Live Budget Debate Budget

orders of the day.

Ways and Means,

adjourned debate on question.

Now.

The question is, as on the

order paper, Mr John McDonnell.

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.

After a disastrous election campaign

and a party Conference that

literally fell apart, yesterday's

Budget sole purpose was to revive

the fortunes of the Conservative

Party, and maybe fend off for a time

the Tory pact that had been handing

the Chancellor week after week --

red Tory pack that had been hounding

the Chancellor. But actually what

this Budget showed is it showed how

out of touch and cut off from the

real world of the economy and the

real lives of people the Chancellor

and this government really is. Mr

Speaker, the Chancellor said on Sky

News only this morning, the UK

economy is fundamentally strong.

What is strong about an economy

where economic growth has been

downgraded to the lowest in G7

countries? What is strong about an

economy where productivity growth

has been revised down to the lowest

since modern records began? Where

business investment is, and I quote

the OBR, significantly lower than

expected in March, and where real

pay and living standards continue to

deteriorate. The official growth

forecast from the government's of

for Budget responsibility were the

worst in its history. No government

in modern times has ever presented a

set of growth forecasts where growth

in every year is less than 2%.

Productivity growth is forecast to

have ground to a halt this year, and

barely increased next year. This too

the worst downgrade in the OBR's

history. The squeeze on living

standards is now so great that the

Resolution Foundation estimate real

pay will not return to its pre-crash

levels until 2023.

The Shadow

Chancellor is making a powerful

case. The governor of the Bank of

England has said the last time wages

suffered such stagnation was 150

years ago when Victoria had the

Crown, we had Gladstone and Disraeli

in Number 10 Downing Street, and

when trade unions were illegal. Does

the Shadow Chancellor agree with me,

under a Labour government wages go

up...

Order, order! Before we go any

further in this debate that's only

just started, I should explain to

the House there are a great many

people who have indicated they wish

to speak this afternoon. Speeches

will have to be time-limited and

short and it is simply not fair for

people to make long interventions,

and then possibly not stay for the

whole debate, whereas some other

colleagues... I'm not suggesting the

honourable gentleman weight, he

knows how to behave in the chamber.

It is perfectly in order and good

debating practice for the Shadow

Chancellor and everyone else to take

lots of interventions in order we

can have a debate. But interventions

must be short and members must

recognise that every minute that is

taken up in an intervention takes a

minute of the speech of someone who

waits to speak all day. It's a

matter of being fair and decent each

other. I wonder how that will work.

Mr McDonnell.

Thank you Madam Deputy

Speaker. I will take some

interventions but I'm cognisant of

what you said about the need to

insert your all people can speak.

Can I just respond to my honourable

friend. We all knew that election of

a Tory government would set us back.

What we didn't appreciate was that

it would set us back a century.

Average annual pay is now projected

to be £1030 lower in 2020 to was

forecast in the March 17 Budget.

It's those delivering Alki services.

The nurses, the midwives, the

firefighters, the teachers, who are

worse off than they were a decade

ago. There is nothing that can be

considered remotely strong. This is

a weak economy. In terms of growth

it is the weakest in the G7. We are

in this mess, let's remember,

because in the last seven years the

government have implemented policies

that have undermined and weakened

our economy. The Chancellor was a

key figure in all those policies. He

and his colleagues were warned

austerities spending cuts would fail

to bring the debt of the deficit

under control, that instead they

would undermine the real economy. We

were promised in 2010 by the present

Chancellor's predecessor... I will

shorten. That the deficit would be

cleared by 2015. Yet today as well

the debt burden is still rising. The

Chancellor borrowed more in his

first year in the job than any

Chancellor in history. I give way.

You paint a negative picture. Can

you explain why patient satisfaction

in the NHS is the highest for 20

years, we have the lowest

unemployment for 43 years and the

highest employment in our history?

There are now waiting lists in the

NHS of four million and predicted to

go to 5 million because of lack of

investment. The number of people

employed we welcome, the increase in

employment we welcome but 800,000 of

them are on zero hour contracts. We

now have over 2 million people in

insecure work. It's no wonder people

are anxious about their futures. As

I said, the Chancellor has borrowed

more in his first year in the job

than any other Chancellor in

history. 145 billion over £5,000 per

household. The OBR now expect the

deficit in 2021 to be most three

times higher than it forecast in

March. They blamed this

deterioration and the collapse in

productivity growth. Productivity

growth has collapsed because

investment has fallen. Government

investment is £20 billion less in

real terms today than it was in the

last year of the last Labour

government.

Can I ask him or his

iPad how much it would cost to

service the government debt in the

event that his own spending plans

ever came to fruition?

I welcome the

opportunity to respond to the

honourable gentleman, because what

we've said very clearly unlike this

government, on our fiscal rule we

will not borrow the day-to-day

expenditure. We will borrow to

invest. That investment will grow

the economy and as a result of that

growth will cover any need to

borrow. That's what any sensible

government is doing right the way

across Europe. That's why it's this

attitude displayed by the honourable

gentleman that has caused our

economic problems. Lack of

investment in seven years. Lack of

investment that generates

productivity.

Many of the things

that have been welcomed in this

Budget, and some have by people

outside of this House, have been

measures we have been calling for

since the downturn in 2008. If they

were right now, they were right back

then. It's a consequence of

austerity and economic policies

followed by the Tories that has made

our economy flat line to seven

years.

