative Benches will do to support families and businesses right across the country. \p James Naish: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Alison Griffiths: I will not, given the time constraints.

Our cheap power plan would axe the carbon tax, scrap renewable levies on household bills and put money back into the pockets of hard-working people, because if we give families certainty and give businesses room to breathe, the growth will follow. This is how we build an economy that works for everyone, not just on paper, but on every high street and in every town. \p Rebecca Paul: More people are now recognising that all is not well with the current approach to energy policy or net zero. That matters because the  cost of energy is deeply tied to the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and the security and resilience of our country. It therefore follows that any energy policy which sees us spend £250 million per month to import energy from Europe because our own production cannot meet demand can only be called a failure and a security risk.

The country urgently requires an energy policy that is realistic, reliable and rooted in the pursuit of prosperity, yet what successive Governments have legislated for has been anything but. The net zero agenda is not working and it is time we were honest about that fact. The target may have been well-intentioned, but the current pathway is unaffordable and unworkable.

What many people will be wondering is, how did we get to this point? To address that, we must look back to the Climate Change Act 2008. When the Act was passed, it was the first legislation in the world to set a legally binding national framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it applies only to territorial emissions; that is, emissions that occur within the UK’s borders. This means that while it can be made to look as though we are meeting our climate targets, with a reported 54% reduction in territorial emissions since 1990, we are in fact exporting an increasing share of our emissions elsewhere. This phenomenon, known as carbon leakage, occurs when UK-based industries shut down or relocate overseas to avoid high carbon costs, only for the UK to continue importing the very same goods, often with higher embedded emissions.

Net zero by 2050 may lower UK emissions on paper, but perversely, it is also driving up global emissions in real terms as we become more reliant on imports.

Several forces contribute to this situation. First, UK electricity prices are now among the highest in the developed world, driven in no small part by net zero policies. Secondly, under the UK emissions trading scheme, firms in energy-intensive sectors must buy allowances for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit—a cost their foreign competitors may not face. Thirdly, the rise of green finance regulations such as mandatory environmental, social and governance disclosure and climate stress testing has constrained domestic investment into high-emissions sectors, even as our competitors around the world forge ahead without similar constraints. \p Tom Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Rebecca Paul: I am going to continue, but thanks for the offer.

The economic consequences are now plain to see. Since 2021, the output of UK energy-intensive industries has fallen by around 35%. In sectors such as steel, petrochemicals and fertilisers, this trend is not theoretical, and the damage already done to once-proud industries is plain to see. At Grangemouth in Scotland, INEOS recently announced the closure of its ethanol production facility. Its founder, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, issued a stark warning at the time, saying that Britain is offshoring its emissions and onshoring virtue—we close plants here, import the same products from abroad, and claim we are greener.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the decision to reduce North sea oil and gas output in favour of increased imports. On paper, this slashes the UK’s territorial emissions, but in reality, it leaves us more reliant on volatile overseas markets, increases our net carbon footprint and surrenders billions in domestic tax revenue and thousands of skilled British jobs. We appear to have confused decarbonisation with deindustrialisation.

What do we have to show for years of adherence to the Climate Change Act and everything that came with it? We now have the second highest domestic energy prices and the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, with 12 million families struggling to pay their energy bills. I defy anyone to try to sell that as any kind of success.

The old orthodoxy has been tried and found wanting, and we now need a better way forward. That is what we are offering today with our cheap power plan, which delivers on energy security, supports economic growth and protects the public from unaffordable green extremism. \p Graham Leadbitter: It is vital that we challenge the bankrupt energy record of the UK Government—a record of failure that continues to punish Scottish workers, strip our national wealth and plunge families into fuel poverty.

The current policy being prosecuted from Westminster is not a sustainable plan. It is quite simply ripping jobs from the north-east of Scotland with nothing to replace them. Scotland is an energy-rich nation, abundant in both oil and gas, with world-leading renewable potential. \p Perran Moon: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 90% of the jobs in the oil and gas sector are easily transferable to the renewables sector? \p Graham Leadbitter: Yes, the jobs are transferable, but the work they can be transferred to needs to exist. It does not exist at the current time. The downturn in the North sea from a crippling fiscal regime is absolutely destroying those jobs and the skills that we need to get to that clean energy potential.

The SNP is clear in its support for a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector, recognising the maturity of the North sea basin and aligning with our climate change commitments. However, we must be absolutely clear that a just transition does not mean simply stopping all future oil and gas activity overnight, as that approach threatens energy security and destroys the very skills we need to transfer to net zero.

We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to approach decisions for North sea oil and gas projects on a rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. Instead, we have seen a fiscal and licensing regime that is actively destroying the highly skilled jobs required to deliver clean energy security.

The energy profits levy is a crippling tax on Scotland’s energy and we must see its end in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the consequences laid bare: Harbour Energy confirms a cumulative headcount reduction of approximately 600 roles since the EPL was introduced in 2022, blaming the “punitive domestic fiscal regime”. Meanwhile, a landmark report found that one in four  north-east firms has slashed jobs due to the tax. The decline in North sea oil and gas jobs currently outstrips the number of jobs created by the scale-up of the clean energy industry.

The loss of highly skilled offshore workers with transferable skills without the jobs to transfer to makes a mockery of the just transition. The Chancellor has the opportunity to fix this in two weeks. The question is: will she?

Furthermore, where is the support for the alternative? Labour promised that its flagship GB Energy project would bring down bills and create 1,000 new jobs in the north-east of Scotland, yet only 13 out of 69 employees at GB Energy are based in Aberdeen, while 31 are employed in London. Now we have heard the astonishing admission that creating 1,000 jobs was never the intention.

