Mel Stride MP: speeches

Briefly.

As I will come on to argue, our problems actually rest a little closer to home, rather than having anything to do with our relationship with the European Union. The Labour party promised stability. It also—Members should try not to laugh too loudly—said that it would create the most pro-business Government in the history of our country. None of that has come to pass. It is not just the Prime Minister who is the problem; if this Prime Minister is replaced, whoever goes on to lead the Labour party will not do any better, because Labour had no plan at all for improving our economy. It had a plan for winning an election—keep as low a profile as possible, hold the Ming vase and tiptoe across the shiny floor towards that loveless landslide—but no plan for the people of our country. The Labour Government are in hock to their Back Benchers. Every time they try to do something that requires some backbone, they are stopped by their Back Benchers. The record of this Government is appalling, and not just on growth. I notice that the Secretary of State did not mention unemployment once, and he certainly did not mention youth unemployment. Under this Government, we are seeing the highest unemployment in five years, and youth unemployment is nudging up towards 20%. Under the previous Labour Government, youth unemployment increased by more than 40%; under the previous Conservative Government, it reduced by more than 40%.

I am afraid that what I see coming is what is already baked in: business rates going through the roof. In some cases, small businesses on our high streets are facing 140% increases in the amount they have to pay in business rates. Conservative Members believe in enterprise, opportunity, aspiration and markets. We believe in risk takers, in people who work hard, and in people who get up early in the morning and do the right thing—go out and create wealth, create jobs and grow our economy. Because of that, at our last conference we set out £47 billion-worth of savings, predominantly—£23 billion—on the welfare budget. With that we could do two wonderful things: first, we could start to bear down on the deficit and get on top of the debt, which is out of control under this Government; and secondly, we could get taxes down, particularly on the productive parts of the economy. We therefore announced the abolition of stamp duty and a tax cut for young people. There is more in our alternative King’s Speech: a Bill to back our high streets and cut business rates for a quarter of a million of our high street businesses; a get Britain working Bill to reverse the damage done by the Employment Rights Act; a reducing bureaucracy Bill to remove the mountain of environmental, social and governance regulations; a save British industry Bill to get rid of the Climate Change Act 2008 and abolish the zero emission vehicle mandate; a cheap energy Bill to get rid of renewables subsidies and bring down bills for households and businesses; a getting Britain drilling Bill to reinvigorate our North sea oil and gas industry, creating jobs and boosting our exports; and a welfare reform Bill to get the benefits bill under control and restore the two-child cap. That is the serious plan that our economy needs. That is the plan to back our businesses and deliver growth. That is a Conservative plan for a better Britain.

I am always ready to give way, Mr Speaker, and to take your direction.

I do indeed. I have been up to Aberdeen, met my hon. Friend and heard at first hand about the economic effect this is having. It is utter madness. If we have an opportunity in government, we will put that right. I have already mentioned benefits. There was nothing of any substance about welfare in this King’s Speech. There was nothing about the defence investment plan. Where is it? It was promised back in September. Then we have the regulating for growth Bill—an oxymoron if ever there was one. “Regulating for growth” says all we need to know about this Labour Government. They know nothing about the economy, nothing about job creation and nothing about businesses.

The current account went into a slight surplus just around 2015-16. [ Interruption. ] It did, actually. That was on the back of our inheriting a £160 billion deficit in 2010, which was over 10% of GDP—another example of the disasters of a Labour Government. The Secretary of State rightly spoke of artificial intelligence and the opportunities that it presents, but what we know of artificial intelligence is that it will have a profound and very uncertain effect on the labour market. We need a flexible skills offer to deal with that, and flexible labour markets, but through the Employment Rights Act, the Government are making the labour market more rigid, and that will hurt younger people in particular, who do not have a track record in employment, so do not be surprised if youth unemployment continues to hover around 16% or 17% as a consequence of the actions of this Government. When it comes to leaning into these challenges, we know that there is no plan. This Government are not going to do anything. They are just involved in internecine introspection—a civil war, now—within the Labour party. They said that they would tread lightly on our lives; in fact, they are now stampeding all over them. The rivals to the Prime Minister will be looking to double-down on the ruinous policies that I have just set out. We have seen the real effects of this in recent days. On Friday, after the former Member for Makerfield said that he would step down in order to ease the passage of Andy Burnham to this place, what happened to gilt yields? They spiked up 18 basis points. I have done a little bit of research, and I can tell the House that, if sustained through the forecast period, that would mean over £5 billion of additional debt servicing costs. That is about £300 for every working family in this country. That is the effect of Andy Burnham, and he has not even arrived here yet. We are on the edge of a precipice economically, leaning into a very turbulent time. These are the policies of the madhouse, yet we are told not to worry. The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who I believe is an outrider for Andy Burnham, said of the bond markets that they would just have to “fall into line”. Andy Burnham himself said in the New Statesman : “We’ve got to go beyond this thing”—

This King’s Speech is an empty vessel, which is a surprise, because only last week the Prime Minister was telling anybody who cared to listen that the Government would be leaning into economic growth in a more radical way, and would eschew managerial incrementalism, yet we have heard nothing other than managerial incrementalism, at best, from the right hon. Lady just now. [Interruption.] Of course, I meant the right hon. Gentleman. If only the Chancellor were here, Mr Speaker, I would be right about everything. The Prime Minister also said that Labour would tread more lightly on our lives. Well, we have seen what that has meant in the last few weeks. The Chancellor said that it would all be growth, growth, growth. The Secretary of State trots out and trumpets the latest uplift—a very modest one—in the International Monetary Fund’s forecast, but he neglects to mention that although it is forecasting 1% growth today, it forecast 1.3% back in January. The Secretary of State also neglects to mention that the increase in growth in the first quarter of this year is on the back of risible growth performance in Q4 of last year. The situation in Q4 was exacerbated, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England, by the Chancellor’s making every possible tax rise; that had a material impact—it depressed the economy. Some of the growth is simply a bounce back from the mistakes made at the end of last year. The Secretary of State refused to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) about what happened to GDP per capita, so let me tell him that it has been utterly anaemic throughout this Government’s period in office. He also failed to mention that the notes to the IMF’s comments on upgrading the growth forecast for this year point to domestic uncertainty possibly weighing down on consumer spending and investment decisions. I wonder what “domestic uncertainty” could possibly be referring to. As to our record, I remind the Secretary of State that on the day of the general election, the previous Conservative Government had inflation bang on target at 2%. It is now 50% more than that. We also had the fastest growth in the G7, employment at near record levels, and near record low levels of unemployment, and we had 13 consecutive months of real wage growth.

I will in a moment.

That is entirely right. The Conservatives know that work matters, and getting people off benefits matters. People’s mental health is improved by going to work, and by having the social interaction, routine and sense of pride and self-worth that comes with work. That is why the level of unemployment and the failure of this Government to tackle benefits is so appalling.

All these flashbacks to the 1980s are a slightly desperate attempt to get away from the 2020s, I think. The other thing that socialists love to do is borrow, borrow, borrow, and spend, spend, spend until they have run out of other people’s money. That is precisely what this Government have done. The Secretary of State mentioned the fiscal rules, but of course he failed to mention that in the run-up to the election, the Chancellor said that she would abide by our fiscal rules, and then promptly changed them, so that she could borrow more, flipping the definition of “debt” from public sector net debt to public sector financial liabilities. That allowed her to take her foot off the brake and borrow and spend even more.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have had the great pleasure of visiting her constituency to speak to businesses, and that is exactly what they complain of. The Government made no effort, in the King’s Speech, to get on top of the benefits bill. There was a reference to the Timms review of the personal independence payment, but we know that in the review’s terms of reference, there is an explicit statement that it is not about controlling the welfare bill. There will be no savings as a consequence of the Timms review. That is not good enough. We have got to be about getting people off benefits and back into work.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is like trying to apply the accelerator while having the brake on fully. That is what this Government are doing. That is the total illogicality of their approach. Inflation is up on where it was under the Conservatives. It is about the highest in the G7; it certainly was last year. As we lean into the challenges of oil and gas price spikes, that is a weak position to be in. Most economists will make that point. The Labour Government will have borrowed a full quarter of a trillion pounds more across this Parliament than would have been borrowed under the plans that they inherited. It is no wonder that our borrowing costs are the highest in the G7—higher than those of Greece, and higher, even, than those of Morocco. Why? We know why: it is just what socialists do. Socialists believe that you can tax your way to prosperity, but I tell the Secretary of State: you cannot. The £25 billion of additional tax on businesses—national insurance increases—has crucified business in this country. The burden has fallen predominantly on young people, because there was not just an increase in the rate, but a reduction to the threshold at which the tax cuts in, meaning that young people have borne the brunt of that tax increase. The sectors that rely predominantly on first-time jobbers and on young, part-time and female workers have been crucified, including the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, in which more than 100,000 jobs have been destroyed by this Government.

That is a rather unfortunate example of doubling down or continuing to dig, if I may say so. Also, the hon. Lady’s comments pale in comparison with Andy Burnham’s comments in the New Statesman , where he said: “We’ve got to go beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets”. He also suggested that defence spending should lie outside the fiscal rules, as if spending and borrowing to defend our country were a different form of borrowing from any other borrowing that this Government might entertain. He is not so much the king of the north; he is more like King Canute, sitting in his chair on the sand, dressed in his football kit, trying to push back the tide of the bond markets and saying things like, “You’ve got to fall in line” as the waters lap at his ankles and we all ultimately get swept away. It is ludicrous. The King’s Speech included a holiday tax that will increase the cost of the most budget holidays in this country, clobbering people who have saved up hard and just want to make some memories with their children. We also have the nationalisation of steel, which seems to be just some kind of political sop to the left on the Labour Benches. The Government are also going to put a stop to new oil and gas exploration. This is lunacy, when we are importing gas from Norway that is extracted from the same basin. We are also importing liquefied natural gas, formerly from Qatar and now predominantly from the United States, which has four times the carbon footprint compared with if we had extracted it ourselves using our own resources. All that energy security blown, all those jobs destroyed and all that tax revenue forgone, simply because of the ideological madness of the Labour party.

In response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) on borrowing, the right hon. Lady suggested that she was following a strict deficit reduction plan. I think she made reference to a reduction in the deficit of £20 billion year on year—but, of course, it is easy to reduce something if you pump it up recklessly in the first place. Could she tell the House how much more borrowing this Government will undertake across this Parliament compared with the plans that she inherited from the last Government?

The right hon. Lady does not seem to know how much additional borrowing this Government are undertaking compared with the plans of the last Government, so I will tell her: it is one quarter of a trillion pounds of additional borrowing across this Parliament. The truth is that this Chancellor is addicted to borrowing, which means, compared with what otherwise would be the case—she said exactly this, in terms, in the answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash—higher borrowing costs, higher inflation, higher interest rates and more sluggish growth, doesn’t it?

