Nigel Huddleston MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, out of respect for everybody else who wishes to speak. At some point in the future, a Bill with different words, stronger safeguards and a more robust impact assessment, perhaps brought forward through a different parliamentary route, might pass that confidence test. This Bill does not. But it may well pass, and I have joined others in arguing and voting for enhancements to safeguards, particularly for the disabled, those with eating disorders or mental health problems, those who may feel that they are a burden and, of course, the vulnerable, who are exposed to the risk of coercion. I believe that some improvements have been made to the Bill, but not enough. I continue to have significant concerns about the potential for assisted dying to be abused and to be extended way beyond the originally intended scope. Finally, I must mention one area of disappointment, in what has otherwise been an extremely respectful debate, and that is about the tone of some of the discussions and the somewhat dismissive attitude that has been expressed towards those with religious beliefs, as though such beliefs are not valid in this debate. They absolutely are. Those who express a belief in God and the sanctity of life should be respected, not sneered at. It is perfectly legitimate for religious beliefs to influence one’s views on assisted dying. Otherwise, this debate has been largely respectful and has indeed shown the House at its best. Again, I would like to thank all my constituents who have contacted me. While I know that some will disagree with the decision and the vote I will cast today, I hope they recognise that I have tried to exercise my judgment carefully and in good faith, as indeed has every colleague in this House.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is always an honour to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah). Like many hon. and right hon. Members in this House, I have genuinely agonised over which way to vote on this issue, because I have changed my mind over the years, largely influenced by constituents coming into surgeries or informing me about their own deeply personal experiences. That includes horrific stories of seeing loved ones in their final days, but I also recall a lady whose mother did go to Dignitas. She said that it was a decision that she thought was absolutely right at the time, yet, since then, she has regretted helping her mother with that every single day of her life, and believes that she helped contribute towards her death. Therefore, these are very complex and deeply personal issues. I also respect the more than 1,000 constituents who have contacted me about this issue over the last few weeks. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of two people who I greatly admire: Dame Esther Rantzen and Tanni Grey-Thompson. I got to know Dame Esther Rantzen in unusual circumstances, when we stood against each other in Luton South in the 2010 general election. Well, it did not end well for either of us. Tanni Grey-Thompson, of course, I got to know very well as the sports Minister. They are on different sides of this debate, but I appreciate their contributions, which show that people can productively use their profiles and personalities in order to contribute to debates. However, I am afraid, Esther Rantzen, I do love you, but I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. I know that every MP wants to do the right thing on this issue today. No one side has a monopoly on compassion. All of us want to make the right decision, and this is not an easy choice. Every now and again in this place, we have the awesome responsibility of making decisions that we know could ease suffering or could cost or save lives. This is one such decision—this is one such vote. If I am making such a choice—making a decision that will inevitably lead to the shortening of life—I want to be absolutely confident that I am doing so for the right reasons and that the risks and unintended consequences are minimised, and I am afraid that this Bill does not meet that high confidence bar.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Pension Credit: Processing of Applications · Hansard source

  More

  We on the Conservative Benches are deeply concerned about all those who will lose their winter fuel payments under Labour. Some pensioners will keep the winter fuel payment if they claim pension credit, but we know that some will not apply or will have difficulty applying. Can the Minister confirm how many people the Treasury assumes are eligible for pension credit but will not claim it, therefore losing their winter fuel payment, and what is the Treasury doing to close that gap?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the history of Labour Governments since the second world war. Every single one of them has left office with employment higher than it was when they started. Is he concerned about the possibility that this Government will repeat the same mistakes, especially given their lack of business awareness and understanding of the private sector?