Whatever has been put forward

in the Budget yesterday is so

trivial it will not have the effect

that is required. Investment by

businesses also is the lowest in the

G7 countries. The few measures

announced yesterday just won't

address that. They went close the

gap between the South and the rest

of the country by investing in rail

projects in the north-east but will

receive just 2% of the total cost of

Crossrail in London. Our economy and

our people will only reach their

potential when there is real, new

investment, brought forward by

government and the scale needed to

meet the opportunity. The right

approach in 2010 would be to target

the real economy and real

investments to produce great, and so

bring the deficit into line. Because

the investment needed then didn't

materialise, productivity growth has

stagnated. Because productivity

growth has fallen away, the forecast

deficit has been widened by the OBR

to some 30 billion by 20 21. The

government knows austerities and

working, it has been reduced to

fiddling the figures to meet its own

targets. This is a quote from the

OBR which I think is quite

important, about how the government

is going to meet some of its

targets. I cried. -- I quite. The

government has ensured net debt

still falls fractionally as a share

of GDP in 2018-19 and it has

achieved this largely by announcing

fresh sales of RBS shares and

passing regulations that ease local

and central government control over

housing associations in England.

Creative accountancy on a scale

we've not seen under any government.

The government has met its own debt

target barely by exploiting a

reclassification of Housing

association debt and putting in some

extraordinarily optimistic forecasts

for its sales of RBS shares.

I'm not

generally trying to find a way out

of our problems that we can agree. I

accept his point he wants to borrow

more to invest. The trouble is we

already paying in interest more than

what we spend on defence and police.

I understand where he's coming from

but whatever you spun the money and

the interest will be accrued so how

will he deal with that?

That under

his government debt has gone up by

800 billion. It is debt to pay for

failure rather than investment. If

you borrow to invest, you grow the

economy and on that basis you put

more people to work, with more

skills, higher wages, they pay more

taxes and it pays for itself. That's

the lesson they still haven't

learned. The government appears, as

it demonstrated today, to be

completely out of touch with the

mess our economy is in. Also, they

have no understanding of the

consequences of their choices on the

lives of our people.

The Chancellor is trying to claim

income inequality. It doesn't seem

to be aware that 1 million food

parcels have been handed out in

this, the sixth richest economy on

the planet. He may well be aware

that London is home to more

billionaires than before. But does

he ever know that there are more

homeless people than ever? How can

he claim inequality is falling when

that stark comparison is made. For

the poorest, this Government's

decisions will make them poorer

still. Buried away in the annex at

the very back of the Treasury's

distributional analysis is

truthfulness. It says the poorest

fifth are being made poorer by the

changes this Government is

implemented. But those inside the

poorest fifth will lose almost £250

per year. In the House of Commons

library again it has published the

figures. It has confirmed that the

burden of the cuts, 86% of the cuts

made in tax and benefits measures

since 2010 have fallen on who? When

it. Is that water quality is about

under this Government? 86% on the

shoulders of women. I will come back

to the honourable lady, certainly.

On housing the Government's solution

for the crisis is inept and

counter-productive. The stamp duty

cut for first-time buyers will not

bring forward the new homes we need.

No wonder the OBR expects only 3500

additional sales to happen from the

change. They say, and I quote again,

that thanks to the price rises the

main gainers from the policy are

people who already own property. The

problem is simple, maybe, perhaps,

it does need explaining. You cannot

solve a problem of housing supply by

driving up housing demand. We are

not the only people saying this.

Conservative ministers reviewed the

stamp duty reduction and they said

this, that the cut hadn't had a

significant impact on improving

affordability for first-time buyers.

And setting a target of £300,000 a

year for the mid 2020s does little

for the housing crisis we are

suffering today. I will come back to

the honourable lady, I think she was

first.

It was going back the few

points, but the people in Taunton

Deane actually have more money in

their pockets, which is what they

want. We have put up the national

living wage. We've cut income tax by

raising the personal allowance. And

again we have frozen fuel duty. So

people have actually got thousands

more in their pockets than they had

under the Labour Government.

Never

had it so good!

Can I just say, I know the

honourable lady is well-intentioned,

but can I just say that she displays

and ignorance about the large

numbers of people who are not better

off? Can I just... Can I just... Can

I just suggest, can I just suggest

this to her? I don't wish to be

patronising anyway. No. If that's

the way it's interpreted, it's

certainly not how it's meant to be.

I would just say that all of us who

are on relatively high wages need to

understand and be very careful when

we talk about levels of income and

levels of wealth. When we know so

many people, 4 million of our

children, are actually living in

poverty. And two thirds of those

children are living in households

where someone is at work. That says

something about low pay to me. It

should do to all of us. I'll come

back to the honourable gentleman.

Can I just say that... The number of

people sleeping on our streets has

doubled since the Conservatives came

to office in 2010. Over 3500 people,

3500 people, were forced to sleep on

our streets last year. We have

80,000 households living in

temporary accommodation because

councils simply don't have anywhere

to house them. I repeat, in the

sixth richest country in the world.

Over 120,000 of our children without

a home to call their own, living in

temporary accommodation, that's up

60% since this Government has been

in power. That means, and we seen it

in our constituencies, children

brought up in places that are often

not safe. Having to share communal

bathrooms and kitchens, and being

robbed of a normal family life and

childhood. Ministers don't seem to

understand the strength of anger

many of us on these benches feel

that our constituents are being

forced to live in overcrowded,

unsafe, and inadequate housing. The

Government have the opportunity to

deliver the funding that would build

the homes we need. With only one

third of the £44 billion announced

today genuinely new. And no extra

investment in affordable homes. This

Government's record on failing

housing will continue to blight the

lives of hundreds of thousands

trapped in overpriced, inadequate

housing. I thought there was

somebody else... The honourable

lady.