Let us turn to the soaring cost of living and the broken promises made to Scottish households. The Labour party promised to cut energy bills by £300 before the election, but the reality is that since the Government took office, bills have soared. Independent analysis shows that average energy bills could rise by £287 on their watch. To meet their original pledge, the Labour Government would need to cut bills by nearly £600. The situation facing Scots is completely absurd: we are an energy-rich country where bills are going up while energy jobs are going down. We produce enormous amounts of electricity, yet Scots pay among the highest energy bills anywhere in Europe.

Finally, we must address the UK Government’s ideological obsession with nuclear energy, which threatens Scotland’s transition to renewables. Scotland already has an abundance of clean, renewable energy—enough to power our country several times over. We do not need expensive nuclear power, yet Scots are being forced to pay for a nuclear power station they do not want and will not benefit from—and at great risk to our economy. I am speaking, of course, about the nuclear tax being imposed on Scottish households to fund the construction of Sizewell C in Suffolk. The plant is not expected to generate electricity until the mid-2030s at the earliest.

Furthermore, the long-term legacy of nuclear power is routinely ignored by Ministers. The true cost of the geological disposal facility for nuclear waste is now estimated to be up to £69 billion at current prices. The body responsible for the GDF project has described it as “unachievable”. This is an eye-wateringly large amount of money.

Whether it is the reckless fiscal regime destroying jobs in the North sea, the broken promises leaving families facing sky-high bills, or the imposition of a toxic nuclear tax to fund white elephants in England, Westminster’s energy policy—dictated to us by both Labour and the Tories—has been a complete failure. It is no wonder that more and more Scots are concluding that the only way to escape this repeated mismanagement and the only route to cheaper bills is through a fresh start with independence. It is time to put Scotland’s energy in Scotland’s hands. \p Aphra Brandreth: As we head towards winter, I am sure that, like me, many Members will have begun to receive emails from worried constituents asking how they will afford to heat  their homes this winter. The reality is that they were promised by this Labour Government that their energy bills would fall by £300. Instead, they have risen by almost £200. Britain now faces some of the highest electricity prices in the world, affecting everyone from families to businesses and communities. This comes down to one simple truth: this Labour Government are putting ideology before the British people. \p James Naish: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Aphra Brandreth: I will continue because of time.

For those who doubt this, let me set out the cost of the Secretary of State’s policies, with statistics sourced from his own Department. The UK now faces the world’s second-highest domestic electricity prices: four times higher than those in the US, with 12.1 million households struggling to pay bills and 43% spending over 10% of their income on energy. At a time when energy security is crucial, the Government are closing our North sea oil and gas sector—an illogical move that in reality will cost us jobs and billions in lost economic value, all while not actually delivering the environmental benefit that many people understandably want to see. Shutting down domestic production does not reduce demand. It just means importing more from abroad, often with a far higher carbon footprint. Why do this Government persist with an ideologically driven approach when even the chair of Great British Energy and the Scottish renewables sector have both called for continued drilling in the North sea?

The Conservatives have set out a clear and credible plan for cheaper energy. Of course I want a clean and healthy environment for this generation and future generations, but we also need to recognise the wider context. If we make wise and prudent decisions today to support our economy, and if we utilise the resources we have and encourage investment and growth, we will have a springboard to pursue a greener future.

My concern is that we are making decisions influenced by the Climate Change Act. By only counting domestic emissions, one could, for example, close industries in the UK and shift production overseas, resulting in lost jobs, revenue and growth. Yes, it would meet the requirements of the Act, but all the while resulting in increasing global emissions.

Good intentions are not matching the reality for families or for the environment. I support our plan to cancel the carbon tax on electricity generation, saving every household £75 a year, and to end outdated renewable subsidies, saving families a further £90 annually. Labour promised a £300 reduction in bills, but bills have risen by £200. That is the price of putting ideology over delivery and pragmatism. I urge Members to back the Opposition motion and back our cheap power plan. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Martin Wrigley has agreed to do three short minutes before we go to the Front Benchers. \p Martin Wrigley: The biggest issue in my inbox is the cost of living and the cost of energy in particular. In the south-west, we are a net  contributor to renewable energy, and we could do even more with tidal power investment. Yet our energy bills are higher than the national average. In my Newton Abbot constituency, we have higher fuel poverty than the average, and 23% of households in the district are in off-gas-grid areas.

Yet we face electricity bills based on the price of gas. That is because the electricity generation market is set up using so-called marginal cost pricing, which effectively increases the wholesale price of renewables to that of electricity generated by gas because gas power plants are flexible and used to top up the supply. Even though a significant and increasing proportion of the UK’s electricity is generated by sources with low marginal costs such as wind, solar and nuclear power, these generators also receive the higher marginal price set by gas.

Under the marginal pricing system, the UK’s electricity market price is set by gas 98% of the time—the highest rate across Europe and well above the EU average of just 40%. All that is under the Government-controlled system of contract to energy generators, to provide a level of certainty in the productivity and supply. But we have to break the tie with gas and marginal cost pricing.

The introduction of contracts for difference, used most significantly for offshore wind and introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in the Energy Act 2013, is a good step but it still relies on setting a strike price for energy, which is heavily influenced by the price of gas at the time of the deal. In the 12 months to September 2025, renewables accounted for 42% of the UK’s total energy mix, while figures for the second quarter of 2025 indicate that renewables made up a record 54% of electricity generation.

