PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Topical Questions - 9 December 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Covid fraud and error under the previous Government’s mismanagement cost the taxpayer £10.9 billion. They played fast and loose with the public purse and left the front doors wide open to fraud. That is why I have appointed a covid corruption commissioner to carry out the independent review. This Government are doing everything to recover taxpayers’ money. We have already got back around £400 million, with more to come. That money belongs to the British people in our communities and in our NHS. We welcome the publication of the commissioner’s independent report and will respond fully in the new year.

The British people are paying the bill for criminal covid fraud. Under the Conservatives, waste and corruption exploded and taxpayers’ money was stolen. Will the Chancellor make sure that the Labour Government continue to go after those who stole from the British taxpayer and make sure that we get every penny back?

I could not agree more. The previous Government failed to protect public money, while this Government have generated around £400 million by getting money back. We all know what happened: the Tories dished out contracts to their friends and donors—money that never belonged to them. This Government will leave no stone unturned because that money belongs to taxpayers, not with cronies or crooks.

I call the shadow Chancellor.

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?

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?

In its spring statement, the OBR was clear that productivity was coming in lower than forecast, and it was clear that it was reviewing that over the summer. The numbers that the OBR has since published showed that in the final pre-measures forecast the fiscal headroom was just over £4 billion. I was clear in my speech on 4 November that I did not want to reduce the headroom; I wanted to increase it. I increased it to bring back the stability that is much needed in our economy after 14 years of Conservative government.

The child poverty strategy published last week sets out the steps that we are taking to support families now, as well as the building blocks that we are putting in place for the long term. We will lift 550,000 children out of poverty by removing the two-child limit and through other measures, including the expansion of free school meals.

Employment is up since we took office, and part of the reason for the disparity between those numbers is the fact that people who were economically inactive are now seeking work. That is exactly what we want, for people to be seeking work and to get back into work, but there are more jobs in the economy today than when we took office.

My hon. Friend will know that when I was at secondary school, my school library was turned into a classroom because there were more students than there was space. We have put £10 million into primary schools to get a library in every single primary school in this Parliament, and next year, to celebrate the national year of reading, we are putting £5 million into having more books at secondary schools, and I am really proud to be doing that.

Let us be clear: nobody’s business rate bills are trebling. If businesses come to talk to us about increases in their rateable values because of the unwinding of the effect of the pandemic, it is important that all of us, on both sides of the House, are clear that the Government have put in support to ensure that pubs and those that have seen their values go up will not see increases next year. If the pubs rateable value is more than £100,000, they will be capped at a 30% increase. If it is less, they will be capped at 15% or £800. That is £4 billion of support that this Government are providing.

An independent and effective OBR is critical for our country, but it needs to do better. Why can the OBR not count? Why can it not forecast accurately, given that the economy grew 50% faster than it had predicted in March? Why can it not even publish the Budget document without making a dog’s breakfast of it? Is it not time for the OBR to properly price pro-growth measures and get behind our growth mindset?

I can be clear that we are committed to the OBR’s independence as a forecaster and to the core role it plays within our fiscal framework. The Chancellor has also been clear, however, that forecasts are not our destiny. We will not let Britain be held back by the failures of the previous Government. At the Budget, the OBR revised upward its growth estimate for this year, and we are determined to exceed forecasts again.

The Government of course recognise that innovation is key to our long-term economic growth and to higher productivity, and indeed to living standards. That is exactly why we are investing more in R&D, and we have made other incentives available too.

It has been a rocky week for the Office for Budget Responsibility, so I am glad that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recognises and has reiterated the value of an independent regulator in this space. Nevertheless, a lot of criticism of the OBR is swirling around. Would the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor like to remind people about the role of the fiscal risks and sustainability report, which does look longer term at the economy, and the importance that this has in planning? As the Chancellor said, it is not destiny just because of the figures, but that report is particularly useful in that respect.

I have huge respect for the Office for Budget Responsibility, and I reappointed Richard Hughes for a second term earlier this year. We deeply regret the publication of the Budget document ahead of the Budget. Richard Hughes has apologised for that and has resigned, but I thanked him for his leadership of the OBR. My hon. Friend is right to point to the longer-term risks that the OBR also points out. That is why at the Budget we took measures on electric vehicles and on high-value properties, because we need to reform the tax system so that it works for the future.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government recently published “English indices of deprivation 2025”, which included the supplementary report on how deprivation manifests in rural areas. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will further consider those assessments of deprivation, as well as other inputs, when deciding funding models for local areas.

