Live Budget Debate Budget

11:47am. The question is as on the order paper. Mr John McDonnell. I do

hope the good humour continues, but we will see. I admire the honourable

member bore his creativity at all matters -- all times on raising

matters. Mr Speaker, you and I have been in the chamber for over 20

years, watching budget debates, and as you most probably know, have

referred in the past to the iron law of budgets. It's this. That the

louder the cheers for the Chancellor on the budget day, the greater the

disappointment three days later at the weekend. I'm revising that iron

law. This budget didn't last three days, it lasted less than three

hours. I want to address some of the main policy announcements in the

budget but I believe overall the Chancellor's statement evidenced the

fundamental difference in values of our two parties. What we saw

yesterday was a Conservative Chancellor boasting about tax cuts

to the corporations and the rich, whilst refusing to effectively

tackle the crisis in social care for the elderly, refusing to properly

fund the NHS and increasing the national insurance birding on many

middle and low self employed earners. At the same time, breaking

a clear manifesto promise. Our values are these. We believe in a

fair taxation system, where everybody, no matter how rich and

powerful they may be, they pay their way. We believe that the Uefa

taxation system and collective endeavour, the elderly and the

disabled should be cared for, the thick should be treated and children

educated to do about their talents to the full. -- been sick should be

treated. That is not what we saw yesterday. We also adhere to

manifesto promises. On the state of the economy, all the talk before the

budget, I saw from the press briefings of the Chancellor, was

aimed at providing a positive backdrop for Brexit. That is not the

real world experience of millions of people. Yesterday, the Chancellor

boasted about economic growth. But what is positive about Britain being

the only large developed economy where, when economic growth

returned, wages fell? What is positive about rising GDP of most

people -- if most people are worse off? What is positive about seeing

the national living wage revised down again? What is positive about

more downward revisions to wage forecasts? How can anyone describe

an economy as much bit when people in that -- match fit when people in

that economy are seeing their wages fall again and again? Wages are

still worth today less than they were nine years ago. The disposable

income is less than it was before the financial crisis. The official

forecasts are clear. Working people now, as a result of this

Government's choices and this Government's budget will be worse

off. Official forecasts suggest they will be ?500 a year worse off in

2021 and predicted in the Autumn Statement. Average earnings are

expected to be lower in 2022 than they were before yesterday's budget.

Average earnings are only expected to return to their pre-crisis peaked

at best by the end of 2022. The Chancellor also claimed in one press

release that this is an economy built on resilience. It's an

economy, to be frank, built on sand. Unsecured borrowing by households

have shot up to levels not seen since before the financial crisis.

This should be a warning sign to all of us. The budget responsibility

office shows unsecured household borrowing to a shopping 47% of

household income by the end of the decade. For many people today, this

extra borrowing will be, to be frank, out of desperation as prices

rise and wages fail to keep up. Many people are digging themselves to get

-- deeper into debt just to get by. The Chancellor says he doesn't want

to put the economy on a credit card. But that's exactly what he's doing

and his policies are doing, forcing ordinary people onto dependence on

their credit card. There's no resilience in an economy that is

funding -- failing in its fundamentals. Business investment

fell last year for the first time since the depths of the last

reception. Companies are cancelling planned investment because they are

terrified about what the future holds under this Government,

particularly with the rest of Brexit. They have seen seven years

wasted on the industrial strategy they need from this Government and

now they are fearful of its plans for Brexit. So productivity growth,

the engine for prosperity, has stagnated. We are lagging behind

several economies. A typical British worker takes five days to produce

what their German or French counterpart takes four. He failed to

provide any new funding to deal with that. Worse than that, public sector

investment will actually be ?2.3 billion less over the next five

years than planned in the Autumn Statement. And yes, people

celebrated International Women's Day, and there were calls for a

budget that works for women but they have been ignored. Women are still

bearing the brunt of the Tory agenda, with 86% of cuts falling on

women, a figure changed -- unchanged from last year, and the Government

ignored once again the hundreds of women who turned up yesterday to

lobby Parliament. Things are as bad as ever under this Government for

women, so we urge them to publish the true impact of that budget on

women and how they intend to reverse that. Under Labour, all budgets will

be gender audited to make sure that we have an economy that works for

all. Let me turn onto some of the policy announcements in the budget.

Let's turn to self-employment. The Chancellor's decision to push a tax

rise makes little sense... We need to find new ways to reward

entrepreneurs and risk-takers in our tax system. Does he accept that the

difficulty is there's no way of distinguishing at present between

such a person and, say, a professional like perhaps a

journalist who has sought an arrangement with their editor to pay

them a self-employed? That is the difficulty. But with respect to the

low paid, 60% of those who are self-employed will actually see a

reduction, taking into account class two. He raises are valid point with

regards to bogus self-employment which we thought the Chancellor

might even have mentioned yesterday in his statement. He never even

referred to it and it's something which needs to be addressed because

there are many people forced into self-employment or manipulated into

self-employment and bogus self-employment does need to be

tackled and we have been campaigning for that, along with a number of

organisations including trade unions at the Federation of Small

Businesses. What we saw yesterday was middle and low earners hit.

Someone on ?20,000 will lose about ?250 a year. Someone on ?40,000 a

year will lose about ?460 a year. They are the consequences and I

don't think they are high earners. They are middle to low earners who

should be protected, particularly at a time when there is frailty in the

economy. Spending is dipping at the moment and if you are at the front

of consumer spending dipping, it will largely be those sole traders,

those small traders out there at the moment, the window cleaners, drivers

and others who will be hit. This is both wrong and also the wrong time

to be putting their careers, their jobs in jeopardy. The justification

for yesterday's policy just doesn't stand up. You can't demand more

taxes of people without offering something in return. This party is

fully behind looking at how the Labour market is changing. The

honourable gentleman is right on that. My colleague, the Shadow

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, spoke last year about the

principles which should guide such changes. We have raised the problem

of bogus self-employment regularly... I give way. Does he

also share my view that a lot of these people on low pay in

self-employment also get no protection against termination of

employment, no holiday pay and no sick pay? I will give a quick

anecdote. A worker sat next to me on the tube a month ago as he was going

on night shift. He used to work for a company that went bust as the

skilled rail maintenance worker. He is now employed by an agency and

doesn't know whether he will have work tomorrow or the next day, he

gets no sick pay, no holiday pay, he has deep get an accountant to cover

his tax and salary payments and that the same time he can be sold on from

agency to agency. That is not real self-employment. That is

exploitation of someone who has been forced into self-employment and

issues must be addressed in that way. The insecurity not just in the

league economy but also because of what has happened in recent years

forcing people into self-employment. Those issues were not even addressed

yesterday. There is a problem of employers shirking their

responsibilities by forcing staff into self-employment in that way. We

did not get a package of measures yesterday designed to address the

problems in the modern world of work. It was a single, unilateral

tax hike for the self-employed three people earning over ?8,000 being

hit. -- because people earning over ?8,000 will be hit. The Chancellor

tried to that shade over this by announcing the abolition of class

two. This is a tax hike of ?2 billion targeted at the seldom void.

That is clear. Increasing the taxes paid by the self-employed does not

move them to parity with the self-employed because they do not

receive the same benefits as the employed. The Chancellor says he is

closing this gap but he -- we do not believe this gap should fall on some

of the lowest paid, most honourable and precarious in our society. I

wonder if he agrees with the Croydon Conservative councillor James

Thompson who tweets, disgusted by this so-called Tory Government

hitting the self-employed? I find what's interesting is that the

response to yesterday's statement has been one of anxiety right across

the political spectrum. I am hoping the Chancellor is listening. I am

hoping that both the Labour Party and other parties in this House will

combined with some conservatives who are concerned in this way and we can

force the Chancellor to think again. Let me just, if I can press on, the

Chancellor, as I said, is concerned about the gap between different

contribution rates, that is what he said. We do not believe that

actually the burden for closing the gap should fall on the most low paid

workers. And this is the consequence of that decision yesterday. They are

making the minicab drivers pay more, so they are taxing, let's call it

the Uber drivers, was that the same time they are cutting the taxes of

Uber it self. A hairdresser earning ?15,000 a year

will be 100 of it. That cannot be fair. That just cannot be right. --

?137 worse off. It is a manifest their betrayal. There was a promise

and it read like this: this means that we can commit to no increases

in VAT, income tax or National Insurance. Taxes on working people.