As somebody who was working in

the construction industry in 2008 to

2009, and who watched the decimation

of that industry at the tail end of

the last Labour Government, and

noted that nobody sprung to our aid

to keep people in work in the

industry, we have had to start from

the go get. We have built 217,000

houses this year. That's nearly

double what was billed in the last

time of the Labour Government. You

walked away from the industry at

that time. To stand there and

sanctimoniously tell us that you did

support us is wrong.

Could I ask the

honourable lady to re-examine the

history of that period. And I point

out the kick-start a programme which

was developed by the Labour

Government which was into the

private and public sector to allow

building to happen.

You are wrong...

I just asked the honourable lady.

And we can get a briefing during

that period. I understand what she's

saying. It was an immensely

difficult period for the economy.

She's right. And many people

suffered. But can I just say to her

that her party supported the policy

is to deregulate the banks that

brought about the speculation that

resulted in the economic crisis in

this country and elsewhere. There

are thousands... Deputy Speaker,

there are thousands trapped in

poverty. As many as 1 million

children, as many as 1 million

children could be pushed into

poverty as a result of cuts to

Universal Credit. The introduction

of Universal Credit has been a

disaster that's pushed many

thousands of people into despair.

And in many cases outright

destitution. Food bank charities

have reported that they have

gathered an extra 200,000 tonnes of

food to cope with demand as a result

of the introduction of Universal

Credit. The trust will trust report

-- the Trussell trust report has

said that usage of food banks has

gone up 30%. The Government does not

grasp the scale of this problem.

Members need to know what this

poverty means for children in our

society. It means not having a

winter coat this winter, being left

behind when the rest of the class

goes on a school trip, and from the

reports last year, going hungry

during school holidays in their

thousands. The Chancellor did

nothing yesterday for self-employed

people, second earners, disabled

people, all of whom have seemed

their living standards suffer,

particularly acutely on to Universal

Credit. He felt to mitigate the cuts

from the Universal Credit programme

from his predecessor. He failed to

address the impact of the social

security freeze... I shall come back

to you, due to push millions of

people into poverty. The additional

funds put in place amount to £1

return for every £10 the Government

is cutting from the system. This

means those claiming Universal

Credit will now have to take their

first payment as a loan so the face

12 months of reduced payments, and

to some of the most desperate people

in the country, to those already

drowning in debt, the Chancellor has

offered, what, more debt. And for

those newly registered for Universal

Credit and facing destitution this

Christmas the Chancellor had nothing

to say. Not a single extra penny, no

matter how inadequate, will be

available for the New Year. 59,000

families will be left without any

support in the Christmas period.

Families that include 40,000 of this

country's children. And the

percentage of -- of the percentage

of children living in poverty is the

highest since records began in 1961.

In the sixth richest country in the

world. Local councils. I just say to

the members opposite, local councils

are being starved of funds they need

to protect the most vulnerable

children in our society. Charities

on the front line are clear and are

reporting solidly that the cuts to

parenting classes, children's

groups, teenage pregnancy support,

short breaks for disabled people,

what the charities are saying the

risk turning the current crisis into

a catastrophe for the next

generation of children and families.

This year a record 70,000 children

have been taken into care. One in 64

children in England is at risk of

abuse or neglect. There are 1200

fewer children's centres than in

2010. And funding for early

intervention to protect children is

down 55%. Eight in ten schools have

no funding to support children with

special needs. And funding for early

intervention to protect children

down by 55%, as I said. There was

not a single penny extra to address

this emerging crisis in our

children's services in the Budget. I

say this now, and I say this across

the house, the Chancellor and the

Government are failing some of the

most vulnerable children in our

society. And I urge the Government

to look again. Look again now at

this issue that emerging as an

emerging crisis. And it goes on, in

education, schools are facing the

first funding cuts per pupil in real

terms since the 1990s. Head teachers

are being forced to parents for

funds to pay for basic supplies.

5000 headteachers wrote to the

Government asking that those funds

be returned. In the Prime Minister's

constituency one headmaster is

asking parents for £1 per day to

help pay for stationery. The

National Audit Office says schools

face a £1.7 billion in real terms

cut in funding by 2020. Eight in ten

schools are being left without

funding to adequately provide for

special needs pupils. It means our

most vulnerable children, deprived

of the support they need, spending

break times away from friends,

alone, having their education

discriminated against.

Thanks for

giving way. Just a point on children

. I was told that there was not

enough money for post-16 SEN

provision because they cannot cut

the number of teaching assistance

they need because of the ratio is

needed to care for these children.

This person in my constituency was

not able to offer a place to post 16

children.

It is shocking. It is

absolutely shocking. When we as a

society are looking to integrate

everybody into the mainstream as

best we can. And it means those

children will be deprived for the

rest of their lives. More than 4000

children with an approved health and

social care plan are still not

receiving what they are entitled to,

which confirms what my honourable

friend has reported. The cuts to

local Government will mean schools

forcing to turn away children with

special needs. To compensate for

this yesterday's Budget offered £177

million for additional maths and IT

teachers, supposedly to make a spit

for the future at a time when 10% of

our schools offer IT GCSEs. £177

million to compensate for £1.7

billion, £1 given back for every £10

taken away. And capital spending on

schools is scheduled to be cut by

£600 million over this Parliament at

a time when class sizes are

On the NHS, the experts and health

professionals are agreed, the NHS is

approaching breaking point. It needs

proper funding. The chief executive

of NHS England says the NHS needs 4

billion this year. He's warned 5

million people being left on the

waiting list without additional

funding.

