The Chancellor of the Exchequer ()
Mr Speaker, the central responsibility of any Government is to do
what is necessary for economic stability. Behind the decisions we
take and the issues on which we vote are jobs that families
depend on, mortgages that have to be paid, savings for
pensioners, and businesses investing for the future. We are a
country that funds our promises and pays our debts. When that is
questioned, as it has been, the Government will take the
difficult decisions necessary to ensure that there is trust and
confidence in our national finances. That means decisions of
eye-watering difficulty, but I give the House and the public this
assurance: every single one of those decisions, whether
reductions in spending or increases in tax, will be shaped
through core compassionate Conservative values that will
prioritise the needs of the most vulnerable. That is why I pay
tribute to my predecessors for the energy price guarantee, for
the furlough scheme and, indeed, for earlier decisions to protect
the NHS budget in a period in which other budgets were being cut.
I want to be completely frank about the scale of the economic
challenge that we face. We have had short-term difficulties,
caused by the lack of a forecast from the Office for Budget
Responsibility alongside the mini-Budget, but there are also
inflationary and interest pressures around the world. Russia’s
unforgivable invasion of Ukraine has caused energy and food
prices to spike. We cannot control what is happening in the rest
of the world, but when the interest of economic stability means
that the Government need to change course we will do so, and that
is what I have come to the House to announce today.
In my first few days in the job, I have held extensive
discussions with the Prime Minister, Cabinet colleagues, the
Governor of the Bank of England, the OBR, the head of the Debt
Management Office, Treasury officials and many others. The
conclusion I have drawn from those conversations is that we need
to do more more quickly to give certainty to the markets about
our fiscal plans and to show through action and not just words
that the United Kingdom can and always will pay our way in the
world. We have therefore decided to make further changes to the
mini-Budget immediately rather than waiting until the medium-term
fiscal plan in two weeks’ time, in order to reduce unhelpful
speculation about those plans.
I am very grateful for your agreement, Mr Speaker, about the need
to give the markets an early brief summary this morning, and I
welcome the opportunity to give this House details of those
decisions now. We have decided on the following changes to
support confidence and stability. First, the Prime Minister and I
agreed yesterday to reverse almost all the tax measures announced
in the growth plan three weeks ago that have not been legislated
for in Parliament. We will continue with the abolition of the
health and social care levy, changes to stamp duty, the increase
in the annual investment allowance to £1 million and the wider
reforms to investment taxes, but we will no longer be proceeding
with the cuts to dividend tax rates, saving around £1 billion a
year; the reversal of the off-payroll working reforms introduced
in 2017 and 2021, saving around £2 billion a year; the new
VAT-free shopping scheme for non-UK visitors, saving a further £2
billion a year; or the freeze on alcohol duty rates, saving
around £600 million a year. I will provide further
details—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let’s just sort this telephone out. Has it been switched
off all right? It is off. I am sorry, Chancellor, carry on.
I will provide further details on how alcohol duty rates will be
uprated shortly.
Secondly, the Government are currently committed to cutting the
basic rate of income tax to 19% in April of 2023. It is a deeply
held Conservative value, a value that I share, that people should
keep more of the money they earn, which is why we have continued
with the abolition of the health and social care levy. But at a
time when markets are asking serious questions about our
commitment to sound public finances, we cannot afford a permanent
discretionary increase in borrowing worth £6 billion a year. I
have decided that the basic rate of income tax will remain at
20%, and it will do so indefinitely until economic circumstances
allow for it to be cut. Taken together with the decision not to
cut corporation tax and restoring the top rate of income tax, the
measures I have announced today will raise about £32 billion
every year.
The third step I am taking today is to review the energy price
guarantee. That was the biggest single expense in the growth plan
and one of the most generous schemes in the world. It is a
landmark policy for which I pay tribute to my predecessor, my
right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (), and it will support
millions of people through a difficult winter, reducing inflation
by up to 5%. I confirm today that the support we are providing
between now and April next year will not change, but beyond next
April the Prime Minister and I have reluctantly agreed that it
would not be responsible to continue to expose the public
finances to unlimited volatility in international gas prices. I
am announcing today a Treasury-led review into how we support
energy bills beyond April of next year. The review’s objective is
to design a new approach that will cost the taxpayer
significantly less than planned while ensuring enough support for
those in need. Any support for businesses will be targeted at
those most affected and a new approach will better incentivise
energy efficiency.
There remain, I am afraid, many difficult decisions to be
announced in the medium-term fiscal plan on 31 October when, I
confirm, we will publish a credible, transparent and fully costed
plan to get debt falling as a share of the economy over the
medium term based on the judgment and economic forecasts of the
independent Office for Budget Responsibility. I would like to
thank the OBR, whose director, Richard Hughes, I met this
morning, and the Bank of England, whose Governor, Andrew Bailey,
I have now met twice. I fully support the vital independent roles
that both institutions play, which give markets, the public and
the world confidence that our economic plans are credible and
rightly hold us to account for delivering them.
I also want more independent expert advice as I start my journey
as Chancellor, so today I am announcing the formation of a new
economic advisory council to do just that. This council will
advise the Government on economic policy, with four names
announced today: , a former chief of staff to
the Chancellor of the Exchequer; Gertjan Vlieghe from Element
Capital; Sushil Wadhwani of Wadhwani Asset Management; and of J.P. Morgan.
We remain completely committed to our mission to go for growth,
but growth requires confidence and stability, which is why we are
taking many difficult decisions—starting today. But while we do
need realism about the challenges ahead, we must never fall into
the trap of pessimism. Despite all the adversity and challenge we
face, there is enormous potential in this country, with some of
the most talented people, three of the world’s top 10
universities, the most tech unicorns in Europe, one of the
world’s great financial centres, and incredible strengths in the
creative industries, science, research, engineering,
manufacturing and innovation.
All that gives me genuine optimism about our long-term prospects
for growth, but to achieve that, it is vital that we act now to
create the stability on which future generations can build. The
reason the United Kingdom has always succeeded is because, at big
and difficult moments, we have taken tough decisions in the
long-term interests of the country, and in a way that is
consistent with compassionate Conservative values, that is what
we will do now. I commend this statement to the House.
16:41:00
(Leeds West) (Lab)
As I regularly say now, I welcome the new Chancellor to his
place. He is the fourth in four months of chaos and fiasco as
this Conservative Government spiral down the political plughole.
But the damage has been done: this is a Tory crisis made in
Downing Street, but ordinary working people are paying the price.
All that is left, after these humiliating U-turns, are higher
mortgages for working people and higher bonuses for bankers. The
Government’s climbdown on energy support begs the question yet
again why they will not extend the windfall tax on energy
producers to help to foot the bill.
It is good to finally see the Prime Minister in her place and
not, as the Leader of the House had to assure us earlier, under a
desk. But what is she left with? She has no authority, no
credibility and no plan for growth. It is clear to see that the
people who caused the chaos cannot be the people to fix the
chaos. They are out of ideas, out of touch and out of time.
The Prime Minister should have spoken to the House today, but we
know that she could not do that with a shred of credibility,
given that the survival of this Government now depends on
smashing to smithereens everything that she stands for. Now she
is attempting to reverse everything that she campaigned on—it is
not just impossible; it is absurd. The Prime Minister is barely
in office and she is certainly not in power. Only five days ago,
the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions that there
would be “absolutely” no public spending reductions, but after
what we heard from the Chancellor today, every single public
service is again at risk from the Conservatives—from our NHS
nurses to our schools and our servicemen and women—with the
country paying the price for the Conservatives’ incompetence.
The Prime Minister said that she had an energy package for two
years. Now that is being withdrawn on the very day it is supposed
to be legislated for. She insisted that her Conservative
mini-Budget would lead the country to the promised land. Instead
it has led to the highest mortgages in 15 years and emergency
interventions by the Bank of England to protect pensions. Then on
Friday, there was the unedifying spectacle of the then Chancellor
being dragged back from the IMF before he could do any more
damage to our economy. So she has turned to a new Chancellor, who
finished eighth out of eight in the Tory leadership contest,
winning just 18 votes from MPs. The Tories have run out of
credibility and now they are running out of Chancellors.
The latest office holder has been in the Cabinet for nine of the
past 12 years, at the centre of a Government responsible for low
growth and weakened public services, with him responsible for
helping run the NHS into the ground. He was a big part of
austerity season 1, and now he says the cure is austerity season
2. What was the Chancellor’s flagship policy in his own
short-lived leadership contest? It was to reduce corporation tax
in a totally unfunded manner, and not from 25% to 19%. The right
hon. Gentleman called for it to be lowered to 15%, with not a
single explanation of how it was to be paid for. The truth is
that had he won the contest and implemented these policies, we
would be in an even worse place than we are now. There is no
mandate and no authority for any of this.
The Conservatives have put a lasting premium on people’s
mortgages. Uncosted borrowing has sent interest rates spiralling.
Millions of people’s mortgage deals will be coming to an end in
the next few months, leaving many families forking out £500 more
a month. People will be paying a Tory mortgage premium for years
to come, so how does the Chancellor think ordinary people can
possibly afford any more of this Conservative Government? We have
heard no answers today. The Chancellor has said that growth
requires “confidence and stability”. I agree, but where does he
think the lack of confidence and stability has come from? It did
not come from the sky; it came from the mini-Budget three weeks
ago.
What does it say about our country that we are watching borrowing
costs hour by hour? That is not the sign of a strong G7 economy;
it is the exact opposite. Businesses are now saying that things
are so unstable they are pausing investment here in Britain. The
former deputy governor of the Bank of England Charles Bean has
outlined the extraordinary damage that the Conservatives have
done to our standing. In his words,
“we’ve moved from looking not too dissimilar from the US or
Germany…to looking more like Italy and Greece.”
What a mess.
Where is the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast? Have this
Government learnt nothing? Does the Chancellor really expect the
country to take everything from him at face value? Last week, the
Business Secretary was busy undermining the Office for Budget
Responsibility. Today, we have received another massive fiscal
statement with no forecast. What have this Government got to
hide? They should publish the numbers so that we know the true
state of the public finances after 40 days of this Prime Minister
and after 12 years of Conservative Governments.
Today, the Chancellor has scaled back help with energy bills for
families and pensioners. It prompts the question yet again: why
will the Government not bring in a proper windfall tax on energy
producers to help foot the bill for consumers, and when will the
current Chancellor publish in full the Government’s estimates of
the windfall profits of the energy giants over the next two
years?