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions: I was particularly entertained to hear everybody’s friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) say that he does not give anybody a hard time. I warn the Minister that he can expect persistent, relentless and vigorous but polite nudging; it may not be defined as a hard time, but it certainly sometimes feels like that. It is very polite, I have to say. A few other points were raised today, but I will not delve into all the issues. Under different circumstances, I would be happy to have a debate with the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) about international trade. Having negotiated some of the trade deals, I can reassure him that the NFU and others had a very strong voice and that we listened to them very carefully. Their opinions, views and points were very often made. We tried to put safeguards in place; that has not always been acknowledged, but that is a debate for another day. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), raised a bunch of other issues—again, a debate for another day. Just two weeks before the Government deliver the Budget, I am aware that the Minister will be unwilling—and, to be fair, unable—to comment in detail on the issues that have been raised today. Nevertheless, I think it important that he and the Treasury team hear and reflect on the concerns and fears that Members have expressed on behalf of their constituents and other stakeholders who could be considerably affected by any changes to inheritance tax relief and particularly to business property relief and agricultural property relief. My party supports wealth creation, which is important and which helps to pay for our public services, but we also understand the importance of ensuring that wealthy individuals make a fair contribution and pay tax appropriately. Earlier this year, the Minister and I had a debate about the broader issues of inheritance tax in which we recognised that we do not have a wealth tax in this country, but that there are taxes on wealth. Inheritance tax is an important such tax: it brought in something like £7.6 billion last year. We have a progressive tax system. The top 1% of income taxpayers pay 28% of all income tax, so they contribute a huge amount. The vast majority of estates do not pay inheritance tax: only about 5% do so, because there are so many exemptions and reliefs. It is important to recognise those reliefs as legitimate. There is abuse in the tax system—there are loopholes that need closing, and HM Revenue and Customs, the Treasury and others spend a lot of time closing them—but let us not forget that the reliefs are there for a reason. Business property relief and agricultural property relief are perfectly legitimate reliefs. Without them, many businesses, including farms, would cease to exist or would be broken up on the passing of their owner. The reliefs form a critical part of overall business planning and especially of succession planning. Many businesses, particularly small businesses, have expressed anxiety about the prospect of changes to or the abolition of business property relief. Currently, business relief is applied at either 50% or 100% on qualifying businesses when working out how much inheritance tax should be paid. That allows businesses and business assets or shares to be passed on to the next generation without the need to jeopardise the viability or even existence of vital businesses. Without that relief, many more family-owned businesses would have to be sold or broken up to pay a big inheritance tax bill. Prior to the election, many businesses and business bodies, including the Federation of Small Businesses, believed that they had heard and received commitments and assurances on inheritance tax and BPR from the Labour party. Many small businesses in my constituency and across the country seek the reiteration of those assurances. BPR also plays an important part in attracting and retaining certain investments, for example in the alternative investment market. According to some analysts, the removal of BPR from the alternative investment market could result in a loss of between £14 billion and £21 billion in value to UK shareholders and would permanently damage the AIM. Given the importance of inheritance tax relief to the AIM, they are also looking for the Government to confirm its continuation. Uncertainty and speculation around its continuation may already be jeopardising investment. Many hon. Members’ speeches have focused on agricultural property relief, because it is vital to the continuation of our rural way of life and our countryside. The NFU, the Country Land and Business Association and others are concerned about the renewed uncertainty and the impact on farming, including on tenant farmers. Some fear that APR may be removed and that some form of BPR may be kept, but even that could deter landowners from letting their land to tenants; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) spoke about some of the further considerations and concerns for tenant farmers in particular. As many colleagues have said, many farms would simply not survive the imposition of inheritance tax. Families who have farmed the land for generations could be forced to give up their businesses, their farms and their homes, which could jeopardise the sustainability of the rural economy, as well as undermining efforts towards greater self-sufficiency in food production and compromising environmental goals broadly agreed by both the former Government and the current Government. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed last year, when he was the shadow Secretary of State, that the Labour party had no plans to change inheritance tax, including APR, if Labour won the election. Sadly, speculation has since arisen, and I do not believe that further assurances have been given by the Secretary of State or the Treasury. If the Minister can provide any certainty or even an indication to provide additional confidence, I and many of my constituents will welcome it, as will many other hon. Members’ constituents, many farmers, many investors and many business owners across the country. Labour did not mention APR or BPR in its manifesto, nor did it make statements about them during the election campaign, but it clearly stated that it would not increase taxes on working people. As we have heard today, farmers and family business owners are very clearly working people; my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) made that point very well. Given all the comments we have heard from the Labour party, I hope the Minister agrees that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are no plans, and should be no plans, to change the inheritance tax relief system, especially because those reliefs play such an important part in investment decisions and business planning. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s speech providing at least some of the reassurances that we seek today.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Sport: Team GB and ParalympicsGB · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) to the House and congratulate her on a very eloquent, gracious and personal maiden speech. She has shown today that she will make great contributions to this place over the coming years. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my declarations when I was Sports Minister—I may touch on that in a moment. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Sports Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and the shadow Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) on their roles. As a former Sports Minister, I know that the role has upsides, but it also comes with a lot of hard work and graft. The role often involves dealing with the downsides of sport—regulation, racism in cricket, head injuries in rugby, financial distress and so on—with sports governing bodies, and coming up with solutions in challenging areas such as trans, where we are all trying to ensure we get the right balance between accessibility and fairness and safety. I know how hard governing bodies work on that, and I know that will be a challenging area for the Minister. There are some upsides, too. I know there is a lot of noise at the moment around declarations and attending sporting events, but as Sports Minister it is the hon. Lady’s duty and responsibility to get around the country and be a champion for all sorts of sports. I hope the noise around that does not stop her from doing her job. That is really important, because not all sporting events are Wimbledon; the job is also about championing disability sports, women’s sports and lower league sports around the country. I want to see her at those events every weekend. She will not get criticism from me for doing any of that. There is another downside to being Sports Minister. On calls with Sports Ministers from around the world, they all introduce themselves as the former world champion of this and the former gold medallist of that. Then it comes to the Brit and it’s like, “I’ve got a medal from sports day at my school back in 1984.” Slightly embarrassing! The other downside, I am afraid, is often being required to be in photos along with a lot of very fit, handsome and beautiful people, which is slightly challenging, or being invited to enter the ring to spar with a world champion boxer. I would get asked, “Minister, would you like to participate in the 100 metres final?” with journalists waiting there with cameras just to humiliate you. “No, thank you very much!” But it is an amazing job and one that I enjoyed very much. If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a huge thank you, as I have never had the opportunity to do so. I was appointed Minister for sport and tourism in February 2020. It was the job I had always wanted. A few weeks later, however, we were in lockdown and there was no sport and no tourism. As a result of the work with the various sports governing bodies, in particular Sally Munday and Dame Katherine Grainger at UK Sport, and Tim Hollingsworth at Sport England, and the incredible team at the Department, we were able, over time, to get sport up and running again. I am really proud that we did, because we all know how important it is to health and mental health. And let us not forget that sport is a major economic contributor to the UK. It is a massive export earner for the UK. There are hundreds of thousands of people involved in sport and supported by sport, plus it makes us all feel good and unites us. That brings me to another point, which the Under-Secretary will find out about at some point in the future, should she ever be unfortunate enough to be reshuffled into a different role. A number of Members would say to me, “We used to like you when you were Sports Minister, but not so much now,” because the role is not particularly party political. I am glad that that will be the tone of today’s debate. We should not and cannot take the amazing success of our Olympians and Paralympians for granted, and we are all here to applaud them today. They have put in an incredible amount of personal effort to achieve that success. The United Kingdom punches way above our weight in sport. That is not an accident. I think all of us would applaud the work of John Major, for example, on the initiative back in the 1990s to ensure that money went into sport—which was often controversial—through the national lottery. That has continued ever since. I know how difficult it is to argue for money for sport, but sport is so impactful on the health and mental health of the country. What incredible success we saw this year, not only in the medal haul, which is important, but in the personal success stories and personal bests. The medals are a really good indicator of our global success, in particular —my God!