Is he aware that within the

NHS, CCGs are looking to introduce

new taxes on patients. One CCG is

proposing to make kidney dialysis

patients pay for transport to their

dialysis. This is a death tax of

£120 a month. Either dialysis or

death, and that is their options.

Under the figures announced this

week in the Budget there will be

moral of this. There will be more

people suffering, more lives put at

risk as a result. Under this

government, 4 million people are now

waiting to care, the highest level

in a decade. 100,000 patients were

left waiting more than two weeks to

see a specialist after being

diagnosed with cancer. More than one

intended and star treatment within

62 days. Three in ten of the most

urgent 999 calls are going answered

within the targeted time. Yet the

government has brought forward less

than half the amount that is needed

and other professionals sober

assessments say is needed. The claim

in yesterday's Budget that 10

billion in capital funding is

available is totally misleading. The

government will provide less than

half of this. The remainder will

come from selling off the NHS

Estates or from the private sector.

Nor is the pay cap that has driven

hard-working public sector workers

to despair being tackled. The

dedication of the staff is

extraordinary. There are nurses

waiting behind after 12 hour shifts

to give care to keep the system from

imploding. These are the same nurses

who have seen their pay full so much

in real terms that one in four of

them must take a second job to make

ends meet. The Royal College of

nurses reports nurses visiting food

banks. It isn't possible to run a

health service worthy of the name of

the underpaid and underpaid

dedication of its staff alone. The

Chancellor is able to offer nothing

for them. I've given way and I'm

worried to make sure people are

involved. Thank you. The Chancellor

is able to offer nothing for them.

The cap isn't being removed because

as the Treasury briefed once the

Chancellor sat down, any pay rises

the pay review board offer above 1%

must be taken from existing budgets.

It's a derisory offer to make after

seven years of real term pay cuts.

Worse than that, for NHS nurses, any

additional pay will be linked to

agenda for change modernisation, and

what they really mean, threatening

their working conditions, tearing up

their terms and conditions of pay.

Is it not also a common because 55%

of civil servants' pay is not

covered by a pay review body?

That's

how the government has avoided its

own responsibility to ensuring that

other civil servants have a proper

pay rise. Can also say, for those in

social care with the system

approaching but quality care

commission calls tipping point, the

Chancellor hasn't offered a single

penny either. Let me turn to the

environment. The Chancellor had a

view choice words about electric

cars yesterday, I thought it was a

wonderful metaphor, driverless car.

On the bigger picture the Budget is

potentially disastrous. The fact

there will be no new low carbon

electricity levies until 2025 could

spend the end of much of the low

carbon development of the UK. There

wasn't a single mention in the

Chancellor 's speech of renewables,

sustainable sources of energy or

investment in energy efficiency.

It's quite clear that beyond a few

gimmicks this is not a priority for

the government. The Chancellor

referred extensively to

technological change which offers

huge potential for our economy and

society of we are prepared to commit

the investment needed. That cut

research funding by £1 billion in

real terms. Not like the

Chancellor's party, we on this side

know that to realise the

possibilities of new technology

would require a government committed

to providing the funding and

investment needed. Not a government

repackaging existing announcements

in consecutive budgets, or the one

that reallocate funds its already

reallocated a year ago in the Autumn

Statement claiming it is new

research funding. The government

says it is aiming to reach the OECD

average of spending on RND by 2027.

After years of languishing below it,

Britain should aim to be above the

average rather than belatedly

hitting the average decade from now.

Even the target displays a lack of

ambition and foresight. They have

the same problem with Brexit. They

never planned for it before the

referendum and now they can't see

beyond their own slogans. 17 months

after the result, there's not a

single agreement with the EU. They

are lurching towards the hardest

possible Brexit, ripping up our

existing relationship with our

closest trading partners instead of

trying to work to create a new one.

Every major business group has baked

them to take a different approach,

from the CBI to the BCC. Already

businesses are pulling back

investment for fear of what might

come. This government doesn't just

lack ambition, they won't listen to

advice and can't seem to see how

disastrous a cliff edge plunge out

of the EU would be for our economy.

The Chancellor trailed this Budget

is making Britain fit for the

future. What it has actually

demonstrated, as my right honourable

friend said yesterday, is that this

is a government no longer fit for

office. Too divided to deliver, the

Budget demonstrated this is

increasingly a government without

purpose, divided and in disarray,

whose confidence is sapped, whose

time is up. I say to them, it is

better to go with a bit of dignity.

Just go with a bit of dignity,

rather than... It is better to go

with a bit of dignity, a bit of

dignity left, rather than

humiliating disintegration. Labour

is ready and willing now to form a

government that this country needs,

rather than this shambles that

cannot even be described as a

government.

JEERING.

Secretary of

State Sajid Javid.

It is a pleasure

to respond to the Shadow Chancellor,

although I am grateful that for

everything we've just heard in the

past half-hour, he didn't literally

throw the book at me. On Saturday it

will be exactly two years since the

right honourable gentleman cited one

of history 's worst mass murderers

in the defence of his own economic

policies. Let's take a look at some

of the great leaps forward our

economy has taken in those two

years. Employment, up.