No one was talking about spending cuts until the Tories crashed
the economy with their mini-Budget, so I ask the Chancellor: why
should the British people pay the economic price for the Tories’
mistakes, and what spending cuts do the Government plan to make?
We believe that the Government must honour their commitments to
uprate benefits and pensions in line with inflation. Will the
Chancellor make it clear today that is what he intends to do?
What a contrast that cuts to benefits are still on the table, but
the one thing the Chancellor could not bring himself to reverse
today was lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses. Why is this the
last policy standing in this disastrous mini-Budget?
Let me come to credibility. Does the Chancellor accept that once
credibility and trust have been destroyed, they cannot simply be
regained by a series of zig-zagging, chaotic U-turns? Will he and
the Prime Minister apologise for the costs and anxieties laid on
families? Can he admit once and for all that the market turmoil
we are in was directly caused by the disastrous decisions of his
predecessor and of the Prime Minister? Can he guarantee that the
Bank of England will not have to intervene again to save the
Government, and what guarantee can he give people about their
pensions, their mortgages and their household bills?
The Chancellor said today that everything is now on the table,
but is that really the case? We know that abolishing the non-dom
tax status will raise £3 billion a year, yet there was no mention
of that. How can it be right that some of the richest individuals
in society are allowed to buy their way out of paying the tax
that should be paid here Britain? This would not be an
eye-wateringly difficult decision, so why do not the Government
just do it?
There is lasting damage which these policy U-turns will not
change. They have set fire to everything; now they insist it is
all fine. The truth is that an arsonist is still an arsonist even
if he runs back into a burning building with a bucket of water.
Because they cannot be trusted; the Tories are clinging on for
themselves, regardless of the cost to the country.
Trickle-down economics will always fail; what drives forward our
economy are the talents and efforts of millions of working people
and thousands of ordinary businesses. The Government’s economic
credibility has been destroyed. They have harmed our economic
institutions, people are paying higher mortgages; the same set of
people doing U-turns is not going to fix it. The only way to
change this is a real change of Government.
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, and I am sorry that,
given the speed with which things moved at the weekend, I have
not had time to sit down with her one to one as would normally be
the practice before parliamentary exchanges.
I understand the role Opposition parties play—I have stood at
that Dispatch Box myself—but behind the rhetoric, and I was
listening very carefully, I do not think the hon. Lady disagreed
with a single one of the decisions I announced to Parliament, and
that is important for the country and markets to know. I think
there is also agreement on the process of policy making. I
support the independence of the Bank of England, introduced by
, and I know the hon. Lady
supports the independence of the Office for Budget
Responsibility, set up by . The whole Government
support the independence of those two important institutions.
I fully accept—I do not think I could have been clearer—that we
have had to change some decisions made in the last few weeks, but
I reject wholeheartedly the hon. Lady’s broader narrative about
Conservative economic management. Let me remind her that the UK’s
unemployment rate is the lowest since 1974; it is lower than that
of France, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Spain and the
Netherlands and is massively lower than in 2010. Let me remind
her that since 2010 our growth rate has been the third highest in
the G7 —[Interruption.] She may not want to hear this, but these
are the economic facts. Our growth rate since this party came
into power has been higher than that of Germany, France, Italy
and Japan and has been faster than that of any G7 country this
year. Looking to the future, we have the largest technology
sector in Europe and more foreign direct investment than anywhere
in Europe bar one country. That is a legacy to be proud of.
I was listening carefully for some questions about the measures I
announced, but the hon. Lady did not ask any and I think she
agrees with them. I will pick her up on one point, however. She
talked about the NHS; let me tell her—[Interruption.] Maybe they
do not want to listen about the NHS. She talked about the NHS:
because of the global financial crisis, which happened on her
party’s watch, the NHS went through one of its most difficult
periods ever, yet this party protected the NHS budget, and then
in 2017 we were able to give it its biggest single increase in
funding, because of the difficult decisions we took and the hon.
Lady’s party opposed.
In conclusion, we inherited the financial crisis, we dealt with
the global pandemic, and we have led the world in support of
Ukraine, all possible because of difficult decisions taken over
the last 12 years, each and every one opposed by the party
opposite. So if the hon. Lady is preaching today the need for
fiscal credibility, which I warmly welcome, may I just tell her
this: the true test will be in two weeks’ time, to see whether
she supports public spending restraint? I have showed
Conservatives can raise taxes; will she show Labour is willing to
restrain spending?
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
(Central Devon) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It was both frank and
bold, and it appears—in the very short term, at least—to have
steadied the markets. One point that he raised at the Dispatch
Box—although it was absent from his statement earlier today—was
his renewed commitment to our financial institutions, and in
particular the Bank of England and the Office for Budget
Responsibility. He has also brought forward the economic advisory
council, a number of whose members have appeared before the
Treasury Committee; I think that he has chosen well. Will he
reassure the House that the economic advisory council will not in
any way conflict with the Bank of England, the Office for Budget
Responsibility, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential
Regulation Authority or any of our institutions and that it will
be there to complement and not work against any of them?
I thank my right hon. Friend, who in recent weeks has spoken
wisely about the difficult issues that we face. I can absolutely
give him that assurance. I want, to be frank, to ensure that I am
getting advice from fantastic institutions such as the Treasury,
the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility, but
also advice that is independent of those institutions, because
that is how we will get the best result. in particular has enormous
experience of running the Treasury under over many years, and I think
that he will make an important contribution, as will his
colleagues on the council.
With respect to the markets, my right hon. Friend is absolutely
right to be cautious about what happens. They go up as well as
they go down, and no Government can—or should seek to—control the
markets. What we can do is the thing that is within our power,
which is a very firm and clear commitment to fiscal
responsibility.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] I see that the Prime
Minister has urgently run off to something else rather than stay
to listen.
When the previous Chancellor came to give his mini Budget three
long weeks ago, I called it economic chaos. What an
understatement that turned out to be. I am not sure that words
have yet been invented to describe the scale of unmitigated
disaster which the Prime Minister and her Chancellors have
created in the past 24 days. We are back where we started but
significantly worse off due to Tory incompetence. Is it not just
as well that, in Scotland, the Scottish Government did not take
Tory MPs’ advice to copy and paste from here before Government
Front Benchers delete all? People will be paying the price for
many years to come through higher interest and borrowing rates.
Will the Chancellor apologise for the increased costs that his
colleagues have inflicted on people? He has not been clear at
all, so will he confirm the status of the bankers’ bonus cap—has
it been scrapped or not?
There is little by way of detail from the current Chancellor
about doubling down on austerity and what that will mean for
people. However, the Institute for Government and the Chartered
Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy have been clear that
there is no fat left to cut after a lost decade for public
services under the Tories. Where does the current Chancellor
expect to make these cuts or “efficiency savings”? We know what
he means when he says that. We already know the terrible price of
austerity, because the Glasgow Centre for Population Health has
attributed 330,000 excess deaths to Tory austerity policies: an
unacceptable human cost. Again and again, the Tories bring
forward harmful policies that they never feel the consequences
of.
We know that guarantees mean nothing under the Tories, either.
The so-called energy price guarantee turns out to be for six
months, not two years, with a cliff edge looming next April.
National Energy Action has said:
“Many vulnerable people were holding on by their fingertips.
Government has to be very, very careful it doesn’t prise them
away.”
Will the Chancellor tell us exactly what will happen for
households in April? The scale of increases makes almost
everybody vulnerable—except, perhaps, his banker pals. What will
happen to the most vulnerable when inflation soars as a result of
the return of spiralling energy costs?
The previous Chancellor never got round to telling me what will
happen to businesses’ energy costs at the end of their six-month
reprieve. Will the current Chancellor tell me what support
businesses signing impossibly expensive contracts as we speak can
expect? Will he, as the former, former, former Chancellor did,
commit to uprating benefits with the rate of inflation? Will he
also increase support for those languishing in the asylum system
and end the punishing “no recourse to public funds” regime? Will
he cancel the benefit cap and scrap the two-child limit, which is
trapping so many children in poverty? Where is his compassion for
them?
Will the Chancellor invest in renewables, carbon capture and
storage, and a comprehensive energy-efficiency and insulation
package? Does he really understand, when looking at broken
Britain, the chaos that the Tories have wreaked and the prospect
of a bleak Brexit future under both Labour and the Tories, that
more and more of Scotland’s people are looking at the
comprehensive independence prospectus set out by the First
Minister today and moving towards the vision of a fairer,
greener, more prosperous Scotland back in the heart of Europe
where we belong?
It is a pleasure to exchange comments with the hon. Lady and I
look forward to working with her closely in the months ahead. I
remind her that this Conservative Government are spending £37
billion this year to support people across the United Kingdom
with cost of living concerns. That is possible because of
difficult economic decisions that the SNP has opposed at nearly
every stage, and that includes large support for businesses up
and down the country. The main thing I would say to her very
gently is that she cannot claim to be concerned about the
economic turmoil of the last few weeks when the central policy of
the SNP—independence—would leave turmoil for Scotland not for a
few weeks but for many, many years to come: a new currency;
somehow finding a way to trade with the UK internal market but
also the European single market; border checks between England
and Scotland, as announced today by the First Minister; and a
massive gap in public finances that would have to be breached.
That is a recipe for precisely the austerity she says she is
worried about. Let me say this: if we want economic stability and
if Scotland wants economic stability, to coin a phrase we are
stronger together.
(Wokingham) (Con)
What will the impact of these measures be on the growth rate, and
will we still avoid recession?
I will publish the economic forecasts from the OBR when I make my
statement in a fortnight’s time. I think it is better for me to
wait until I hear that. The proper answer to my right hon.
Friend’s question is that what we are seeking is a long-term
sustainable increase in the economic growth rate. That is a
central policy of the Prime Minister, which has my wholehearted
support.
(Barking) (Lab)
I think the country is feeling a sense of relief that
trickle-down economics this time has been so quickly abandoned,
but there was one element in the mini-Budget that the new
Chancellor did not address: investment zones. We have great
evidence all over the place about how, as a mechanism for
encouraging growth, jobs and prosperity, that has failed from the
Thatcher years onward. All that happens is that they are
incredibly expensive, we lose income from them, they only lead to
the transfer of jobs from one poor area to another, and they are
a massive opportunity for every kleptocrat, oligarch and criminal
to launder money into the UK. Will the Chancellor abandon that
policy, too?