I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement. The UK has some of the highest energy prices in the world. That is crippling our economy and pushing up the cost of living, and it leaves us particularly exposed to energy shocks such as the one we are experiencing right now. Yet the Government seem totally unwilling to accept the scale of the problem and to shift in their dogmatic commitment to a net zero agenda, which is making us poorer. Last year, we Conservatives came forward with our cheap power plan. We said that the Government needed to scrap carbon taxes and the renewables subsidies, which are pushing up bills, and reverse the nonsensical decision to rely on imported oil and gas instead of pursuing the common-sense approach of extracting our own resources from the North sea. Under pressure from this Conservative Opposition, there has been some progress at least, but it has been made at a snail’s pace. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been dragged, with oh so much reluctance, in the direction that we have set out. The action taken goes nowhere near far enough and is not fast enough. At the Budget, the Government announced they would take 75% of the cost of renewables off bills, but they did not abolish the subsidies, as we called for them to do. They are still being paid—maybe not out of people’s energy bills, but out of the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. When it comes to the vast majority of businesses in our country, this Government have done nothing for them. The proposals announced today risk locking in the costs of those subsidies by including them in the new contracts for difference, to which the Government are hoping that energy producers will sign up. Can the Chancellor confirm that this is the case—that under these arrangements, these subsidies will not only persist but will be guaranteed? The new contracts announced today are, of course, voluntary, so on what basis do the Government think these changes will lead to an overall reduction in energy bills? Presumably, generators will only sign up to these arrangements if it is in their commercial interest to do so. How will the Government ensure that companies do not simply game the system and end up being guaranteed higher prices? By how much will these announcements reduce energy bills? Has the Energy Secretary even provided the Chancellor with an estimate of the impact on bills? If there is no estimate, how can the Chancellor be confident that bills will indeed be reduced, not increased? On that point, we can put a number on our plan: it would mean £200 off household bills. Why can the Chancellor not do the same with this latest announcement? The Government have also said they will get rid of carbon price support. That is welcome, but they are not doing it until next year, and the CPS is only part of the carbon tax, which the Opposition are clear needs to be scrapped completely. It costs both households and businesses, and it needs to go. Why will the Chancellor not commit to removing these taxes completely? On taxes, the Chancellor noted the importance of keeping fuel duty down, but once again she had nothing to say about the onerous increase that she still plans to bring forward in September. Finally, we have had no meaningful action today on the issue of North sea oil and gas. The Chancellor says she wants to reduce our exposure to global energy prices, yet the Government are choosing to leave us more reliant on imported hydrocarbons. We all know that she is in a completely different place on this to the Energy Secretary. He is committed to the gradual smothering of our oil and gas sector, regardless of the cost to our economy and the loss of those jobs and tax revenues. Why does the Chancellor not urge the Prime Minister to overrule the Energy Secretary on these matters? The revenues from new oil and gas extraction are vital, given the state of our public finances. The current crisis shows how exposed we are and how damaging the Government’s net zero obsession has been to our economy, to households and to businesses. The Government are right to want to reduce that exposure, but they are doing too little, too late. We need an urgent change of course, not dither and delay. We need a proper cheap power plan to get bills down, and we need it now.

I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement. The right hon. Lady comes to the House with an economy in tatters. She would have us believe that she has delivered the stability and resilience that can weather the storm ahead, but she has done nothing of the kind. When she came to office, she ramped up borrowing and spending and hiked taxes to record levels. She was warned at the time, by the Office for Budget Responsibility and others, that her policies would mean higher inflation, higher borrowing costs and higher interest rates, and that she would destroy jobs. All of that has come to pass. Her mismanagement and foolish choices have given us the highest inflation in the G7, the highest borrowing costs in any major advanced economy—with gilt yields higher than those of Greece and Morocco—fragile fiscal headroom, the highest unemployment since the pandemic and rising, and GDP per capita falling. Under this Government we are getting poorer, and our economy is increasingly fragile and far from secure and resilient. Despite what the right hon. Lady has said about tiebacks, nothing exemplifies this Government’s economic folly more than their approach to oil and gas. The utterly misguided net zero obsessions of the Energy Secretary have led to the absurdity of reduced extraction, while we see jobs destroyed, tax revenues forgone, and energy security smashed. The greatest tragedy of all is that in Jackdaw and Rosebank we have fields ready to go. In just months, they could be pumping vital relief to millions. Jackdaw alone has enough gas to supply more than 1.5 million homes, yet the right hon. Lady has nothing to say on that matter. Less oil and gas extraction means greater dependency and less security: this road leads to ruin. On energy, on the cost of living, on jobs, on growth, on public finances, on every measure that matters, the Chancellor has left us weak, weak, weak, and in the face of this energy shock, millions are about to suffer as a result. With respect to her statement, may I ask the right hon. Lady the following questions? How many fuel retailers have yet to engage with the new fuel finder service, and can she comment on the widespread reports of technical glitches and out-of-date price information? She mentioned the small modular reactor planned for Wylfa, but given the need, can she explain why she has chosen not to go ahead with the large-scale nuclear site that was signed off by the last Conservative Government? On the specific subject of energy cost support, may I ask what fiscal capacity she believes she has to support those in need, and what plan she has to ensure that any targeted approach truly reaches all of them? In her statement, the Chancellor criticised the last Conservative Government’s support package for not being targeted, but what she failed to mention was the fact that the present Prime Minister was then urging for support to be universal. Indeed, he said at that time that Labour’s approach would ensure “that no household would pay a penny more on their bills.” —[ Official Report , 8 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 404.] We have had no consistency from the right hon. Lady. How is she going to ensure that support for people depending on heating oil reaches those who need it most? Of course, that support, under this Government, will be funded through the taxes of hard-working people. Indeed, the reduction to energy bills this April is simply being taken from bills and dumped on to the shoulders of hard-pressed taxpayers. It does not need to be this way. Is not the critical question this: where is the control of public spending? Where is the renewed resolve to grasp the welfare bill to get people off benefits and into work? I will tell you, Mr Speaker: it is nowhere, because the right hon. Lady is a captive of her own Back Benchers and has brought our economy one step from its knees. She knows it, the country knows it, and now we must all brace ourselves for what is to come—not from a position of strength, as the right hon. Lady is so desperate to have us believe, but from a position of weakness of her own making.

Given the rapidly rising cost of oil and gas, why does the right hon. Lady believe that it is better to import it than to extract it from the North sea?

For every single year of the last Conservative Government, we froze fuel duty, and we did so to stand up for hard-working families. Given that petrol prices are surging at the pumps, why has the right hon. Lady chosen now to put up fuel duty?

I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement and add the Opposition’s firm support for our armed forces. As the Chancellor has made clear, these are very serious and concerning times, and developments in the middle east are already having profound consequences for our economy. Oil prices have surged above $100 a barrel for the first time since the 2022 energy crisis. That alone is enough to have huge knock-on effects for households and businesses: families filling up their car will already have noticed petrol prices increasing, and fixed-price energy tariffs have either been increased or pulled from the market. We are already seeing British households worse off as a result of this conflict. I am grateful to the Chancellor for updating the House on her meetings with other G7 Finance Ministers, and I welcome her commitment to supporting action to ease pressure on global supply by using strategic oil reserves. That, however, will go only so far. As the Chancellor has said, the longer this conflict continues, the more likely it is that we will see a sustained period of higher prices. That, in turn, will have implications for interest rates and our cost of borrowing. The longer that lasts, the more likely it is that higher inflationary expectations will become anchored. If that happens, monetary policy will need to adjust accordingly, which may mean higher mortgages for homeowners who have only just begun to see some relief. Gilt markets have already been responding to these events, which could mean that the forecasts we were given just last week from the Office for Budget Responsibility end up looking very different. We must continue to monitor developments closely. Where the Opposition clearly differ from the right hon. Lady is in her approach to the economy in the run-up to this crisis, as her gross mismanagement has left us far more vulnerable than would otherwise have been the case. She refers to inflation, which was bang on target when we left office; thanks to her choices, though, it rose back up to almost 4% last year—the highest in the G7—and remains elevated, which is far from ideal given the threat of a significant further spike in energy prices. Extraordinarily, the Chancellor has just now reconfirmed that the Government will press ahead with a rise in fuel duty later this year. Borrowing is running higher than was forecast when the Government took office—we are spending well over £100 billion a year on debt interest alone. This leaves us far more vulnerable to rising borrowing costs. The Government are also continuing to impose ruinously high taxes on our oil and gas sector and choosing to rely on imports instead of maximising our own domestic energy supply. That is proving to be an incredibly short-sighted approach. However, as the right hon. Lady has just told us, there will be no change in direction. That is the wrong choice. More broadly, of course, business confidence has hit record lows, and unemployment has risen back to pandemic levels. Our economy is weaker as a direct result of this Chancellor. Last week, at the spring statement, the right hon. Lady had an opportunity to change course; instead, we got no action at all, just breathtaking self-congratulation and denial. She had a vital opportunity to come to the House with a plan to get the economy growing, but she did not do so—not least because this weak Government have caved in to their own Back Benchers, who prefer higher welfare spending to fixing our economy. Today, let me reiterate our offer to support the Government if—even at this late stage, and particularly given the gravity of the current global outlook—they do the right thing by showing some backbone and coming forward with a proper plan to cut welfare spending and strengthen our economy so that we can properly support hard-working families through this difficult time. That is the very least that the British people deserve. Finally, let me ask the right hon. Lady the following questions. Will she urgently reconsider her decision to implement the first increase in fuel duty in 15 years? Likewise, will she urgently reconsider her decision to continue with the crippling taxes being imposed on North sea oil and gas producers? On the Fingleton review on nuclear, can she clarify whether the Government are accepting all the recommendations, as Ministers previously committed to accepting? Will the right hon. Lady give further details on what additional economic action is under consideration internationally if the conflict continues? What measures are the Government considering to support households in the event of a sustained period of higher prices, and what action is being considered as part of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury’s work to support those reliant on heating oil? Are the Government tracking the Iranian regime’s illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems are not facilitating funds that are being used to support repression? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that there is sufficient resource available in the special reserve so that our brave servicemen and women have the support that they deserve?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Lady says the cost of borrowing is coming down, but does she not know that the cost of borrowing in this country has been the highest in the G7 — [ Interruption. ]

Is that it? What utter complacency—a Chancellor in denial. She speaks of stability, but what planet is she on? She has lurched from putting up taxes to destroying growth and headroom, and then to coming back and putting up more taxes, with more growth destroyed. Round and round we go, like a fiscal twister, ripping up everything in its path. [ Interruption. ]

Our borrowing is even higher than Greece’s. Indeed, if debt were a Department, it would be the third largest spending Department in Whitehall. That is money not going on the people’s priorities, but simply being flushed down the drain. The right hon. Lady puts great store in the latest forecasts on debt and says that it is coming down, compared with the forecasts back in the autumn, but if we strip away her dodgy definition of debt, we can see that it will be going up in just about every year of the forecast period. The right hon. Lady has the audacity to praise her own performance. She points to growth, but does she not know that, only last month, the Bank of England downgraded growth for both this year and next year? A moment ago, she said that the Government had beaten the forecasts for growth from last year. The forecast at the beginning of last year was for 2% growth, but the growth outcome at the end of last year was 1.3%. By my mathematics, that is not an improvement. It should be of considerable concern to the entire House that the right hon. Lady clearly thinks that it is. The right hon. Lady points to interest rates coming down, but does she not know that her ruinous inflationary policies have seen interest rates higher for longer, meaning more expensive mortgages for hundreds of thousands of people across our country? She was slightly coy about unemployment—because, of course, we know that it now stands at a five-year high. Under every single Labour Government in history, unemployment has risen, and this Government are no exception. The right hon. Lady is fond of saying that she is simply asking people to pay a little more tax. Well, I do not remember the taxman phoning me up and asking me if I would awfully mind paying a little more tax. And what does it mean? It means workers struggling, employers laying off staff, and tens of thousands of the most talented people in our country going to other places, where they believe the opportunities are greater. That is what a little more tax means. And what has that tax done? It has destroyed and deeply damaged entire sectors of our economy. Hospitality has seen almost 100,000 job losses since this Government came to office, and that has particularly impacted our youngest people. Youth unemployment is the highest in Europe for the first time in a quarter of a century. The dreams, aspirations and hopes of young people—of all those bright young faces—have been smashed on the altar of the right hon. Lady’s incompetence. What is her message to young people today? Her message today has been that her so-called plan is working, but what is the reality? Inflation? Up. Borrowing? Up. Spending? Up. Tax? Up. Welfare? Up. Unemployment? Up. All this speaks to the weakness and chaos of this Government. Is it any wonder that her so-called plan is not working? Our energy costs are among the highest in the world, and yet she is doubling down on net zero. Given where we are, the first thing that the right hon. Lady should do is get rid of those taxes on North sea oil and allow us to start exploiting those opportunities. We have a welfare bill that is spiralling ever upwards, but what does the right hon. Lady do? She removes the two-child benefit cap. We have taxes heading to the highest level in history because of her choices, destroying the futures of men, women and children right up and down our country—and there is no contrition, no apology and no plan to do anything about it. It does not have to be this way. At our conference, we set out how we can control public spending with £47 billion of savings, especially on the welfare bill, with some £23 billion of savings. We are a party that believes in work, rather than benefits. We are a party that will do something about it. We are a party of work; Labour is the party of “Benefits Street”. We will bring taxes down to kick-start the economy, abolish stamp duty, scrap business rates for businesses on our high streets, and give our young people a £5,000 tax cut. We have a cheap power plan. We will fix student loans and invest in apprenticeships. Though our golden rule, we will get on top of the deficit and, by doing that, grow the economy. That is our plan. What is the right hon. Lady’s plan? The truth is that she has no plan, or, as her Health Secretary said, there is “no growth strategy at all”. Even if she did have a plan, she would be too weak to deliver it, given the psychodramas swirling around No. 10, the almost daily scandals visiting the door of the Prime Minister, the sight of a person once at the highest level in the diplomatic service being carted away in a car by the police, and Back Benchers calling the shots. The Chancellor’s credibility has gone. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff has gone. His Cabinet Secretary has gone. But somehow the Chancellor hangs on. Through the chaotic fog, the drums are drawing ever closer. The British people deserve so much better. So, for the hard-working people in our country crushed by taxes, for those denied employment, for the farmers and the family business owners who have suffered in fear for too long, for every hollowed-out high street, for every young person robbed of their future, for every elderly person struggling to survive and for the generations yet to come, we say: go!