The answer for cheaper bills, according to experts, is to intervene in the design of the market to stop the cost of gas plants from setting the price for the whole market, not to increase the reliance on fossil fuels that are choking the planet to death with carbon emissions. \p Andrew Bowie: Two Labour promises gone in one day—that must be a record, even for this failing Government. We heard today confirmation that there is no way that the Government are going to cut energy bills by £300 by 2030. This is a party that campaigned on the pledge of cutting bills by £300, yet we have seen families’ bills go up. The party consistently blamed volatile gas prices, until the gas price fell; now it must confront the reality that its extortionate auction rounds, race to Clean Power 2030 and strangulation of our North sea industry are impacting households up and down the country. This Government have no plan to cut energy bills for the British people.

In comparison, our cheap power plan, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), would cut families’ bills by 20% immediately. Our cheap power plan would take £165 off the average electricity bill by axing the carbon tax on electricity generation, stopping the Secretary of State’s rip-off auctions and scrapping ridiculously expensive old renewable subsidies. \p Andrew Lewin: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not normally read in the Chamber—I do not think it is good form—but in this case I will. This is available on the shadow Minister’s website. He says:

“I am also proud of the UK’s world-leading role in tackling climate change…with the UK being the first country to introduce legally binding long-term emissions targets under the landmark Climate Change Act in 2008.”

He now wants to scrap that Act, does he not? \p Andrew Bowie: Yes, I do want to scrap that Act. We will scrap that Act because the cost to the British people is far too high and it is unsustainable. That is why we want to bolster domestic energy security by backing British oil and gas, supporting workers and reducing reliance on imports, which have soared as a direct result of this Government’s policies. \p Tom Hayes: Will he give way? \p Andrew Bowie: I will not because time is limited, and I want to give the Minister time to respond—oh fine, go on! \p Tom Hayes: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. On that same website, he talks about the deep emissions cuts that result from the Climate Change Act’s emissions targets. Does he agree with the website that were it not for the Climate Change Act, those emission reductions would not have happened? \p Andrew Bowie: I did not know that my website was such a go-to place for Labour MPs. I recommend they read some of the other things on that website, including the setting out of how our cheap power plan will reduce bills. \p Saqib Bhatti: I have not had time to go on my hon. Friend’s website, but I hear it is a good read. The fact of the matter is that he puts forward a policy that will cut energy bills—the opposite of what the Government are doing—create jobs in the North sea and ensure economic growth. Is that not the case? \p Andrew Bowie: Yes, and I recommend he looks at my website because everybody else in the Chamber seems to have done so by now. \p Wera Hobhouse: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Andrew Bowie: I will do so one last time and then I really need to make progress. \p Wera Hobhouse: I am interested in hearing what he has to say about cutting bills. Does he not recognise that the cost of letting climate change go on unmitigated is a vast one for every household in this country? \p Andrew Bowie: I remind the hon. Lady that, as she well knows, we cut our carbon emissions faster than any other developed nation on Earth and yet global warming is increasing. We need to encourage other countries to reduce their emissions, but we do not do that on the backs of British bill payers, who pay far too much for their energy. I thought the Liberal Democrats would be supportive of creating jobs and reducing bills and the burden on British people, but obviously they are not.

The Government’s policies have seen imports soar as a direct result. Those policies have been described as “naive” by the GMB; “incorrect” by the American ambassador; they will make Britain increasingly dependent, according to the Norwegian Government; they need replaced, says Scottish Renewables; and they lead to a “haemorrhaging” of energy jobs, according to none other than the head of Great British Energy, Juergen Maier. In fact, the only person who seems to think that this is a good way to manage our energy industry is the Energy Secretary.

This Government are sacrificing an industry and livelihoods, communities and prosperity on this mission, many of them in my constituency. The irony is not lost in the north-east of Scotland. We import more gas from abroad, from the very same sea that we are prevented from exploiting ourselves, and at a higher carbon footprint, while workers in Aberdeen and across the north-east of Scotland and the domestic supply chain across the United Kingdom see their jobs disappear. Aberdonians are incredibly proud of the fact that an Aberdonian accent can be found in every oil-rich nation on earth. Soon, the only place we will not find a Scottish oil and gas worker is in Aberdeen itself. One thousand jobs are set to be lost every month as a direct result of the policies of this Labour Government, because those people are leaving. They are off to the middle east, Australia, the far east, South America, Mexico, the USA and Canada—in fact, they are off to anywhere the British Labour party is not in charge of energy policy.

This successful industry is enduring a politically manufactured decline, made in Whitehall and devastating livelihoods across the UK and particularly in Scotland. This Government are demonstrating a reckless disregard for the industry, which for decades has kept the lights on in this country; an industry that we will continue to need for decades to come.

The oil and gas industry has been through challenging waters before. The 2014-15 global downturn and oil price collapse saw a contraction in operations and job losses. Yet the response could not be more different. In 2015, the Conservative Government commissioned the Wood review and initiated a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea. We recognised the value of the domestic industry and acted accordingly.

Our oil and gas industry is facing tough times again, but this time the downturn is only in the UK. Globally, the energy industry is booming. In the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the gulf of America, South America and Norway, activity is increasing, and New Zealand has just overturned the ban on drilling brought in by its previous Labour Government. The difficulties experienced in our domestic industry are the result of political decisions driven by ideology over pragmatism.

I very much hope the Chancellor is listening to us on these Benches, and to the workers in the oil and gas industry, their unions, the businesses, the Americans, the Norwegians, the renewables industry and even Juergen Maier, because we are at a critical turning point. The industry stands on a precipice. The Chancellor must act now. If she does not act now, at this Budget, the UK will not have a domestic oil and gas industry left to salvage. The real irony is that the Secretary of State, in his vitriol and zealotry, is jeopardising the future of renewable energy  in the North sea. As the Port of Aberdeen CEO said this week as he announced further job losses, our energy sector risks being “stranded” in limbo between the destruction of our oil and gas industry and a nascent renewables sector. Also this week, we saw Shell divest from offshore wind projects. The Government just do not get it. With their scorched earth strategy against our traditional offshore industries, they are decimating a skilled workforce and dismantling a world-leading supply chain. Talent and capital are moving elsewhere.