—that of the Paralympians. They were second in the medal table again. That speaks volumes of the United Kingdom. We champion people with disabilities: we applaud them and literally put them on a pedestal. The Paralympics is a way to show what people with disabilities can do, as opposed to focusing all on the time on the things they cannot do. The UK has a fantastic global reputation, in particular for disability sport. I thank everybody involved: not only, as I say, the governing bodies UK Sport and Sport England, but the broadcasters who put the Paralympics on TV at prime time. The British public watched the games in their millions. That is not the case in many other countries around the world. The Under-Secretary is probably being approached by other sports Ministers from around the world saying, “How do you do it? You have incredible success. How did you come second to China in the medal table?” and TV is one of the reasons why. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, we are very successful. Back in 1996, we got just one gold medal. We are the only country to have achieved gold medals in every single Olympics in the modern era. That is remarkable, and funding is fundamental to that. From 1996, because of co-operation and taking politics out of a lot of it, we have had a broad consensus on backing sport. Long may that continue. I would also like to take the opportunity—many of us in the House are very proud of our constituents who participated in the Olympics and Paralympics this year—to applaud Olympic swimmer Matt Richards, Matt Skelhon, Issy Bailey, Rebecca Redfern and Matthew Redfern on their incredible success. I know—I have met them multiple times—that they have very proud parents. Let us not take sport for granted. We like to applaud our sportspeople for very good reasons. Funding is majorly important. I express my huge gratitude and thanks to the sports governing bodies, UK Sport and Sport England, for what they did during the pandemic when I was Sports Minister, as well as for what they do now. I applaud them; they make us all proud. I applaud the Olympians and Paralympians too. They make us feel good and we are so proud to support them.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Midlands Rail Hub: Stakeholders · Hansard source

  More

  4. If she will meet stakeholders in the midlands to discuss plans to build the midlands rail hub.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Midlands Rail Hub: Stakeholders · Hansard source

  More

  I very much appreciate that response. I would appreciate it as well if the Minister could give us some idea of the timing of this really important investment for the region, which will add considerably to the economic prospects of the west midlands.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to follow Citizen Smith over there. In the large number of contributions today, we have seen the importance of this issue and the alarm felt by many Members and their constituents about the Government’s proposal. I am sorry to say that we have also had a lot of 1970s politics of envy today. We believe in evidence-based decision making, and as many Members have pointed out, it is becoming increasingly clear that Labour’s planned education taxes—removing VAT and business rate exemptions from independent schools— will not do what is claimed. I will move on to the details in a moment, but may I first congratulate those who have delivered their maiden speeches today? I thank them all for making gracious comments about their predecessors. I learned something about each of them today. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) spoke eloquently and lovingly about her beautiful constituency, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who brought back many holiday memories for me. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) gave us all good advice on naming children in Glasgow. The hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) may or may not be aware that we share something in common, as we were both student union sabbatical officers, although in my case a few years earlier. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) gave perhaps the most eclectic speech today, mentioning Daleks, potholes and Ann Widdecombe all in one speech. I am afraid that I will not be so gracious about some other comments we have heard today from Government Members, who still do not seem to realise that they are now in government and their job is to talk the country up. They have constantly talked down not only the country, but the education system. Let me remind them that when we left office, education standards were going up and per pupil funding was at record levels. In contrast, when Labour was in office, we were falling in the league tables. What a brass neck Labour Members have, when we look at Labour’s record in Wales. We have been backing our brilliant teachers, and I would hope that they would do the same. The motivations behind this policy are clearly questionable. The impact assessment is non-existent and the savings illusory. There are so many potential unintended consequences and uncertainties around these policies that, at the very least, the Government need to postpone implementation, although it would be better to scrap the plans altogether. They are also moving away from a long-held principle that we used to agree on across the House that educational services are not taxed at all. It is a terrible thing that they are now bringing in. We have five key categories of concern: the impact on state schools; the impact on Government finances; the timing of the proposals; the consideration of exemptions; and the impact on SEND and EHCPs. I will not repeat all my comments from the debate we had earlier, but