This will harm our economy, reduce living standards and cost jobs. Not

me, not Labour MPs, Tory manifesto. The government has been trying to

muddy the waters by talking about a bill they brought forward in 2015.

This was a bill that sought to cap contributions will Class one and

Labour supporter there. They did not even allude to the fact any other

classes would see increases. The Chief secretary said this: we do not

have further proposals other than those we previously set out. That

was what was said at committee. Some have tried also to portray the tax

as progressive but what is progressive of raising taxes for low

paid drivers while the government goes ahead with cuts to capital

gains tax for a tiny few? What is progressive about raising taxes for

low paid self-employed cleaners while the wealthiest families got a

tax cut in inheritance tax question of what is progressive about raising

taxes for plumbers while multinational corporations see tax

bills slashed every year? What is its ?70 billion of tax giveaways for

the wealthiest and corporations while hiking taxes on middle and low

earners. And just because the higher paid would pay a bit more that

doesn't make it right for the government to club those on low

incomes to plug a gap in their finances. It is interesting the

government has promised a review of the tax hikes already scheduled. So

it may well be there as jam tomorrow, maybe if you choose to

believe the government. But who would actually believe the

government after breaking a clear manifesto promise? This government

could not have made its interests more clear. If hiking self-employed

taxes while slashing taxes for the corporations. And I just quote the

Federation of Small Businesses. And it says this: increasing this tax

burden effectively funded by a reduction in corporation tax over

the same period simply is the wrong way to go. I agree. And meanwhile

the government's small incremental reforms to business rates fall far

short of the radical long-term reform that is needed. They are just

trying a delaying tactic. But business rates are a ticking time

bomb threatening to destroy many of our town centres. This to be frank

is a government of the giant corporations and tax avoidance. It

is not the government for workers. Not the government for the

self-employed. And not a government for small businesses. Let me turn to

the social care system. And the announcements yesterday. Our social

care system is in crisis. In crisis. I have a nematode with my own

constituent I visited with last week. A young woman looking after

her father who has had seven strokes and a mother with dementia. Trying

to hold down a job and cannot get the care. As a result cut hours and

that renders the income into her own families extremely tight and

difficult. That is one example in my constituency that is repeated across

the country. According to the King 's fund, social care is ?2 billion,

now. Now. Just to cope with the emergency. And the Chancellor just

failed to grasp the whole scale of the crisis. The money announced

yesterday amounts to less than a third of what is needed. What I

resented yesterday is the media portrayal of the ?2 billion but we

were never told until the last minute it is ?2 billion over three

years. Nowhere near meeting the crisis. That people are injuring at

the moment. There is now more than 1 million people and they are mainly

older people, frail people, desperate for social care. They

still can't get it. As a result of this failure to address the

emergency we are facing. Making a very clever speech but understand

this is a political moment because it is the budget debate but does he

think sometime down the road both sides can work together not with

this model but to get a new model for social care? I always respect

interventions from the honourable gentleman because he seems to find a

solution... Exactly as my honourable friend has said. This party tried

the bipartisan approach, tried hard. The honourable members worked in

good faith. To seek a resolution of this matter in the long term. They

looked to a range of options. Halfway through those discussions,

to be frank, we were betrayed. And it became instead of a bipartisan

approach it became a political campaign. I think of the worst

order. It was a betrayal of confidence. It would take a lot, to

be frank, to regain that confidence that we are willing, willing to have

those discussions with anybody, anywhere. But I tell you also trip

and last I went beyond political knock-about. It was a betrayal of

the older people, the frail and elderly people who desperately

needed a solution and their families as well. Because families are

imploding as a result of the lack of social care and the moment because

of the burden they are suffering. The women's budget group did an

analysis of the budget last year and this and they identified two groups

who have been hit hardest by austerity. One was younger women

with children. The other were older women. I cannot understand why

initially. They explained it was because within our culture still

unfortunately the burden of care still falls on women. It is retired

women who were then taking and filling the gap of social care no

longer being provided. We are always willing to talk to anyone to find a

practical solution. It is on that backdrop to be frank of a sense of

betrayal from the past. At five feet from the past. Britain I really

welcome his commitment to talk to anyone to try to find solutions. He

may be where we have launched an initiative with Labour, Conservative

and Lib Dem MPs to try and establish a care convention. With the fact

that? It seems to me it is absolutely essential we set up a

process to establish a long-term settlement. The process of bringing

MPs together as individuals, not as party representatives. We will look

forward to any browser that come forward and if we can find a

practical way forward we certainly will. The most important thing at

the moment is we have an emergency at the moment. We need ?2 billion

now, not over three years, plus offering. I felt a sense of relief

first of all when it was trailed we were going to give ?2 billion. In

extreme disappointment. That was never mentioned. Woodley also agree

that with the news today with the January figures of those waiting

more than four hours for A, 86%, the worst on record, is another

example of how we are at crisis point within our health and social

care systems? My honourable friend has prefaced exactly what I'm coming

to. Not only do the government failed to address social care, they

fail to address in any way the crisis in the NHS. It was completely

ignored. We were warning, not just ours, others were warning ahead of

the Autumn Statement that the NHS was in crisis. It was in crisis

before the winter. But the Chancellor can find a single penny

for the NHS in the Autumn Statement. The Royal College of Nursing now

says NHS is in its worst crisis ever. Ahead of the budget the BMA

called for another ?10 million and a smile friend has just said today

they are times I've got worse. More people are waiting longer and it is

astonishing that this time in the budget there was a compass complete

failure to organise the skill of the crisis. -- as my honourable friend

just said Class two waiting times have got worse. Instead we have ?100

million to enable GPs to triage in accident and emergency. Mr Speaker,

the capital spend will be building rooms for GPs in hospitals with no

GPs to staff them. Because there was no revenue funding associated with

that proposal. I just ask the government... , I am grateful to the

Shadow Chancellor for giving way. It is not just the immediate crisis in

the images, it is preventable future crises that will cover long-term

conditions like diabetes for example. This seems to be no

planning for the future. It seems to me we have missed an opportunity to

invest in intervention that would save the taxpayer an enormous mass

of money in the future. My honourable friend, part of his

campaign, he has stuck with this for years, I can remember him saying

this some years ago under the previous Secretary of State and

there were assurances given about the investment in preventative

medicine. And what happened was a reorganisation, and the money was

lost. I congratulate him for his campaign and I regret he has had to

continue it. Certainly in terms of the investment we need investment in

preventative health and will need emergency funding for the NHS

itself. I just returned to read. It just shows the difference in values.

Investment in the NHS on the site, tax giveaway over the next five

years to those who need it least. People suffering in just need social

care. People are dying because of the decisions of this government and

because of their failure to address them but also their prioritisation

of tax cuts for big corporations. Then we come onto education and

skills. The Chancellor claimed this is a budget for young and four

skills. He waxed lyrical about the need to provide decent chances in

life for all. These are sentiments we share. Extra funding for training

is of course welcome. But the ?500 million of additional skills funding

is nowhere near enough to undo the damage of seven years of this

government. Adult skills funding is falling by 54% since 2010, a cut of

1.36 billion. ?500 million does not come close to reversing the damage.

The Chancellor is providing ?1 billion for the vanity project

results. It is more money for a ludicrous throwback to grammar

schools. Thousands of hours wasted on schemes for a tiny handful of

privileged children leaving the rest to fail. It is the same old Tories.