No, they do not like it, Mr Speaker; they do not like the truth. This is not a spring statement. It is a surrender statement. The Chancellor has the temerity to suggest that she is creating the conditions for renewed growth. She is rather like a dodgy estate agent standing in a crumbling building with the roof gone, the windows gone and the floor gone, saying, “Just think of the potential.” But that potential has been undermined by the terrible state of our public finances. When it comes to the deficit, the right hon. Lady knows that borrowing this year is almost double that which was forecast at the time of the general election. She knows that the forecasts are predicated on the numbers that she has given to the OBR, which it has to accept. That includes squeezing spending at the end of the Parliament, and raising taxes and energy bills at the same time. We know that is unrealistic, and the reason we know it is because she and the Prime Minister have no backbone when it comes to taking difficult decisions. That is what we saw before the Budget: winter fuel payment—U-turn; welfare reform—U-turn; two-child benefit cap—U-turn. It is what we saw in a short period after the Budget: farm tax—U-turn; family business tax—U-turn; public houses—U-turn. On the deficit, when the right hon. Lady rises again, will she tell the House how she will fill the £6 billion black hole in the special educational needs and disabilities budget? She mentions, quite rightly, the Iran war and the greater threats that our country faces, but could she explain how she is going to fund what we have been urging: 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament? How will she fund that— [ Interruption. ]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; they just do not like the truth—that is the truth of it. As our economy bleeds out, what does the right hon. Lady do? She comes to this House with nothing to say and with no plan—unless, of course, doing nothing is a cunning plan to avoid those U-turns further down the line. She is weak. She has even stripped the OBR of its ability to assess whether she is meeting her fiscal targets. Let it be remembered that at this time in this Chamber, this weak and chaotic Government gave up on the British people. The right hon. Lady has nothing to say to us today. This is not a spring statement—

That is much appreciated, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, was that it? After all this time, and weeks of telling our local pubs that help was on the way, this is all they get—a temporary sticking plaster that will only delay the pain for a few, while thousands of businesses despair as their bills skyrocket. The Labour party manifesto promised to completely replace the business rates system. Labour Members said that they would create a system that levels the playing field for our high streets and supports entrepreneurship and investment. Well, we are waiting. So far, what we have seen is the exact opposite of what our local businesses were promised, with business rates soaring across the board. Despite the temporary relief announced today, pubs will still end up, in time, with bills more than 70% higher than they are today. The Federation of Small Businesses has calculated that the business rates of a typical medium-sized shop or restaurant with a rateable value of around £50,000 will increase by 71% over the coming years. For hotels, it will be over 100%. Ministers expect those businesses to be grateful for some temporary relief, tweaks to multipliers and changes to licensing, but the Conservatives have been clear: support must be permanent. We have to cut business rates for our high streets to give certainty to local businesses. Measures must be far wider than those that the Government have announced today, applying not just to pubs but to the whole of the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, which bring life to our high streets and town centres. We would not just introduce temporary reductions in rates, but completely abolish business rates for thousands of pubs, shops and restaurants across our country. These huge tax rises introduced by this Government are a choice, but it does not have to be this way. The Government have chosen to increase spending by vast amounts, including on the benefits bill, with a benefits giveaway of over £3 billion at the Budget to abolish the two-child cap. These choices are why bills are going up, businesses are going under, jobs are being lost and our high streets are being hollowed out. Let us not forget that this is not an isolated issue. Businesses are having to shoulder not just business rates rises, but a long list of other burdens that are being piled on by a Government who simply do not understand how businesses work. Many of those facing the highest increases in their business rates were among the worst impacted by the Chancellor’s jobs tax. They have already seen their business rates go up by as much as 140% last year, and they face yet more costs and red tape from the Government’s employment rights legislation. Analysis by UKHospitality suggests that, on average, as many as six hospitality venues could close every single day this year. That is a tragedy for our high streets and our communities. It is also a tragedy for our young people, many of whom look for their first job in the local pub or coffee shop, and who will find those jobs simply do not exist any more. I ask the Minister, where is the help for the wider retail, hospitality and leisure sectors? Does what has been announced today include gastropubs, pubs with hotel rooms, bars, nightclubs and private clubs? Why are the Government happy to stand by and watch while businesses close and jobs are lost? When will the guidance be published for businesses, so that they know whether they will be eligible for this further relief and what their bills will be over the coming year? Why did Ministers not come forward with this relief for pubs at the time of the Budget, when they knew the level of increases that many businesses were facing? No new information has been provided between the Budget being announced and this statement. Can the Minister confirm that because this relief was not accounted for at the Budget, today’s announcements will need to be paid for through yet more borrowing? The Government have proved today that either they do not understand the damage that they are doing or they do not care. Today’s announcement is far too little, far too late.

Mr Speaker, I think the mood of the House is that 10 minutes from the hon. Gentleman is more than enough, although I am grateful to him for having given me advance sight of his statement.

Last orders.

They just do not get it. Of course, it is not just pubs; the whole high street—shops, restaurants and hotels—is seeing massive increases in business rates, some well over 100%. Where is the help for those businesses?

Mr Speaker, I begin by associating Conservative Members with the Chancellor’s comments about your leg—we wish it well. We are waiting with interest to hear the details of the latest U-turn on business rates this afternoon, but if the briefing is to be believed, it will be far too little, too late. The Chancellor simply does not understand the desperate situation so many of our pubs are in. Many pubs are asking why the Chancellor chose to spend billions more on the benefits bill instead of providing proper, permanent business rates support.

That was a complete non-response. The Minister says he will make a statement in future in the usual way; we can only assume that that will be via the media, not this House. Of all the excuses for a U-turn that we have heard from the Government, this one beggars belief. The Minister expects us to accept that the Government simply did not know what the impact of the changes would be when they announced them. That is astonishing. Why did they announce crippling rises in business rates without bothering to check who would be hit the hardest? Worse still, we now know from the chief executive of the Valuation Office Agency, who appeared before the Treasury Committee last week, that Ministers were provided with the data on revaluations before the Budget. We are left with questions not only about whether the Government’s excuse is reasonable, but about whether it is indeed correct. Can the Minister clarify what specific information was given to Ministers on the level of increases that businesses would be facing, and when? Businesses are now in a terrible limbo over what their bills will look like in the coming years. The Government have indicated that changes will be announced for pubs at least, but there has been no official statement, which is why we have had to drag the Minister to the House this afternoon, so will he answer the following additional questions? Can the Minister at least make it clear which sectors will be in line for further support? Will it be just pubs? If so, why are the Government refusing to help businesses in the wider retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, some of which are seeing even higher rates increases? Will the new support be a temporary or permanent cut in bills, as we have called for? How much will it cost, and will it be funded by yet more Government borrowing? Will the Minister apologise now to the thousands of local businesses up and down our country that have been so sorely let down by this shambolic Labour Government?

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the planned changes to business rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance (No. 2) Bill because the Bill includes provisions breaking the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s promise, given after the Autumn Budget 2024, not to raise taxes, and breaking the Chancellor’s promise at the last Budget that there would be no extension of the freeze in Income Tax and National Insurance thresholds and that, from 2028–29, personal tax thresholds would be uprated in line with inflation once again; because the Bill implements changes to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief for Inheritance Tax which will devastate family farms, businesses and food security; because the Bill is the result of a Budget that will lead to higher spending and borrowing, while damaging growth and living standards with £26 billion of tax rises; and because this House is opposed to raising taxes on working people to pay for increased welfare spending.” In the middle of Leicester Square, in the heart of our great city, there is a statue of perhaps one of the greatest Englishmen who ever lived: William Shakespeare. In his hand there is a scroll, which reads, in his own words: “there is no darkness but ignorance”. This Government have brought plenty of darkness to our country—indeed, during the run-up to the Budget, we had so many kites flown as to what taxes were going to be put up or not that the sun was blotted out of the sky, and a huge, dark shadow was cast across consumers, who stopped spending, and businesses, which stopped investing and employing people. Don’t take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker: the Bank of England itself says precisely that it damaged the economy. Indeed, we have seen this in the latest figures on growth, which the Minister was most eager to tell us about in his speech. For the three months to the end of October, growth in the economy was negative—it was minus 0.1%—which is further evidence of the darkness that this Government have cast upon the animal spirits in our economy. To return to Shakespeare, were he here today, he would be appalled by the ignorance that this Government have shown of the basic rules of economics. It is a basic fact that if you focus on redistribution, as socialists always do—of course, there is always an argument for redistribution—at the expense of getting the incentives right in the economy, you will damage growth. That is exactly what is at the heart of this Budget. The key choice that has been taken is to increase taxes on hard-working people and spend at least a substantial proportion of the money raised on increasing the benefits bill. The second rule that this Government seem incapable of grasping is that if you tax something, you get less of it. That is a simple fact. That brings me to the topic of work. This Finance Bill further freezes the income tax threshold, meaning that 800,000 people or thereabouts will be dragged into the basic rate of income tax, and 1 million or thereabouts will be dragged through fiscal drag into the higher rate of income tax. By 2030, it is estimated that around one in four taxpayers will be in either the higher rate of income tax or the additional rate—an £8 billion tax grab in the target year, rising to £12.7 billion in 2030. That is on top of various other issues that are coming down the track, such as the freezing of the threshold for repayment of student loans, which is effectively a stealth tax on younger people. It is also on top of the freeze in the employer national insurance threshold, which will raise around £1 billion by 2030. Once again, that comes straight out of employers’ pockets—it is a further instalment of the extra jobs tax. All of this will reduce the incentive to work, as we have seen. In an intervention a moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) raised this very point in the context of hospitality. We have seen 90,000 jobs destroyed on this Government’s watch—and whose jobs are they? They are predominantly young people’s jobs, because increasing national insurance and reducing the threshold at which that tax kicks in disproportionately impacts those on lower incomes, which includes younger people. Of course, we also have the Employment Rights Bill coming down the track, which will make employing people, particularly younger people, even more risky and expensive. We see in this Finance Bill an outright attack on savers —those who are doing the right thing, putting money by for their retirement—and a 2% increase in taxes on savings income, which the OBR suggests will ironically lead to more people putting cash into individual savings accounts. That is quite the reverse of the effect that the Chancellor is attempting to achieve. According to the OBR, three quarters of the impact of that tax will be borne by working people by way of reduced pension contributions and lower wages. Indeed, the Association of British Insurers says that this measure is “a short-sighted tax grab which will lower pension saving and undermine people’s retirement security.” Then we get to inheritance tax. When we shuffle off this mortal coil—to get back to our friend Shakespeare—there will be a tax charge for those who have the temerity to have left something by way of a pension. It is a £1.5 billion tax grab by the Chancellor on those unused pensions.

How could I resist my right hon. and gallant Friend?

Sadly, I think the gravediggers are still alive and well under this Government. We are seeing that in the destruction of jobs, businesses, farms and livelihoods up and down this country.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What businesses, including farms, need to succeed is lower taxes and not to be spending most of their time worrying about how they will cover the impact of future taxation. They need to be planning for the future of their businesses and investing in them.

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will come to the hon. Lady.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention. She is absolutely right on the matter of APR, but the issue is not just APR.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It shows a complete lack of understanding of business, and it reflects the lack of true business experience on the Government Front Bench. It also goes right to the core of the difference in principles and beliefs between the two principal parties in this Chamber. We on the Opposition Benches believe that if someone works hard, saves hard and has something left at the end of their life, they should be allowed—because they love those who they wish to look after in their absence—to pass on that inheritance without the taxman taking a huge, disproportionate amount of what they have accumulated. All the Labour party believes in is mounding up ever more debt in a statist world in which that debt is to be passed on to future generations to be paid back. We believe in supporting the little platoon, as Burke put it—the families that together form a mighty army. We believe in personal responsibility and for that to be rewarded.