We need cheap energy, and that means all of the above: nuclear, gas, hydropower and innovative technologies, and renewables if it can be proven that they will cut bills. As this Labour Government rip the floor from beneath the oil and gas industry of today, they will soon realise that they are losing the workforce, the supply chains and the investment of tomorrow, but there is another way: our way. The Government should declare the North sea open for business, reduce our reliance on imports, get rid of the energy profits levy, build more nuclear—big and small—create energy abundance and cut electricity bills for families by 20% right now using our cheap power plan. They could do it but, blinded by ideology, I very much doubt they will. \p Michael Shanks: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their contributions in this short but punchy debate this afternoon. This issue of how we build an energy system for the future has rightly become a huge political topic—a conversation not just in this House but much more in the public domain than it has been for some time. Energy is hugely important, and that is why it is even more important that we rise to the occasion to plan a future energy system that works for everyone in this country and that is based on a credible long-term plan, not on what we saw from the Conservatives today.

It has been an interesting debate, not least because quite a lot of it seemed to contain the echoes of the Tory party of late debating with itself. We had mentions of Boris Johnson and Baroness May, and I think we have doubled the number of visitors to the shadow Minister’s website just in the past half hour. Of course, there are plenty of quotes to go around. We do not need to go right back to the dim and distant Boris Johnson days. We can go back just to 2023, when the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), said that

“the climate transition presents huge opportunities for this country and the people of this country when it comes to jobs, investment and improving our energy security.”

She apparently does not believe in any of that now. She said in the same speech:

“We are not rolling back from our targets at all”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 114-115.]

However, she stands here today and proudly seems to dismiss all those targets.

I was particularly pleased to hear from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) earlier. He seems to be the only person left in the Conservative party who is willing to defend 14 years of investment in renewables. Everybody else in the party  wants to turn their back on that investment, but I am delighted that he is here, in this debate and in many others, to remind us of his contribution. \p Graham Stuart: The Minister is a thoughtful person, and I think he will share the concern about North sea oil and gas, for instance. On the specific topic of renewables, we are proud of what we did, but under the Climate Change Act—which has no cognisance of what happens to the economy; it is just decarbonisation or bust—we now have extraordinarily high electricity prices. We need to decarbonise heat, transport and industry, and the main way to do that is by electrification, which puts us in a bind. That is why I believe we are right to look at getting rid of the Climate Change Act and look at a new, balanced system that recognises that we must balance economics with the righteous move towards tackling climate change. \p Michael Shanks: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman was able to have another opportunity to speak positively about the Conservative party’s record on renewables when no one else in his party seems to want to talk about that at all.

A number of hon. Members said that the reason we are still subject to the volatility of gas prices is that it still sets the price far too often. The only way that we will bring down prices in the long term is by removing gas as the price setter. That means that we need to build more renewables, but another key point that the Conservatives have missed is that they built lots of those projects while not building the grid to connect them. They talk about constraint payments, but that is the legacy of a party that for 14 years failed to build the grid that would bring significantly cheaper power to homes and businesses across the country. \p Wera Hobhouse: Is it not the truth that once the projects have been built, the energy is free? There is no commodity concentration, because the wind and sunlight cost nothing; there is very little cost apart from the installation. \p Michael Shanks: I would say that it is significantly cheaper to generate electricity from renewables, but I might not go quite as far as the hon. Lady does.

There is a false argument that because the wholesale price of gas is cheaper, we should simply rely on gas more. That completely ignores the fact that we have an ageing gas fleet in this country, and would have to build significant numbers of new gas power stations to take advantage of that price. The figure the Conservatives frequently throw around compares the construction costs of renewables with the cost of gas, not the cost of building gas power stations, whereas renewables have extremely cheap ongoing costs in the long run. \p Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister give way? \p Michael Shanks: Sorry, I will not. I have a great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I have four minutes to sum up this debate.

For a long time in our post-war history, there was consensus. It was fuelled first by the transformative discovery of gas in the North sea, but also by a protracted period of us not worrying about whether, when we  flicked on a switch, the electrons would flow. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine threw all that consensus away, and it threw into stark reality our dependence on gas power. By 2022, astronomic energy prices, which many of our constituents still face, shattered the complacent idea that continuing with the system we have known for a long time would work.

The answer is to build a system fit for the future. That will not be easy. Too often in this House and in our public discourse, we have come to believe that we can achieve difficult things by giving simplistic answers. This issue is complicated, and only by tackling the root causes of our dependence on gas, and the failure to build grids and the infrastructure of the future that we need, can we deliver not only long-term bill discounts for our constituents, but the energy security that we badly need. Most of our electricity grid was built in the 1960s and has not been upgraded since. It is holding back economic growth, but it is also failing to get cheaper power to people’s homes across the country.

The country faces two paths. From the Conservatives today, we have heard the status quo—the idea that we carry on as we have done, hoping that the volatility of fossil fuels will give us cheaper prices for a little while, until we get to the next spike and fail to protect our consumers. We have seen that time and again. In the past 50 years, half of the recessions in this country have been caused by our exposure to fossil fuels. We will not do the same thing again. We will not build an expensive monument to how we used to do things—to a system that let people down. We will deliver change and build an energy system for the future. That is why we are delivering our clean power mission.