I have a great deal of respect for the campaigning the right hon.
Lady has done over many years against people illicitly hiding
wealth and not paying their share of tax. I totally support the
benefits that investment zones can bring, but we will implement
that policy in a way that learns the lessons of when similar
models have been tried in the past and we will make sure they are
successful.
(West Suffolk) (Con)
I welcome the return of an iron-clad fiscal responsibility,
albeit within the most velvet of gloves, for there can be no
growth without economic credibility. Will my right hon. Friend
answer this question? When, in a fortnight, he brings forward the
forecasts made independently by the OBR, will he guarantee that
they will show debt falling as a proportion of our income and
that once we have the finances fully under control we will not be
borrowing for day-to-day spending, because we cannot put the
nation’s spending on the never-never?
Yes and yes.
(Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
People are already suffering from the damage caused by this
Government’s economic mistakes. Hundreds of pounds have now been
added to mortgage bills, pushing millions of families to the
brink, on top of higher food prices, higher fuel costs and higher
energy bills. Despite that, the Chancellor refuses to undo one of
the Government’s biggest injustices: their failure to impose a
proper windfall tax on the record profits of the oil and gas
companies, earned only because Putin is killing innocent
Ukrainians. After so many U-turns, surely the Chancellor can
persuade the Prime Minister to do one more. Will he introduce a
proper windfall tax and help struggling families?
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am not against the
principle of taxing profits that are genuine windfalls, but as he
will know well, the energy industry is very cyclical and there
are businesses that have periods of feast and famine. We have to
be very careful that we do not tax companies in a way that drives
away investment. We have said that nothing is off the table.
(Sutton Coldfield)
(Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which is
both wise and necessary. There will be great relief across the
House that the markets have responded to the statement
positively, not least thanks to his economic leadership and
political skill. In the run-up to 31 October, will he reassure us
and the markets that the Treasury, the OBR and the independent
Bank of England will work closely together and in total lockstep?
I absolutely want to give my right hon. Friend that reassurance
and I thank him, as someone who has enormous experience of how
the City works, for the advice that he gave me over the weekend.
One of the best things about the economic structures that we have
is the interaction between institutions that have independence
and that are able to give independent advice and Treasury and the
Government. It has helped to create stability and I hope that
what I have said today will bolster that further.
(Bethnal Green and Bow)
(Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on his appointment and I hope that
he lasts longer than his predecessors. Five million people will
see their mortgages go up, and the mini-Budget fiasco means, on
average, £500 more on payments and, in London, nearly £900. Can
the Chancellor assure us that he will look at how he will take
that additional Prime Minister’s mortgage premium off people’s
bills and take action to protect them in these difficult times?
If he cannot, should they send the bill to him?
We have an absolute responsibility as a Government to do
everything we can to hold increases in mortgage rates down as
much as is possible, insofar as the Government have an influence
on them through their actions. That is why I have taken, I think,
very strong and quick steps to demonstrate the Government’s
commitment to fiscal balance, but we are in a world in which,
unfortunately, interest rates are going up everywhere and
everyone is having to deal with increases in mortgage rates. We
are thinking about the challenge for people who have those
mortgages, but I want to make sure that that does not happen as a
result of actions by this Government.
(Thirsk and Malton)
(Con)
I welcome all the measures in the Chancellor’s statement. It is
absolutely right that we look for better value for the taxpayer
through spending restraints, but will he confirm that any cuts to
spending will not impact on capital expenditure—infrastructure
expenditure, particularly across the north—and that we will fully
deliver on projects that we have already committed to, such as
Northern Powerhouse Rail?
As my hon. Friend will know—sorry; my voice is a bit croaky at
the moment, because I have probably been talking too much over
the last few days—there are very important projects that we all
care about a great deal, but given the severity of the situation
at the moment, we are not taking anything off the table, whether
that means tax increases or spending reductions. But I do not
believe that it is possible to have a long-term, credible
economic growth strategy that does not recognise the vital
importance of capital spending.
(Mitcham and Morden)
(Lab)
Even a screeching U-turn cannot repair the damage when we have
already had the crash. When the Chancellor dismantled
Trussonomics overnight, why on earth did he decide to carry on
boosting bankers’ bonuses in the heart of a cost of living
crisis?
Because the policy did not work, and we will get more tax from
rich bankers with the policy that we now have.
(Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement. If further steps are
required, will he do whatever it takes to restore the UK’s fiscal
credibility?
I will.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Chancellor’s appointment and wish him well in his
job, because on his success depends the success of all our
constituents in meeting the cost of living. While inflation
cannot be blamed on the Government, because it is an
international thing, and while interest rates are going up across
the world, the one thing for which the Chancellor is fully
responsible is today’s increase in taxation. It will take money
from people at a vital time, meaning that they are unable to pay
their bills or pay for their investment plans. I assume that he
has done some economic modelling on that. What impact does he
believe it will have on growth and on the burden of debt in
relation to GDP over the next two years?
The right hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. I remind
him that what I have announced today has been very largely the
cancellation of planned tax cuts, rather than being new tax
increases. This has a very important impact, in a positive
direction, on national finances, but unfortunately it will not be
the end of the story. If we are to deliver a credible Budget in
which we can demonstrate—my right hon. Friend the Member for West
Suffolk () asked about this earlier—that
debt is falling as a percentage of GDP by the end of the period,
we will have further difficult decisions ahead. This Government
will not shirk from them.
(Faversham and Mid Kent)
(Con)
With a pandemic followed by a war, our constituents do not expect
this time to be easy, but they do expect us to set out the
difficult choices, make the difficult choices and then set out
the path to a better future. May I ask my right hon. Friend,
particularly considering his experience of many years, to
continue to press ahead with our commitment to reforming social
care, knowing as he does how social care and the NHS go hand in
hand and how important they are to our constituents?
My hon. Friend and I have had very many discussions about social
care over the years, mainly when I was a Back Bencher and she was
a Minister. The sector is in great difficulty at the moment; I am
very aware of those concerns, and I am also very aware of the
pressures in the NHS at the moment. I am not making any
commitments as to what exactly we will do, but as I said earlier,
all these decisions will be taken through the prism of what
matters most to the people who need help the most.
Dame (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Chancellor has put a brutal end to the self-proclaimed new
era of Trussonomics with his announcements. He has taken away £32
billion-worth of planned cuts. According to the Institute for
Fiscal Studies, that still leaves a hole of £30 billion in his
sums, and if rumours are correct—if the OBR calculations that I
have heard about are correct—it could be as much as £40 billion.
Surely that means austerity 2.0, of at least the same size as the
first round of austerity from 2010 to 2015. Surely the Chancellor
must know that public services simply cannot deal with that level
of cuts when they have been so weakened by the first round of
austerity.
I was a Cabinet Minister in 2010 when we had very difficult
decisions to take in the wake of the financial crisis, and my
Department’s budget was cut by 24%. I do not believe that we are
talking about anything on that scale; I think it likely that cash
spending will continue to go up. That being said, I want to be
completely frank with people: we are going to have very difficult
decisions, both on tax and on spending, in the next couple of
weeks. We will try to take those decisions as compassionately as
possible. So it is going to be tough going forward, but I do not
expect it to be on the scale that the hon. Lady suggests.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on his soothing and competent tone,
and of course we have to calm the markets, but what is our
vision? Of course we accept the shortcomings of the mini-Budget,
but does the Chancellor accept that we cannot just slide into a
second-rate economy and go in the direction of France, with a
bloated public sector, the highest taxes for 70 years and gross
inefficiencies? By the time of the next election, can we as a
Conservative party promise to get taxation back to at least its
level at the start of the current Parliament, and get corporation
tax back to being one of the most competitive in Europe?
Otherwise, what is the point of a Conservative party?
[Interruption.]
There is the problem, with all the noise from the Opposition.
This compassionate Conservative Government were able to step in
with massive help for members of the public, with the furlough
scheme and the energy price guarantee, because we took difficult
decisions on the economy in the preceding years, each and every
one of which was opposed by the Labour party. I say to my right
hon. Friend that the point of a Conservative Government is to
build a strong economy, and that is what we will do. It is the
job—[Interruption.] This is an important point that I wish to
make. It is the job of the Chancellor not just to balance the
books but to have a vision for economic growth, and I hope I will
persuade my right hon. Friend in two weeks’ time that I have just
that vision.
(Kingston upon Hull West and
Hessle) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree with the Prime Minister, who confirmed
that the state pension would rise with inflation in April? If he
does agree with her, can he commit himself to that today?
I am very aware of how many vulnerable pensioners there are, and
of the importance of the triple lock. As I said earlier, I am not
making any commitments on any individual policy areas, but every
decision we take will be taken through the prism of what matters
most to the most vulnerable.
(Forest of Dean) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for his robust defence of Conservative
economic policy over the last 12 years. More of that, please! My
inner chartered accountant cannot but welcome the fact that he
has reassured me that it is the Treasury’s job—its essential
task—to ensure that the sums add up.
May I ask the Chancellor to say a little bit about the review of
the energy price guarantee? It is right to focus taxpayer support
on those who need it most, but may I draw his attention to the
fact that one seventh of the population are not on the gas grid,
and 40% of my constituents are not? As he designs that system to
protect the most vulnerable, can he ensure that it works for
everyone in the country, wherever they live and however they heat
their homes?
I look forward to lots of useful advice from my right hon.
Friend’s inner accountant in the months and years ahead, and I
will certainly bear his points in mind. The issue with the
revised scheme that we want to announce for the energy price
guarantee is that, while I think most people agree with the logic
of targeting support where it is needed the most, we need a
scheme which works practically, and it is not particularly easy
to design that kind of scheme. We are going to do as much work as
we can, and we will announce what we are going to do as soon as
we can; but we will certainly bear in mind the points that my
right hon. Friend has made.
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
The backdrop to today’s statement is not just the chaos of the
last fortnight. It is also the report of three weeks ago which
demonstrated that, as a result of austerity, there have been more
than 300,000 excess deaths. May I ask the Chancellor to
recognise, during his preparations for 31 October, that, unless
he increases benefits by at least the rate of inflation, there
will be more excess deaths and suffering?
The right hon. Gentleman will know, because I have said it many
times today, that I am not making firm commitments on any
individual elements of tax and spending, but I hope he is
reassured by the fact that I have been very clear about the
values through which we will take those decisions.
(Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend: he has hit the ground
running in his job. These are difficult decisions, but they are
the correct decisions right now. We all aspire to tax cuts in the
future, but he is right to say that we have to have the money to
pay for them. May I ask him, as he prepares for 31 October, to
look in detail at how we should address what is the most—in my
view—deep-rooted problem that the country faces and has faced for
decades, which is our current account deficit? We will not truly
get rid of these issues until we restore a better balance in our
national finances, and I ask him to make that a priority.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I agree:
ultimately, it is not sustainable to have a permanent current
account deficit and that is something that we need to address.
(Ceredigion) (PC)
The Chancellor announced that he would be reviewing the energy
price guarantee, but do the Government have any plans to review
the level of support offered to off-grid properties for the cost
of their heating bills this winter? There is cross-party
consensus that the £100 payment is inadequate to meet the rising
bills, so will he bring forward further support in advance of
this winter?
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, as
I did to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr
Harper), and we will certainly look carefully at what can be done
for off-grid properties.
(Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the necessary but vigorous course corrections that my
right hon. Friend has introduced. He began his statement by
describing the central responsibilities of any Government. They
also include security: the defence of Britain, supporting our
allies and standing up to our adversaries, as we have done in
Ukraine. He knows that the world is getting more dangerous, not
less, so will he commit to continuing the promise of 3% of GDP on
the Defence spend?
It will not have been a secret to my right hon. Friend that I am
sympathetic to that, because I campaigned for it very loudly and
visibly when I was a Back Bencher, but all these things have to
be sustainable. Any increase in Defence spending has to be an
increase that we can sustain over many years. I agree with him
entirely that the duty of a Government is to provide security for
the population, in all senses of the word.
(Birmingham, Selly Oak)
(Lab)
Does the Chancellor’s compassionate conservatism extend to
raising the minimum income component of pension credit, or is he
prepared to let the poorest pensioners in the land be sacrificed
on the altar of Trussonomics?
I would gently say to the hon. Gentleman that, while I completely
understand how important it is to support our most vulnerable
pensioners, what they need more than anything is a strong economy
that can pay for the support that we would want to give them.
(North Dorset) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and breathe a sigh of
relief at the grown-up and sensible approach he has taken to the
issues at hand. I also echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend
the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the hon. Member for
Ceredigion () about the need to take into
account those who are off grid and using heating oil. They
deserve as much support as possible.
My right hon. Friend is newly empowered and he is able to slay
many dragons. Could he slay the dragon of fracking, which was not
in our manifesto?
This is an issue that has raised its head in my own constituency.
Let me simply say to my hon. Friend that the Government’s
position is clear: we will not proceed unless there is local
support.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
In the bonfire of Government policy that has just taken place,
the Chancellor was not very specific about what would happen to
the Prime Minister’s investment zones policy. Personally, I was
hoping that it would be incinerated as well, not least because it
is designed to undermine environmental regulation, to avoid fair
taxation and to bypass local democracy. In the past, he has said
that he is a green Tory. I have to put it to him that that is
sadly an endangered species right now, but if he is serious about
being a green Tory, will he now take steps to demonstrate it by
ruling out any policies that will undermine nature protection and
restoration, and will he accept there is no financial capital
that is not entirely dependent on a thriving natural capital?
I am absolutely committed to protecting our green spaces and
boosting biodiversity, but I also think it is important to look
at environmental regulations to see if they can be streamlined in
a way that is consistent with allowing the natural world to
flourish as well as the economy.
(Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor and thank him for bringing calm
reassurance to the markets and to this crisis so quickly. Does he
agree that economic crises based on political confidence mean
that everybody in this Chamber, on both sides of the House, has a
duty to reassure the markets that we are capable of taking tough
decisions? Does he also agree that, as we look to grow as he has
highlighted, the technology and science sectors provide huge
opportunities and that we should resist the opportunity to cut
their funding?
There is no more formidable an advocate of science and technology
than my hon. Friend, and he knows that I also care very much
about the sector. With respect to reassuring the markets, the
most important thing is, as we said earlier, that there is no
disagreement about the policies announced today. It is important
for the markets to know that there is that consensus in the
House.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
Last month, the Prime Minister told the BBC in Hull that we would
be included in Northern Powerhouse Rail despite not being
included in the Government’s integrated rail plan. Was the Prime
Minister wrong to say that?
I do not know, but I will write to the right hon. Lady.
(New Forest East) (Con)
May I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s remarks about defence and
security? As it took us very many years to pay off this country’s
colossal second world war debt, am I right in thinking that the
huge costs of covid and Putin’s aggression in Ukraine cannot
possibly be cleared completely in the short to medium term?
I wish I could answer that question. As my right hon. Friend will
know better than me, this appalling saga is far from over, so we
do not know what the total costs will be. I thank him for his
rapid and not entirely unexpected lobbying on defence budget
issues since I took up this post. I think the job of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make sure that our economy is
strong enough to fund the role that Britain wants to play in
defence of democracy and freedom all over the world.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
I have worked with and against the Chancellor of the Exchequer on
many occasions, and I have learned that he is an honest man, but
he said in his opening remarks that this country is always good
at rising to the challenge of big and difficult times. What I
hate about what he said today—I really do hate it—is that there
was no note of contrition. This big and difficult was started by
his lot only two weeks ago. It is not just big and difficult; it
is a national disaster. He spoke not one word of contrition about
the mess that his party has made of this country.
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, and we have
had many exchanges in this House over the years. I think actions
speak louder than words, and I do not think I could have been
plainer in going out this weekend and today to accept that
mistakes were made. The country wants to see us correcting those
mistakes, and that is what we have done.
(Winchester) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows that I am very pleased to see him in
Downing Street. The sense of relief expressed to me this weekend
as I was out and about in my constituency was palpable. I welcome
his statement—I welcome its realism and honesty—and I welcome his
trademark sense of optimism in his final remark, from which I
could certainly learn. He is right that growth demands
confidence. Does he have confidence that, when the Bank makes its
decisions a week or so after his statement in two weeks’ time,
the rise in interest rates, the mere prospect of which is
terrifying my constituents, is not inevitable?
I thank my hon. Friend for his generous comments. It is not for
the Government to say what the Bank of England does when the
Monetary Policy Committee makes its decision on interest rates,
but of course I have had conversations with the Governor about
what the Bank needs to hear for it to feel that the inflationary
pressures will be lower and so it will not have to make as high
an increase as some people are predicting. Our constituents’
mortgages are at the top of my mind.
(Coventry South) (Lab)
The Chancellor has pledged a new wave of austerity, with public
spending cuts squeezing services that have already been cut to
the bone over the past 12 years. This is without a mandate and,
as before, this round of austerity is a political choice not an
economic necessity. Instead of cutting our services, the
Government could raise taxes on the super-rich. If the Chancellor
believes in his approach, why does he not put it to the people
and call for a general election?
With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, I did not pledge a
new wave of austerity. If she does not like austerity, she should
look at the generosity of the furlough scheme and what we are
doing on the cost of living crisis. This has all been done
because of difficult decisions she opposed every time.
(South Dorset) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. He talks about
growing the economy and a strong economy, and I agree with that.
May I remind the House, particularly those on the Opposition
Benches, that it is, in the main, the private sector that raises
the money that pays the tax for the public sector? We cannot go
on hammering the private sector if we want to see the growth we
want. As he takes his place, will he bear that in mind and reduce
taxation as soon as he is able?
The answer is yes. To demonstrate that I understand what my hon.
Friend is talking about when he talks about the private sector, I
am going to say some words I have always dreamed of saying from
this Dispatch Box: I used to be an entrepreneur.
(Dundee East) (SNP)
The Chancellor spoke about difficult questions to be faced in the
future, and I hope he is not going to fall into the old trap of
trying to cut his way to growth, because that cannot work and it
never works. May I welcome what he did today: the screeching
U-turn on the vast majority of the mini-Budget from the Prime
Minister and his predecessor? Given that he has done that—I do
welcome it—may we have a guarantee from him today that for as
long as he has anything to do with it, there will never be a
return to extremist, crank, experimental, think-tank economics?
I am happy to offer that guarantee if the right hon. Gentleman
will agree to explicitly reject the extremist, crank, think-tank
economics of Scottish independence.
(Harlow) (Con)
I welcome the direction of travel of my right hon. Friend and the
reinstatement of compassionate conservatism, which is at the
heart of this political party. When the Conservative Government
under Chancellor had rightly to cut the
deficit and cut debt, they also helped the most needy with the
cost of living, introducing the living wage and cutting taxes for
lower earners, introducing a fuel duty freeze, and investing in
skills and apprenticeships. I know that my right hon. Friend is
not going to give me an answer now, but may I ask him: will that
be his guiding philosophy as he goes forward in his new role?
I always listen to my right hon. Friend carefully on these
issues. Let me say to him this: I do not think we will solve the
growth paradox of this country, raising our long-term rate of
economic growth to 2.5% from under 1%, unless we tackle the
skills issue—that is central. I do not promise that I can give
him an entire solution to that in two weeks’ time, but it is
something I would very much like to talk to him more about.
(Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Government insiders are busy telling the press that the Bank of
England is “playing roulette” with the British economy. Is that
helpful or unhelpful?
Those comments have not been coming from the Government since I
have been a part of the Government. I cannot talk about what
happened before, but what I will say is that I am working
extremely closely with the Bank of England, and we are both
absolutely aligned on the need for stability.
(South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and welcome him to his post.
Is a crucial point not that one weakness of the plan for growth
is that fiscal and monetary policy were, in effect, contradicting
one another? When we talk about working with the Bank of England,
what that really means is fiscal and monetary policy working in
lockstep so that we deal with inflation, which is the biggest
economic challenge we face.
My hon. Friend has actually answered the previous question much
better than I did—the answer is yes.
(North Down) (Alliance)
It is right that the Chancellor is seeking to reassure the
markets, but will he take the opportunity today also to reassure
the millions of people who rely on benefits, both those who are
in work and those who are out of work? The UK has some of the
lowest benefits in Europe. There are people on benefits with no
plan B and no savings, and huge anxiety at present, given the
current situation. So will he pledge that benefits will increase
in line with existing Government policy—in line with the consumer
prices index? Will he also reverse what the previous Chancellor
said in his mini-Budget about the more punitive approach to be
taken against those on benefits?