I notice that my right hon. Friend is being restrained in his use of language, given the severity of the matters we are discussing. He is absolutely right. Business property relief is being changed in broadly the same way as agricultural property relief in this Bill. That will have a devastating and similar consequence for family businesses across the UK, and I have been up and down the country to meet many of them. One of the foremost in campaigning has been Steve Rigby of the Rigby Group. He is the head of Family Business UK, and he put it perfectly when he said that family businesses are spending too much time protecting their legacy and succession, not on promoting growth. That is the whole point. If this Government want growth, they will have to do things that get businesses to think about growth, rather than having to worry about being broken up because of onerous tax measures.

As I have to say so often following his interventions, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a huge difference between the position of a dynamic, growing organism of a company and the other situation that he has described. Loading up these taxes on the death of the principal owner or one of the significant owners of a business means loading it up with uncertainty, and quite conceivably the business must be broken up as a consequence.

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we have become an economy that has closed the door on international investment. In fact, the door has been blown wide open by those fleeing to go to the United Arab Emirates, Milan and other places around the world to escape the high-tax jurisdiction that we have become, and it comes with great cost. Given the 16,000 high net worth individuals who have fled under this Government, about a third of a million to half a million people on average earnings would probably be needed to cover the tax that has just walked out of the door. I can also tell the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and others that we will reverse the APR and BPR changes if we form the next Government. I will now make swift progress. Let me just say that the wrong choices have been made. Tax should not be going up and spending should not be going up in this way, and I do not even believe that the Chancellor’s heart is in the benefit changes that have occurred, including the two-child benefit cap change. If it were, why was the Whip removed from several Labour Members? The reality is that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are lashed to the same mast. This is all about their survival. They lost control of their own Back Benchers. Let me go back to Shakespeare, and “The Tempest”. The storm has no respect for rank, so they pitch and roll solely at the command of those behind them. The great man also wrote: “All the world’s a stage…And one man in his time plays many parts”. However, this Chancellor has played but one part, that of recklessness. At heart, she has taxed that which is good, and in this Bill she has incentivised that which is not. By so doing, with this Bill she will diminish us all.

My hon. Friend is right. I was out there this morning speaking to farmers, including a group up from Newbury, who have taken the trouble to come here to make exactly that case powerfully to us on the day of this debate.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The value of farming goes above and beyond successful businesses simply contributing to the economy in the traditional way. Farming also underpins our food security as a nation.

I would not naturally defer to the results of a Lib Dem survey over the work of His Majesty’s Treasury. However, I get the gist of what the hon. Lady is saying—perhaps a bar chart with a slightly dodgy scale would be a good way of putting the point. The Chancellor says that those who are in receipt solely of the state pension should not worry about being dragged slightly into taxation, because that will be dealt with, but we do not know what that actually means. We do not know what the plan is, nor the cost. Perhaps in the wind-ups the Minister can tell us exactly what is envisaged for the very large number of pensioners who, under the Bill, will be dragged into paying tax on their state pension for the first time. What a mess! The Government are working against the instincts of those who are doing the right thing to save for their future. The same is the case in respect of investment. The 2% increase in tax on dividends—a £1.2 billion tax grab—will simply have the effect of disincentivising investments in equities. That will mean less capital being invested in businesses, which is what drives up productivity. Part of the story of low productivity in our country is the fact that private investment has been too low for too long. This tax increase will weigh in the opposite direction. The Minister spoke about the importance of increasing investment in plant and machinery; the reality is that the Bill cuts the writing-down allowances, unless they relate to new plant and machinery, which will weigh against that very objective. This is an unfair Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) raised the issue of the farm tax, and he was absolutely right to do so. Farms up and down this country are now worried about the future. Farms in my constituency, which have sometimes been in the family for decades or generations—in some cases even for centuries—are now having to stare down the barrel of a very uncertain future. What an irony and what a tragedy that, during the run-up to the general election, the then shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), looked the president of the National Farmers Union in the eye, and said that, when it came to inheritance tax, farmers had nothing to fear from a future Labour Government. How wrong they were. As Tom Bradshaw said, this whole tax increase is “morally wrong and economically flawed”, and he is right.

It is interesting that the hon. Lady should raise the issue of inflation. Inflation is currently at about twice the target of 2%, and it was bang on target on the day of the general election, at 2%, because of the action that we took, alongside the Bank of England. The International Monetary Fund is forecasting that inflation in our country will be the highest in the G7 this year, and the highest in the G7 next year. If we ask why that has happened, the answer is relatively simple. If national insurance increases are imposed on employers, they pass on some of those additional costs by way of higher prices, and that is inflationary. If vast amounts of money are borrowed, and, notwithstanding what the Minister had to say earlier, vast amounts of money are spent, too—about half a trillion pounds more than was the case under the plans that Labour inherited—that also stokes inflation. Those on the Government Front Bench may trumpet the fact that interest rates have come down five times, but if they had not mismanaged the economy, rates would have come down an awful lot faster. Interest rates are higher, and for longer, because we have sticky inflation, which is due to the choices made by this Government.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why that behaviour was so irresponsible. There are people who would have drawn down on their pensions because they were extremely concerned about what was being briefed out by the Treasury as to what changes may be coming down the line, and about their ability to do so after the Budget. We also had people leaving the country because they were worried about an exit tax, which was another kite flown by the Treasury. That grossly irresponsible behaviour had real-life impacts in the real economy. When it comes to misleading, there is much to consider in the complete mismanagement of the run-up to this Budget. That is not just my view. Indeed, a member of the Cabinet was quoted in the press saying, “the handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish.” The impression that has been given is that there was a deliberate attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of the public finances, designed to give political cover for Labour’s plans for more taxes and more welfare spending. The Chancellor delivered a pre-Budget statement in Downing Street on 4 November in which she said that the OBR would be downgrading its productivity forecast, meaning lower tax receipts, but she failed to mention that in reality the OBR’s forecast had already shown her four days earlier that overall tax receipts were £16 billion higher—not lower—than previously thought. To quote the OBR’s Budget report: “In isolation, the reduction in productivity growth could have lowered revenues by around £16 billion in 2029-30. However, the boost to receipts from higher inflation and changes to the composition of nominal GDP growth…more than offset this.” Ministers have pointed out that there was a need to increase headroom, but that was not the justification for tax rises that was being made before the Budget, and it is an admission that the headroom that the Chancellor left in her first two fiscal events was inadequate and irresponsible. Crucially, it also fails to acknowledge that a significant proportion of the increase in taxes was used to fund policy decisions to spend more on welfare. On 14 November, the media were briefed that a plan to increase income tax rates had been dropped following an improved forecast from the OBR. We now know that that was simply untrue. The finalised pre-measures forecast came weeks before this, on 31 October. That is why it is vital that the Financial Conduct Authority investigates the briefings and leaks that went on, and I have written to it again this week on that matter. Even after the Budget, in a Guardian interview, the Chancellor said that income tax rises had remained on the table well into November, “because we didn’t know the size of the downgrade, the productivity”. Again, that is simply untrue. We now know that at no point was there a deficit of the scale suggested to the media. We know that because the OBR felt it necessary to take the unprecedented step of publishing its forecast rounds in full. The question remains as to why Ministers seem to have been so unconcerned about what was appearing in the press, when the OBR has now revealed that the alarm was being raised before the Budget. The reality is that the briefings and leaks were a smokescreen designed to distract from the real reason that taxes were going up, the utter weakness of this Labour Government and the need to buy off their Back Benchers with yet more welfare spending. In the process, the uncertainty and speculation fuelled by the Treasury had an impact on families and on growth. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) rightly pointed out, people made decisions about their finances. They locked in higher mortgage rates, and businesses put off making investments and hiring workers. The British public have been left worse off and they have been misled. They deserve an apology, and they deserve much better than this weak and irresponsible Government.

I beg to move, That this House calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apologise for misleading the country about the state of the public finances, rolling the pitch for raising taxes, breaking her promises and increasing welfare spending, including her claim on 4 November 2025 that the OBR would be downgrading their productivity forecast which, as the Chancellor said, had ‘consequences for the public finances too, in lower tax receipts’, when in fact on 31 October 2025 the OBR had submitted its forecast to the Chancellor that showed tax receipts would be £16 billion higher than previously thought, resulting in the Government’s current balance target being met by a margin of £4.2 billion; further calls on the Chancellor to apologise for breaching the trust of the OBR, whose forecasts are shared in strict confidence until the Chancellor has given her Budget Statement; also calls on the Chancellor to apologise for the misleading briefings and leaks from HM Treasury in advance of the Budget Statement which caused uncertainty for families, businesses and investors; and calls on the Chancellor to apologise for breaking her promise after the last Budget that the Government was not going to raise taxes again, instead raising taxes in the 2025 Budget by £26 billion. I will, of course, heed your remonstrations and remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is said that astrologists are there to make economists look good and second-hard car dealers are there to make politicians look good. It is inconceivable that anywhere in the world there is any trade or career that could possibly make this Chancellor look good. Indeed, one need only look at the polls. The Ipsos poll on the Chancellor’s approval rating shows that she has achieved minus 60%. That is a record low for a poll that was first commenced in the 1970s. A recent YouGov poll stated that the Chancellor was the least trusted on the economy, even more so than Jeremy Corbyn and, yes, Liz Truss—

Yes, not bad, but I have to say that the tie runs in a close second—that is pretty shocking too. I now turn from the substance of the Budget to the chaotic pantomime that we had in the run-up to the Budget? We had every possible kite flown by the Treasury as to which taxes were potentially going up. We had so many kites that they blotted out the sun, and the long shadow of all that chaos swept across businesses who stopped investing, and consumers who stopped spending. Members should not take my word for that; Andy Haldane, the former chief economist at the Bank of England, observed that all that speculation made businesses and consumers “hunker down”. It had real economic consequences.

I will take one final intervention, and there is none better than my right hon. Friend.

The steps, as the hon. Gentleman terms them, that his party is taking to get the deficit down are to borrow ever larger sums of money—half a trillion more than was laid out in the plans that his party inherited, and that has been added to further by the Chancellor at the last Budget. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that after her first Budget, the Chancellor said that she would not be coming back for more tax, which brings me to the issue of her being misleading. That was clearly a misleading statement, because the recent Budget sets out that £26 billion more will be raised in tax in the year 2029-30. But £26 billion is not the extent of the increased tax rises. Because the Government have fuelled inflation, for the reasons that we have been discussing among ourselves, fiscal drag has dragged in a total of £38 billion of additional taxation in that year. The Labour party must start to understand that if it taxes and taxes and taxes the economy, it will get less growth, less productivity and less employment, and that is precisely what we are seeing. The Labour party also said—if you recall, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the Chancellor would not be taxing hard-working people. Well, that simply was not true. By freezing the income tax thresholds for those extra years, the Chancellor is increasing taxes by £7 billion, which is a direct contradiction of what she said—with great gusto—in the previous Budget. She said that she would not do that because it would hurt hard-working people and that she would stick to her promises. Clearly, she did not mean it when she said it.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government talk a good game on poverty, but when it comes down to what they do, we see something entirely different.

I have had many things to say about the mini-Budget, both at the time that it happened and subsequently—and more recently too. Can I remind the hon. Gentleman that on the day of the general election, we had a near record level of employment and a near record low level of unemployment? We had the highest growth in the G7, and we had inflation bang on target at 2%. It is almost double that at present. The reason this Government have failed can be distilled to just two words: one is “deceit” and the other is “incompetence”. In the run-up to the last general election, the Labour party said that it would not put up taxes left, right and centre, and yet, within a few short months, they were to roll out £40 billion-worth of tax increases, including £25 billion by way of increased national insurance contribution taxes on employment.