I turn to the contributions on the North sea, which is a hugely important subject. I am afraid that I do not have quite as much time to sum up as I thought I might. It is important to recognise that the North sea has been in transition for a long time. Failing to recognise that does not help the workers in the North sea now. The status quo has led to a third of those workers losing their jobs in the past 10 years, and it has let down workers and communities. The failure to have a plan has let them down, but we will not do that. The status quo cannot be sustained, either economically or practically, so we will set out our future for energy in the North sea in the coming weeks. It will recognise the importance of creating new jobs and driving forward investment in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen. We will not talk down those industries, but we also recognise that oil and gas will be with us for decades to come. The workers who have powered our country for more than half a century will continue to have a hugely important part to play in our energy system and economy.

There are two paths ahead of us: ambition for our country, or the barely managed decline that we have all faced in the past 14 years; hope that we can build something better, or defeatism that says we should not tackle the climate crisis or build new infrastructure because it might be too difficult; building for the future, or the yellow brick road of nostalgia, which has let so many of our constituents down. All of us in this House want energy security, economic growth, cheaper bills and to improve people’s lives. What divides us in this place is our ambition. We are ambitious for the future of the country, for what we can achieve, and about  tackling the climate emergency. We will get on with that. The Conservatives need to learn the lessons of their 14 years of failure.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 336.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

Question agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the extension of the Warm Homes Discount which this winter will provide £150 off energy bills for 2.7 million more families, taking the total households supported to around six million; regrets that the previous Government’s failed energy policy resulted in the worst cost of living crisis in generations; supports the creation of Great British Energy, to take back control of the UK’s energy system and provide energy security; notes that the Government is delivering the biggest nuclear building programme in decades, kickstarting Sizewell C nuclear power station, backing small modular reactors and investing in fusion power; further welcomes the consenting of enough clean power to provide power for more than 7.5 million homes across the country; also welcomes that the Government is bringing forward a plan for the North Sea’s energy future, and the creation of tens of thousands of jobs in nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen and renewable industries as a result of the Government’s clean power mission; and recognises the Government is putting the UK back in the business of climate leadership, for energy security today and the protection of future generations to come. \p Nigel Huddleston: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today we had an urgent question on the process for appointing the Independent Football Regulator. In her response, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was unable to give crystal clear answers about the involvement of the Prime Minister in that process. This evening we learned from No. 10 that the Prime Minister did sign off on the appointment of David Kogan, who donated to the Prime Minister’s campaign—an involvement that the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser has called regrettable. Can you advise if the Prime Minister will make a statement? What alternative mechanisms are there for him to inform the House and update the record? \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of that point of order. I have not received any notice of a statement on this matter, but the Treasury Front Benchers will have heard what he has said and will no doubt share that information.   Other parliamentary mechanisms are available for pursuing such matters. I am sure that the Table Office will be able to assist the hon. Member, if he needs further advice. \p Graham Stuart: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Nusrat Ghani: I hope it is not a continuation of that point of order, because I have made my statement clearly. \p Graham Stuart: The Prime Minister is of course responsible for the enforcement of the ministerial code. If he has breached it, as appears to be the case, is there a role here for Mr Speaker? What other methods are there, not just for securing a debate on the matter in this place, but for the Prime Minister to be held to account for not doing what he is supposed to have done, and what his ethics adviser said he should have done? \p Nusrat Ghani: The right hon. Member is incredibly experienced, and will no doubt know that the ministerial code is not a matter for the Chair. He will obviously pursue all avenues available to those in the House—there are many—to continue this conversation. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Stephen Morgan.)

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 19 November (Standing Order No. 41A).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question agreed to. \p James Naish: I wish to present this local petition on behalf of my constituents in Rushcliffe, who have signed it to signal their desire for the centre of West Bridgford to have a dedicated Changing Places facility.

As debates in this House have repeatedly noted, Changing Places facilities are a highly valued initiative. They give people with disabilities, their families and their carers more freedom to participate in activities that the rest of us take for granted. I hope that both Rushcliffe borough council and the Government will take note of this issue.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire,

Declares that West Bridgford town centre, alongside many other town centres across the country, is in need of dedicated Changing Places facilities to make the town centre more accessible, particularly for families with children who have special educational needs and disabilities.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Rushcliffe Borough Council to explore reallocating funds to deliver Changing Places facilities in West Bridgford as soon as possible, and to make the delivery of Changing Places facilities a national policy priority.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003129] \p Liam Byrne: I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Ward End ward in Birmingham. The petition calls on the city council to safeguard children and parents around Thornton and Sladefield schools, where I have undertaken school gate surgeries over the past month. Right now, children are at risk from dangerous driving on Bamville Road and St Agatha’s Road. Implementation of a one-way system on those roads, together with a proper study of a one-way system on Chetwynd Road and St Joseph’s Road, would ensure safer children, happier residents and fewer damaged vehicles. This is now possible thanks to the hard work of the city council and its transportation lead, Councillor Majid Mahmood, and his decision to earmark £3.8 million of the clean air zone revenue budget.

The petitioners therefore request

“that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Birmingham City Council to implement a one-way system on St Agatha’s Road and Bamville Road in Ward End, to ensure the safety”

of children, residents and their vehicles.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of Ward End in the constituency of Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North,

Declares that Birmingham City Council, in collaboration with local residents, must seek to address the safety of local children around Thornton School, by implementing a one-way system on St Agatha’s Road, and Bamville Road.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Birmingham City Council to implement a one-way system on St Agatha’s Road and Bamville Road in Ward End, to ensure the safety of both residents and their vehicles on the roads.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003131] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Morgan.) \p Seamus Logan: I rise to address the Nolan principles. I wish I could say, as the dentist might, that the next 30 minutes should be pain-free, but I cannot; this is going to hurt, and it is not because of the Prime Minister’s current difficulties. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate.