Real term funding cuts for state schools and 95% of our children use

those. The first cuts since when? Since the last Conservative

government. 50s throwback fantasy is not how you run a modern educational

system. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, Brexit. The work that never

spoke its name in the Chancellor 's speech yesterday. Shopping. The

Chancellor was silent on the greatest challenge facing this

country. -- shocking. The word Brexit never passed his lips. As

Britain prepares to begin the process of leaving the EU the

Chancellor had nothing to say on the matter. It should be clear why. I

think it is because he does not agree with the position of his own

government. The Prime Minister claims no deal is better than a bad

deal. This is absurd. No deal would be the worst possible deal. The

Chancellor knows that. He knows it farewell. He knows it is a risk

because the warnings, just from ours, they come from manufacturers,

business leaders, employers organisations, trade unions, and

widespread civil society organisations, from economists and

international organisations. From every part of the economy the

Chancellor is being told that to crash out of the European Union

without a trade deal would be disastrous. We would be cut off from

investment, we would be cut off from our biggest trading partner, cut off

from the skills and contributions of EU nationals who have made such a

contribution to our economy and society. It is a disgrace. It is a

disgrace that those EU nationals live with in security still because

this government will not give them the assurances they need. But this

is where the Conservative Party is now setting its course. Prior to the

budget... I agree that it was shopping there

was no mention of Brexit given that it is the greatest challenge facing

the country. Would he also agree that it was shocking that there was

no mention of... In the past life of mine, I was responsible for managing

European funds for London. I know what contributions they make. It

isn't just the contribution they make, I also know how much

investment in from elsewhere. I also know what match funding is required

and how international development can be used and all that will be

lost because this Government will not make the assurances needed. In

the Liverpool city region we are meant to Wellcome ?30 million a year

for the next 30 years which is 900 million. We have lost over a billion

indirect funding cuts to our five local authorities and half a billion

in European funding has been granted for the last two rounds of that with

no guarantee for anything in the future. There is a real issue, does

he not agree with me, that will regional development and regional

funding to try to grow our economy is from the bottom up customer I

know how hard my honourable friend has fought on these issues and I

congratulate her. She has a grassroots understanding of this

lack of funding and the applications it will have a particular region and

the city. The consequences are staggering. The lack of investment,

but also it is the undermining of confidence in the private sector as

well to match fund and invest. That is what we are seeing at the moment.

And yet in the Chancellor's statement, not the word of assurance

to anybody, whether council leaders, business investors or workers

themselves. I find it disgraceful and what is interesting, prior to

the budget, the Chancellor and allies floated the idea that he was

garnering a 60 billion pound fighting fund. It's not a fighting

fund, it's a failure Bund. He is having to put aside cash to deal

with the consequences of what he knows will be a Tory failure. As my

right honourable friend is on the Brexit point, I was concerned, and I

wonder if he shares these concerns, that no provision has been given to

the Home Office for processing the applications of EU citizens, 3.2

million people. The Home Office has suffered enormous cuts over the last

few years and they will simply not be able to deal with the

applications that are going to be made. At the moment, there is a

seven-month waiting time to get your certificate in order to remain here.

Does he not think that provision should have been made for that? It's

not just that provision should be made, it's the cuts that have

already been established. Whatever system is introduced, it will not be

fit for purpose due to lack of investment. Can I just say this. We

all understand the boat on the referendum. People voted to leave

but we repeat time and time again, they did not vote to trash their

jobs or their livelihood or the economy. A responsible Government

would make sure both jobs and the economy are protected. A responsible

budget ahead of article 50 would show how the Government would

protect both. The Chancellor has a responsibility here and he failed to

deliver on it. Let me just conclude, the Chancellor dared to talk

elsewhere about the difficulty in decisions he had to make. It's not

him making the difficult decisions. It's the NHS manager in a hospital

is deciding whether someone can have a bed or a trolley. It's a Police

Commissioner deciding which streets will be patrolled. It's a council

leader deciding which children centre will be closed. They are the

difficult decisions. Not the Chancellor 's. He is passing the

buck to others for his own cuts. He lives in a world completely

insulated from the consequences of his decisions. He can fit in number

11 and delete lines on his spreadsheet without a thought for

their consequences. For him, it's all in a days work and it's the rest

of our society that have to deal with the results. We have had seven

long years of austerity from this Conservative Government. The

spending cuts have dragged our society to the brink. The suffering

has been immense and it is not the Chancellor and his colleagues on the

receiving end. It's the victims. The parents who can't get a school

place, the young people who can't get a decent home because of the

housing shortage, the families who cannot read this and care for their

parents. We have seen public services shredded and standards of

care in normal life torn up. For what was to mark so they can hugely

increased the national debt. So after austerity is supposed to have

ended, we can look forward to what? Continuous cuts in public services

for the rest of this Parliament. We need a fair taxation system which

ensures public resources are invested and long-term public

investment in our economy. Something that tackles tax evasion at the same

time. We need to grow our economy and make sure that as we build a

prosperous economy, it is shared by all and not in tax cuts for the rich

and corporations. Yesterday was not just complacent, it was arrogant and

it was cruel. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition gave us a response

which sounded like it was written in a week ago, regardless of what was

in the budget. The Shadow Chancellor has just done the same. It shows us

all once again that the Labour Party never learns. There is no

recognition of the state his party left the country's finances in, no

awareness of the millions of lives that have been devastated by

Labour's record-breaking recession and absolutely no understanding of

the most basic rule of any responsible Government. If you want

to spend money, you have to do raise it. If he had been standing on the

steps of number 11 yesterday holding up his little red box, he would have

come here and announced half ?1 trillion of additional borrowing.

Half ?1 trillion. And every last penny of that would have to be

serviced and paid off by our children and our children's children

for decades to come. Let me explain to the honourable lady how finance

actually works. If you borrow money, you have to pay it back. Tens of

millions of hard-working Britons know that. They do it every month

with their mortgages, their loans and credit card bills, get the

concept seems to elude the Right honourable gentleman. Let's hope he

learns something today. After all, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am always a

great believer in workplace learning. Clearly it's important to

get the deficit down. In fact, his Government said they were going to

eliminate it by 2015. That's two years ago and in the budget

document, it now becomes clear that it may not be eliminated by 2025. Is

that his definition of success? Ten years late on a five-year plan. No

apology from the right honourable lady during the 13 years of power of

the last Labour Government, even -- almost threefold increase in the

country's national debt leaving the largest budget deficit of any

developed economy. Pity actually tell the House a promise that has

actually been kept by this Government in relation to the

economy? -- could he actually? I would think that one of the promises

that the honourable lady would have focused on is the creation of 2.7

million jobs in this economy since 2010. They tell themselves the

Labour Party but they couldn't care less. I give way to my honourable

friend. Does he think that the extra ?500 billion worth of additional

spending proposed by the party opposite would do anything to

increase or reduce the deficit? My honourable friend, as always, makes

a good point. We know that their plans, if implemented, would not

just result in more spending, but more debt and agrees that deficit

and bring us back to another Labour record-breaking recession if they

have the chance. I will plough on but I will give way in a moment

again. Figures released since the Autumn Statement are provided

further evidence of the fundamental strength and resilience of the UK

economy. Growth is forecast to hit 2% this year. The deficit is on

course to reach its lowest level in two decades. Debt is forecast to

begin falling in 2018 to 2019 for the first time in more than 15

years. I will give way. Of course if we borrow money we have to pay it

back. Why is there no mention of Brexit given that the OBE are have

said the cost of Brexit could be 58 billion to the public finances? That

is a huge sum we would have to repay so why was there no mention of it?

The Chancellor talked about leaving the European Union. It's one of the

best things he said. It's a shame that the honourable gentleman wasn't

listening. Most importantly, this success is being felt in the pockets

of ordinary working people with real wage is forecast a rise in every

year to 2020, 20 21. Britain is home to more private-sector businesses

than ever before, providing more jobs than ever before. We have gone

from a record-breaking six -- record-breaking recession to

record-breaking employment. We are not complacent. There is a lot more

to do. Going on a wild spending spree simply because of improved

growth forecast would be like going down the pub to celebrate your

overdraft being extended. Our focus is on sustainable public finances

and that must continue. That is what this budget provides. The Secretary

of State is lecturing the House on how finance works. We would like to

know how it works in his department. The Secretary of State has denied

offering Surrey County Council a sweetheart deal but the BBC have now

published a letter from officials showing that they did, in fact,

offers Surrey more cash in a unique deal. Did the Secretary of State

know about that letter when he issued his denial? The honourable

gentleman will no that if he had cared to look on the 29th of

February, that Surrey approach the department as did many other

councils for a financial settlement, asking for more money. They made a

request all were considered for business rates retention plan and

that was firmly rejected. I will then I will carry on. Order. Order.

If people want to intervene, they can stand up and intervene. We will

not have chuntering from a sedentary position. Or rather, let's be honest

about it, when you are sitting down, you don't speak in here, otherwise

we can't hear who is speaking. One person at a time. Thank you very

much for that protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. Much appreciated.