I think the less said about the socks the better, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman makes excellent points, and I will come to the issue of the market-moving effects of some of the comments made by the Chancellor. On the point that he rightly raises about the impact on people’s lives, these are real jobs. These are people struggling with real businesses. These are farmers getting up early in the morning, going out, working and doing what they know to be right, yet they are weighed down by the decisions taken by the Government. Labour said that it had no intention of means-testing the winter fuel payment. There was no mention of it in its manifesto during the last general election, yet within a very short period of time, that is precisely what it did. Before Labour Members get excited about excluding millionaires and multimillionaires from those payments, the reality is that about 80% of pensioners living below the poverty line were impacted by that decision, which would have only entrenched and driven up poverty.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There is another change to the inheritance tax regime that will be equally as destructive as the agricultural property relief changes, and that is the business property relief changes—the tax changes relating to family firms up and down the country. I have met many of them. These are sometimes substantial businesses that have gone from having a bright outlook under the last Government to suddenly being concerned about the provisions they will now have to make to avoid being broken up as a consequence of the ruinous changes to the inheritance tax regime for those businesses. This is destroying investment, jobs and growth. That is the story of the Labour party.

Three times might be a bit too much—we will come back to the hon. Gentleman later.

May I give the hon. Member a basic lesson in economics? In 2010, when my party came into office, we inherited a deficit at over 10% of GDP—as any economist will say, that is the amount of money being added to the debt every single year. It was over 10% on the watch of the Labour party, and that is the story of increased debt. The debt pile as a percentage of GDP was coming down just before covid. Along with just about everybody else in the political firmament at the time of covid, the Labour party urged us to spend ever more to support the economy and to support jobs. That is precisely what we did, and of course that came with a fiscal cost.

Well, no. The reason there is the obsession with fiscal headroom is that this is the Chancellor who set up too little back in the day, blew it all, had to rebuild it, blew it all, and has had to rebuild it again. That is why the markets are so sensitive to fiscal headroom. The fact that the Chancellor is now saying that she needs £22.5 billion as fiscal headroom against her primary current Budget target is evidence of the fact that she had woefully too little back at the time of the first Budget, when she had £9.9 billion. That is the moral of the story.

You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker; I meant to say the right hon. Member for Islington North and Liz Truss. The Chancellor is not so much the wilting lettuce as a complete liability. How could this possibly have occurred? We have a Government who came to power with one of the largest majorities in the history of our country. One could almost see their majority from the moon. This has happened because of a huge failure on their part. Let us take unemployment. Unemployment is now at a five-year high, back at a level last seen during the pandemic. The latest forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show unemployment higher in every single year than in the forecasts from back in the spring. The International Monetary Fund tells us that inflation will be at the highest level of the G7 this year and next year too. Looking beneath the headline figures, the rate of inflation for food is at almost 5%. For a party that claims and professes to stand up for the poorest in our society, that is a disgrace. When it comes to growth, we know from the OBR’s latest forecasts that, for every year going forward, growth will be lower than the spring forecast set out. Our borrowing costs not so long ago reached a 27-year high, and we are now paying more on our borrowing than Greece.

On the matter of picking and choosing, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that on 4 November, the Chancellor did point out that there was a downgrade in productivity; we now know that to be £16 billion, and she knew that at the time. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that she did not mention—it was omission—the upgrade to the number, which was twice as much as that £16 billion, and that she thereby gave an inaccurate reflection of the state of the public finances at that time?

The reality is that back-loading tax-paying and squeezing spending, as the Government are doing, simply pushes off the inevitable. The evidence shows that, despite its huge majority, Labour does not have the backbone or a plan to control spending and take difficult decisions, even on tax. The Chancellor is like Mr Micawber in Charles Dickens’s “David Copperfield”, who was just waiting all the time for something to turn up. Mr Micawber, as those who are familiar with the story will recall, not only ruined himself through his inability to manage his own finances, but ended up ruining another person, too. The Chancellor, with her inability to manage the public finances, will, I am afraid, be the ruin of our nation. For most of us, Christmas will be not so much a question of “Great Expectations”, but one of “Bleak House”. I give way to the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), who has been very patient.

Momentarily—I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will come to him. What Labour has done in the meantime with this Budget is to take entirely the wrong decision, which is to tax all those hard-working people to the tune of £7 billion—a high proportion of that to transfer straight across to those who are on benefits, including scrapping the two-child cap. Those are the wrong priorities. They are about the socialist obsession with redistribution, and nothing to do with driving the incentives in the economy that grow it and make everybody better off.

I will in a moment. We have seen the consequences of that up and down our country. I have spent a lot of time speaking to employers—from the large employers down to those on the high streets. They are all struggling and they do so because of the decisions that were taken by this Chancellor.

rose—

I invite the hon. Gentleman to look back a bit further in time, before the triple lock was introduced by the Government of my party, to the time when his party was last in office. Under the last Labour Government, pensioner poverty was the fourth highest in Europe. That is why we brought in the triple lock—to clear up the mess that his party had created. Labour also said, during the run-up to the general election, that unlike all socialist Governments in the past, it would not borrow and spend massively, yet the plan set out in its first Budget last autumn was to spend around half a trillion pounds more across the Parliament than under the plans it inherited. That was added to further in the recent Budget. Billions of pounds more are to be borrowed and spent. The consequences of that are that inflation has been stickier and higher for longer, as I have set out. It will be the highest in the G7 this year and the highest in the G7 next year. The consequences of that are that the Bank of England has had to keep interest rates higher for longer than it otherwise would have. The consequences of that— [ Interruption. ] Yes, there should have been more reductions—if the Government had not fuelled inflation, we would have seen interest rates coming down faster. The reality is that increased borrowing costs have heaped pressure on people with mortgages and on businesses, and have added to the cost of servicing the huge national debt, to which the Government are readily further adding such that we are now spending £100 billion a year just to service our national debt, and that will rise to £140 billion, according to the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. That is more than double what we spend on defence. If debt servicing were a Department, it would be the third largest in Whitehall, but not one looking after public services or providing the additional teachers, which, apparently the Prime Minister does not realise are not there. This is money being spent simply on paying for the profligacy of the Labour party.

I just ask the hon. Gentleman what he thinks the effect of increasing taxes on hard-working people does for poverty. Any economist will say it drives poverty up. There is also the question of the farm tax, with the changes under the inheritance tax regime. In the run-up to the general election, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, then in his shadow position, looked the National Farmers Union president Tom Bradshaw in the eye and said that, at least on that count, farmers had nothing to fear from a future Labour Government. Well, that lasted about five minutes before they changed and the Chancellor changed her position. That will cause untold misery to farmers up and down our country. It will mean that farms that have been passed down generation to generation over many years will now fall into the tax net and potentially have to be broken up.

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he accept that on 4 November, the Chancellor knew that there was an upgrade to the state of the public finances of around £32 billion due to additional tax, inflation and other factors? If he does accept that, could he explain to the House why no mention whatsoever was made of that fact by the Chancellor?

I will in a moment. It should be pointed out, of course, that that is a fiddled fiscal target. It is not the fiscal target that we were working to—the same definition of debt. It is not net public sector debt at all; it is something different. In fact, if we were to apply the targets that we were running to, which were much more stringent, to the figures in the forecast that we see from the recent Budget, those targets would be underwater in every single year of that forecast. We should acknowledge that there is now real risk to the stability of our economy, even with an apparently doubled fiscal headroom. The first risk is in defence spending. Although within the numbers, there is the ambition to reach 2.7% of GDP by 2027, there is nothing beyond that. Of course, the Government know that they will have to spend more on defence, and that every increase of 1% of GDP in defence spending is about £25 billion—more than the entire fiscal headroom that the Chancellor has set aside. The Chancellor knows that part of the problem she had with the forecast—although other things moved strongly and positively in her direction—was the productivity growth downgrade by the OBR from 1.3% to 1%. The trend for productivity over the past 15 years has been just 0.5%. If the OBR decides in a couple of years’ time to return to an assumption of trend growth in productivity, that will wipe out £28 billion of headroom. It will destroy all the headroom and more. Similarly, on the path of interest rates, a 1% increase in interest rates across the forecast would cost £16 billion. In relation to particular spending pressures, such as special educational needs and disabilities, there is of course a £6 billion cost pressure, because that spending will be taken from local authorities and put on to the Government’s books in 2028. How that additional cost will be met is not in any way accounted for. Similarly, apparent efficiency savings of £4 billion in 2029-30—the target year—are very handy if one is trying to hit a fiscal target, but there is no explanation whatsoever of where or how those efficiency savings will be found. My final point is that the tax increases set out by the Chancellor are all back-ended. That is when the frozen thresholds kick in. We are expected to believe that, in the run-up to a general election, a party that has shown no resolve, backbone or capacity to take difficult decisions will suddenly find some backbone, stick to its guns and deliver those tax increases. That simply will not happen.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In her heart, I do not believe that the Chancellor really thinks the right decision was to scrap the two-child benefit cap—I genuinely do not. This is a case of the political or fiscal tail wagging the welfare dog; it is as simple as that. The Front Bench has given up on any serious welfare reform. Of course, the Chancellor has reassured us by telling us that she has rebuilt her headroom. She has doubled the headroom against her fiscal target, though it should be pointed out—

I think I have a jack-in-the-box over there. A jack-in-the-box is great to observe, isn’t it? I am not sure that is the case with the hon. Gentleman, but I might take what is probably the fourth intervention from him momentarily. The Government scrapped our plans, with the result that 450,000 people who would not have gone on to those benefits are now heading exactly in that direction. They U-turned, of course, on the botched attempt to bring in their own reforms because perhaps some Labour Members sitting here this evening refused to back them. That cost about £5 billion. We have seen that the terms of reference for the Timms review, which is looking at reform of personal independence payments, make it explicitly clear that there will be no attempt to manage down any of the forecast numbers for that benefit within the OBR’s forecast. Labour has given up on welfare reform.

I thank the right hon. Member for that observation. I have been cautioned by the Chair as to the language—“misleading”—that I use, but it was clearly misleading for the Chancellor to come to the House and say that she would not be putting up taxes and that this was a one-off, as she used the expression “wipe the slate clean”, and yet be back for £26 billion more only a matter of months later. The Chancellor also said that she would control welfare spending. Well, how did that go? The first thing that Labour did was to scrap the reforms that we had brought in—in fact, from when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—that the OBR had scored as 450,000 fewer people going on to long-term sickness and disability benefits with a multibillion pound—

I thank the hon. Lady for that passionate intervention. The best way to get people out of poverty is through work. To the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the record of the last Government was exemplary. We had 4 million more jobs, and 800 new jobs every day under the last Conservative Government.

How could I resist?

My right hon. Friend is right. To be more accurate, we can see it even from Pluto. He is also so right about the loss of jobs in hospitality; about 90,000 jobs have been destroyed, many of them the first opportunity to get on to the career ladder that young people would otherwise have had. That is as a direct consequence of the increase in national insurance. It was not just an increase in the rate; it was a reduction in the threshold at which that tax cuts in. That disproportionately affects those on lower income, in particular women, part-time workers and, yes, young people.

The process surrounding the Budget was utterly chaotic. We had months of damaging speculation, fuelled by briefings and leaks from the Treasury itself. They included briefings on 14 November that moved markets and gave the appearance, at least, of being deliberately inaccurate, which is why we need the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate. May I ask the Chancellor a simple question? Did she at any point authorise or allow confidential details of the Budget or the forecast to be briefed to the press—yes or no?

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s own guidance states: “The interim rounds are transmitted to the Chancellor in confidence”. Yet the Chancellor repeatedly stated before the Budget that the OBR had downgraded its productivity forecast. In her statement in Downing Street on 4 November, she said in relation to the OBR’s forecast that “it is already clear that the productivity performance…is weaker than previously thought.” Why did the Chancellor breach the confidentiality of the OBR?

Do Ministers agree with the OBR’s opinion that leaks and briefings about the forecasts damaged growth? If so, what action was taken by the Treasury regarding those leaks? May I ask once again whether it was appropriate for the Chancellor herself to opine publicly on the OBR’s productivity forecast before the Budget, given that those matters should remain strictly confidential? As you know, Mr Speaker, I have written to the Financial Conduct Authority seeking a full investigation into matters relating to the Chancellor’s statements on the state of the public finances. I have also written again this morning to the permanent secretary at the Treasury, requesting a full investigation into all these matters.

(Urgent Question ): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the resignation of the chair of the OBR.