it is so clear that this policy will not only have a detrimental impact on the independent schools sector, but negatively impact the state sector, because the imposition of a 20% VAT hike overnight will mean that some families will no longer be able to afford the fees. Inevitably that will mean children leaving the private sector and moving to the state system, putting an additional burden on many local state schools, some of which do not have the capacity. As I said this morning, it is not fearmongering or scaremongering; it is happening already and we are already seeing it in schools. According to some forecasts, instead of the predicted £1.5 billion saving, this policy could cost the taxpayer money. How extraordinary to choose this policy area to try to eke out some cash when so many other options are available, if the Government were brave enough. Out of total Government spending of more than £1.2 trillion, is this really the policy that they want to prioritise? On the topic of overall Government finances, we have not yet heard clearly whether the Department for Education will get more funding from the Treasury if the number of state school pupils exceeds expectations. Will they be expected to pay it out of existing budgets? Have the Government set aside capital for additional school spaces if it is needed? Regarding the timing of the proposals, many Members have mentioned that it is beyond belief that the Government are bringing in this policy in the middle of the school year, when schools are simply not ready for it. It is not fair on the independent sector to expect schools to get their heads around new legislation, register for VAT and implement new systems and processes in literally a matter of weeks and before Christmas. That will not happen. We have also not heard whether the Government will create exemptions or special considerations for all these areas: military families, students on music and dance schemes, children attending small schools, language schools or religious schools, those paying low fees or on bursaries, and children in exam years who may have to move to another school that does not offer their curriculum. What are the Government doing about pupils with special educational needs and those with an EHCP or in the process of gaining one? If, as many predict, there is a displacement of children with SEND and EHCPs into the state sector, is there the capacity for that? Is there adequate additional funding support planned for local authorities to deal with that predicted increase in demand? I wish to make a couple of other brief points before concluding. As a Conservative, I believe in choice, and I will not criticise choices made by parents about their children’s education. I have no qualms, however, about criticising hypocrisy. The irony that I stand here as a proud product of a state comprehensive education defending independent schools while the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury who spoke earlier, a product of a private education, is pursuing a policy that could undermine independent schools is not lost on me or others. Many Government Members attended independent schools or sent or are sending their own children to them, and yet they are determined to increase the costs on others, depriving many families of the choice they themselves had. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Education now in her place after being conspicuously absent. Perhaps she will take the opportunity to apologise for the tweet. Parents who send their children to independent schools pay twice for their children’s education and deserve better than to be treated with contempt by their Government’s Education Secretary. The divisive tweet that she put out last weekend was shockingly ill-judged and ill-informed, sneering and smirking about embossed paper and swimming pools. Does she really not understand or recognise that not every independent school is like Eton or Harrow? It betrays an incredible lack of awareness and poor knowledge of the facilities and financial status of many independent schools. It demonstrated that the policy is being promoted not on evidence but on envy and spite—ill-informed and misplaced envy at that.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend puts it well. I do not have to add to his comments. This is a rushed and ill-judged policy that will not raise the money the Government assumed it would, undermine the viability of many independent schools, put immense pressure on the state school system and put in jeopardy the education prospects of thousands of students, including many with special needs. We implore Ministers to reconsider.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  I applaud the hon. Gentleman for his bravery, given that 2,500 pupils attend independent schools in his constituency. I think they will have a different view from his.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  As for provision, as my right hon. Friend will articulate this afternoon, more than 200,000 EHCPs were issued with SEND provision. We provided more support than the Labour Government ever did. If, as many predict, there is displacement of children with SEND and EHCPs into the state sector, is there capacity? Is there adequate additional financial support for local authorities to deal with the predicted surge in demand? If the answer is no, or I do not know, to any of those questions, the Government must delay this policy. Before I conclude, I ask the Minister to have the decency to recognise the apparent hypocrisy of so many Members on the Government Benches, including himself, who attended independent schools or send their children to one, yet are now determined to increase the costs on others, depriving many families of the choice that they benefited from. I also ask him to apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education for her appalling divisive tweet over the weekend, which betrays her lack of awareness of the realities of independent schools across the country. Headteachers, teachers and parents in both the state and independent sectors, unions, tax experts and think tanks are all appealing to the Government to think twice about this policy. I appeal to the Minister to listen and act accordingly.