Constituents across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages will be pleased to see the Government taking action on the cost of living by reducing energy bills, but they want the benefits to be fair and felt by all bill payers. What steps will the Chancellor take with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that reductions in energy bills are reflected in standing charges, not just in unit prices?

Energy bills are too high. The Conservatives left Britain dependent on the rollercoaster of gas prices, and left families paying almost £2 billion on bills for their failed energy efficiency scheme, the energy company obligation. We are scrapping ECO and taking some of the expensive levies off bills. My hon. Friend makes an important point about standing charges. He will know that Ofgem continues to consider low standing charge tariffs for exactly the reason that he raises. More generally, reducing energy bills is so important precisely because they are typically a higher share of disposable income for low-income households.

I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Lady when she says that 350 is a meaningless number, but of course we understand the importance of in-person banking for rural communities. The location of banking hubs is determined independently by Link, and the criteria are a matter for the FCA, but I regularly meet MPs to discuss the adequacy and the application of those rules. In fact, there will be a banking hub surgery for Members of Parliament tomorrow, and she is more than welcome to join it.

I warmly welcome the second rise in the national minimum wage under this Government. Some 160,000 workers in Wales have already benefited since the rise in April. Many of them are younger workers, particularly in the retail and hospitality sector, which is so important to my constituency at Christmas and beyond. What assessment has been made of the impact of the national minimum wage rise on younger workers, and what progress has been made on equalising the national minimum wage with the national minimum wage for under-21s?

About 300,000 young workers are expected to benefit from the national minimum wage increases in April 2026. The Low Pay Commission was given a remit to develop its preferred path and pace for the equalisation of the 18-to-20 national minimum wage and the national living wage. The 18-to-20 national minimum wage rate from April 2026 makes steps towards that commitment.

At the Budget, we came forward with a revision to the policy to support people whose spouses have already passed away, and we made the allowance transferable between the spouses. That change will reduce the number of farms affected by the agricultural property relief changes from about 500—as was estimated at the previous Budget—to 375, when coupled with changes to the underlying economic forecast. The policy raises money from those with the largest estates in a fair way, and I encourage Members in all parts of the House to consider whether or not—

Ahem.

I will stop there, Mr Speaker.

Alexander Dennis is a British electric bus manufacturer employing more than 700 people in Scarborough. Major bus contracts are due to go live in early 2026. Will the Minister confirm that this Government are backing British-built buses over Chinese imports, and can he confirm that the changes to public procurement processes will be implemented in time for taxpayers’ money to be spent on buying British buses?

We have a proud history of manufacturing in this country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and we will capitalise on that history as we drive our future growth. The UK is a leader in bus manufacturing, and the Government are committed to supporting the sector, including through the Department for Transport’s UK bus manufacturing expert panel. As a Government, we want to back British buses, unlike the SNP.

The National Wealth Fund is at the forefront of public investment, investing in early-stage companies and projects to support innovation, boost jobs and create growth. It will work closely and collaboratively with other public financial institutions such as the British Business Bank, Innovate UK and UK Research and Innovation to support innovative companies across the UK.

Removing the two-child benefit cap means that 5,000 children in Luton North will be lifted out of poverty. Many live in households where parents work but ends still do not meet. Does the Chancellor agree that action like this and the youth guarantee scheme will end the vicious cycle of poverty for good?

I thank my hon. Friend for this question and for all the campaigning work she has done on it. Removing the two-child limit, combined with the changes we are making around free school meals, the warm home discount, capping the cost of school uniform and rolling out more childcare to more families, will lift more families—more children—out of poverty. It is worth noting that around 70% of kids growing up in poverty are in a family where someone works.

The Office for Budget Responsibility shows that welfare spending will be £32 billion a year more at the end of this Parliament, just as a result of decisions in the last Budget. Why was the Chancellor not more honest in the Labour party manifesto about the choices she wanted to make?

The welfare state that the Conservative party created is failing, and we are changing it. Welfare spending rose three times as fast under the Conservative Government than it has under this one, because they created a broken welfare system, and I repeat: we will change it.

Last week I went to Alucast in Wednesbury, one of our brilliant foundries. I have also been to Newby Foundries. Both told me of their relief that the landfill tax will not impose significant additional costs on them. I wonder whether the Chancellor would like to set out the action she is taking to support our brilliant manufacturing and automotive industries at this Budget.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are backing building and getting Britain building with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which passed yesterday—I think without the support of Conservative Members, but frankly, we do not need them. We are backing our automotive sector with changes to employee car ownership schemes, the electric car grant and so much more. We are backing the British manufacturing industry—automotives, buses, trains and everything else.