What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is straightforward. It is
because I want us to be able to support the poorest, the most
vulnerable and those in the greatest difficulties in society that
the most important thing I can do right now as Chancellor is what
I can to create economic stability, and that is what I am doing.
(Cheltenham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s swift and decisive action
today, but also the tone and, above all, the candour of his
remarks. Does he agree that the best way in the long term to
build a strong economy and a fair society for my constituents in
Cheltenham, many of whom he met recently, is to repair the public
finances in the short term? That is the Conservative way; that is
what builds prosperity in the long term.
Absolutely, and only a couple of weeks ago I was sitting in a
café in Cheltenham having a cold sandwich with my hon. Friend. I
want to thank him for his incredible articulacy in lobbying for
the needs of the people of Cheltenham.
(Aberavon) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor think that it is morally justifiable to lift
the cap on bankers’ bonuses while refusing to confirm that he
will link benefits to inflation?
I understand why the hon. Gentleman has asked the question. I
believe that wealthier people should pay more as we go through a
difficult period, but the mechanism of the cap, with which we
were doing that, was not working. We will get more money out of
the pockets of those rich bankers through what we are going to do
now.
(Meon Valley) (Con)
Many of our more advanced manufacturing businesses are in the
defence sector, and they welcome our commitment to growing
defence spending. They have no problem with paying more
corporation tax, as long as there are incentives to support their
cutting-edge research and development. Will my right hon. Friend
commit to ensuring that those incentives are available across all
industries?
That is a very important point. We have an issue in that we need
our companies to invest more in R&D. We have a fantastic
opportunity to be the world’s next silicon valley, with all the
potential of our great universities and incredible levels of
innovation, but I absolutely think there is more that we can do,
and I will bear in mind my hon. Friend’s comments.
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
Since 2015, the value of the pound has dropped about 30% compared
with the dollar. After this Government’s mini-Budget, the pound
hit an all-time low against the dollar. Given that oil and gas,
and other, related energy products are traded in dollars, is it
not the case that, by absolutely tanking the pound against the
dollar, this Government have added other costs to the cost of
energy in the UK?
I am delighted that someone from the SNP is worried about the
value of the pound, which I think shows that it matters to all of
us. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, in all seriousness, that
Governments cannot control the value of currency and should not
seek to do so, but in so far as our actions affect the stability
of our markets, including the currency markets, the one thing we
can do is to show that we are balancing the books.
(Morecambe and Lunesdale)
(Con)
I would like to welcome my right hon. Friend—my friend—to his new
position as Chancellor. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would not know
this, but my right hon. Friend should have been coming to
Morecambe on Thursday, but of course last weekend has changed
these things. However, I extend the invitation to come to
Morecambe so that he can see how much money has been spent there
and how well it has been doing since 2010, and also see the Eden
Project North site and the stakeholders.
I would be delighted to accept my hon. Friend’s invitation. He
might not want to tell me what he would like as a christening
present for his daughter, because I now have a trillion pounds at
my disposal.
(Slough) (Lab)
In the history of British democracy, have we ever had such a
calamitous start for a Prime Minister? We have now had four
Chancellors in four months, but it was a majority of Conservative
MPs and members who inflicted fantasy trickle-down economics upon
our country, when they naively decided to take a holiday from
reality, which has left many of my Slough constituents struggling
to pay their bills. Given that the new Chancellor has effectively
dumped the kamikaze mini-Budget, does he agree that he and the
Prime Minister no longer have a democratic mandate to continue in
their positions and that they should step aside and let the
exasperated British people make their decision?
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Just before the Chancellor answers that question and
responds to the very neat speech that the hon. Gentleman has just
made, I must appeal to colleagues for quick questions. We have
had all the speeches; we do not need to hear all the same things
all over again. We need quick questions so that the Chancellor
can give brief replies, because otherwise we will never get on to
the other business.
A general election would not contribute to stability if people
had to worry about the disastrous policies of a future Labour
Government.
(Dudley South) (Con)
I know the Chancellor will not have taken the decisions that he
has today easily, but he will recognise that the planned
increases in alcohol duties will have a devastating impact on
many small pubs, small brewers and hospitality businesses. Will
he look at how the changes he is making to beer duty in
particular can be structured to help rather than harm small
hospitality businesses, and perhaps bring forward the
implementation of draught beer duty?
I hear my hon. Friend. The hospitality industry is incredibly
important to our economy. I have two things to say. As he knows,
we are reviewing the whole structure of alcohol duties, and as
part of that process we will be keeping the levels of duty under
constant review.
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
We have had many U-turns, but there is one that the Chancellor
has not made that is massively relevant to Cumbria and other
rural communities. The cut in stamp duty will help nearly nobody
who can currently not afford a home to be able to afford one.
What it will do is add fuel to the fire of a second home
ownership and Airbnb disaster in areas such as the lakes and the
dales. Does he understand the damage that excessive second home
ownership and Airbnb do to communities such as mine and other
parts of the country? Will he think again and do something to
support our communities and stop the housing catastrophe?
I entirely understand the concerns about second home ownership,
and the Government have been looking at that policy in enormous
detail over recent months. However, I gently say to the hon.
Member that it would be wrong to be dismissive of the concerns of
young people desperately trying to get onto the housing ladder,
and the help that we are giving them with the stamp duty reforms
will make a significant difference.
(Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Chancellor for his statement and for the
urgency with which he has acted. The energy price guarantee was
welcomed across the House, although it was probably the policy
that created the greatest uncertainty in the financial markets.
Does he agree that, as he reviews the policy, there will
continually be challenges in this area so long as Putin maintains
his aggressive conflict in Ukraine?
Absolutely. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend has made
that point. We should remember that Putin’s gain is to try to
turn economic instability into political instability, and we must
not play along with it.
(Cardiff South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
The chaos in the bond markets impacting on pensions was a result
of decisions by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, his party
and his Prime Minister. Can he now tell us whether all pension
funds are secure, what is the value of the total losses, and what
actions will he be taking to ensure that people can have
confidence in their pensions? Why should they ever trust the
Tories with their pensions again?
I am afraid that I do not accept at all the hon. Member’s
analysis of why those problems happened, but I do not deny that
we have had some issues with pension funds. I point him to
today’s statement by the Governor of the Bank of England that
says we are well on our way to resolving them.
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
People and businesses across Stoke-on-Trent are incredibly
thankful for support with their energy bills throughout the
winter. When my right hon. Friend comes to review those policies
in April, will he make sure that those who most need that support
are protected the most, particularly energy-intensive businesses
such as ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent?
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have already had
extensive discussions with my Treasury officials about the needs
of energy-intensive industries and we are very well aware of
those issues.
(Birmingham, Yardley)
(Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor to his place, but it seems quite
baffling to me that everybody is giving him plaudits for all the
work that he is doing—well done—when the thing that he is undoing
is the Prime Minister’s Budget. It is as if the past four weeks
have not happened, and I feel a tiny bit gaslit by that, I have
to say. Why is he spending £2 billion a year on unfunded stamp
duty cuts when he said today that he could not announce unfunded
tax cuts? How will he pay for that?
The hon. Lady will find out in two weeks.
(Harrogate and Knaresborough)
(Con)
It is good to see my right hon. Friend in his place. Does he
agree that, as well as support for families and businesses with
energy bills now, the need for long-term energy resilience is as
urgent as ever? Will that be one of his priorities?
It will. It is not just my responsibility, but that of the whole
Government. Good government is about fixing long-term issues as
well as dealing with short-term crises, and that is definitely an
important long-term issue.
(Islington North) (Ind)
We live in a deeply divided country and a deeply divided society.
There are more poor people than ever, more people accessing food
banks than ever before and more children growing up in absolute
poverty and, as a result, not achieving their best in life. Twice
the Chancellor has refused to answer the question whether he will
raise benefits in line with inflation. I ask for the third time:
can he please assure people who rely on benefits for their very
existence that they will be increased at least in line with
inflation, to tackle the appalling poverty so many people face?
I respect the right hon. Gentleman for pressing me on that issue,
because I understand how important it is. The reason I am not
able to give him the answer he seeks is that I am not giving that
answer on any area of spending or tax policy. The situation we
face is extremely grave, and we must look at those issues in the
round. We will come to the House with those decisions just as
soon as they have been made and then independently audited by the
Office for Budget Responsibility.
(Newbury) (Con)
I welcome the rapid grip my right hon. Friend has exerted on the
public finances, which has been reflected throughout the day by
the rally in sterling and gilts. However, I seek clarification of
his comments on investment relief. Will he maintain his
commitment to seed enterprise investment schemes focused on
science and technology? Those are thriving sectors in my
constituency and, as he alluded to, they are the engines of our
future economic success.
I ran a small technology business for 14 years, so that is very
much where my heart is. There is a massive opportunity for the UK
to create something a bit like the City of London, something that
will pay an enormous amount of corporate tax for many years to
come. Although I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer, I am
determined to grip that opportunity.
(Perth and North Perthshire)
(SNP)
Will the Chancellor take this opportunity to concede that he is
now the de facto Prime Minister and that it is he who calls the
shots in government, in what must be the most bizarre and surreal
coup in political history? In this new role, does he think the
current Prime Minister is a help or a hindrance to his economic
objectives?
I will just say this: it is the most challenging form of
leadership to accept that a decision one has made has to be
changed. The Prime Minister has done that, and she has done so
willingly, because she understands the importance of economic
stability. I respect her for it.
(Blyth Valley) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. Will he please give
my constituents an assurance that this Conservative Government
will continue to support the most vulnerable in society with
their energy bills in the months ahead?
I will absolutely give that assurance. My hon. Friend’s own
background is in mental health and he understands just how
vulnerable people can get. Those concerns will be topmost in our
mind.
(Swansea West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Before the Chancellor goes on a spending cut spree of public
services, will he look at the analysis in today’s Financial Times
that says that every £1 invested in the NHS generates £4 in
growth? Will he also do what he can to protect poorly paid health
workers who are facing much higher mortgage costs due to his
Government?
Until the hon. Gentleman got to the end bit, I was going to say
that that sounded like the question I should have been asking the
previous Chancellor as Chair of the Health and Social Care
Committee. I am very aware that the NHS does not just cost us
money but can contribute to our growth. There is an enormous
opportunity for this country to become one of the life science
giants of the world.
(Worcester) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and I welcome his
focus on both fiscal responsibility and compassionate
conservatism. Further to his welcome answer to my right hon.