Can I thank the Secretary of State for the team Broxbourne last week

and can I divert him from Surrey back to Hertfordshire where I much

bigger problem is and incinerator application where the awarding local

authority is also the planning authority when it comes to that

planning application. This strikes me as a conflict of interest and I

suspect the Secretary of State cannot focus on this now but did he

take that into consideration, this conflict of interest in local

authorities? Madam Deputy Speaker, I think my honourable friend would

understand that it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on a

particular planning application but if he cared to banish me with more

in the making, I'm sure officials in the department would take a look.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will in a moment, I will plough one further in

my comments. By maintaining a robust growing economy we will be

well-placed to make the most of the opportunities that Brexit will bring

and it will allow us to make additional commitment in the of

areas without putting our hard won economic recovery at risk. The first

area is adult social care. The true measure of any society is how it

cares for its most vulnerable citizens will stop with advances in

medical care and an ageing population, many councils have found

it increasingly difficult to meet the costs of care in their

communities. Because it was on the matter of social care that the

correspondence with Surrey County Council was going on, was he aware

when he issued his denial that his own director of local Government

finance had sent a letter to Surrey County Council offering them a

unique financial deal? Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I have already

answered that question. For the honourable gentleman, there was no

deal available to Surrey that is not available to any other local

authority. On a matter of adult social care, I have been working on

this issue with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for

Health and the Chancellor. The result is an additional ?2 billion

of funding for adult social care. Let me be very clear. Every single

council in England responsible for adult social care will be benefiting

from this additional money, ruble or city -based, north or south. They

will be moving to put packages in place with allocations published

later today. This additional money, but they did for 2017 to 2018, will

make an immediate difference to people in our communities who need

care and support and it will bring the total dedicated funding for

adult social care in England to ?9.6 billion over the course of this

Parliament. I know this is a novel concept for the party opposite, but

more money is not the only answer. This Government is not just

dedicated to sustainable economic growth, we also believe in

sustainable public services. Demand for adult social care is not about

to stop rising. The challenge of paying for it is not going to go

away. The ?2 billion announced in this budget will make a significant

difference in the next three years but the challenge will not suddenly

vanish in 2020. The funding model for adult social care system is

clearly in need of substantial reform and improvement. It has to be

made fairer and more sustainable. So we are absolutely committed to doing

just that. We are looking at all the options than later this year will be

publishing a green paper setting out a long-term plan which will ensure

long-term I thank my right honourable friend

for giving way and the announcement will be warmly welcomed across the

country on money now. Before he announces the details for the

long-term plan, the short-term issue is of course, is the money new money

or money brought forward from later years but I'm up will it be added to

baseline budgets so that local authorities can expect to receive

the funding each year rather than just a once funding? Finally, the

formula by which it is distributed is key because different local

authorities are under different levels of pressure. I am pleased my

honourable friend has asked me that question. It allows me to say more

on this issue. I can confirm that ?2 billion is new money, new grant from

central government. Secondly, I can confirm it will be added to every

local authority's baseline over the next three years, as the money is

distributed. My honourable friend asked rightly about how it will be

allocated. The vast majority of the money will be allocated using the

improved better care formula that already exists and is transparent

and open and it will mean it is able to take into account not just the

needs of every local authority but the ability they have themselves to

raise money through council taxes. A small portion, 10%, will be

allocated using the existing relative needs formula. The purpose

is to make sure every local authority that has responsibility

for adult social care is able to access new funding. I think it is

important the Secretary of State tells us, the vast majority will be

allocated by the Better Care Fund. The settlement before Christmas

caused problems. Will he say how the rest of the money will be allocated?

I thought I had just made that clear but I will repeat it and maybe be

more specific. 90% will be allocated using the improved Better Care Fund

formula and 10% will be allocated using the relative needs formula.

Two existing formula is already in place. There will be further details

published this afternoon with the allocations and a description of the

formulas. I hope that is helpful. We also need to make sure councils are

delivering the best possible local care services. There are many

excellent examples of best practice around the country but there is a

big difference between the best and worst performing areas. There is

room for improvement. Alongside the additional funding announced in the

budget, my right honourable friend the Health Secretary and I will

shortly announce measures to help ensure those areas facing the

greatest challenges can make the most rapid improvement. Looking at

health more widely, we are also already committed ?10 billion annual

increase in NHS funding by 2020. It goes further still. 325 million to

allow the first NHS sustainability plans to go ahead meaning more

efficient and effective health care for local people. There is another

100 million to fund improvements in A departments for next winter,

including better triage and GP facilities, enough to fund up to 100

new triage projects. I will give way. He mentions the 325 million,

does he recognise that 1.2 billion was taken out of capital spending in

the current financial year and this money will only go to about six

areas, leaving the rest of the country without any extra capital

spending at all? I know the honourable gentleman cares about

this issue, as a minister he was involved deeply and he should know

and I am sure he will know that when the Government set out its plans for

an additional ?10 billion per annum by 2020, the NHS five-year plan was

calling for 8 billion. This goes over and above. The announcement in

the Budget yesterday, the additional 325 million, plus 100 million, it is

on top of the 10 billion per annum. Does he share my concern that there

is not enough emphasis on prevention for long-term conditions such as

diabetes? His ministerial colleague on his left is probably the best

diabetes minister we have ever had in government and a lot of what she

did was on prevention. Why has there not being more money made available

for investing in the future, for cutting the taxpayer's contribution

in years to come, by setting up prevention centres for conditions

like diabetes? The honourable gentleman makes a good point about

the importance of public health and I think he is absolutely right to

pay tribute to the former Health Minister, now Financial Secretary to

the Treasury, for the work she did. I hope he will agree that both her

work and others, they have taken this issue seriously and some of the

measures the Chancellor talked about in his budget, for example, the

so-called sugar tax, this is a measure that in the long-term will

help with prevention and especially with issues like diabetes. Madam

Deputy Speaker, health and social care are not the only public

services we are investing in. The budget finds a further 110 new free

schools, free school transport to include... And an additional ?216

million of investment in existing schools. When I was a teenager, my

competence of school refused to let me study the A-levels of my choice.

-- my comprehensive School. They said it would be a waste of time and

I should go and get a job. What I did was I got the bus and I went to

the other side of Bristol and I signed up at the technical college.

I am proud to call myself a graduate of FTC, the education I received was

second to none and without Fulton I would not be standing here today so

you can blame them if you wish I was not -- Filton. Many opportunities

were opened up by my time there. For years afterwards, I would still see

eyebrows raised when I said I had been to a technical college. For too

long in this country, there has simply not been parity of esteem

between valuable technical education and more academic study. As Business

Secretary, I began the process of changing that, including creating

the institute of apprenticeships. I am pleased the introduction of T

levels will continue that process. We are following the work done by

Lord Sainsbury, Baroness Wolf and other experts to improve technical

education and in doing so we are investing an additional ?500 million

a year in our 16-19 -year-olds. We are offering maintenance loans for

those undertaking higher level technical qualifications that the

new institutions of technology and national colleges. I will give way.

Thank you. Notwithstanding the challenges we have certainly posed

on the Budget, could I welcome the T levels and the emphasis on technical

education which we have also argued for on this side of the House. It is

sending a very important message to young people in my constituency that

there is great value in having this alternative but the challenge will

be in integrating it in the workplace so it does lead to real

skilled jobs in the future. The honourable lady is absolutely right.

Can I thank her for her comments? She rightly points to the challenge

of making sure employees also recognise these changes and I am

sure some of the initiatives which is employer led and will set

standards for some of the new technical training will make a

difference in making sure employers welcome the new qualifications. The

measures I have talked about so far will improve lives across the

country but we recognise across Britain local areas want greater

control of their service and infrastructure. The Government,

London councils and GLA have reached an agreement on further devolution.