Richard Hughes was a respected chair of the OBR, and his departure is a matter of deep regret. The circumstances surrounding his resignation remain unclear—although for the Chancellor, it has clearly been a useful distraction from her own conduct. On Friday, the OBR took the unprecedented step of publishing the details of the pre-measures forecast rounds, and members of the OBR board were clear to the Treasury Committee yesterday that that step was taken because of serious concerns about partial leaks and briefings about their forecasts. In relation to the market-moving briefings made on 14 November, which suggested that the public finances were, after all, in a better position, David Miles stated to the Committee: “I think there had been a misconception that there had been some good news. It didn’t exist.” The board members also clarified that those concerns were raised by Richard Hughes with the Treasury before the Budget, and that the information published on Friday was approved by the permanent secretary. What discussions did the Treasury, including the Chancellor, have with Mr Hughes immediately prior to his resignation? Mr Hughes said last week that he served “subject to the confidence of the Chancellor”. Did the Chancellor give Mr Hughes her full confidence? Was any pressure put on Mr Hughes to resign? Did the Chancellor approve the OBR’s publication on Friday and discuss it with the permanent secretary? I believe that the Minister has confirmed that, but perhaps he might do so again. [ Interruption. ]

I begin with the matter of the report on the OBR leak. We will of course study that report in detail, but as the right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, “We will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands”, I seek immediate reassurance that this will not include scapegoating the OBR to distract from the serious questions surrounding the handling of the Budget by the Chancellor, Ministers, the Treasury and No. 10. Let me turn to the other matters that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury addressed in his statement. We expect those in positions of power to act with transparency, openness and integrity, but it is increasingly clear that, in recent weeks, the conduct of people in Government fell short of those standards. That is not just my view; indeed, a member of the Cabinet is quoted in today’s press as saying: “The handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish.” The impression has been given that there was a concerted attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of the public finances, designed to give political cover for policy decisions around increases in taxes and welfare spending. On 4 November, the Chancellor delivered a pre-Budget statement in Downing Street, in which she said that the OBR would be downgrading its productivity forecasts, meaning lower tax receipts. The Chancellor herself says that the statement was meant to set the context relating to the public finances and the need take difficult decisions on tax, but—this is the key point that the right hon. Gentleman did not address—she failed to mention that the net result, in the OBR’s review of the economy, was that there was an increase in tax revenues, not a black hole. To quote the OBR’s Budget report: “In isolation, the reduction in productivity growth could have lowered revenues by around £16 billion… However, the boost to receipts from higher inflation and changes to the composition of nominal GDP growth…more than offset this.” The Chief Secretary to the Treasury argues that there was a need to increase headroom, but that was not the justification for tax rises that was given before the Budget—although it is effectively an admission that the decision to leave such a small amount of headroom in the previous two fiscal events was irresponsible. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s argument fails to acknowledge that a significant proportion of the increase in taxes was used to fund policy decisions on spending, specifically on welfare. On 14 November, the media were briefed that income tax rates would not be increased, following the improved forecast from the OBR. We now know that that was simply false. As I pointed out in my letter to the OBR before the Budget, the finalised pre-measures forecast came weeks before that, on 31 October. Even after the Budget, in a Guardian interview, the Chancellor said that income tax rises had remained on the table well into November “because we didn’t know the size of the downgrade, the productivity”. That is not true. Since then, on Friday, the OBR took the unprecedented step of publishing its estimates for headroom in each of its pre-measures forecast rounds. As a result, we now know that at no point was there a deficit on the scale suggested to the media. Why did the Chancellor claim that she did not know the size of the headroom forecast by the OBR in November, when its final forecast was submitted on 31 October? At what point were the Cabinet informed that the forecast still showed a surplus, and why did the Chancellor suggest that the OBR’s review of the economy had led to a significant deterioration in the public finances? We now know that the briefings to the press were not just inappropriate but inaccurate. Those briefings can only have come from inside Government. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury finally give us a clear answer: was the Chancellor aware of those briefings, and did she authorise them—yes or no? Will he commit to a full investigation by both the permanent secretary and the Financial Conduct Authority into those briefings, and will he explain why the Chancellor chose to opine repeatedly on the OBR’s forecasts before the Budget, when those forecasts were provided to her in strictest confidence? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister claimed this morning that the OBR’s publication on Friday was simply responding to a request from the Select Committee, but the OBR’s report on Wednesday said that it had already planned to write that letter. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that it was, in fact, a proactive choice by the OBR to publish that information, which clearly suggests that the OBR was concerned that the record of who knew what, when, would otherwise be less than clear? It is a matter of profound regret that although the Chancellor chose to appear before the media yesterday, she did not see fit to appear here today. Her credibility is in tatters, and to the long list of her failings in respect of these matters should be added that of disrespecting this House.

We will come on to why that is the case momentarily. What has happened to borrowing? One might have thought that the Government would have learned the lesson that ever-increasing borrowing always leads to disaster, but no: there is £11 billion of additional borrowing on average in every year of the forecast. What has that done to living standards? Real household disposable income—the economists’ measure of economic wellbeing —is down in every year of the forecast compared to the forecast in the spring. The OBR says—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will like this one—that real income growth across this forecast will be well below the average of the last decade. So this Government should not point a finger at the last one when it comes to living standards.

My right hon. and gallant Friend is entirely right, as usual, and something else has also been going on. I have written to the OBR to ask Richard Hughes exactly what happened with the information that the Treasury appears to have leaked out about the forecasts during the run-up to the Budget. I say that in the knowledge that the OBR’s own guidance says that information exchanged with the Treasury during the build-up to a Budget is provided to Ministers in confidence. Why is it then that the Chancellor herself was on the airwaves before the Budget, opining on the apparent coming downgrade to productivity? I have written to the OBR to ask whether it feels that that was appropriate. I have also written to the permanent secretary to the Treasury to ask if he is implementing an investigation into the leaks coming from the Treasury. Interestingly, he has written back to me simply to say that in the event that there are suspected leaks, of course there is an investigation. He has not quite answered my question as to whether there is an investigation being undertaken at the moment, but I will be following up with him on that matter. What has happened in this Budget? The OBR forecasts tell a sorry story: unemployment is higher in every single year of the forecast than it was forecast to be back in the spring. Inflation is up—we have seen the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. Labour is the party that talks about resolving poverty; it is a disgrace that food inflation in the last set of figures went up way above the headline rate, from 4.5% to 4.9%. That rise is being borne by some of the most vulnerable and some of the poorest in our society. On growth, of course the Chancellor tells a good story. She says that the growth forecast is up compared with spring this year, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will know, it is down compared with the autumn of last year, when the OBR said that growth would be 2% in this year; it is now forecast to be 1.5%. In in every subsequent year, growth is forecast to be lower than was forecast back at the time of the spring statement. That is the simple fact.

The film “Groundhog Day” sees Phil Connors go to a place where he wakes up every morning to the same DJ playing the same song: “I Got You Babe” by Sonny and Cher. We have a very similar situation with the Chancellor. It is groundhog day, with the Chancellor destroying the economy, putting up taxes, losing her fiscal headroom, and round and round it goes. That film was said to be a romantic comedy. Well, there has been nothing comedic about the results that this Chancellor has delivered in terms of increased unemployment, diminished living standards, higher inflation and so on. Whether the public were ever enamoured with the Chancellor, I know not, but they certainly are not now—according to the polls, she is apparently the least popular Chancellor in the history of polling on that question.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The income tax threshold freeze—which has been extended for three years, even though the Government briefed that it would probably just be two—means 780,000 more people paying tax for the first time, because the personal allowance will be frozen for longer, and 920,000 people going into the higher rate tax bracket. In fact, by 2029-30, around one in four workers in this country will be in the higher rate tax bracket. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the measure is a clear breach of the Labour party manifesto. The Chancellor herself accepted in the autumn Budget last year, when she said that she would not come forward with the measure, that it would hurt working people. She repeated that yesterday. It is very clear that this is a breach of the Labour party manifesto. When it comes to young people, we hear that there will be a freeze to the student loan payment thresholds. Young people are already disproportionately impacted by the changes to national insurance, particularly the reduction in the threshold that means that lower-income earners, which include younger people, will be disproportionately impacted by those tax changes. The Employment Rights Bill, which is coming down the line, will make it far riskier to take younger people— [ Interruption. ] Government Members should be careful what they wish for. The Labour party speaks a lot about those who are not in employment, education or training, of which there are about 940,000; that Bill will do nothing to improve their life chances. It will make things worse. It will make it more risky to take those people on and employ them.

The Minister says from a sedentary position that inflation is coming down. The International Monetary Fund says that inflation will be the highest in the G7 this year and next year. We know that with high inflation, interest rates are higher for longer. That means businesses’ borrowing costs are higher. It means that consumer sentiment is dampened. It means that the servicing cost alone on the burgeoning debt that this Government are constantly adding to is currently £100 billion a year—twice what we spend on defence. In fact, if debt servicing were a Government Department, it would be the third largest in Whitehall—not spending money on better public services, as we are often told by the Labour party, but simply paying for the profligacy of the Labour party when it comes to borrowing. The run-up to this Budget was a farce. We have seen weeks and weeks of uncertainty generated by the Treasury, which has leaked every possible combination of tax increases and then U-turned on some of them. It has flown so many kites that it has blotted out the sun, and a huge shadow has been cast across businesses, which have pressed pause on investment and hiring. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury should speak to Andy Haldane, who concludes that what I am saying is absolutely right. It has also weighed down on consumer sentiment. All this hokey-cokey around what is in the Budget has done real damage to our economy on this Government’s watch.

That is absolutely true. Let us look at how we ended up at this sorry pass. In opposition, Labour assured the British electorate that they would not be putting up taxes left, right and centre, and when they got into power, what did they do within a few short months? They slapped taxes—£40 billion-worth—on the British people, £25 billion of that by way of national insurance increases on business alone. It is no surprise that that destroyed employment and growth. They talked down the economy. They came up with this confected £22 billion black hole. What an irony it was— [ Interruption. ] There may be chuntering from those on the Front Bench, but what an irony it was that it was at the behest of the Government themselves that the Office for Budget Responsibility was invited to look into this claim and said that it would not legitimise that figure. The damage was done. The animal spirits in the economy were extinguished. Of course, they did something else that socialists down the ages always do: they borrowed and borrowed and borrowed and spent and spent and spent until they ran out of other people’s money—

I will in a moment. It is there in black and white in the OBR’s report. The reason for that forecast is £26 billion of additional taxation in 2029-30, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will know, an additional £12 billion of tax take that will occur because of fiscal drag. Those higher inflationary numbers in the forecast are dragging ever more people into paying ever more tax.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on reading accurately from the Whips’ circular. The Opposition stand by our record— [ Interruption. ] Absolutely. When we were in government, we were a job-creating machine: there were 4 million more jobs under us than had been there before. When we left on the day of the general election, we had a near-record high level of employment and a near-record low level of unemployment. Unemployment is now at a five-year high— [ Interruption. ] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury shakes his head, but it happens to be true. One of the results of the Budget for young people is that there will continue to be a lost generation of workers. What about those who want to save, do the right thing and provide for their future in retirement? Should we not be encouraging that? What has the Budget delivered on that front? Salary sacrifice has been savaged, the savings tax has been put up, and the cash ISA has been cut. We are punishing savers. We will see the reverberating effects of those measures for many generations and many years to come.