Members will know that the seven Nolan principles are now part of the fabric of our public life in this country. We might have expected—in fact, we were led to believe in the Labour party manifesto—that this Labour Government would restore our faith in standards in public life. Sadly, like so many people, I remain to be convinced that this is the case. Time and again we have seen, and are seeing, examples of Ministers and others failing to meet those basic standards, particularly honesty, integrity, accountability and openness. Most recently, as highlighted by me in a point of order, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), made some very dubious claims from the Dispatch Box regarding water quality in Scotland. Those comments were repeated in writing to a Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government, on social media, and in broadcast interviews. Thank goodness for the Office for National Statistics, but I have yet to hear a clarification—or better still, an apology—from said former Secretary of State.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life published its last report and recommendations in November 2021, entitled “Upholding Standards in Public Life”. Among its findings were the following: that there still needs to be greater independence in the regulation of the ministerial code; that the scope of the business appointment rules should be expanded, and those rules should be enforced through legal arrangements; that reforms to the powers of the Commissioner for Public Appointments are needed to provide a better guarantee of the independence of assessment panels; and that transparency around lobbying is poor, and requires better co-ordination and more frequent publication by the Cabinet Office. \p Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Seamus Logan: I will take a brief intervention, yes. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Member for bringing this debate before the House. I was on Ards borough council from 1985, and the Nolan principles came in in 1995. They were very clear about the need for integrity, selflessness, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those principles were formulated to bring us into line, and when they were introduced in 1995, I was very grateful to have them. As public trust is at an incredibly low ebb, does the hon. Member agree that now more than ever, all elected officials must cling to those vital principles as a foundation of public service? \p Seamus Logan: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I will address his point later in my speech.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life noted that

“standards regulators in government are not sufficiently independent”

and that

“government needs to take a more formal and professional approach to its own ethics obligations. To address this, we recommend a number of stronger ethics rules; that standards regulators in government are given a basis in primary legislation; and that government develops a formal compliance function. The arrangements to uphold ethical standards in government have come under close scrutiny and significant criticism in recent months. Maintaining high standards requires vigilance and leadership. The Committee believes our recommendations outline a necessary programme of reform to restore public confidence in the regulation of ethical standards in government.”

Those words, written in the teeth of one of the most corrupt regimes in Downing Street that the country has ever witnessed, still hold true today, more than four years later.

In Scotland, the seven principles have been extended further with two additional requirements:

“Public Service: Holders of public office have a duty to act in the interests of the public body of which they are a board member and to act in accordance with the core tasks of the body.

Respect: Holders of public office must respect fellow members of their public body and employees of the body and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times.”

I recommend those additions for wider consideration.

Interestingly, just this summer the former Prime Minister John Major intervened again, telling the current Prime Minister that he needed to crack down on misconduct in politics and citing examples of scandals in political funding, the award of honours, lobbying, “unsavoury” behaviour, bullying and “Partygate”, as well as whole Governments breaking or bending the law and shielding their own colleagues from censure. His suggestions for improvement included asking the House of Lords advisory commission to scrutinise the suitability of political peerages as well as their propriety, about which I shall say more in a minute or two; giving statutory powers to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments so it can impose sanctions on former politicians and officials who flout time-limited lobbying bans; ensuring that the Government respond swiftly to recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life; new protections to prevent wealthy foreign interests from influencing politics through mega-donations—I understand that a cap on individual contributions is under consideration, which will be of interest to certain Ministers who have already received extensive donations from organisations directly supplying to sectors within their portfolios; and returning the Electoral Commission to its former status as an independent body free of Government guidance.

Labour promised an ethics committee in its 2024 manifesto, and has now, I understand, established an Ethics and Integrity Commission. One might hope that this body will make a significant contribution, ensuring the proper and full application of the Nolan principles. They are intended to apply not only to Members of this place but to those in the other place, and, in fact, to all public servants. But, as Harold Macmillan famously said, “Events, dear boy, events.” I give you the current civil war in the boardroom at the BBC, an organisation for which I have tremendous respect and remain a  critical friend. Many feel that this almighty mess may be traced back to the appointments process, which cannot be said to be as we would like it to be.

As for this place, when things go wrong, Government spokespersons tell us that their Ministers do the right thing in these circumstances, but it seems to me that they only do that when they are found out. We have seen an example on this very day. What hurts the most—this is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I will explain towards the end of my speech why it matters so much—is that this Labour Government have been mired in scandal almost from day one. They have accepted expensive glasses, suits, accommodation and clothing for relatives from wealthy donors. A peer has been allowed privileged access to 10 Downing Street and been involved in appointing advisers. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have used costly freebie tickets from lobbyists to attend football games or concerts. \p Scott Arthur: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on that point? \p Seamus Logan: If the intervention is brief. \p Scott Arthur: It will be very brief. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned tickets. As he will know, a Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary used a limousine to attend football matches. Surely that does not sit easily with him. Let me also point out that his party’s Government are running Scotland via Holyrood, and things have not always been above board there. I am thinking particularly about very senior members of his party deleting text messages relating to the covid inquiry, which was an absolute disgrace. Will he join me in condemning that action? \p Seamus Logan: It always strikes me as very strange that Labour MPs from Scotland who are keen to be elected here spend most of their time talking about events in Holyrood. Why do they not go up the road to the Parliament there?

I was talking about the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Furthermore, three junior Ministers have been forced out of office as a result of conflicts of interest in housing and entanglement in an overseas corruption case. [Interruption.] Members are chuntering from a sedentary position. They are not watching enough Parliament TV. No one can hear you at home—I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker; no one can hear them at home.