This includes exploring a pilot for a development rights auction model

and joint work to identify what elements of the criminal justice

services can be delivered locally. We will be agreeing a second health

and social care emoji. There is more to this country than its capital

north, raised in the south-west and north, raised in the south-west and

I'm elected from the Midlands. Today the Chancellor... I will in a

moment. Today the Chancellor is in Dudley launching the Midlands

strategy. This follows the northern powerhouse strategy published after

the Autumn Statement. I will give way. I am grateful. As he said, both

he and I are Midlands Members of Parliament and can I say that I do

welcome the focus on the Midlands in this happen to macro budget? There

are some useful initiatives in there. -- in this Budget? Midlands

Connect is charged with the East-West connectivity and it makes

clear that the Midlands engine needs a long-term perspective with

investment of ?1 billion per annum over a 30 year period to deliver the

potential. What confidence can we have that the long-term commitment

will be given? What the honourable gentleman refers to as a Midlands

and rightly understands this is about the devolution deal for the

region leading to an additional more than ?1 billion over the next 30

years that can be invested in priorities such as transport

infrastructure. I believe the right leadership is in place and that is

what will happen and that is why I'm supporting Andy Street as the next

mayor. Maybe that is what he was just doing! Joining in me in

supporting him. This morning we publish details of additional

funding for the Midlands allocated, money that will further unlock the

potential of the region, funding infrastructure and creating jobs,

much of it going to the Birmingham area for example. It includes ?90

million for the North and money for the Midlands and ?220 million fund

addressing pinch points on the national road network. The

Chancellor has launched a competition for local authorities

across England to tackle urban congestion and to get local

transport networks moving again. If there is investment in our

communities that will make a real difference to the daily lives of

millions of people and countless businesses. It is an investment we

can make precisely because of the fair, progressive changes we are

making to the tax system. We are levelling the playing field between

employees and the self-employed and 60% of the self-employed will gain

from the reforms. We are continuing to reduce corporation tax on all

profitable companies, large and small, so hard-working entrepreneurs

keep most of the fruits of their labours. We are taking a number of

steps to make business rates for error. I have never made a great

secrets of my support for small businesses in particular -- fairer.

Seeing my dad's shop struggle was one of the reasons I came into

politics in the first place. The heart of campus communities across

our country. That is why the Chancellor and I listened when

concerns were raised over the business rates re-evaluation and I

was happy to work with colleagues across government to secure action.

The majority of businesses will see no increase in the macro even a fall

in business rates. I know that if your rates are going up, it is no

consolation to hear others will be going down -- majority of businesses

will see no increase or even a fall in business rates. There are new

schemes. The first is additional support aimed specifically at small

and rural businesses losing some or all of their rate relief and as a

result are facing large percentage increases in their bills. The

additional relief will limit the annual increase to the greater of

either ?600 or to the cap in existing transitional relief

schemes, 5% in real terms in 2017-18. No small business losing

some or all of its relief as a result of the revaluation should see

its bills rise by more than ?50 a month in 2017-18. The second measure

is the establishment of a ?300 million discretionary fund for local

authorities to use over the next four years. Each building authority

will receive a share of the funding and we will be able to use their

share to deliver targeted support to the most hard-pressed ratepayers in

their area. It will allow local authorities to more than double the

amount they spend on discretionary relief in 2017-18. Finally, a new

relief for pubs. This will provide a flat ?1000 discount in 2017-18 on

bills for all pubs with a rentable value below ?100,000. My department

will be publishing full details later but up to 36,000 pubs,

approximately 90%, could benefit from the relief. The cost of all

three models will be met in full with new money allocated by Central

government. Recent consultations have shown

little appetite for the reform. There is scope to review the

formation process making it smoother and more frequent to avoid the

dramatic increases that the present system can deliver. We will set out

our preferred approach to delivering this in due course and consult on it

before the next evaluation is due. In the medium term, we need to find

a better way of taxing the digital part of the economy so on-line

businesses do not enjoy an unfair advantage. It's another example of

the way in which this Government delivers lasting reform alongside

investment. It is the difference between a sticking plaster and a

long-term cure... I will, of course. Can I ask him to address it briefly?

The Chancellor announced a green paper dealing with unfair terms in

consumer contracts. My honourable friend has looked at the

difficulties leaseholders face. One way or another if they are brought

into account, so unfair terms can be struck out and those who exploit

these holders can be dealt with firmly? My, first of all my

honourable friend, can I commend him for the work he's done on the

leaseholder abuses. That paper is led by my Right Honourable friend

the Business Secretary. It is lease hold and abuses in that area is

something we are looking at and strongly considering whether it can

be included in the green paper. Madam Deputy Speaker we are

developing a whole new strategy to safeguard for the long-term. We are

not just tackling the short-term, we are looking at ways to improve the

system for many years to come. We are not just continuing to invest in

world class services. We asked Sir Michael basher to look at ways to

make it more -- Barber for ways to make it more efficient. Every last

penny invested by any Government ultimately comes from taxpayers,

from hard-working employees and fast-growing businesses. They can

only succeed if we have a strong, sustainable economy. Without it

there is no NHS. Without it is there are no outstanding schools. No

social care for the vulnerable. No support for small businesses. We

have all seen what it looks like when Government forget that. After

13 years of labour rule their Chief Secretary to the Treasury said it

himself, there was no money left. The Leader of the Opposition stood

there yesterday and he made promise after promise after promise. It's

Fantaty economics. Billions upon billions of unfunded and unatotable

measures that will un-- un-- and unstoppable measures, that will

unfold. We are cutting the tax burden. We are reducing the deficit,

he wants to raise it. Government budgets are big

complicated things. At their heart they are simple. If you want to

spend more, you have to borrow more, tax more or cut spending elsewhere.

Anyone who says otherwise is not being straight with the British

people. There's no such thing as a magic money tree. Sustainable public

services can only be funded by sustainable growth. This budget

delivers both. The opposition would give us neither.

In the heated interchanges that took place a short time ago I was

wondering if there was merely a private fight or if anybody could

join in? I'll take this opportunity to join in. Let me first declare

that I am, I take a very different approach to understanding economics

than the front bench has. And if the House will forgive mely

take a couple of minutes setting out why I see things differently so you

can better understand my critics of the particular issue. I am highly

critical to an approach to economics which seeks to mimic the physical

scientists and imagines through statistical means kit predict the

future. Great economists of the past of different religions would have

soed at this notion. When at random I open the budget for office

responsibility economic and fiscal outlook yesterday, it fell open at

page 45, which as I am sure you'll recall, on page 45, it has 3.8 of

the effective exchange rate. If you look at that, as I see some are

looking at the chart 3.8, you will see that although they can

accurately plot the past and you will see wild variations in the

exchange rate and very often the biggest variations are not to do

with any economic decisions. They are to do with political ones such

as the referendum. Look at how they are predicting the

future. The future exchange rate, the OBR, is a perfect, straight

parallel line to the horizontal. The only thing we know is that that is

the least likely thing to have happened to the exchange rate.

And so, part of the assumptions that are built in because of this

approach make us highly vulnerable to miss-reading the actions that

require to be taken. Straight lines rarely predict our

human activity undertaking. Therefore it was with some genuine

concern that the Chancellor in an opening section of yesterday's

speech felt it important to read out spreadsheets and forecasts as if

they were going out of fashion. While entirely failing to mention in

any depth. He issues challenging the future of the economics in this

country. It has been mentioned the failure to

adequately address the failures of Brexit, which I will come to in a

moment. Allow me to reflect therefore a little on different ways

of looking at the economy. And I want to make three basic

observations. First of all, the economy's not a machine, but it's a

network of relationships amongst human beings. What do these human

beings do and what do these networks do? They are built upon a miry Road

of collective decisions which are affected by all sorts of I flunss

and almost infinite array of influences. -- influences. Not only

do we not know the degree, we cannot know the feature with any degree of

precision, which detailed. That appear without any margins of errors

suggest in them. But we know decisions are critical and I

thought, how could I highlight the importance of that and things where

the Government could do? I think the best example came to me yesterday

when I know with many members I attended a demonstration by some

women. Hooer are people who have to face making key decisions about

their future. But this Government utterly disrupted the way in which

they are able to make rational decisions because giving them

absolutely no proper notice about the huge changes they are making to

their pensions. So, rather than helping to get some coherence to the

economy, to enable people to make as rational decisions as possible, the

Government sections have disrupted that. They are disrupting the

effective operation of the marketplace in that regard. They are

not helping it. But and also we cannot ignore the

influence of politics and economic activity and vis sister is a. Egg --

vice versa. To ignore the ins fluns of political decisions. There are

two points I would want to make about the effect of Brexit that

should have been tackled. One is the disruption to the labour market

which can occur because of the failure to guarantee the rights of

EU citizens in this country. I'm pretty sure I am not alone in

knowing people in my constituency who run small businesses. In one

case I know a German couple. In another case someone in the creative

sector. And the third example of one or two university researchers who

have either already left or are preparing to leave the country.