House-building, up. Inward

investment, up. Borrowing, down.

Last year the British economy grew

faster than any other G7 nation.

This week the CBI said manufacturing

order books haven't been this falls

for almost 30 years. Siemens has

said it is cutting jobs on the

continent but expanding its UK

operation, investing more money and

creating even more jobs. Whatever

way you look at it, this is a

government that is getting things

done. A government growing the

economy, building a Britain fit for

the future. Yesterday's Budget

builds on that success and lays the

way forward for much more to come.

It's a Budget that will lead us

building more homes in the right

places and the right prices, protect

and enhance our public services, and

a Budget that will tackle the

burning injustices that still plague

too many people in this country.

First among those injustices is the

state of the housing market. As I

said before, your home is much more

than just a place that you go to

sleep in at night. It shapes who you

are, it provides stability and

security, it shapes your life

chances and opens up or closes off

all kinds of opportunities. A fair

affordable housing market builds

strong families and strong

communities. A broken one is of

course a barrier to social mobility

and a root cause of

intergenerational unfairness. The

way to fix the broken housing market

is to build more homes, and that is

exactly what we are doing. Last year

217,000 net additions to the housing

stock, the highest such figure in

almost a decade. But we are under no

illusions that there is much, much

more to be done. Labour's answer to

the housing crisis, in fact Labour's

answer to everything, is simply to

throw more of someone else's money

at the problem and just hope it goes

away. The last time they tried it we

ended up with a house-building at

its lowest level since the 1920s,

and an economy on its knees. This

country needs at least 300,000 new

homes a year. Do you know how many

Labour started in its last four

years in office? Let me tell you.

75,000. The lowest number of annual

starts in peace time since the

1920s.

I'm grateful to the ministers

are giving way and I'm delighted

he's saying there's going to be a

renaissance in house-building. Can

we look forward to an announcement

of a renaissance in council

house-building, will the Minister

accept that the cost of building

Council houses is in large measure

covered by the income generated from

the rental stream? Basically is a

free hit. Why went to the Minister

at mid-it's important we start to

build council houses to tackle the

housing crisis?

I'm glad the

honourable gentleman raised the

issue of council houses because it's

another opportunity to remind this

House, in 13 years in office, Labour

build fewer council houses since the

return of a Conservative led

government. Yesterday's measures

would lead to more council houses by

the most ambitious and of course we

welcome that.

Can he explain how it

is logical to cut stamp duty on

houses worth less than £300,000,

which will increase the price of

properties, thereby cutting the tax

coming in, increasing the price of

properties, not benefiting

first-time buyers, only those who

are selling the properties?

For a

start he should speak to the leader

of his own party. He stood there

yesterday claiming it was his policy

in his manifesto. I think the

honourable gentleman needs to go

home and do some homework of his

own. When Labour came to power in

1997, the average home cost three

and a half times the average wage.

By the time they slunk out of office

in 2010, it was nearly seven times.

As for the neediest in society,

Labour cut the number of social

homes for rent by more than 420,000

units. That's their track record.

He

says we need 300,000 new homes a

year to address the housing crisis,

presumably he's is therefore just

committed to making sure 300,000 new

homes a year are built. Until he

does address the supply-side, he's

got to stop fuelling demand side

pressures. As the OBR said, the

measure he's taken on reducing stamp

duty is fuelling demand at a time

when he's not meeting the supply

pressures.

Where the honourable

gentleman is right, is the need for

further planning reform, and that's

why the Budget follows on from the

housing white paper earlier this

year with further planning reforms,

some of which shall come to in a

moment. Where he's completely wrong

is on stamp duty. He should have

that conversation with young people

when they are buying their first

house, they can save up to £5,000.

Does my right honourable friend

agree with me that what we need now

is clarification? What will the

party opposite do when it comes to a

division on the plans to scrap stamp

duty for first-time buyers? Are they

saying they are going to block those

plans, in which case that says more

about where they stand than any

words they could ever say.

My

honourable friend went to be

surprised to learn that they don't

know what they will do. They have no

idea other than borrowing billions

and billions of pounds more and

trying to bankrupt this country once

again. What Labour don't understand

and what they have never understood

is that getting more homes built

requires action on many fronts. It's

the easiest thing in the world to

say we will build more homes, but

it's meaningless unless you address

where you are going to build them,

what you're going to build, Howell,

who is going to build and who is

going to pay for it all.

On your point of where to build and

having people to build them, does

the honourable gentleman recognise

that giving all of this money to

create maths teachers will not help

the skills shortage we have in the

building industry to create the

builders we need to build the

properties.

I thought the honourable

lady would have welcomed the extra

investment in maths in our country.

If she was listing to the Budget she

would have also welcomed the

partnership we are beginning in

order to invest in the skills of the

future and the additional funding

for the construction industry in

terms of getting more skills for

that particular industry. -- if she

was listening. Action on many fronts

is what our housing white Paper

promise. That is what the Budget

delivers, with over £15 billion of

new financial support to help make

that happen. Over the next five

years will commit to a total of at

least £44 billion of capital

funding, loans, and guarantees to

support our housing market. To boost

the supply of skills and resources

and land for building. And to create

the financial incentives to deliver

300,000 net additional homes a year

on average. To put it another way,

almost three times as many as the

shadow Housing Minister managed when

he was the actual housing minister.