I have already set out the fact that this Government’s ruinous taxation policy, including in the Budget yesterday, is to load up taxes on people who are in work, many of them not high earners. The impact of that tax is the reason why the OBR has concluded that for every year of this forecast, real household disposable income—in other words, the cost of living issues people are facing—will deteriorate compared with the forecast back in spring. The Labour party is making poverty worse by making sure that work does not pay to the degree that it should. The other point to make is about inflation. If the Government run a policy of borrowing vast amounts of money and spending half a trillion pounds over and above the plans that they inherited across this Parliament— that was added to by more than £100 billion just yesterday—we should not be surprised if inflation is the highest in the G7, or if the International Monetary Fund says that it will be the highest in the G7 next year. What does high inflation, particularly on food, do to poverty? It drives poverty up, and therein lie the answers that the Government need to think about. There is an alternative, which is to get on top of and control Government spending and to do the responsible thing. Our golden rules is that at least half of those savings should go towards driving down the deficit and the debt, but we would then have capacity to drive down taxes as well. That is exactly what we set out at our conference: £49 billion of savings, and £23 billion of savings on welfare. Thanks to the solid commendable work of my hon. Friend the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, we have found those savings, and it is a tragedy that the Government— [ Interruption. ] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury says, “What are the savings?” The savings are £23 billion on welfare— [ Interruption. ] It is a number. As a member of the Treasury team, he should be familiar with numbers, but clearly he is not. We will be bringing down the welfare bill, and the savings are clear. I direct the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to the paper from the Centre for Social Justice, which makes it clear— [ Interruption. ] Well, it is rather better than the Resolution Foundation stuff that he produced, I have to say. The paper from the Centre for Social Justice makes it clear that by changing the gateways into longer-term sickness and health benefits, which we did when we were in office— [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Gentleman stops jabbering and starts listening, he might actually learn something, and that might be for the good of his party and this country. When we were in office, we made reforms to the work capability assessment that, according to the OBR’s own scoring, would have seen 450,000 fewer people going on to those benefits. We were making a real difference in arresting the rise of the welfare bill. What did the Government do on coming to office? They scrapped those measures on day one. They then came forward with their own proposals— [ Interruption. ] I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury gets to his feet later he will address this, and talk us through what happened to his Government’s attempt to control the welfare bill. It got smashed into a million pieces on the rocks of his own Back Benchers—that is what happened. That is the tragedy of much of this Budget: the economics are being driven by the internal politics of the Labour party. We have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor whose position is now so precarious that they have to bob up and down like a cork on the tide when it comes to making policy at the whims of Labour Back Benchers. There is a certain melancholy about this Budget. It is like groundhog day; an old song, with the words seared into the collective mind. A socialist anthem for all time: “That for he who has, then that must be taken away. For he who has not, then to him must be given.” That is not on the basis of any measure of fairness, as suggested in the topic for debate today, but rather on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics. Economics is about resources, of course, but it is also about incentives. To he who has, I say this: if you work hard we applaud you, and we will incentivise you to work harder still, recognising your contribution to the common good. To the vulnerable we say this: we are there for you. But to others who have not we say this: here is not a hand out, but the means for improvement. For the socialist, Madam Deputy Speaker, distribution is all, and the means are never sufficiently willed. The eternal lesson—also the lesson of this Budget—is that that path leads all to be diminished. An economy laden with debt, with Government spending spiralling still and taxation touching skyward, will never burn bright. The whole will never grow. It is not enough—it will languish. That is how the dreams of millions perish. Yesterday, the lingering flickers of hope died.

My hon. Friend is precisely right. I have set out the iniquitous impacts of the reduction of the national insurance threshold on younger people, as well as the impact that the Employment Rights Bill will have by increasing the risks of employing younger people. That is self-evident and obvious, and businesses are saying it over and over again. If an employer is put in a position where he is faced with a young person who has no career track record, and the Government’s legislation says that on day one the employee can take that employer to a tribunal for unfair dismissal—a claim that may get clogged up for two years, and for which the lawyers advising the employer will probably conclude that he should give in and pay out, even if the merits of the case do not warrant it—that is a recipe for higher youth unemployment. It is simple; it is basic economics. Look at the taxes in the Budget placed on rental income. Do Labour Members not realise that that will lead to higher rents and fewer properties on the market? Do they not understand that if the family home is taxed, we will catch a lot of people who may be asset rich but are income poor? I suppose the solution will be to allow that liability to roll up and be paid on death—yet another death tax at the hands of this Government. What is all this pain and taxation paying for? In large part, it is paying for more welfare—it is as simple as that. Scrapping the two-child cap is a mistake and it is unfair, because those who are paying taxes, working hard and doing the right thing have to take tough choices as to whether they can afford a larger family or not. It is quite right and proper that those who are on benefits should face similar choices.

The Minister is having trouble containing himself, such is the punishment that he is receiving at the moment. They borrowed all this money, and what did that do? It stoked inflation, and with inflation higher, interest rates have been higher for longer.

The hon. Lady has been very patient, so I give way to her.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning we have seen an unprecedented leak of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” report before the Budget. The report contains market-sensitive information. It is utterly outrageous that this has happened, and the leak may indeed constitute a criminal act. In Prime Minister’s questions, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister about this leak, but he refused to answer her question. Please can you advise this House on the steps at its disposal to force a leak inquiry into this matter? Would it be possible to ask the Table Office to distribute copies of the report to the House, given that everybody outside the House has already had the opportunity to read it?

Given that response, the right hon. Gentleman might try a bit of stand-up in his spare time. The process around the Budget is meant to be the most closely guarded secret in Government, but in recent weeks, we have barely been able to pick up a newspaper without reading a fresh report of the latest policy movements. On 6 November, The Times reported that the Chancellor had included increases in income tax rates in the measures sent to the OBR for scoring. Then, last Thursday, the Financial Times revealed that those proposals have now been removed from the Budget package. The Chancellor and her officials may think this is a game that they are playing, but it has real-life consequences and impacts markets, as we saw on Friday. More than that, it shows utter contempt for this House. In this place, questions about the Budget are always met with the same answer: “Decisions on tax will be announced at the Budget”. That is right and proper, but it becomes hollow and absurd when those same matters are being openly reported in the national media daily. The Chancellor even delivered a pre-Budget address to the country—not in this House, but in the Downing Street press room. Given that the Chancellor has chosen not to come to the House today, I will ask the Minister the following questions. Has the Chancellor or any Treasury Minister sanctioned any briefings to journalists on potential Budget tax measures or the contents of the OBR’s forecasts? Have any Treasury officials or special advisers conducted such briefings? Has the Chancellor or the permanent secretary launched an investigation into the source of the leaks, and can the Minister explain why the Chancellor seems to have confirmed that the OBR has downgraded its productivity forecasts before the Budget has even taken place? Either the Chancellor has been knowingly allowing the Budget process to be briefed out, or serious unauthorised leaks have occurred from her Department. That has fuelled confusion and uncertainty, and disrespects this House.

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on briefings to the press about the contents of the Budget.

I agree. Of course, higher taxes are bearing down on living standards, but so is inflation. We have the highest level of inflation in the G7 and are forecast to have the highest in the G7 next year, too. Within that sits food inflation, which is running way above the headline rate of inflation. Who does that impact the most? It impacts the very people that Labour professes to stand up for the strongest: the poorest in our society. It is a direct consequence of the policies pursued by this Chancellor.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to correct the record, because I know this has been spun by the Labour party. At a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference, there was a long, extended debate about just how bad things are, with speculations about all the “what ifs” and “maybes” of different scenarios. If the hon. Gentleman reads the full transcript of those exchanges, he will see that the point I was very clearly making was that there is an alternative to putting up taxes, which is controlling spending. That is the point I was making. What is happening to the wealth creators in our country? About 16,000 of them have fled—they are going by the day. These are the people who generate the wealth, jobs and growth that we are all striving to achieve. Look at the cumulative tax take that has just walked out of the door with the 16,000 who have gone—it would probably require a third of a million to half a million people on average earnings to fill that gap. It is not sustainable. There is an alternative. The Conservatives set out this alternative at our party conference: a way forward through control of Government spending. Government spending could be controlled to the tune of at least £47 billion, which were the savings we identified. Of the £47 billion, £23 billion can be found from the welfare budget by getting people off benefits and into work. It is better for the economy, but equally, for those who have mild mental health conditions such as mild anxiety, mild depression and ADHD, it is a better outcome than parking them on benefits, which the Government are doing through time. By focusing on actual need rather than simply transfer payments and on medical diagnosis rather than self-assessments and by not paying benefits to non-UK citizens, we can make real savings. In some cases they are tough choices, absolutely. However, these are decisions that the Government have made.

We did, actually. We did arrest it. We made changes to the work capability assessment, which the OBR scored at £5 billion-worth of savings. The OBR also scored the fact that there would be 450,000—almost half a million—fewer people going on to those benefits as a consequence. We had already started a consultation on personal independence payment, which I will come back to in a moment, but it was interrupted by the general election. The first thing the Labour Government did when they came into office was scrap all of that and then come forward with some ill-thought-through proposals that did not survive contact with their own Back Benchers. There are other areas where we can make savings. The size of the civil service is one. The civil service has grown by 37% since 2016. We could cut it back by 25% and make about £8 billion— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) should listen carefully to this, because he is about to sit on those benches on the 26th of this month and listen to his Chancellor come up with some pretty unpalatable things. These are good alternatives that should be taken seriously. Raising taxes is simply a choice. The Labour Government are too weak to make the choice to control spending, so they fall back on taxes. They had to U-turn on the welfare reforms they brought through, and £5 billion was added to Labour’s black hole in an instant. We have seen the terms of reference for the Timms review of personal independence payment. They show quite clearly that there is no intention of saving any money from the PIP budget. That is grossly irresponsible. It is spiralling ever skyward. From what we hear, it is highly likely that the two-child limit will be scrapped and abolished. Why? Probably because the Prime Minister, shackled to his Chancellor, is feeling that he is being squeezed halfway out the door of No. 10 and thinks he had better do something to settle the troops on the Back Benches. But that comes with a price tag of £3.5 billion. The only choice that this Chancellor is taking is to fail to get on top of spending and to put up taxes in order to fund ever more welfare.

The hon. Gentleman’s question identifies the core of the fallacy of his Government’s approach, which is to assume that getting better outputs is all about spending ever more money. It is not. It is about what you do with that money; it is about productivity. One of the Government’s many mistakes when they came to office was to splash out on pay rises for their trade union paymasters—14% for the railways drivers and 22% for the junior doctors—with not one string attached in terms of improved productivity. Therein lies the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to control public expenditure in order to keep the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Confederation of British Industry conference on 25 November 2024 that, after the last Budget, the Government would not raise taxes; and further calls on the Government not to break its manifesto commitment that it would not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax or VAT. Right at the centre of this motion is the single word “trust”—the trust that Labour Members lost with the British electorate. They lost it when they promised not to put taxes on farms, and did so; when they said they would not be means-testing the winter fuel payment, yet did; and when they said they would not be putting up taxes left, right and centre, but did exactly that when they came into office. Indeed, in their own manifesto there were around £7 billion of tax increases, which by the time of the first Budget translated into some £40 billion of additional taxes. Of course, much of that related to employer national insurance—a clear breach of the Labour party manifesto. Do not take my word for it. Take the word of Paul Johnson, the former head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that that particular tax increase was a “straightforward breach” of the Labour party manifesto. The Chancellor also said that she would not take decisions that would affect working people, yet we know from the figures released just yesterday that unemployment is at a five-year high. There are 180,000 fewer jobs on payrolls on her watch. Some sectors are particularly badly impacted. Some 90,000 jobs in hospitality have been destroyed, which particularly affects the youngest people in our country, who are desperate to get on the first rung of the career ladder but are deprived of that opportunity by Ministers. After that calamitous Budget, there were further pledges and further promises from the Chancellor. She said to the Treasury Committee: “we are not going to be coming back with more tax increases”. She said on Sky News that she had “wiped the slate clean”. On 25 November, at the CBI’s annual conference, she said: “I’m not coming back with more borrowing or taxes.” There has been little of that language of late, and I think we all know why. At the October Budget, the Chancellor said something else that was telling and extremely important. It is worth my repeating it in full. It relates to her clear pledge not to extend the freeze in the personal allowance under the income tax regime. She said: “I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds”. —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will he reconfirm that solemn pledge the Chancellor made in the last Budget? [ Interruption. ] He could intervene now—that is true. We know that the Chancellor has messed up the economy, yet now, only about a year into the Government, we are already into the blame game. The Chancellor made an extraordinary and rather confusing address to the nation recently in No. 10 Downing Street, in which she sought to blame everybody for this fiasco except herself. She blamed Brexit. She blamed Donald Trump. And when it came to future downgrades of productivity by the Office for Budget Responsibility, she even had the temerity to blame those of us on the Conservative Benches—blaming the past for the future. I was half expecting her to blame world war two or the great war, or the Boer war, or perhaps the battle of Hastings, which surely, with the harrying of the north, must have scarred our economy and must still be being felt 1,000 years later.

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely incisive and correct point. If a Government spend huge amounts of money, there is an opportunity cost to that and it comes through in various forms, including, as he rightly says, raising the cost of capital and crowding out labour, skills and so on. It is a fine and important balance to get right and this Government, palpably, have got it wrong.