I'm most grateful. He and his party should be commended for raising this

issue on so many occasions. It's the practicalities that concern me. EU

citizens are extremely worried and distressed about their current

position and therefore they need their applications processed. There

is no provision in this Budget to allow for these applications to be

processed efficiently. There are millions of people who are going to

have to go through this system. I entirely agree with The Right

Honourable gentleman. Indeed that is a great concern. To myself, as to

himself and many others. And I would say it's not just about

the efficiency of a system. It is also about the effectiveness, being

able to make the right kinds of decisions in complex individual

cases. And I've had constituency cases where people have been here

for many years and are finding it very difficult to get applications

for different things to be undertaken.

My honourable friend is making a very good point. It's not just about

individuals as well. The impact upon the local economy in an area like

mine, which relies on migrant labour for the fruit picking and will have

great difficulty if that labour is not available. It will have huge

economic consequences as well as personal consequences. I thank my

honourable friend for that. That is precisely the point that I am

making. What is seen as a political decision to exit immediately has

consequences for individuals that we value in our communities. That then

has implications for the labour market. When you disrupt the labour

market it has economic consequences. So, we can't get away from the fact

of the array of influences that are coming to bear because of Brexit and

this Chancellor felt the sensible approach was to utterly ignore it.

Other matters connexted with Brexit as well which need -- connected with

Brexit that need paying attention to. The Chancellor has said nothing

about how he'll fill funding gaps whether for rural communities, the

agriculture section. These funding gaps that are being created, how is

the UK, how is the Government going to address them in general? They

have mentioned one or two small instances where they said they will

fill the gap. But there's not a general acceptance of that. Here is

another disruption that's uncertain and they are not addressing that.

So, if I move on to my third area of criticism, whereas the Treasury and

OBR offer at different times a snapshot of the economy, people who

might call themselves part of the classical economic tradition would

see an important feature of the real world is how the market economy

operates, which is based on a process of incessant change and

growth. Here we see although the Government talked about some matters

such as the report, the importance of research and development and

stimulating innovation and the like, I don't think nearly enough regard

has been paid to the importance of how we will stimulate innovation and

by that process stimulate growth in the economy.

So, there are practical implications to this view of looking at things.

Policies that have happened in recent years of near zero interest

rates on the part of central banks and an austerity on part of

Governments, specifically protect one group of people while harming

everyone else. They boost the prices of assets of the wealthy, while

destroying the saving pool of those with modest amounts in the bank.

They harm pensions. They penalise savers.

These policies represent everything that classical economists have

opposed. The further administration of what David Stalknan calls croony

capitalism. Let me comment on some of the

measures in the system. One of the things that struck me, I was reading

an article in the Financial Times newspaper a few days ago, a friend

of the honourable member in front, he was saying how budgets used to be

supposed to be about tax and one of the things we have as we know in the

UK, for perfectly reasonable historic reasons, we have animal

must be complicated tax system. I was talking to a Treasury official

weeks ago and he was telling me so far he had found more than 1100 tax

reliefs in the system. Every tax relief provides an opportunity for a

loophole. It is not surprising estimates vary between 36 billion

and 70 billion tax gap in the economy. Giving the changing nature

a tax system based on what happened a tax system based on what happened

150 years ago? There has to be a time coming very soon when we have

to look systematically at the entire tax system with a view not just to

simplify it, but to make it fit for purpose for the types of economy and

labour market we have today? I was labour market we have today? I was

disappointed there was no reference to that. There have been excellent

points already made about the problem of the self-employed. I will

not spend too long on it. Let me make one point to the Government.

Before I entered this Parliament, for 30 years, I ran different small

research companies and the like. I'm getting paid latterly in the last

few years, I decided I was going to take life a bit easier, sometimes! I

stopped having a limited company and I was simply running it with

associates and individuals and putting the jobs I found

interesting. I applied for one with the Government and the Government

said I could not be considered for the job unless I became a limited

company. The procurement processes of the UK Government encourage

people to do what they have said in this budget they do not want them to

do. Not only... If you are going to move down this route of sorting out

this part of the economy, might it be a good idea that the off practice

what it is preaching and tries to sort out its procurement policy? --

BOGOF practices. -- though Government. We have heard the

Government making policy amounts and -- announcements were the labour

market is like the inner city. My thoughts did not come to the city of

Glasgow or London and how the labour markets operate there, I was

thinking about my friends in the Highlands, knowing their reliance on

the type of self-employment who do not have a choice, they cannot

choose to work for other corporations that do not exist. They

are a necessity entrepreneur. They do not work in one site. They have

long travelling times. They also have absolutely none of the security

people would have in employment. This government thinks it is a good

idea all of a sudden to burden them in the way in which they are

choosing, I cannot see how on earth that is going to get any support to

local economies the length and breadth of this country. I think we

need to see much more effective analysis of these matters. Of

course, being a Scot, I am particularly concerned about the

state this government is in, given state this government is in, given

what we face in the future, if ever there was a bad time to make it more

expensive to buy whiskey, this is it. Surely we do not want to start

by penalising one of the most effective products produced in this

land, one of the most effective ones that is absolutely essential, not

just for the Scottish economy, makes a massive contribution to the

economy of the whole of the United Kingdom. I know there are many

people who want to take part in this debate. Let me finally come back to

one group I mentioned before and that is the way in which I see the

economy at its heart, this is about a collective human endeavour. You

cannot understand economics abstractly, you have to understand

it in terms of the effect it has on individual human beings and families

and communities. If ever there was an example of how this government

has departed from that genuine concern about the humanity which

should be at the centre of our concerns about the economy, it is

surely their malicious treatment... I think we have a long way to go. A

privilege to be called in this debate. In all the excitement from

Fleet Street, it would be easy to forget who it is about. Let me share

with the house how many of my constituents will feel about them

covered a macro budget, the schoolboy with a first rate

technical education who will now have the chance of a better job --

will feel about the Budget. The mother who knows there is a

conservative Chancellor at the helm making the difficult decisions

needed so her children have well funded public services and a country

that lives within its means. For the hard-working people of North

Yorkshire, this is a budget that delivers where they need it most. I

am very grateful. He mentioned the schoolboy, but how does the

schoolboy feel about an 8% cut in funding per student by 2020 under

this government? I am not sure I reckon I is that figure. The school

budget has actually been protected and what this government is

consulting on and very rightly is the inequity in the current funding

system meaning constituents in my area are worse off to the tune of

hundreds of pounds per pupil compared to a very similar pupils in

other parts of the country and I am delighted the government is dealing

with those iniquities. Let me begin with small businesses. I will make

some progress. Let me begin with small businesses. Given my

predecessor Lord Haig was not well documented in these for beer, it

will as no surprise to members that pubs are a cornerstone of my

constituency's economy. Following in his footsteps is already difficult

enough. But it is impossible for me to visit a public my constituency

without seeing on the wall a picture of William pulling a pint with the

landlord. Not only is it home to more than 200 pubs, I am proud to

say it now plays host to the Campaign for Real Ale's 2017 pub of

the year. The community owned George and Dragon. Just last Friday, I was

delighted to be there when the landlord and his family and team

received their reward in the loud company of everybody from the

village. In recent months, I, like many other members, raised concerns

that the re-evaluation of business rates whisked penalising small

enterprising businesses like these. -- risked. I am delighted to say

this was the budget of a Chancellor who like any good Barman was

listening to our concerns. For the landlords, the jobs that depend on

them, the communities that enjoy them, this budget's ?1000 business

rates discount is something that will make a real difference to many

pubs at a time when money is still tight. These are not only the rural

businesses the budget will help. Across North Yorkshire, auction and

livery yards have seen particularly steep rises in the business rates

because of the idiosyncrasies of their particular companies that are

not well understood by officials and the last re-evaluation coinciding

with the disastrous foot and mouth epidemic. It is more than even the

most ingenious civil servant could be expected to foresee. Auctions,

riding schools, livery yards, they are particularly important to the

fabric of the rule community. I thank the Chancellor for the

extremely welcome creation of the new ?300 million discretionary

business rates fun. -- rural community. It will put

decision-making back in the hands of communities and allow constituents

to benefit from the local knowledge of councils. I will give way. He was

talking about pubs and I am a kid pub goer and I was in a pub in his

constituency the other day -- Keenan. What about customers who are

facing an increasing price of a pint? I am sure he will be able to

say how much better off customers are having benefited from several

years of freezers in beer duty. The other thing they will like to hear

is the new duty rates for Whiteside and still wine to see what can be

done to help customers of those alcoholic beverages -- white cider.