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend raises another important point, and I believe some legal challenges are already in place. Regarding timing, is the Minister truly confident that the policy could be implemented within weeks? Is His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs adequately resourced and prepared for it? Is the legislation ready? Is the legislation and guidance sufficiently clear? Even if the answer to all of the above is yes, is it fair on independent schools to expect them to suddenly get their heads around new legislation, register for VAT, implement new systems and processes, and logistically carry out the execution of this policy, all before Christmas? The answer is clearly no. I implore the Minister at least to delay the implementation, and carefully consider some exemptions and special considerations, my fourth category of concerns, which have been raised by many hon. Members today. The rushed policy appears not to have properly considered carve-outs for pupils from military families, students on the music and dance scheme, children attending small or small faith schools, those paying low fees or who are on bursaries, or children in exam years who may have to move to another school that does not offer their current subject, offers different syllabuses, or has different examination boards. I hope that when we finally see the impact assessment, we will see some consideration of those matters. My fifth category of concern is what consideration has been given to pupils with special educational needs and those with an EHCP or who are in the process of getting an EHCP.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dame Caroline. May I first congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate? I thank all those who have participated today; we have heard some very insightful contributions. I am also glad to have the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), sitting beside me today. We can see from the large number of contributions, particularly from Opposition Members, how important this issue is to Members and their constituents, many of whom are greatly distressed by the Government’s proposals. We believe they are flawed in both design and execution, or at least planned execution, which is perhaps why so few Members from the Government party are here to defend them today. The policy will move away from a long-held principle that educational services are not taxed in this country, or in most developed economies. We have five broad categories of concern: the impact on state schools, the impact on overall Government finances, the timing of the proposals, consideration of exemptions, and the impact on SEND and EHCP provision. I shall turn to each of these briefly. First, it is clear that the policy will have a detrimental impact not only on the independent sector, but on the state sector. The imposition of a 20% VAT tax hike overnight will clearly mean that some families will no longer be able to afford the fees. That is basic economics. In addition, the imposition of business rates will further disrupt the business model of independent schools and make less money available for bursaries and subsidies, which many parents rely on. Inevitably, that will mean children leaving the private sector and moving to the state system, putting an additional burden on many state schools, some of which do not have the capacity. It will also make fewer spaces available at good and outstanding local state schools where spaces would otherwise have been available, because more pupils would have taken the independent route. This is not a fear or scaremongering; this is reality. It is happening now. According to the Independent Schools Council, more than 10,000 pupils have already been pulled from independent schools. One think-tank has estimated that far from bringing additional money into the Treasury, the policy could cost the taxpayer £1.6 billion, which brings me to my second point about the impact on overall Government finances. Out of total Government spending of more than £1.2 trillion, is this policy really the top target of the new Government? It smacks of the politics of envy, not of careful deliberation and consideration of evidence. On the topic of overall Government finances, will the Department for Education get more funding from the Treasury if the number of state pupils exceeds expectations, or will they be expected to pay for it within existing budgets? Have the Government set aside capital for additional new school places if that is needed? Regarding the timing of the proposals, it is unfathomable why the Government are considering introducing this policy in the middle of the school year. Why? It does not make any sense to cause so much mid-year disruption to so many schools, pupils and families.

• 12 Sept 2024 · NHS: Independent Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  A key conclusion of the report is the absolute necessity of focusing on productivity and not just throwing money at the NHS; I think we all agree on that. Ministers are constantly telling us that government is about making difficult decisions—something that that we already knew. Why, then, on one of his first opportunities, did the Secretary of State do the absolute opposite of that? In solving the doctors dispute, he took the easy option of throwing money at it, and did not require productivity enhancements and changes. Will he reassure me that in future he will practise what he preaches?