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The conclusion that one must draw on the mess that this Government have made of our economy is that it has become brittle, fragile and vulnerable to the kind of external shocks that it was able to withstand when the Conservatives were stewards of it. While per capita growth is almost on the floor, unemployment is at a five-year high; as we know, every Labour Government in history have left unemployment higher on leaving office than it was on entering office. Inflation is high and business confidence is at rock bottom. In a recent survey, the Institute of Directors found that business confidence among its members was the lowest in history. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) refers to covid—according to the IoD, business confidence is even lower now than it was during covid, when the economy contracted by more than 10% overnight. That is how bad business sentiment is out there.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a great shame. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for any of the debate, but that does not mean that he might not have given the best possible intervention from the Labour Benches so far. Perhaps he may like to come in a little later. We have a Government who are engaged in serial breaches, who have no backbone to take the right decisions, and who will always fold to pressure, including from their own Back Benchers—and all at the expense of businesses and hard-working people up and down our country.

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised my tenure at the Department for Work and Pensions, when I was the Secretary of State. I was very clear that we needed to arrest the rising welfare bill, and—

My hon. Friend absolutely gets to the core of it. This is an extraordinary point to have arrived at, but this Government, despite their majority, do not have the plan, political will or, seemingly, even the ability now to command enough support on their own Benches to push through vital spending controls that would allow us to get the taxman off the back of businesses and people up and down our country.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at absolute poverty after housing costs, he will find very significant reductions for children, pensioners and across the piece during the vast majority of our time in office.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we borrow more money, we pay more for that borrowing. Of course, that has fed through to inflation. We know that inflation this year, according to the International Monetary Fund, will be the highest in the G7. The IMF also says it will be the highest in the G7 next year. The consequence of that in monetary policy is interest rates being higher for longer. Of course, if we have a mountain of debt and add to it ruinously, the cost of servicing that debt goes through the roof. It now stands at about £100 billion a year, rising to £130 billion at the end of the scorecard. That is more than twice what we spend on defence every year.

To be fair, I think the Prime Minister was referring to facial hair growth, rather than growth in the economy. They are distinctly different things.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would follow up what was not the strongest first question with that. The Government are naive enough to think that by simply buying people off with no strings attached, the problem would go away. It is like feeding meat to the wolf: when the wolf is fed meat, it will come back to the door the next day, and that is precisely what has happened here. Industrial relations are not improving at the moment. We have various unions in the public sector threatening to strike, including in the NHS, where the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) started in his first question. Where has all this led? It has led to lower growth. No matter how much those on the Front Bench may trumpet increased growth, the reality is that growth per capita— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) says it is the highest in the G7, but our growth per capita is the second lowest in the G7. What matters is growth per capita, because that is what drives an improvement in living standards. [ Interruption. ] I have more bad news for the hon. Gentleman, who continues to chunter from a sedentary position: the IMF says that growth per capita will deteriorate even further next year and be the lowest in the G7.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have heard the various quotations at the beginning of my contribution exactly to that effect. The motion on the Order Paper asks a simple question. It is essentially this: even at this late stage, will the Government stand by their word, or will they dragoon those on the Benches behind them through the wrong Lobby tonight? If they vote with us, millions will heave a huge sigh of relief. If they vote against, the people will have their answer, and they will never forget.

Well, he may or may not be—it remains to be seen. What all this ends up with, of course, is lost fiscal headroom. That is the story so far. We had a Budget last October with about £10 billion against the debt target; that vanishes, with 50% on top as well. It is rebuilt in the spring, and now it has all disappeared, and we are waiting to find out how deep that black hole is. We have entered something of a doom loop, with higher taxes destroying growth, leading to a loss of fiscal headroom, requiring—in the Chancellor’s terms at least—further tax increases, leading to further destruction of growth, and around and around we go.

There were many great things that the previous Government did, not least creating employment as a job-making machine and, despite the Russia-Ukraine war, bringing inflation down at the back end of 2022 from 11% to 2%—bang on target—on the day of the general election. Where is inflation now? It is almost twice that level. We also improved education in our country beyond all measure; Labour is now undoing those reforms, and we will see the consequences of that for generations to come. We did many things of which we should be proud, not least getting us through covid and through the inflationary times. On the day of the general election, we had the highest growth in the G7, we had near record levels of employment and a near record low level of unemployment, and we had seen 13 consecutive months of improving real living standards. That is not a bad record.

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I shall come to those matters shortly, because there are alternatives to what the Government have decided to do. It was this Government who went on a reckless borrowing spree. This year, we have borrowed £100 billion—the highest borrowing in our history, excluding the pandemic. Why has that happened? Because the Chancellor has fiddled the fiscal rules. She changed the debt definition from public sector net debt, as it was under us, to public sector net financial liabilities, which allows far more borrowing. In fact, under the original definition that we had—which she, incidentally, said she would not change—she would have been underwater in just about every year of the forecast on the debt target. That recklessness has led to the Labour party having plans to borrow half a trillion pounds more over the period of this Parliament than we had in our plans that it inherited.

It was the Korean war—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the Chancellor’s choices that have led to this situation. She was the person who chose to put up taxes on jobs, which has led to growth being anaemic. We know that taxes such as national insurance feed through to lower investment, higher inflation, higher unemployment and lower real wages. We know that the Government talked down the economy with the absurd and fictitious £22 billion black hole. In a sweet irony, when they asked the OBR to come in and opine on that number, it said that it would not legitimise it.

As usual, my right hon. Friend makes a characteristically poignant point. There is another act of damage that this Government have created: some of the most successful high net worth wealth creators in our country have simply gone; they have left. It is estimated that 16,000 have gone over the time that this Government have been in office. Socialists will say, “Who cares? Good riddance!”, but they should dwell on the fact that the tax paid by those 16,000 people is probably equivalent to between a third of a million and half a million people on average earnings. Hard-working people up and down our country are paying the price of Labour’s policies. There are choices; it does not have to be like this. We can reduce taxes if we get on top of and control Government spending. At my party’s conference, we set out £47 billion-worth of savings across Government, including £23 billion in savings across the welfare budget. What did the Government do when they tried to tackle the welfare budget? They showed us that this is a Dad’s Army of a Government with a Captain Mainwaring of a Chancellor. They are no match even for the rabble behind them. We know that we need to have responsible tax cuts. That means that they need to be funded and they need to lean into growth. That is why we have announced that, were we in government, we would be abolishing stamp duty on primary residences. It is one of the worst taxes in our tax system. The OBR states that a 1% increase in stamp duty would lead to a decrease of between 5% and 7% in the number of transactions, yet on this Government’s watch, the stamp duty due on a home valued at £300,000 will have doubled during their time in office.

Stick to the day job.

We built 2.8 million homes since 2010, and a million in the last Parliament. It remains to be seen how many homes this Government will build. Another huge advantage of abolishing stamp duty is that it will generate more transactions, which will benefit more plumbers, electricians, builders, designers, estate agents, surveyors and conveyancers, and allow local economies to thrive. Above all, it will increase the effective supply of housing, and that means a fairer society and a stronger economy.

We will take no lessons from the Labour party when it comes to the mismanagement of our economy. What I have just set out has led to a Chancellor who had a Budget in October last year in which she blew all the headroom and more, rebuilt it in the spring and is now, as we all know, heading into the Budget on 26 November with a gaping black hole that she will have to fill. That is due to economic incompetence and it is causing huge uncertainty. I speak to businesses up and down the country. None of them know what to expect. They are all fearful about the tax rises that are yet to come, and that is down to this Chancellor. The consequence is that we have the highest level of unemployment in four years. We know that every other Labour Government in history have left office with unemployment higher than that it was when they came into office. In the retail, hospitality and leisure sector alone, 90,000 jobs have been destroyed under this Government. Young people are bearing the brunt of these policies. Under the Conservatives, youth unemployment fell by around 45%. Under the last Labour Government, it rose by around the same amount, and this Government are on course to do that too. Young people are particularly affected, because the national insurance changes involve not just an increase in the rate but a reduction in the threshold. That affects young people who are desperate to get their first job and their foot on the career ladder the most.

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The tax does precisely that. It stops people moving to where the work is, to get better jobs and further themselves. Who wants to move to one place and pay stamp duty, and then move to another to pay more stamp duty? It does not add up.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We see that in inflation, which is running at about twice the Bank of England’s target and about twice the rate that this Government inherited from us on the day of the general election. Within that, we see food inflation rocketing up at over 4%, damaging and impoverishing the very people that Labour claims to want to stand up for.

I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to reduce public expenditure to fund the abolition of stamp duty land tax on primary residences purchased by UK residents, in order to get Britain working, to grow the economy and to give people a stronger stake in their communities through the security of home ownership. There comes a time in the careers of some in this House when they stand too close to the edge, when they play with fire and when they fly too close to the sun. To continue that astronomical metaphor, we have a Chancellor who has truly thrown herself headlong into a colossal black hole entirely of her making. The Chancellor has trashed our economy and she will blame anybody but herself: the Office for Budget Responsibility, the legacy, the Conservative party, Donald Trump, Brexit—whatever it is, as long as it is not herself. However, we on the Conservative Benches know the clear truth. We know exactly what has happened to our economy. We know that we have a Government who, when they were in opposition, said that there was no way they would be putting up taxes left, right and centre, yet within 18 short months had done precisely that, layering up taxes on businesses and destroying growth at the same time as talking down our economy. Then there was the fictitious £22 billion black hole which, ironically, was debunked as not legitimised by the OBR at the behest of the Labour party itself. We know that Labour has borrowed colossal amounts of money and is due to spend around half a trillion pounds more than the plans it inherited. What has been the consequence of that? It has been elevated inflation. We now have the highest inflation in the G7, and the International Monetary Fund tells us that next year we will once again have the highest inflation in the G7. The consequences of that, through monetary policy, are that interest rates will be higher for longer, bearing down on those who have mortgages and on businesses who wish to borrow. Critically, when it comes to our burgeoning national debt, which is soaring under this Government, the costs of servicing that debt are now running at £100 billion a year, rising to £130 billion across this Parliament. That is twice what we spend on defence. Indeed, if the servicing of our debt were a Department of Government, it would be the third largest in Whitehall. None of that money is going on public services. It is simply going to pay off the creditors who are owed money as a consequence of the profligacy of the Labour party.

Speaking of amnesia, would the right hon. Gentleman like to remind the House what the deficit was in 2010, when we first formed a Government?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The tax is a blocker on the aspirations of those who are growing their families and simply want to find a home with more bedrooms. Often, they cannot find those homes because empty nesters—those whose children have left home—are not prepared to face the huge, eyewatering stamp duty involved.

I have already apprised the hon. Gentleman of the fact that on his party’s watch, 16,000 high-net-worth people have left the country, to the huge detriment of our economy. We cannot tax our way to growth. We have to abolish this tax across the piece, and that is recognised by think-tanks across the political spectrum. Indeed, the Institute of Economic Affairs says: “Abolishing stamp duty is the single best reform any government could make to Britain’s tax system.” The Resolution Foundation, which may be more to Labour Members’ taste, says of stamp duty that it is “one of the most economically harmful ways of raising revenue”. That is a simple fact.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reasons that we need to abolish this tax include the fact that it stands in the way of younger people getting on to the housing ladder. To use the words of Paul Johnson, it “gums up” the entire system of house purchasing in our country. He said: “It may look like a tax on wealthy people who move house but it also acts to reduce effective supply for everyone.” That includes first-time buyers.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As Paul Johnson, formerly of the Institute for Fiscal Studies—I quoted him earlier—says, this tax “also acts to reduce effective supply for everyone” right across every age and every section of the income scale. If only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell)—I see he is not in his place—who is a former director of the Resolution Foundation, could show some backbone and at least agree with his former self and the quote that I read out from the Resolution Foundation. The facts are clear: the Government should support this motion today if they believe in growth, a fairer society and a stronger economy. As we approach the Budget, through a period of great uncertainty, the Chancellor faces a clear choice—a choice between still higher taxes, and controlling spending and getting taxes down; between continued anaemic growth and getting the size of the Government under control; between destroying jobs, and getting people off benefits and into work; and between doing the right thing for our country and simply ducking the challenge. The Opposition know what must be done, even at this late stage, to save our economy. Perhaps even the Chancellor herself knows, deep in her heart, that we are right. Yet is it not the truth that faced with the serried ranks of obstinate delusion arrayed behind her, she is just too weak to act? No plan, no backbone—no wonder that under this Government we are staring into the abyss.

Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent work that she has been doing on the Committee, particularly when she chaired it in the last Parliament.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have already set out the estimate from the OBR that a 1% increase in stamp duty means a 5% to 7% reduction in transactions. It is a horrendous and terrible tax, and it remains to be seen whether Labour Members choose to defend it.