I would be happy to share a pint I would be happy to share a pint

with him next time he is there. I with him next time he is there. I

will give way. I thank the honourable member. I have not

but I recognise the benefits for been

but I recognise the benefits for pubs in my constituency. The hats I

could extend the question about the customers in the pubs, many of whom

may be self-employed? -- perhaps. Have they reflected with him on the

concerns they have about the proposed rise in national insurance?

If she will allow me I will come on to that point later on and address

exactly what she has raised. The last measure I would highlight in

support of local businesses is the ?690 million fund available for

local authorities to address urban congestion. Congestion is not

something you would ordinarily associate with a rural idyll of

North Yorkshire's villages and market towns. The residents and

community there are relentlessly frustrated by the level crossing

near the vibrant and diverse high street. The impact it has on local

retailers is substantial. I have convened meetings of local

authorities and Network Rail to discuss plans to alleviate this

congestion and I very much hope the Chancellor's new fund can help. As

the Chancellor so rightly pointed out, supporting our businesses is a

means to an end and not an end in itself. If our children are to

benefit from the more than 2 million jobs created since 2010, they will

need the right skills. The 2.5 million apprenticeships created in

the last parliament are a momentous achievement. We must also recognise

that was most people think of apprentices as young people,

16-19-year-olds, school leavers, they account for less than 10% of

the increase in new apprentices. That means too many school leavers

are still sticking with an inappropriate classroom education

rather than a first-class technical one. The Chancellor's announcement

of new T levels is a crucial step to address the balance and close for

good the gap between the classroom and the factory floor for which our

economy has paid a high price for too long. I welcome the new half ?1

billion investment in increasing training hours, streamlining of

technical qualifications, provision of high work placements and the

introduction of maintenance loans. Together, this is a powerful package

to help ensure parity of esteem between technical and academic

education. I would also urge ministers to continue to look

carefully at my campaign supported in the recent industrial strategy to

create the Ucas style system of apprenticeships. The branded one

stop shop portal would not only end the classroom divide between those

applying to university and those applying for apprenticeships, but by

bringing everything together in one place, it would help businesses

connect more easily with young apprentices in schools. National

insurance, like many of us on these benches, I have always believed in

low taxes as a spur to economic growth. When a government inherits a

deficit of ?100 billion, the greatest priority must be to return

to sound finances and do so in a way that is fair. I believe it is right

that those who benefit from public services make an appropriate

contribution to paying for them. That is what this budget's changes

to national insurance will do. 60% of self-employed workers, those

earning less than ?16,000, will actually see a decrease in the

national insurance contributions by the removal of the regressive class

two band. The workers earning up to almost ?33,000 will be no worse off

when these changes are taken together with the increases to the

personal allowance. For those earning more, the average increase

in contributions will be a few hundred pounds. It is right to ask,

is this fair? I believe it is. Historically, different rates of

National Insurance between the self-employed and the employed

reflected significant different benefits and access to public

benefits. But that difference is no longer there. Changes to the state

pension which is partly funded by national insurance means

self-employed workers now benefit from an extra ?1800 annually in

pension. It is something they would need to save up ?50,000 foot to

receive in the private sector. Self-employed couples starting a

family can now benefit from almost ?5,000 in tax free childcare

support. I always hear calls in the House for calls for investment in

public services. Like this budget has provided for in social care. But

those investments need to be paid for.

HMC is losing around ?5 million a year from the increasing

self-employment. It is right we make changes to ensure everybody

contributes to the services we value. It is important that

recognise that even after these changes the tax system will still

recognise the particular issues faced by self-employed workers and

it will favour them in their tax rates and treatment. They will

benefit from a lower rate of national insurance. Still not bear

the cost of employer's contributions. They will have the

ability to offset losses and gains over years and they will still

benefit from a more generous treatment of tax deduck table

expenses. I -- deduck deductable expenses.

To ensure those changes in the economy, in our tax system and make

sure everybody is treated fairly. In sum, I believe this is a small

change, that is necessary to protect the things we value and a change

that is fair and proportionate. Now Madam Deputy Speaker, we have all

learned to be a little cautious of economic forecasts, if the OBR is

right the first to set their T levels will do so in a country with

1 million new jobs and for the first time in two decades national debt

falling. This Budget, like the ones before it is building a country

where our businesses won't have to pay for the past and our children

can look forward to a brighter future. Nothing can be more

important than that. I commend this Budget to the House.

THE SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr Jones.

Yesterday in the regional newspapers there was a report that the Labour

Party had, a malicious report, false - the Labour Party had somehow

entered into an arrangement with the British National Party. This was

raised in business questions by the member for pen tell. Having spoken

to the leader in Pendel, no such deal has taken place, in fact the

leader never spoke to the BNP in eight years and the Labour Party

doesn't speak to the British National Party. These reports, they

should be corrected. I wondered how best to go about that.

THE SPEAKER: I can quite understand why the honourable gentleman wishes

to make his point of order, but, as he knows, and the House appreciates,

it is not a point which can be dealt with by the chair. However, the

question he asks me, is how can he set the record straight? And my

simple answer is, he's done so. And I am sure that his setting straight

of the record will be properly recorded in Hansard.

It is a pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman, the member for

rich ond in Yorkshire -- Richmond in Yorkshire, my home county, to his

Budget speech. The last time I was in his neck of the woods it wasn't

to go to a pub, it was actually, as many of my honourable friends in

this House seem to have done, it was actually to fight the by-election

that his predecessor fought and won. And I remember very much wondering

forlornly up a village with my then, much-missed colleague Mo Mowlem,

door knocking in his constituent, doing the entire village and not

finding a single Labour voter. I think the honourable gentleman is

firmly there in Richmond, pending an electrical earthquake and of course

they do happen. I was very disappointed with the Chancellor's

statement yesterday. His first Budget I think did not raise nearly

seriously enough to the challenges with face our country in these times

of great volatility and change, which we must now confront together.

We needed a wider and bolder vision. We needed radical reform to rebuild

our prosperity in a post Brexit world.

We needed a sustainable plan to deal with our ageing population and all

of the pressure that that brings. We needed a recognition that we must

recast our tax and benefits systems to deal with the world to come.

Rather than the world as it was when Bev ridge produced his blueprint for

a welfare state, 75 years ago. Instead we got a Budget which made

no mention of the greatest challenges, no mention whatsoever of

climate change. No mention of rising levels of poverty and inequality. No

mention of public expenditure cuts stretching to the far horizon. And

perhaps most surprisingly of all, no serious mention of Brexit.

This was an occasion when the Chancellor ought to have set out a

bold reforming vision for the UK. But he didn't.

He left the grimmest news unspoken. Perhaps he hoped that nobody would

notice it. On living standards, the Office for Budget Responsibility

revealed something that millions of people in this country already know,

that real pay levels have not yet returned to their pre-2008 peak.

The Autumn Statement, revised down the forecast for real earnings by

?1,000 by 2020. And this Budget does nothing to change that.

This means that workers are facing 13 wasted years of lost earnings and

stagnating pay under this Government.

And to make matters worse, the Government's flagship promise of a

?9 living wage, so called living wage, which in itself was never

going to be enough has been revised down to ?8.75. The modest growth in

our economy, which is at an historic lows, has translated into real

earnings stagnation for the vast majority of people. And the fact

that over half of the 13.5 million people who are now living in poverty

in this country, the fact that half of them are in work is not a problem

which the Chancellor troubled to mention in his speech. But it is an

indictment of his Government's record and it is one of the most

serious social problems facing Britain today.

The Budget papers revealed that consumer debt is now once more

exceeding its pre-crisis peak and it is this unsecured debt which is

driving what modest growth there is in the economy. The Bank of England

is right to be worried about this. But it didn't trouble our Chancellor

enough for him to refer to it at all in his Budget speech.

These facts along, Madam Deputy Speaker, showed just how much the

Prime Minister's just about managing families are being made to shoulder

the burden of a painfully slow recovery from the financial crash.

Yet there was not enough help announced for them yesterday.

On infrastructure and investment the reannouncement of the ?23 billion in

the rather grandly named national productivity investment fund, which

has been announced many times before, is to be welcomed.