I can also cite the former Deputy Prime Minister’s resignation over underpaid tax on a second home purchase, and the forced sacking of the former United States ambassador, Lord Mandelson, over his close personal involvement with the late Jeffrey Epstein. What are we to make of the fact that Lord Mandelson still sits in the other place, while the former Duke of York has been stripped of his peerage? Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed invincible Baroness Mone—who, despite admitting to conducting herself in a less than totally honest way in her dealings with the media, and in other ways that, at the very least, fell well below the standards of conduct that we might expect—still has her seat in the other place.

Trust in politics is at an all-time low. In June 2024, four in five Britons said that they were dissatisfied with how they were governed, according to the British social attitudes survey. Other opinion polls show this Government to be the most unpopular in history, with the Prime Minister’s personal ratings at an all-time low—after only 16 months. The Nolan principles are now clearly integrated into the new Public Office (Accountability) Bill, exemplified by the new duty of candour. Duties and obligations are all very well, however, until you are the only person in the room doing the speaking or demonstrating candour.

Sadly, there is still a culture of fear across the public sector, and even in the BBC, in relation to speaking up. Unless the Nolan principles are backed up by proper protection for those who speak up—including a confidential and anonymous reporting platform—whistleblowers will be confronted with a choice: to speak up and potentially lose their career or their job, or to stay silent and potentially fall foul of the law.

An office of the whistleblower would relegate those choices to history and help to reduce or bring an end to the harm to the public. Such an office would be the very embodiment of the Nolan principles. So many of the scandals we have seen could have been prevented or limited if an office of the whistleblower had existed. I hope to join the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) when she meets the relevant Minister in the near future on this point.

To conclude, why does all this really matter, beyond the obvious need for high standards in public office? \p Patricia Ferguson: Will the hon. Member take an intervention? \p Seamus Logan: If it is a brief one. \p Patricia Ferguson: I am grateful. As the hon. Member knows—or at least I hope he does—I care deeply about these issues too, and in fact spent some six years on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in Holyrood, which was referred to earlier. Would the hon. Member be content if the Scottish Government were to seek a Sewel motion on the proposal he is suggesting, so that this could be a cross-UK initiative, rather than just one that focuses on this place? \p Seamus Logan: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but of course I am not in a position to speak for the Scottish Government. Once again, Labour Members are referring to matters in Holyrood rather than the place to which they were elected.

As I was saying, this matters because, in the context of a disastrous loss of confidence in the behaviour of public servants—including us—and in the face of a dramatic loss of public trust, is it any wonder that people do not take part in the democratic process any more? Is it any wonder that people might consider voting for parties on the far right? Is it any wonder that we see trouble on our streets? \p Richard Foord: The hon. Gentleman talks about people considering voting for parties on the far right; the former leader of Reform UK in Wales of course recently pleaded guilty to eight  counts of bribery. Lord Nolan highlighted the need for openness; does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with £4.6 million in suspect donations coming from overseas, we need to take measures against the foreign Governments and state-linked groups intervening in our politics? \p Seamus Logan: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he is obviously agreeing with the point that I made earlier.

This matters because the behaviour we are seeing is simply unacceptable. Is it any wonder that snake-oil salesmen and saleswomen obtain support? History teaches us that, when the people lose faith in the democratic process, when they lose trust in the Government, when our institutions fail them—which is what is happening before our very eyes—the door opens to dangerous people who do not have our interests truly at heart. That is why the Nolan principles really matter. \p Chris Ward: I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the debate. He said it would not be pain free, and he was true to his word, but I know he cares passionately about these matters. Whether it is the Hillsborough law, the Kincora children’s scandal—he has campaigned on that for many years—or other injustices, I know he cares deeply about our public services and the Nolan principles underpinning them, so I will take this in that spirit. \p Euan Stainbank: It was fantastic to see the consensus in this House in relation to the Hillsborough law. Does the Minister share my concern that the Scottish Government have yet to confirm whether they will match the non-means-tested legal aid that is written into the Bill, as passed on Second Reading last week, across the rest of the United Kingdom? \p Chris Ward: As I understand it, the Scottish Government have had a number of years to address that, and they still have not done so, so I hope the First Minister will get to that and we can clarify it.

We are celebrating 30 years of the Nolan principles this year, and the principles set out by Lord Nolan in 1995—honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership—are rightly the foundations of standards in public life across the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East said, with public trust in our public services and our politics at a low point, they are as important, if not more, as they have been at any point in the last three decades. \p Iqbal Mohamed: The Minister talks about public trust, and one way to try to restore that trust is to hold accountable every single breach of the Nolan principles in this and every other place obligated to follow them. The public do not see that accountability in action, so would he agree with me that the new Government can do more to hold Members accountable for breaches? \p Chris Ward: I will come to accountability later, but I do agree that there is more that can be done on accountability. I would argue that this Government are making some progress on that, but I do agree, and I will come on to that later.

I want to assure the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East and the House that the Government are committed to strengthening and upholding the Nolan principles. Indeed, just last week the Prime Minister reiterated at this Dispatch Box that those principles

“are not some kind of optional extra, but the very essence of public service itself.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 658.]

It is worth reminding the House that the Nolan principles do not just apply to politicians; they apply to all public servants, elected or not, in local and national Government, as well as the civil service, the police and those in health, education, social care and other services. They also apply to those in the private and voluntary sector who deliver services paid for by the taxpayer. I do want to emphasise that the overwhelming majority of public servants seek to uphold these principles, and live and breathe them every day. In my opinion, we are too quick to point out those who fail and too reticent to point out those who live them every day.

However, it is true that in recent years, as has been mentioned, public trust in our politics and our public service more broadly has been eroded. Indeed, it was in response to the events of the last Parliament—partygate, the complete sidelining of the independent adviser and the abuse of public contracts during covid—that this Prime Minister outlined a number of steps to strengthen the ministerial code and to try to breathe new life into the Nolan principles.