I'm grateful to the honourable

gentleman. He talks of action. Can

you tell us why this Government

isn't actually taking action on the

developers who sit on land? The

Chancellor spoke about consultation

yesterday. We all know what needs to

happen, why don't they just do it?

What bewilders me is that those

benches were completed yesterday

that the Budget, but nobody is

listening. If she was listening she

would have heard some of the

measures the Chancellor announced,

including the change in the delivery

test and an enquiry which I will

come onto in a moment. I will give

in a moment. The Government provided

new money for the home-building

front to get house-builders building

again. Yesterday the Chancellor also

promised £630 million for small

sites to unlock the delivery of

40,000 homes, £400 million for a

state regeneration, and £1.1 billion

to unlock strategic sites, including

new settlements and urban

regeneration schemes. And £8 billion

of new financial guarantees to

support private house-building and

the purpose-built private renting

sector.

I'm grateful for you giving

way. Can he explain why talk's

Conservative lead counsel submitted

a local plan which undershot the

amount of houses he is speaking

about? Why such a disparity within

his own counsel? -- York's

Conservative lead local council.

Once the proposals go through it

will be clear that no council will

be able to avoid the houses they

actually need to build. In the areas

where supply and demand are most

badly mismatched, where most homes

are unaffordable to most people, we

will increase local authority

housing revenue account borrowing

caps by a total of £1 billion. This

will allow ambitious councils to

invest in new homes where they are

most needed. We will bring together

public and private capital to

support the delivery of five new

locally led towns in areas of high

demand. We are committed to building

in the Oxford Cambridge corridor. We

have agreed on one of our most

ambitious housing deals with

Oxfordshire to deliver 1000 homes by

-- 100,000 homes by 2021.

On the

note of garden towns, Taunton has

been made one, I'm proud of that. As

well as building more homes we are

going to build homes people want to

live in. We are going to make good

communities and good places to live

with the right infrastructure and

all of the right facilities. We are

going to be the Government that

really put us on the 21st century in

terms of homes.

My honourable friend

is right. It's not just about

building homes, it's about building

communities, and that means also

supplying the infrastructure

required. I'll come onto that in a

moment.

He's been generous. Could

you give us an indication as to how

many additional council houses will

be built as a consequence of his

proposition to lift the debt cap to

the level he proposes us. I don't

think it's very many, less than

10,000.

More than you did!

Another

opportunity to remind ourselves

we've already seen more council

houses built under the Conservatives

than we did under 13 years of Labour

Government. He keeps making that

point and I welcome it. How many

more houses, well, that will depend

on those local authorities about how

ambitious they are, as the objective

is to see thousands more each year

by increasing the cap. We have also

set out measures that have got the

work force in this... To develop

vital construction skills such as

plastering and bricklaying. Getting

the country building will require

more than just money. It also needs

planning reform. We will focus on

getting homes built in urban areas

where people want to live and where

the most jobs are created. This will

include making best use of our urban

land while continuing the protection

of our green belt. We'll focus on

creating high-quality, high density

homes in cities and centres around

transport hubs. And to put the needs

of our young people first we will

ensure that councils in high demand

areas permit more homes for

first-time buyers and renters. We

are also launching an independent

enquiry into the land banking issue

with the promise of serious action

if it is shown that developers are

holding back supply for financial

reasons rather than practical

reasons. I'm pleased my right

honourable friend has agreed to lead

this work.

He is going on yet again about

investment in the south of England.

He hasn't mentioned the word

Yorkshire or the north of England in

anything he has said. Are we going

to get the electrification of the

trans-Pennine Trail system? We have

real opportunities to grow the

population and the wealth of this

country in the north, but this

Government does not hear that

message.

The honourable gentleman

will know, if he's had an

opportunity to study the Budget more

closely, that the Chancellor

referred to housing deals we are

working on in greater Manchester, in

Leeds, in the West Midlands, and he

mentions the trans-Pennine Railway,

and he'll also know there was an

additional £300 million offered to

its just yesterday by the

Chancellor. I'm sure he will welcome

that. -- offered to it just

yesterday.

The moment ago he

mentioned the review into the

build-out of houses. One of the

particular issues in my constituency

is many planning permission is

granted but there seems to be a

delay before we see the houses

built. We are getting the blight but

not the benefit and therefore not

the affordability. Can I welcome

these plans to make sure we not only

get planning permission is but

actually the houses built.

My honourable friend is right to

highlight this. There are many

councils, like hers, willing to take

sometimes tough decisions and

provide the land for new homes and

give the planning permissions only

to find the developers are not

building them, either at all or far

too slowly. That's why the measures

we put in the housing White Paper

make a difference. I'm not sure if

it is enough. That's why we wanted

to have this independent enquiry.

I'm sure it will make a big

difference too. The planning and

building process will be overseen by

a new national agency, homes

England. It's remit will be far

larger, bringing together money,

expertise, planning, and compulsory

purchase orders. It will allow it

offers specific solutions faced by

certain areas. Maximising impact on

getting the right homes built in the

right places. It's no good building

homes if you can't afford them.

Growing the economy and raising

wages is key to this. As we saw last

week, young people face a very

different housing market to the one

that was enjoyed by their parents'

generation. We will get more homes

built but it won't be overnight.