But at 2.6% of GDP it remains lower than the levels of infrastructure

achieved by the last Labour Government and well below the OECD

average. That's going to put us at a continuing long-term disadvantage in

a global race in which we are more isolated and at risk than ever

before after Brexit. On investment generally, Madam

Deputy Speaker the office for budget response, shows that Brexit will

depress investment going forward and uncertainty about trade aments will

hit ex-exports. This is not a credible platform,

Madam Deputy Speaker, from which to launch any serious attempt to

prepare our economy for the challenges of post Brexit world and

enable us to secure our prosperity for the future. And this is a Budget

which continues to hit the poorest hardest.

The red book demonstrates that the cuts to public services just go on

and on into the future. We're told that the target for

eliminating the deficit, which was originally meant to be achieved in

2015 may now not be accomplished until 2025. That is a ten-year delay

on the original five-year plan. The Budget documents reveal a massive

20% cut in the funding allocated to local Government next year, down

from 8.2 billion to ?6.5 billion. Now, this puts at risk services for

the most vulnerable and threatens to ripple our social fabric ahead. 8%

cut in education funding which will threaten to bankrupt some schools.

Certainly in my constituency. The extra funds announced for education

are ring-fenced for the Prime Minister's grammar school van flitty

project. Once again some are left behind, while a chosen through few

in certain areas get all the advantages. Once more, unmentioned

by the Chancellor in his statement yesterday was a 6% real terms cut in

non-pension related spending on social security. Which will hit the

most vulnerable hardest. Now the pressures of our changing demanage

graphy make it -- demography make it clear there must be urgent reform of

our system of social care and social justice more broadly. The changes to

our labour market, which are happening on a global, as well as a

national and local level, and the profound implications of rapid

technological change make it imperative we reform our tax and

benefits system to make it fit for the future. We must be willing to

look again at the tax base in order to guarantee real security for

everyone in our society. Yet, in both these areas, this

Government has been caught out by its cynical electioneering attacks

on Labour. And its sib anial -- cynical promises to the people. In

cross party talks following the Dilnot report on social adult care

and agreeing a joint approach to the challenges we face, in 2010 the

Tories cynically produced propaganda posters conseeming what they called

Labour's death tax. Thus for short-term cynical gain they ruled

out the changes we need to make as a nation so that social care can be

put on to a sustainable footing for the future. They did the same with

what they called Labour's tax on jobs, changes to national insurance

contributions and in 2015, they even produced the Tory tax lock. A pledge

which it has since emerged was manufactured to fill a hole in the

general election grid and it has been described as, and this is a

quote - the dumbest economic policy that anybody could make. And that's

a quote by the Number Ten adviser who thought it up.

She makes the point of the previous claims made by the Conservatives. I

have the actual advert here they put out during the last election which

make clear any rise on national insurance would cost jobs and hit

hard working taxpayers. What's changed? Exactly and the point I'm

making and my honourable friend will agree, is that by this cynical use

of short-term advantage and the way they have electioneered on it and

the way they have campaigned, they are actually making it much harder

for us to make the reforms in our tax and benefits system, in our

system for social care that we actually need to make as we move

forward as a society. It is the ultimate in irresponsibility from

the party opposite. Yesterday the tax lock was torn up

by the Chancellor and he can dance on the head of a pin and claim it

did not apply to class four National Insurance contributions all he

likes, but that was not on the side of the bus. No one will ever believe

a Tory election promise over again. -- ever. The Chancellor has learnt a

tough lesson. If you want to be for the just about managing, you need to

have all the tools of government available to you. You cannot tax

lock yourself out of all of your options. And end up plugging the gap

and social care by taxing the self-employed. Madam Deputy Speaker,

they have been hoist by their own cynical petard. On the side of the

house we are willing to work with the Government on both challenges I

have talked about, social care and how to arrest the alarming rise in

self-employment and the precariousness that brings for far

too many people. Often it is apparent self-employment, quite

often it is very low paid and precarious, and we need to enjoy the

self-employed are properly protected with proper access to the

protections employees take for granted. I thank my honourable

friend for giving way. As usual, she is holding us spellbound with her

excellent speech today. I just wonder if she would agree with me on

this point. The former shadow secretary for the Department for

Work and Pensions blamed the Tory manifesto for being wrong more so

than the policy the Government introduced yesterday. Would she

agree with me that perhaps both are a problem and both are things that

clearly the Government needs to learn from? I agree with what my

honourable friend said. I think we are seeing here is a cynical dash to

make promises in the short term so that you can be elected and even

more cynical campaigning on those promises and the hope that when they

have to be broken that nobody would actually notice. But by their

actions, they are making it much harder for us to have cross-party

support on anything and they have also made it very difficult for

anybody to believe any single one of their manifesto pledges again and

they are increasing the distrust of politics. That is the legacy of

their behaviour in these two vital areas of social reform and tax

reform which are vital if we are going to prosper in the future. She

is being very generous in giving way. She talks about the mistrust,

would she agree one of the things people often say would be that they

do not feel politicians understand the realities of life and

particularly life for the self-employed? There are many costs

on top of what you would normally expect in terms of increased

insurance, difficulties getting a mortgage, things you have to pay out

for. This government does not understand the reality of life for

people who are self-employed. That may be the generous interpretation.

There are other interpretations that are about this cynicism I have been

talking about. The issue, really, is if you want to make a reasonable

reform to the tax system and national insurance contributions, to

take away the current tax incentive for either people to self

incorporate or to be forced by real employers into becoming apparently

self-employed for the tax advantages, then what you would not

have done the reform like this, then what you would have done worse say,

we are going to introduce these new benefits for them self-employed and

we would then take away the tax disadvantages and the tax advantages

of being self-employed. Finally, we are then going to bring forward a

tax base and system which is much more stable than the one we have

now. That could be supported. But it looks like they have changed the

national insurance contributions to fill a fiscal hole for social policy

and that is a grubby way to behave and it is in breach of their

election manifesto. This is not the way the Chancellor should have made

this change. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chancellor may learn

about this time, and in this Budget, all we got was green Hammond, rotten

eggs. It is a pleasure to follow honourable members and I hope she is

not too offended if I say I agree with more Ofwat my right honourable

friend from Richmond had to say. I always find the Budget debate... Of

course. Just to reassure him, I would have been more offended if he

had agreed more with me than with his honourable friend. It is good to

start on a point of consensus at least! I sometimes feel that there

is a parallel universe when I hear the leader of the Labour Party or

Shadow Chancellor talking about the economy and I listened very

carefully to the other side on The Andrew Marr Show and he was

explaining... The honourable member was explaining the economy was not

growing fast enough. In fact, the British economy last year and this

year, the second fastest growing economy in the G7, despite the doom

and gloom around Brexit. Actually, he needs to look at the very fax of

the economy, as we are currently experiencing it. -- facts. He went

on to say real wages of falling. I am going to talk about the cost of

living pressures. But the official figures are crystal clear. Real

wages have been rising since September, 2014, and according to

continue. If she would like to continue. If she would like to

intervene, I would welcome it. But otherwise, check the facts. Racal

doubles of employment, income inequality, lowest level in 30 years

fresh wave of investment since the fresh wave of investment since the

referendum vote including a commitment by James Dyson... I will

give way. I thank the honourable member. Would he also agree that

whilst he may be able to cite selective headline statistics, there

is a reality from our constituencies and perhaps he would also

acknowledge the point made to meet by schools and parents about not

being able to buy school uniforms, reliance on foodbanks, that is the

reality we need to face? Those are the things our economic policy

should be dealing with. I welcome her acceptance of the official

figures, that is implicit in what she said. I accept the cost of

living pressures, not least with inflation creeping up. Inflation is

well below still the headline 2% target the Bank of England set. I

will address cost of living challenges and what we should do

about it. Living in the real world, the one thing we would not do is

chased the socialist pipe dreams because they will do nothing to deal

with cost of living pressures other than precipitate a lack of

confidence in the economy and falling living standards as we see

increasing unemployment. I thought this was the point on which she was

going to intervene was to welcome the fact we have James Dyson

investing in a new research facility in Wiltshire, Jaguar Land Rover

investing in creating a new model to be exclusively manufactured in

Solihull. Actually, this wave of investment is coming right across

the country. There is, I think, a resilience in the British economy, a

strength in the British economy, and we are seeing some fresh investment

and into using us about the opportunities lying ahead. Having

said that, I want to be very careful not to allow any sense of

complacency to creep in. That is what this Budget was about. It is a

package. I have never known a budget in my still relatively limited time

in this place which has not involved compromises and that is the serious

business of government, putting together a package. On all my

numbers on all sides are quite quick to allow the positive stuff we like,