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not detain the House long by repeating the arguments that I made in my opening comments, but I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, and in particular by his refusal to accept our amendments. It is alarming that he is refusing to do so because, as I outlined, I believe they are consistent with the goals of the Bill overall, and I think the credibility of the Bill will be seriously undermined if it does not include the fiscal rules. I like the Minister a lot. We go back a way and have always had civil conversations, but if he does not believe or consider the level, type and definition of debt to be “fiscally significant”, then with the greatest respect perhaps the Treasury is not the right home for him. They are transparently fiscally significant, and an important part of the consideration we are talking about today.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that point. My understanding is that the Government have not published an impact assessment, as would normally be the case for something with such a significant impact. I think that speaks to the whole narrative that we are hearing from the Government: claiming one thing when the facts speak differently. As I said, far from inheriting a £22 billion black hole, they have actually spent, or committed to spending, an additional £25 billion. That is a choice that they made, so the claim that the Labour Government are having to take the winter fuel allowance away from millions of pensioners as a response to unexpected financial constraints simply does not stack up against the facts, or indeed the words of the Chancellor herself, who on 25 March 2014—yes, a decade ago—said: “We are the party who have said that we will cut the winter fuel allowance for the richest pensioners and means-test that benefit to save money”. —[ Official Report , 25 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 174.] That is a direct quote in Hansard from the current Chancellor, so no, the Government’s restriction of winter fuel payments is not a response to financial circumstance; it is a long-established, clearly stated Labour policy intent—a deliberate policy choice, but a policy that they conveniently forgot to tell the public about in the run-up to the last election. I hope, however, that the Government can be straight with the public on this point about the fiscal rules, accept the amendment that we are proposing, and provide assurance to all Members and the outside world that there is no sleight of hand here. We want the Bill to work as they say it is intended to, and to include financially significant decisions, such as on the levels of Government borrowing and the fiscal rules. I would therefore appreciate it if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed in his wind-up that the Government do not intend to change the definition of debt in their fiscal rules or practise some accounting trick to hide the level of Government borrowing, and that they do indeed wish to be clear and transparent about the public finances. If Labour Members vote against our amendment, it will merely prove that they are planning to change their fiscal rules in the Budget to borrow more money, increase debt, and run away from independent OBR scrutiny—the very opposite of the stated intent of the Bill.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Chair. May I first take the opportunity to congratulate you on your election? I promise to try not to try your patience over the coming weeks, years and so on, but we will see how things go. I wish primarily to speak today to amendment 9 and, of course, consequential amendment 10, which effectively seek to ensure that the fiscal lock proposed in the Bill should also include any changes to the fiscal rules and would require the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a report on their effect on public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility was of course constructed by a Conservative Chancellor following the poor forecasting record of the previous Labour Government. Between 2000 and 2010, the then Labour Government’s forecasts for economic growth were out by an average of £13 billion, and their forecasts for the budget deficit three years ahead were out by an average of £40 billion. Their forecasts therefore lacked credibility, and to re-establish confidence and credibility the OBR was created by the Conservative Government. Labour lacked economic credibility in the past, and I am afraid it still lacks it now. The facts simply do not stand up the false claim that the Government have inherited the worst economic circumstances since the second world war; they transparently have not. Contrary to the rewriting of history that the current Labour Government are attempting, when we took over from Labour back in 2010, inflation was 3.4%. When they took over from us, it was 2.2%. The annual deficit is half what we inherited in 2010, unemployment is about half what it was in 2010, and we handed Labour the fastest economic growth in the G7. The dominant political and economic narrative since the second world war is in fact, as has been widely commented on, that every single Labour Government end up with unemployment higher at the end of their time in power than when they took over from the Conservatives preceding them. The British public should not be taken for fools. Just because Labour keeps claiming something, that does not mean that it suddenly becomes true, which is why clarity over plans and rules is so important. The fiscal rules are of course restrictions on fiscal policy set by the Government to constrain their own decisions on spending and taxes. The fiscal rules set by the previous Government said that the debt to GDP ratio should be falling within a five-year horizon, and that the ratio of the annual budget deficit to GDP should be below 3% by the end of the same period. Labour’s manifesto for the election proposed the following fiscal rules: balancing the current budget, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues, and that debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast. On the surface, therefore, the debt rules appear to be broadly the same under the new Government. The Government have even said that they have an “ironclad” commitment to reduce Government debt. It is therefore critical what definition of debt is used for the fiscal rules. Clearly, any changes to the fiscal rules are financially significant decisions because they affect how much the Government can borrow and spend. On Second Reading, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said: “Our fiscal rules are non-negotiable.” —[ Official Report , 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1263.] Great, but why then