What happened overnight is a change,

which means no stamp duty will be

applied to the vast majority of

first-time buyers. On average, for

the first-time buyer, they will save

£1600. In addition, we've also

provided £200 million for a pilot to

extend right to buy housing in the

Midlands. Allowing them to own their

homes they've lived in for many

years, giving them the same

opportunity as council tenants.

I'm grateful for you giving way.

Will he just take into account that

this change, much as it is being

scoffed at, has given a couple in my

constituency, both who work in the

public sector, £2500 when they are

buying their own home. That's a

massive impact to a younger

generation struggling already. I'd

like to thank him on behalf of my

constituents for that policy.

I am pleased to hear that. I also

have overnight received e-mails from

members of the public that welcome

this change. I'm sure the Leader of

the Opposition has. I'm sure he is

excited to share them at Prime

Minister's Question Time next week.

CHUCKLES

Not everyone is lucky enough to have

a home at all. One person living on

the street is too many, but the

latest figures are simply

unacceptable. It's clear to anyone

walking around, any of our major

cities, that the current approach to

tackling homelessness isn't enough.

It's time for a bold new way of

doing things and this Budget

provides some of the resources

required to do just that. I have

been a fan of the housing first

approach for some time. It does

exactly what it says on the tin.

Getting people off the street and

into a safe and secure home first.

And then dealing with the problems

which may have forced them onto the

street in the first place. It sounds

obvious. But it's a complete

reversal of the traditional way of

doing things under successive

governments. Earlier this year I saw

for myself how it has eliminated

rough sleeping in Helsinki. I want

to see if we can make it just as

effective here in our own country.

That's why the Chancellor announced

yesterday £28 million into housing

first pilot in the West Midlands,

greater Manchester, and the

Liverpool city region.

Will the Secretary of State not

realise that this isn't particularly

in the victory. The Labour

Government indeed did end the

obscenity of rough sleeping in less

than ten years. -- isn't

particularly innovative. If the

Government hadn't removed those

safety nets, support services, and

housing, we wouldn't have people

sleeping rough on our streets in the

first place.

It was higher than ever

under the Labour Government!

I know

the honourable lady means well. On

this issue there is usually a

welcome cross-party approach. The

honourable lady would be wrong to

suggest that rough sleeping was

ended at any time under any

Government in this country. Under

the last Labour Government statutory

homelessness peaked in 2007. Since

then it is down by more than 15%. I

hope she can agree that we can all

work together to do more to combat

homelessness. Hopefully she will

also welcome the announcement of the

homelessness reduction task force

which will pilot a number of new

ideas to try and help cut rough

sleeping by 2022 and eliminate it

altogether. Working together by

2027. Homes themselves are only part

of the picture. Communities need

roads, railways, schools, GP

surgeries, and much more besides.

Investing in infrastructure can

unlock a huge range of sites and

avoid putting too much pressure on

existing communities already feeling

squeezed. That's why we are

committing a further £2.7 billion to

more than double the size of the

housing infrastructure fund.

Investing not just in houses but

also in the services we all depend

on. Our support for public services

isn't just limited to new

communities. We are putting an

additional £6.3 billion of new

funding into the NHS. Upgrading

facilities, improving care,

improving accident and emergency

performance, reducing waiting times,

and helping more people this winter.

I still do bank shifts, and I am a

nurse, I don't recognise what you

are describing. Hospitals have

leaking roofs. Nurses leave shifts

at least an hour late. Our pay has

been capped. We have lost 40% since

2010. I'm sorry, I don't recognise

the NHS you are talking about. -- I

have a nice he was also working

shifts at a bank.

If the country had

taken Labour's approach to the

economy we would be heading for

bankruptcy again. There wouldn't be

any new money for the NHS. I hope

she can join members across this

house in welcoming the additional

£2.8 billion next year going to the

NHS in resource spending and the

additional £3.5 billion that's been

available for the next five years in

capital spending.

On the point about the country being

bankrupt, I wonder if you could

remind the House how much extra this

government has borrowed since it

came into power.

800 billion.

The

Labour government have not once got

up to the dispatch box and

apologised for what they did to this

country during 13 years in office.

The Chancellor also promised to

provide additional funding for a

future NHS pay supplement so our

nurses are properly rewarded without

taking money out of patient

services. We are also investing more

in our schools which will get £600

for every extra people who takes on

a level or core maps. £49 million

will go towards helping students

that re-sitting GCSE maths and

£350,000 of extra funding a year

will be given to every specialist

maths school set up across the

country. It's a massive investment

in new Morrissey that sadly comes

too late for the shadow Treasury

team. It will help ensure that our

young people have the skills they

need to compete in the high-tech

jobs in the future of the 21st

century. Not all public services are

the responsibility of central

government. Many are delivered by

brilliant local councils. I'm well

aware of the pressure local

authority budgets are under,

particularly with regard to social

care, and that's why in the spring

Budget this year we provided an

extra £2 billion to help meet their

immediate needs in this vital area.

I remain totally committed to

delivering fair, effective funding

the councils at all levels and it's

something we will return back to in

next month's local government

financial settlement. In the

meantime, we are pushing ahead with

our pilot schemes for 100% local

business rates retention including

in London. And we're reforming

business rates themselves.

Revaluations will switch from every

five years to three years avoiding

the cliff edge that can currently

confront many businesses

particularly smaller ones. We are

changing the law so businesses

affected by the so-called staircase

tax decision can have their original

bills reinstated and backdated. And

we are bringing forward the change

in operating from RPI to CPI. It

will not take effect from next

April, saving businesses £2.3

billion over the next five years.