Friend the Member for Harlow (), does he agree that money
invested in the skills and education of the most disadvantaged is
money well spent and will benefit the future fiscal growth and
stability of our country?
I absolutely do, and I think that there are many economists, such
as Paul Johnson, who would say that if we really want the
productivity, levels of wealth and prosperity of places such as
Germany and Singapore, the skills gap is the biggest gap that we
have. It is scandalous that for decades Governments from all
parts of the House have not been able to deal with the fact that
about 100,000 people leave school every year unable to read.
These are important issues, but I want to be honest: this is not
something that the Government or I can address in the next two
weeks, but it is absolutely something that we will have to come
back to.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
For all the hand-wringing and soft soap, I am afraid that I do
not think that this Chancellor is any better than the last one.
[Interruption.] Well, he has been present at all the failures
over the past 12 years: the failure to invest in the NHS; the
failure to make sure that we had personal protective equipment in
time for a pandemic; the failure to deal properly with the
invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea. In all those
things, he has been at the scene of the crime. The biggest
problem is that, as a result of 12 years of Tory economics, we
will have the highest tax take in our history and still the
highest borrowing in our history and probably the largest tax
cuts in our history. Why is this the only major economy in the
world that has not yet grown to the level that it occupied before
the pandemic?
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman as a great
parliamentarian, but will he allow me to say that there is not
really a polite word to describe the nonsense that he has just
uttered? We inherited the worst financial crisis since the second
world war from his party, and since then, we have become the
third-fastest growing country in the G7. He talked about the NHS,
which had a £20 billion increase in funding on my watch—40,000
more doctors, nurses and other clinicians—and there is more to
come if we take the difficult decisions to grow our economy that
his party always opposes.
(Scunthorpe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor knows very well the
importance of steel, both to my Scunthorpe constituency and to
our country. Will he confirm that the energy support package for
business remains unaltered, and that when the Treasury enters
into the three-month review it will do so mindful of the
strategic value of steel?
Yes and yes.
(Chesterfield) (Lab)
First, when the Chancellor rises to respond to this question,
will he withdraw the claim that Labour opposed furlough? We did
not—we supported it. Secondly, the previous Chancellor took the
view that if we reduced corporation tax more money came back in
revenue. Indeed, in his own short-lived leadership contest the
Chancellor seemed to be saying the same thing and proposed even
greater cuts to corporation tax. Will he now tell us whether he
believes that an increase in corporation tax will raise more
revenue or, as he has previously said, less?
I did not say that Labour opposed the furlough scheme. What I
said was that Labour Members like it when we spend money, but
they oppose all the measures necessary for the economy to be able
to afford them.
When it comes to corporation tax, I would love to reduce it. In
the long run, I think we do get more money. [Interruption.] Well,
I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question. We do get more
money back, but that has to be on money that we actually have—it
cannot be on borrowed money, which is why we have changed
direction.
(Totnes) (Con)
I am utterly delighted to see my right hon. Friend in his place.
It was an honour to be on his campaign team at the very
beginning.
May I add one small point? Last week, I met representatives from
the hospitality and tourism sector, which sees the possibility of
10,000 businesses going out of business. Will he meet me and
representatives from the sector to talk about what we can do to
keep it open, because it is absolutely the powerhouse of the
British economy?
After my hon. Friend’s generous comments, the answer is
absolutely, yes.
(Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Chancellor has raised the prospect of further departmental
savings—he means cuts—but from the TUC to the Institute for
Government and the Welsh Local Government Association, people
agree that there is nothing left to cut. When will the Chancellor
listen to the Wealth Tax Commission and others who urge the
Government to raise tax on wealth and non-earnings income, rather
than decimate public services on which our constituents rely?
We already, with Conservative support, ask wealthier people to
pay far more tax than people on low means, but the kind of taxes
that the hon. Lady is advocating would destroy the wealth of the
overall economy, so we would have less money for the NHS and the
people who need it most.
(Carlisle) (Con)
I appreciate that the Chancellor has some really difficult
decisions to make on tax and spending, but if we are to grow the
economy, we must maintain capital expenditure. Up and down the
country, there are a number of projects to which we allocated
funding three or four years ago. They are now out to tender and
can be built in the next 12 to 18 months, but they may have a
slight shortfall. Will the Chancellor be sensitive to those
projects, because if we are to grow the economy, it is those
sorts of capital projects that we need to commence?
I absolutely agree about the importance of capital to the
long-term growth of the economy—indeed, not just those projects,
but many other projects. So, yes, we will be sensitive to that,
but that does not mean that we will not have to make difficult
decisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call Brendan O’Hara. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman
disappeared before my very eyes. I call . [Hon. Members: “He is not
here either.”] Fine—they are falling like ninepins. Goodness me,
we had better try something different. I call .
(East Renfrewshire)
(SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has been reported that No. 10
was briefing that the Chancellor’s statement was due to
unspecified global headwinds, rather than the mini-Budget, but
the former deputy governor of the Bank of England, Charles Bean,
disagreed and said that the Prime Minister’s insistence that the
UK’s economic turmoil was part of a global phenomenon was
“disingenuous”. To be clear, what does the Chancellor believe has
happened? Who does he agree with? Who does he think is
responsible for the terrible financial thumping that now affects
my constituents?
I do not think I could have been clearer in my statement. I said
that the turmoil we have had is the result of international and
domestic factors.
(Broadland) (Con)
The Chancellor will be aware that his actions over the past few
days have already lowered long-term expectations for interest
rates. Can he set out for the House what impact he anticipates
that that will have on mortgage rates in my constituency and
across the country, as well as on the Government’s ability to
fund future services?
I absolutely salute my hon. Friend for thinking about the needs
of families having to pay mortgages, which have an enormous
impact on their finances. As I have learned in my short time in
this job, Chancellors never comment on what mortgage rates or
interest rates should be, but I absolutely want to make sure, in
so far as the Government can influence it, we make sure that they
are held down as low as possible.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
I will be a bit more generous. I genuinely welcome the
re-emphasis on market stability, sound economic finance and
ensuring that our country genuinely has an economic policy that
is not going to frighten the markets.
The Chancellor says that he is reviewing all tax and spending
before the Budget, and he wants to ensure that he takes
communities with him. May I impress on him the very real damage
that was done in lots of communities across the country that one
might call red wall seats, although not all of them voted for the
Conservatives in 2019, as a result of the cuts to local
government—60p in the pound. Local government cannot take that
level of cuts again. May I ask him at least to consider ensuring
that those communities are protected?
I am not making any commitments on individual areas of any tax or
spend, but yes, I absolutely understand the pressures faced in
local government.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
I welcome the Chancellor to his place. I welcome what he said
about economic stability, the stability he has brought, and what
he said about protecting the most vulnerable, which my
constituents will welcome. When the people of
Newcastle-under-Lyme voted for me and for the Government in 2019,
they wanted us to deliver Brexit, deliver them from the Labour
party, and deliver levelling up. Despite the difficult economic
circumstances, can the Chancellor reassure me that the Government
will continue to spread opportunity, growth and investment across
the nation?
I am absolutely delighted to give that assurance. It is a
fundamental part of the Conservative philosophy that economic
opportunity should be evenly shared across the country, and we
accept that it is not at the moment.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
The chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association made the
point this morning that, time after time, freezes in spirits duty
have delivered more revenue to the Treasury, contrary to all the
forecasts from the Treasury. The Chancellor will know that that
is correct, so why does he think that it would be different this
time?
I will happily take that piece of wisdom away to the Treasury and
ask them to relook at the figures, but I do not think that it is
likely that they would have advised me to take the measures I
took today if that was the case. I will go and ask them to look
at it again.
(Waveney) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role and commend him
for the prompt and decisive action he has already taken. He has
rightly said that the Government wish to protect the most
vulnerable. With that in mind, taking into account the parameters
he has already set out, may I urge him to confirm as soon as
practically possible that benefits will be uprated in line with
inflation? In doing so, he will remove the burden of worry and
anxiety that is hanging over a great many people in this country.
That issue has been raised by several colleagues from across the
House and, as I have said previously, I thank my hon. Friend for
raising it and understand how important it is. He will understand
that I am not in a position to make any commitments in any area
today. We will make our decisions as soon as we can and bring
them back to this House, but I hear what he says.
(Lewisham West and Penge)
(Lab)
SE20 Cycles in my constituency is a popular bike shop and the
proud home of Penge cycle club, but owner Winnie faces an energy
bill of £11,000 before winter has even started. It is only
through the support of a local crowdfunder that Winnie is able to
keep his doors open. What does the Chancellor have to say to SE20
Cycles and the thousands of other small businesses that face
higher energy bills, higher rents, higher prices and, frankly,
terrifying uncertainty because of this Government’s incompetence?
We introduced the energy price guarantee precisely because we
care about families and also businesses that face unexpected
increases in their fuel bills. I will write to the hon. Lady to
tell her exactly how we are supporting small businesses in her
constituency.
(North West Durham)
(Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place as a great first step
in restoring trust and confidence in our economy. Although I
welcome the broad package of energy support measures, can I echo
sentiments of other hon. Members and those of my constituents
from Cowshill village hall, who I met this weekend up in rural
Weardale. They are very concerned about the extra costs of being
off-grid, and if my right hon. Friend could look at that over the
next couple of weeks, it would be massively appreciated. Will he
also keep working on the broader energy security measures so that
we can ensure that we do not face this situation again in the
future?
I will absolutely do that.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
I note that Brexit merited not one mention in the Chancellor’s
statement. The truth is that this economic crisis was baked in
when his party committed to a hard Brexit; it was just a matter
of when, although the Prime Minister substantially brought that
forward. The then Member of Parliament for South West Surrey said
that service levels and investment in public services would be
massively impacted by Brexit. Does the Chancellor agree with the
then Member for South West Surrey?
I am very sorry; I missed the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s
question. I am not sure whether he is allowed to say it again,
but on the first part of his question I would simply say that
when it comes to Brexit the UK grew faster than the eurozone
countries since 2016, so I do not accept his analysis.
(Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
(Con)
I warmly welcome the Chancellor to his place. He, more than
anybody else, will be aware of the pressures in the health and
social care system as we enter a difficult winter. Will he be
able to give reassurance to people working in the NHS and
patients across the country that he will maintain the levels of
funding necessary to cope with those winter pressures and with
the future challenges that the health and social care system will
face?