Prior to the election, the Daily Record reported the Chancellor as having said that Labour will be as economically radical as Thatcher. With the closures at Grangemouth and Mossmorran, uncertainty over the Acorn project and 1,000 jobs being lost every month in the North sea, have I finally found a promise that this Chancellor has kept?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are backing Grangemouth and have put money into the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. We are taking £150 off people’s energy bills in Scotland. In England and Wales, NHS waiting lists are falling. I wonder why they are still increasing in Scotland.

Short-term lets—[Interruption.]

Order. Dave Doogan, what is it about you always wanting to shout at the wrong time? Please be quiet.

Short-term lets account for up to 20% of homes in parts of my constituency. Not only are they eroding communities, but I am concerned that their owners are not fully paying their tax. What steps will the Chancellor take to address the fact that data from Airbnb suggests that as many as 6,000 homes are being let on short-term lets, but vanishingly few are registered to pay business rates? Will she meet me to discuss this issue, and how we can recover the tax, which could be up to hundreds of millions of pounds—

Minister, “Yes” will do.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her continued campaigning on this issue, which I know is important to her constituents. On those who seek to bend the rules, companies like Airbnb now send data to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on all their hosts, and where hosts fail to provide the detail that HMRC requires, Airbnb stops payments until they do. However, we need to go further, and I will meet my hon. Friend to discuss this.

In the hope that the Government had listened to the National Farmers’ Union and others, a North Dorset farming family sat to watch the Chancellor’s Budget statement, in expectation. They were disappointed with the announcement on the family farm tax. The farmer withdrew from his medical treatment, and three days later he died. That is how determined he was to keep the farm in his family. He knew the struggle that they would have had in meeting the tax bill after 1 April. I share that not to be inflammatory, but to ensure that Members on the Treasury Bench know that their decision on the family farm tax has direct consequences for people up and down the country.

Members on the Treasury Bench are fully aware of the fact that changes to inheritance tax have an effect on those who are older. In the changes to both agricultural and business property relief that we have put forward, we have ensured that there is a higher allowance, with an extra £1 million, and a tax rate that is half as low as everyone else pays. We think that these reforms, which raise money in a fair and sustainable way, will contribute to raising the revenue that we need, in a way that protects family farms. Of course, we understand that there will be impacts on people. That is why we have designed the policy in the way that we have, and why we came forward with the changes that we announced at the Budget just a few weeks ago.

Independent businesses in York are really struggling with the revaluation of business rates. In 2024 they were £6,200; in 2025 they are £15,000; and in 2026 they will be £19,100, after discounts. Will the Minister meet representatives from York High Street Forum to understand the challenge of those rates for my city?

I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend about the issues that she raises in her constituency.

The Chancellor has embarked on a Fabian programme of brutal tax-and-spend economics that might please the dwindling number of Labour voters, but is hollowing out the nation’s productive base. Those who take risks, invest long term and create high-quality jobs are increasingly voting with their feet. Record numbers of top earners—the rain-makers who actually bankroll public services—are leaving the UK for good, taking their wealth and, more importantly, their brain power with them. Does the Chancellor even begin to understand the lasting and irreversible damage that she is causing to the British economy?

We have all watched the hon. Member voting with his feet by leaving the bunch of crazies that he was with before. Let us get back to what this Government are doing to drive growth: we are increasing public investment by £120 billion over this Parliament and making sure that things get built. We are building housing and giving a default “yes” to developments around train stations. We are building transport infrastructure, including the lower Thames crossing and expansion at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. We are expanding energy infrastructure at Wylfa and Sizewell. This Government are backing the builders, month after month.

The Minister for pensions was brilliant at the Budget in helping our mining communities across the UK. Will he provide an update on plans for changing the surplus sharing arrangements for both the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme?

My hon. Friend has been a powerful campaigner for those surpluses to be shared with the members of those pension schemes. He knows that we made an announcement at the Budget to ensure that the British Coal staff superannuation scheme surplus is shared with its members, and I know that the trustees are bringing forward their proposals on the sharing of future surpluses.

The Budget cut the venture capital trusts tax relief that allowed investors to back Britain’s fastest-growing companies. How can the Chancellor claim to support our entrepreneurs when she is cutting off the funding that they rely on?

I hosted an event last night for entrepreneurs. Speaking at it were the chief executives of Quantexa and Motorway, both of whom welcomed the changes that we made to support entrepreneurs at the Budget, particularly the changes we made around enterprise management incentives, the enterprise investment scheme, VCT, and the three-year stamp duty holiday for companies choosing to list here in Britain. We are backing entrepreneurs in Britain, and they are backing our changes.