has the Chancellor repeatedly failed to rule out that she will change the definition of debt in her fiscal rules to allow, presumably, for massive borrowing? The Government cannot run from the scrutiny that they should be subjected to if they are considering making such a change. We believe that our amendment requiring an OBR report on changes to the fiscal rules is entirely consistent with the Government’s stated policy intent, and should therefore be fairly uncontentious. After all, on Second Reading, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that “the announcement of a fiscally significant measure should always be accompanied by an independent assessment of its economic and fiscal implications, in order to support transparency and accountability.” —[ Official Report , 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1211.] We agree, and not accepting our amendment would be contrary to those goals, because clearly changing the fiscal rules would be a fiscally significant measure in anybody’s book. Furthermore, the Chief Secretary said that “fiscal discipline and sound money is the bedrock of our plans.” —[ Official Report , 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1213.] Well, changing the fiscal rules would be changing the foundations and that bedrock. Transparency and clarity are important in relation to the public finances, because Ministers should never forget that it is not their money that they are spending; it is the public’s money. The public have a right to know how their money is being spent, and government is about making difficult choices with limited resources. With Government spending being above £1.2 trillion per year, the British public recognise that the Government clearly have choices. It is not an endless supply of money, but it is a very, very large amount. In the last few weeks, the new Labour Government chose to spend the public’s money on pay settlements for their union friends rather than on supporting pensioners. Those settlements are estimated to cost about £10 billion. They also chose to spend £8.3 billion on a public energy company and £7.3 billion on a national wealth fund, so far from inheriting a £22-billion black hole, they have actually just spent £25 billion creating one within their first few weeks of coming to power.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 9, page 1, line 14, at end insert— “(c) or any changes to the government’s fiscal targets.” This amendment requires the OBR to produce and publish a section 4(3) report at the time new fiscal rules are announced by the Treasury.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have Third Reading as well, so let us enjoy ourselves. Just because the Government keep repeating the narrative does not make it true. I am sure they will continue to do so, but the £25 billion of additional spending that I have just outlined is a choice they have made. The arguments they are having to make—that they are having to cut payments to pensioners in response to the circumstances they have inherited—are not true because, as I outlined in my opening speech, it is a deliberate, long-stated policy choice articulated by the current Chancellor a decade ago. It is not a response to circumstances, but deliberate Labour policy. On a more positive note, I congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches today: the hon. Members for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Swindon North (Will Stone), for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), for Woking (Mr Forster), for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), and for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby). They have made incredible contributions. The breadth of experience that they bring to this Parliament is astounding, and I am largely talking here about Government Members. I say it with a great degree of respect, because in many circumstances—in fact, in nearly every single circumstance—they have replaced good friends of mine who contributed significantly to this House. They all have big shoes to fill, but what they have said today was impressive. In particular, those who spoke without notes are a lesson to us all. What a beautiful tour we had around the United Kingdom. Everyone who spoke today spoke eloquently about their constituencies and their constituents and showcased their rich heritage and rich history. It was incredibly impressive. I am sure their constituents will be proud of what they have said. With that, I will finish my comments, but the debate will continue. Question put, That the amendment be made .

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I have indeed. As I outlined in my original statement, the arguments the right hon. Member is making do not stack up with the facts. The economic circumstances that Labour inherited are better in many areas than those we inherited from them back in 2010. The economy is the fastest growing in the G7. On unemployment, every Labour Government since the second world war has increased it while in power, for us to then clear up and reduce it when we take over. Inflation was lower when Labour took power then when we inherited it, and annual debt was higher when we took over in 2010. Labour Members keep saying all those things, but the challenge is that it does not stack up with the facts. They make arguments about the level of debt, as I outlined earlier, but they have already announced £10 billion for inflation-busting salary increasing for their union mates, £8 billion on energy provisions, and £7 billion on the national wealth fund. That is £25 billion of additional money that they have spent. If there is a black hole in the finances, it is clearly one of their own making by the announcements they have made since coming into government. That £25 billion is a huge amount of money, but I will finish discussing those points, because we had this debate earlier.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way at the moment, because I want to move on to some more positive things.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Occupational Pensions: Tax Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Chancellor and the entire Treasury team on their appointments. We have always had civil, albeit occasionally robust, interactions, and I am sure that will continue, but it is now our job to hold them to account for the important decisions they make at the Treasury. During the election, Labour promised on more than 50 occasions not to increase taxes on working people. Does it now recognise that working people have pensions too, and can the Chancellor give those people, who are saving for the future, peace of mind by confirming that the Government will not increase taxes on pensions in the upcoming Budget?