I am, I think, one of only two Chancellors to have been Health
Secretary, so I am very aware of the pressures in the NHS. I am
not making any commitments, but when it comes to the NHS the
whole country wants to make sure that it can cope not just with
winter crises but with the pressures we have had since covid. We
will look at that very carefully, but I would also like to see
reform in the way NHS funding is spent, because I think we can do
better with the large sums that we spend already.
(Worsley and Eccles South)
(Lab)
After the Government’s disastrous mini-Budget, I heard from a
constituent, a single person first-time buyer who had been saving
to buy a home for seven years and can no longer afford a
mortgage. She described that as a kick in the teeth. What does
the Chancellor of the Exchequer say to my constituent and all
those ordinary people across the country battling price rises,
struggling with increased mortgage costs and having their
pensions hit by the effects of three weeks of instability caused
by the economic incompetence of the current Prime Minister and
her Government?
We have listened to her concerns and we have changed our policies
as a result. Also, in fairness, the rise in interest rates is not
just because of actions taken by the UK Government in the past
few weeks but because of global factors, and we will do
everything we can going forward to shield people like the hon.
Lady’s constituent from those global factors, but we cannot do
everything.
(Runnymede and Weybridge)
(Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today. It is
absolutely right that the Government should prioritise economic
stability above all else and accordingly make some necessary but
difficult decisions given the challenging circumstances. Can he
confirm that pursuing a high-growth economy remains central to
the vision and will he continue to pursue policies of reducing
the tax burden as circumstances and the economy allow?
I am happy to confirm both those points to my hon. Friend.
(North East Fife)
(LD)
I would like to return to a theme that I picked up at the plan
for growth statement three weeks ago: carers, particularly unpaid
carers. Because of the carers allowance, they either cannot work
at all or are struggling to make ends meet. Will the Chancellor
confirm whether we will see inflationary increases to benefits
and, if not, will he consider expanding the means-tested cost of
living payments to include those on carers allowance or, at the
very least, will he allow people to work more before their carers
allowance is impacted?
I have said, as the hon. Lady will have heard, that I am not
announcing decisions in any individual areas because of the
gravity of the situation we face. On carers allowance, I will
happily write to her anyway as I think these are all things we
keep under review.
(Colne Valley) (Con)
I very much welcome the fact that we now have an entrepreneur in
11 Downing Street. I also welcome the fact that over the weekend
the Chancellor spoke once again about compassionate Conservatism,
supporting those in our communities who are most in need while
striving for sustainable growth. I know that my right hon. Friend
is not making any spending commitments today, but does he agree
with me in principle that one of the best ways we can support and
create sustainable jobs in our communities is by continuing to
invest in our levelling-up agenda across communities in our
country?
I absolutely am very happy to confirm that I agree with that in
principle.
(East Kilbride, Strathaven
and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Two very important conferences are taking place in the UK this
week that support the Government’s aim for a UK cryptocurrency
hub: the digital assets summit and the bitcoin collective summit.
The crypto and digital assets all-party parliamentary group,
which I chair, is keen to meet the Treasury to hear about the
Chancellor’s commitments to regulation and consumer protection
and to take forward the area’s vast potential in job creation,
innovation and growth.
I know that the hon. Lady has been in discussions with the
Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I know that he would be
delighted to communicate with her further, because she obviously
has a lot of expertise in this area.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
For three and a half weeks, the Government have gambled with
people’s pensions, with their mortgages and with their futures. I
notice that the Chancellor, in the list of people he has met, did
not mention the Pensions Regulator, yet pensions have taken a
significant hit over this period. Can he say that pension schemes
will not be deemed unviable over this period, that they will get
the support they need from Government, and that he will ensure
they are stable for the future as both defined contribution and
defined benefit schemes?
Well, I have had many discussions on pensions issues with the
Governor of the Bank of England who, as the hon. Lady knows, has
taken extensive action to protect the viability of pension funds.
She will be as pleased as I was that he announced today that he
thinks that he has basically succeeded in resolving that issue in
nearly every case.
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
Will the Chancellor commit to the House that, as part of his
decision making, he will also take cognisance of the social
consequences and the consequences for social stability? Food aid
charities handed a petition to Downing Street today saying that
they are struggling to meet the demands of our fellow citizens.
Will he meet those charities so that they can impress on him the
urgent need to uprate benefits in line with inflation?
I am meeting many different people to discuss that very issue,
but I am afraid that I can only point the hon. Gentleman to my
earlier answer that I am not announcing any decisions on it
today.
(Eltham) (Lab)
The Chancellor is taking plaudits for having calmed the markets,
but he has not resolved the problem—he has just stopped it
getting worse. Gilts will still cost more so borrowing will still
cost more for the Government in perpetuity, which will have an
impact on people’s mortgage rates. Does he expect repossessions
to go up in future? If so, what action will he take to assist
people who find themselves in that situation because of the Prime
Minister’s reckless Budget?
It is because I do not want that to happen that I have taken the
very difficult decisions today.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am sure that the Chancellor would agree that certainty is key
to stability for businesses. As has already been mentioned by one
or two of my hon. Friends, the Scotch whisky industry, and the
spirits industry generally, is now facing uncertainty because of
his U-turn on freezing the duty, and it has no certainty about
whether or when the duty will go up, or when it will even know.
Can he commit to letting the industry know at an early date—as
soon as possible—what will actually happen to it, as it is vital
to many of our constituencies?
We will conclude the decisions on what we will do in terms of
excise duty reform generally as quickly as we can, but for now, I
am afraid that the difficult decision that I announced today
stands and we will not be able to proceed with the freeze from
next February.
(Brent North) (Lab)
I genuinely welcome many of the announcements that the Chancellor
has made today and the stability that they will produce, and I
wish him well for all our sakes in his new role. I want to focus
his attention back on the young couple seeking to purchase their
first home. They fear that the housing shortage means that the
cut in stamp duty will not benefit them, but will simply raise
the price of property and benefit existing homeowners—or have he
and his party managed to abolish the law of supply and demand in
the last 24 hours?
No, I have not. We recognise the need for more housing and the
problems in the planning system. They will be at the top of our
mind as we announce reforms to restore economic growth.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
Last month, I pressed the Government to commit to extending the
short-term energy price support announced for business and said
that it could not afford to wait for the three-month review,
because it needs certainty. Today, we have heard that the same
uncertainty is to be imposed on every single household across my
Edinburgh South West constituency, and indeed across the United
Kingdom, because the Chancellor has reversed the Prime Minister’s
promise to give them energy support for two years. My
constituents live in one of the most energy rich countries in the
world, yet they face crippling bills. Does the Chancellor think
that that is a good example of the dividend that he says Scotland
gets from being in the Union?
Well, I think that not just Scotland but England, Wales and
Northern Ireland get a fantastic dividend from being in the
Union. I say to the hon. and learned Lady that we have not
reneged on our commitment to help people on low incomes with
energy bills next year. We have said that we will review it and
that we need a more targeted scheme, but we absolutely want to
give help to her constituents and everyone’s constituents.
Sir (East Ham) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor recognise that there was a very heavy blow to
the lowest-income households in the country in April when social
security benefits were uprated by 3.1% and inflation was nearly
10%? It was justified at the time on the basis that that was what
the regular uprating formula had delivered, and that the same
formula would be used next April. That assurance was given by
both the then Chancellor and the then Prime Minister. Will the
Chancellor recognise, when he reflects on his announcements in a
couple of weeks’ time, that that is a matter of compassion, yes,
but also of fairness?
I do accept that, and I think compassion and fairness are two
sides of the same coin. I have told the right hon. Gentleman that
while I cannot give the answers to any of these decisions, it
will be through those prisms that we make those very difficult
choices.
(Glasgow North) (Ind)
How will the concerns and experiences of the nations and regions
of the United Kingdom be represented on the Chancellor’s new
advisory panel? What, if any, are the Barnett consequentials of
today’s announcement for the devolved Administrations’ budgets?
On the latter point, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. On the
former point, I am confident that the advisers I have will be
able to speak for the whole United Kingdom.
(Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
May I press the Chancellor? The defined benefit pensions market
has been in turmoil. Schemes have nearly folded, and the Bank of
England has spent £20 billion to steady the market. How will he
grip that better so that pensioners can have confidence in their
schemes?
I believe that the Bank of England has taken important action and
I refer the hon. Gentleman to what the Governor of the Bank of
England said today and his confidence that those issues have been
largely resolved.
(Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
(SNP)
Earlier this afternoon, the Chancellor announced the formation of
a new economic advisory council. Can he confirm that its members
will be independent and that they are not major donors to the
Conservative party seeking to gain influence on Government
policy?
I can confirm that the council’s members will be independent; I
can confirm that there will be no improper influence exerted; and
I can confirm, as the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear,
that all donations to the Conservative party are vetted and
legal.
(Leeds East) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to what the Chancellor has said. Our
public services are on their knees after 12 years of Tory
misrule; they really cannot cope with any further cuts. In
contrast, the very richest have seen their wealth soar threefold
over the past decade. Surely, rather than further cuts to our
public services, would it not be fairer to impose a wealth tax on
the very richest in our society?
The trouble with those kinds of taxes is that they end up
inhibiting the wealth-creating capacity of the economy to fund
the very public services that the hon. Gentleman supports. I
support wealthier people paying more tax, but only when it
creates more resources to put into the public services that we
all need.
(Aberdeen South) (SNP)
We have a Government who Scotland did not vote for, and a
Chancellor who is leading the way despite Scotland not voting for
him and who is, of course, about to impose swingeing public
sector cuts on Scotland that, again, we did not vote for. With
that prospectus, is it any surprise that the people of Scotland
are going to choose a different path?
I am very happy that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about what
the people of Scotland voted for, which was to remain in the
United Kingdom.
(Bristol South) (Lab)
In the past year, I have found myself regularly agreeing with the
right hon. Gentleman when he warned that workforce burnout across
the NHS and social care had reached emergency levels and
“is an extraordinarily dangerous risk to the…functioning of both
services.”
Does he stand by that assessment today and will he now support an
independent workforce plan?
It is very difficult to un-invent or un-say things that one has
said on the Floor of this House. I am not going to make any
commitments today, but let me say that, in my time as Chair of
the Health and Social Care Committee, I learned a great deal
about how the NHS functions, as indeed I did when I was Health
Secretary, and I hope that will be useful to me in my role.