That is why the Prime Minister put the Nolan principles up front in a strengthened ministerial code, rather than as an afterthought or as an annexe. It is why the Prime Minister has empowered the independent ethics adviser to launch his own inquiries without prime ministerial approval, which I think we can all agree is a welcome change from the last Government. It is also why the Hillsborough law, for which we have all waited so long and which I know Members across the House support, will ensure that every public authority has a legal requirement to adopt a code of ethical conduct based on the Nolan principles. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East will agree that this is an important step forward, and I hope it can be a catalyst to drive improvements across the public sector based around the Nolan principles.

I know the hon. Member called today, as he has done previously, for an office of the whistleblower. I do understand why, and I know how strongly he feels about it. As he will know, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked at this recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body due to the risk of duplication. The Government agree with that, but I do hope that he will work with us—I am sure that he will—during the passage of the Hillsborough law to try to ensure that it delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need.[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 2WC.] (Correction) \p Tessa Munt: It is absolutely apparent from looking at the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which is known as the Hillsborough law, that it will create enormous pressure on any number of bodies, particularly the employment tribunal, which I understand has tens of thousands of cases waiting. I could list any number of others, but I shall not do  so now. I hope I will have an opportunity to explain that in my planned meeting with the Minister, but it is crucial that people have someone independent to go to so that they do not end up in the employment tribunal, where they will be roundly trashed and lose not only their reputation, but their way of earning a living. \p Chris Ward: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree. That is why we need to get the measures in the Bill right, and why I hope that she and other colleagues will work with us in Committee and as the Bill progresses.

I respect the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East a lot, but I simply do not accept the general depiction he gave of the Government and the lack of progress made. I remind him that we have delivered on a manifesto commitment to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which will promote the seven principles and report annually on improving standards. We have closed ACOBA—the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—and reformed the outdated business appointments system. The ministerial severance system has also been reformed to save the taxpayer money and to end the scandal we saw under the previous Government, where Ministers got large amounts of public money after either being removed from their position or returning very quickly. And just this week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced strong new powers to improve standards and accountability across local government. \p Lee Pitcher: I thank the Minister for giving way; it is much appreciated. Just briefly, those standards are very much welcomed, particularly in my constituency. Does he agree that they must be applied at parish and town council level too? We want expectations aligned across all public services. \p Chris Ward: My hon. Friend raises a very good point, although I should remind him that I think parish councils are about to be abolished in the local government reorganisation so we might have to look at that, but I take his point, which is a fair one.[Official Report, 17 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 4WC.] (Correction)

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East mentioned a number of recent cases where, to put it politely, he suggests the Nolan principles may not have been abided by. I will, of course, not comment on the specifics of all of those, or indeed those where the Scottish Government may not have always abided by the principles, but I will say that the Prime Minister has made clear how seriously he takes Ministers abiding by the code. It is why he invited the independent ethics adviser—the independent adviser on ministerial standards —to address Cabinet on the first day after the election and why he has stuck ever since to a very powerful role for that position, which I think we can agree is a step forward.

The final thing I want to say is that I have heard the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East say before that he believes that

“our leaders…cannot be trusted to do the right thing unless they are legally required to do so.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 123WH.]

After recent years, and perhaps even recent weeks, I understand his scepticism, but I do not accept his fatalism. I believe that the vast majority of our public  servants and our leaders are trustworthy. I believe that every day they seek to show leadership with honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity and openness. But where public servants fail to meet those standards, there must be clear and effective accountability. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I thank the Minister for giving way. One area that I do not believe is fully covered and needs to be expanded on is racism and discrimination. It is not clear which one of the seven principles covers that. Normally it would breach all of them, but I gently request that the Government look at how we can hold Members of this House and those in office accountable for language used that is definitely racist. \p Chris Ward: The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, particularly for Members of this House, but also across public services more broadly. We have seen some very worrying reports of that recently in our core public services. If it is okay with him, I will discuss it with my colleagues in the Government Equalities Office to see what we can do and write back to him. He raises a good point.

As I was saying, I do not accept the fatalism set out by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, but where there are failings and public servants do not meet high standards, there needs to be swift and effective accountability. It is, of course, the responsibility of this Government and these Ministers—indeed all Governments, politicians and public servants—to strive to reflect what Lord Nolan set out 30 years ago. As I have said, the Government are taking steps to achieve that. I am the first to accept that we are not there yet, but we are making progress. \p James Naish: At the end of August in Nottinghamshire, where I am a Member of Parliament, the leader of the county council banned the Nottingham Post and Nottinghamshire Live from speaking to him  and his local authority, representing a dangerous moment where local accountability was not being adequately recognised. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues about how we can bolster local journalism and the role it plays in the accountability part of the Nolan principles? \p Chris Ward: Absolutely. On local government, I will just reiterate that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary set out important powers earlier in the week to try to improve standards and to hold people to account. Hopefully that will help. \p Seamus Logan: I thank the Minister for allowing me to make a short intervention. I appreciate the number of times he has referenced the points I made in my speech. Can he advise us in this place what the Government can do about peers in the other place who fall below the standards that we and the public have come to expect? \p Chris Ward: That is a matter for individual parties and for the Lords to look at. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on this question, because House of Lords reform is another area that the Cabinet Office is overseeing. I do agree, with regard to recent cases in particular—across the House, I should say—that there is a need to improve trust and accountability. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which we intend to take through Parliament, is part of trying to modernise and improve the House of Lords. I think it would be a big step forward if we could pass that Bill. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on his broader point, if that is okay.

Finally, as I have said, the Government are taking steps to breathe new life into the Nolan principles. We are not there yet but will keep working on it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.