(North Ayrshire and Arran)
(SNP)
The doglike devotion that Tory branch office members in Scotland
have for their London bosses was hopelessly exposed when they
urged the Scottish Government to follow the disastrous tax plans
of the soon-to-be former Prime Minister. Hours later, the same
branch office members applauded October’s Chancellor’s
abandonment of those plans in a desperate effort to stay on
script. Does the current Chancellor agree that those in the Tory
branch office in Scotland should apologise to the people of
Scotland for seeking to railroad the Scottish Government down a
path that would have caused even more pain for struggling
households?
The Tory Government the hon. Member so hates have shown ourselves
in the last few days to be willing to take tough and difficult
decisions if they are right for the country, so here is a tough
and difficult decision for her. Independence will make Scotland
poorer in every single way, so why does she not abandon it?
(Bedford) (Lab)
The Chancellor has reversed most of his Prime Minister’s Budget,
yet he is still talking about spending cuts to pay for the fine
mess his Government have got this country into. Tory austerity
broke our precious NHS, which he had a hand in. Now he is in
charge of the purse strings, will he put his money where his
mouth is, invest in the NHS and implement the workforce plan he
knows is desperately needed?
Before I was Chancellor, with great respect to the hon.
Gentleman, I think I did put my money where my mouth was. When I
became Health Secretary we were funding the NHS at the OECD
average and now it is the fifth highest in the OECD, so I have
started to fix years of disastrous Labour underfunding.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call . [Interruption.]
(Strangford) (DUP)
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, you threw me off there. I was
looking round to see who it was. Thank you very much for calling
me. Can I say how very pleased I am to see the Chancellor in his
place? I wish him well, and I think this House wishes him well in
the job he has to do.
Northern Ireland is a global leader in areas such as
cyber-security and advanced manufacturing, and it is also the top
location in the UK outside London for foreign direct investment.
However, the rate of economic inactivity in Northern Ireland is
higher than anywhere in Great Britain, which costs the economy
some £16 billion annually. Can I ask the Chancellor if he can
give any indication as to whether Northern Ireland will receive a
fair proportion of the levelling-up funding under round 2, rather
than in the first phase, when the 3% share target was missed?
As the hon. Member knows, I am not announcing any decisions
today, but it would always be my intention to give a fair deal to
Northern Ireland, which is an incredibly precious part of our
Union.
(Angus) (SNP)
The new Chancellor—October’s Chancellor—said, with no small
measure of smug superiority and constitutional illiteracy, that
in his opinion the four members he identified of his economic
advisory board, who by my count are three members of large
accountancy firms and one former insider from the Treasury, were
well equipped to usher in the best possible economic plan for the
devolved nations. That is clearly patent nonsense, but has it
occurred to the Chancellor to invite the Finance Ministers from
the devolved nations to form part of his economic advisory board,
or is that beneath him?
I have regular contact and will continue to have regular
contact—[Interruption.] Excuse me, would you let me answer?
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was hoping the hon. Gentleman
would let me answer.
I have regular contact with my Finance Minister counterparts in
the devolved nations—and, indeed, the Chief Secretary to the
Treasury had such discussions today—but this economic council is
something different. This is about trying to make sure that we
deal effectively with the instability we have seen in the
markets, which is mainly London-based, and we want to make sure
that it does not happen again, so I think I have four fantastic
people for that role.
(Birmingham, Perry Barr)
(Lab)
My constituents in Birmingham, Perry Barr and the people of the
west midlands, who work tirelessly to be able to secure homes for
their families, now look on in disbelief as they are having to
focus on soaring energy bills in addition to crippling mortgage
interest rates. Can the Chancellor explain how he will ensure
that my constituents will not lose all they have worked for and
will not need to make a choice between heating, eating or keeping
their homes?
We are taking difficult decisions, and we will do whatever it
takes to restore economic stability. That is the biggest single
thing we can do.
(St Helens South and Whiston)
(Lab)
Could the Chancellor explain to me whether the announcements
today on tax will have implications for the primary legislation
the Government are looking to introduce to enable the offer on
tax and simplified regulations on investment zones? The in
principle policy was published on 24 September, with expressions
of interest asked for on 2 October and a rushed announcement that
they had to be in by 14 October. There is very little detail for
people to make really informed decisions. I will write again to
the BEIS Secretary of State, if he remains the same—I have
written to two—about one really good scheme, which is going to be
massive. My constituency has two of the most deprived
boroughs—Knowsley, the second most deprived in the country, which
has had nothing yet, and St Helens, which is high up there. The
schemes are just wonderful. What is the impact?
Because we are getting towards the end of our questions, I will
reply to the hon. Member’s letter. I do not believe there are any
implications from what I have said today but, if I am wrong, I
will let her know.
(Twickenham) (LD)
If the Chancellor is serious about growth, he has to be serious
about education, yet school governors in my constituency recently
described the funding situation they face as “soul destroying”,
and one said that
“we have trimmed everything we can possibly trim”.
They are considering laying off teaching assistants, delaying
building repairs and axing school trips. Could the Chancellor of
the Exchequer tell parents and teachers in my constituency what
else he wants schools to cut to pay for the Prime Minister’s
economic incompetence?
I want to do everything I can to protect our precious public
services. I totally agree with the hon. Member about the link
between education and economic growth, but I also think it is
about social justice. I want to have fantastic schools for all
our children, whatever their background. That is why I have taken
the difficult decisions I have announced today.
(Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I know the Chancellor has already performed quite a lot of
U-turns today, but can I invite him to make another U-turn
specifically on fracking? Given that renewable energy is nine
times cheaper, would it not make good economic sense to invest in
renewables rather than fracking?
We are not going to do fracking unless it has local consent, but
I also say, as someone who believes passionately that we have to
do more on climate change, that it is not helping climate change
to import hydrocarbons from other countries and say that as a
result we are being very virtuous in reducing our own emissions.
We need to do what it takes to reduce overall emissions.
(Glenrothes) (SNP)
Can I thank the Chancellor in advance for what he has promised to
publish over the next two weeks because it will be the starkest
ever confirmation of the awful price of Better Together?
Unless you are a banker on a bumper bonus, which not many of my
constituents are, you are looking at higher food prices, higher
fuel prices, higher mortgages, reducing wages in real terms,
falling benefits in real terms and savage real-terms cuts in
public services. Alternatively, my constituents could be building
towards a Scotland that is creating 385,000 jobs in renewable
energy, producing between three and four times as much energy as
we need, and—who knows?—maybe even selling it on at mates’ rates
to our friends and neighbours, as long as they treat us well. I
respect the Chancellor’s right to dismiss that future. I think he
is doing himself an injustice by basing his dismissal on blind,
evidence-light dogma, rather than looking at the facts, but does
he accept that it is not for him, anyone on the Government
Benches or, indeed, anyone on the Opposition Benches to deny my
constituents the right to choose between those two futures?
I can accept that the hon. Member and I are different in that I
am totally emotionally committed to the Union and it is part of
my identity, and he feels differently about that, but what I
cannot accept is that it would be anything other than madness for
every household in Scotland to want to leave the United Kingdom,
which would make them much worse off.
(Salford and Eccles)
(Lab)
The Chancellor spoke of cuts, albeit shrouded in compassionate
conservativism—a paradox if ever there was one—but surely he must
realise how serious things are in public services at the moment.
In Salford alone, the council is sitting on a £16 million
shortfall due to soaring energy costs. That is on top of slashing
its previous budget in half and slashing its staff rotas by over
half. How can he possibly put forward compassionate cuts to
services that are barely able to function at the moment?
It is because I want to be able to invest in public services like
the ones the hon. Member talks about that I think it is so
important to take tough economic decisions at times like this.
All I would say is that, while she and I have a different
viewpoint on many issues, her party has supported the decisions I
have taken today, and I think that was the right thing.
(Linlithgow and East Falkirk)
(SNP)
After the Chancellor’s televised statement earlier, gilt prices
rose and the yield on them fell, thereby reducing their effective
interest rate. Does he recognise that the markets have
effectively factored in the removal from office of the Prime
Minister and what does he think will happen if that does not
happen?
One of the first lessons I was told as Chancellor is never to
speculate on why markets do what they do and I am not going to
break that today.
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
The Chancellor has repeatedly refused to answer questions about
uprating of benefits, but with the Resolution Foundation briefing
last week that it expects 2 million more people to be pushed into
absolute poverty, can he guarantee to the House that any attempt
to balance the books, to steady the ship, or whatever other
expression we are going to use, is not going to be made at the
expense of those already struggling?
As I have said—I am happy to repeat it—all these decisions will
be taken through the prism of the impact on the most vulnerable
people in society.
(Ilford South) (Lab)
Many constituents in Ilford South will be very glad that the last
Labour Prime Minister had the foresight to make the Bank of
England independent, given the mini-Budget a few weeks ago almost
tanked six pension funds in the UK. What I would like to know
from our new Chancellor today is what he is going to do—at least
one more is still at risk—to reassure pensioners in Ilford South,
and the millions of people across the country who are not only
angry but frightened, that he will do something concrete to
shore up pension funds not just over the next few weeks but over
the next few years.
We have had very decisive action from the Bank of England to do
exactly that, and I hope the hon. Gentleman is encouraged by what
the Governor of the Bank of England said today about his belief
that he has largely solved those issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Finally, the prize for patience and perseverance goes to .
(St Albans) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I now know what it feels like to
have the knees of the hon. Member for Strangford (). [Interruption.] It is a fleeting thought, but it
has gone.
Pubs and hospitality businesses in my seat of St Albans are
really up against it. Suckerpunch is a bar that closed its doors
just a couple of days ago because it can no longer continue.
Others are clinging on until Christmas and we know that around
the country hospitality businesses are saying that they are going
to go into complete hibernation until the spring, and that means
redundancies. Will the Chancellor confirm that he understands
that hospitality is one of the sectors that is most affected and
will therefore attract support, and will he look again at the
broken business rates system, which is killing our pubs and high
streets while letting multinationals off the hook?
Another of the promises I now vainly wish I had not made in the
summer as to policies we should do is a fundamental review of
business rates, so I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon.
Member on that front and I will happily look at those issues. I
do not want to promise we are going to make any progress in the
next two weeks because there are so many other things we have to
consider, but what she has said has been well heard—and I, too,
congratulate her on her patience.