Madam Deputy Speaker, one council,

the Royal Borough of Kensington and

Chelsea, has had to deal with an

unprecedented tragedy this year. The

fire at Grenfell Tower shouldn't

have happened and shouldn't have

been possible. Since the blaze the

people of North Kensington have

shown themselves to be remarkably

resilient, courageous, proactive,

and deserve the full support of this

government. We have already provided

financial support for the victims of

the terrible tragedy. This Budget

also sets aside a further £28

million to pay for community mental

health support, regeneration support

for the area around Grenfell Tower

and to provide a new space for the

local community to come together.

The most recent addition to the

local government family are the

combined authorities led by the six

directly elected mayors. I will.

Can

he clarify what the Chancellor said

yesterday regarding funds for fire

safety precautions. Is he saying

that where local authorities are

told by an independent fire safety

officer that sprinklers should be

retrofitted into tower blocks, that

the government will assist them with

paying for that?

I'm happy to make

that clear but I pulled the

Chancellor was clear. As I say, I

want to help the honourable

gentleman with this. What the

Chancellor has said is that any

local authority, they need to do

whatever is essential to keep their

residents say. If that is fitting

sprinklers of course that is what

they should do. In doing so they

need to approach the government for

financial support and we will

provide it.

Can he confirm that the

fund for relief in Grenfell will be

available immediately and won't have

to be waiting for the 1st of April

so that the poor victims who have

suffered greatly can get the help

they need right now?

I'm happy to

confirm that. The new funding the

Chancellor announced yesterday will

be available immediately. The most

recent addition to the combined

authorities led by the six directly

elected mayors. Under this Budget

they will be able to improve local

transport with a new transforming

cities fund. The remainder will be

opened to competition by other

English cities. A second devolution

deal has been agreed with the

incredible Andy Street from the West

Midlands. A new devolution deal has

been struck north of the time. And

we are developing a local industrial

strategy with greater Manchester. We

are also investing £300 million to

insure HS two infrastructure can

accommodate improvements. This kind

of devolution is how you deliver

growth and opportunity across the

country. It's how you boost

productivity, secure new jobs and

increase security for hard-working

people wherever they live. It

underlines the fact this is a Budget

for the whole country, a Budget for

the many not the few.

Maybe this

will wake them up as well.

On

Tuesday night, almost 24 hours

before the Budget was delivered, the

Leader of the Opposition e-mailed

his supporters calling on them to

oppose everything the Chancellor was

going to say. I know that Marx once

said "Whatever it is I'm against

it", but that was Groucho not Karl!

LAUGHTER Their economic plans are no

laughing matter. On Sky News

yesterday as Shadow Housing Minister

said, "Just look at what the

Institute for Fiscal Studies said

about the spending plans in our

manifesto"

about the spending plans in our

manifesto". So I did, and here's

what they say. "What Labour actually

want you to hear is that they are

spending increases that they promise

would be funded by tax increases

solely affecting the rich and

companies. This would not happen. In

the longer term, much of the cost is

likely to be passed to workers

through lower wages or consumers,

through higher prices. " Those are

the words of the Independent ISS. --

I F S.

Is the Minister aware that

the IFS is now saying workers are

losing to decades of earnings

growth?

What I am aware of is that

what workers want is work. That's

why we should celebrate that we have

more people employed today than at

any time in our history, and we have

the lowest unemployment rate in 40

years. Madam Deputy Speaker, labour

talk a good game, but all they have

is blank cheques they know will

never be cached, and empty promises

they know they will never be able to

keep. Over and over again the Shadow

Chancellor refuses to say how much

his spending plans would cost, how

much would he have to borrow, how

much debt he would have to pile on

to the next generation. He says, "We

don't need a number". He says,

that's what type ads are for. He

even accused one reporter of wanting

to pluck a figure out of the. No, we

don't want him to pluck a figure out

of thin air. We want him... We want

him to tell the British people how

much his plans would cost. His

failure to do so can only mean one

of two things. Either he has no idea

what the cost would be, in which

case he is not fit to be Chancellor,

or he doesn't know. But is refusing

to share his dirty little secret

because he's all too aware of how

shameful is.

I have taken a vow that

I will not be throwing about any

form of book in the chamber again.

And I suggest that we will send him

a copy of the Grey book which

identified every policy, it didn't

fight the costings of it in the

funding source, all of them

including our capital transformation

fund, which would build the homes

that we need, would ensure we have a

fair taxation system, and in that

way we would find... I have to say

to him, the only numbers in the Tory

manifesto weather page numbers. --

word be page numbers.

Once again the

Shadow Chancellor says he'll provide

the numbers but fails to do so at

every single occasion he's failed to

provide any numbers. He did it again

yesterday after the Budget and he

will no doubt keep doing it for as

long as he feels he can get away

with it. It's no surprise that while

we are building a Britain that is

fit for the future, they are

planning a run on the pound.

Yesterday the Chancellor stood here

and laid out a compelling vision for

housing, public services, making

this a country that works for

everyone. And today his Shadow

Chancellor appears again peddling a

bankrupt ideology that will bankrupt

this country and take our schools

and hospitals with it. His reckless

plans would drive up interest rates

and unemployment. He claims to be on

the side of many but his policies

would make it harder for people to

pay their rent, harder for people to

pay their mortgage, harder for

ordinary working people to save up

for a home of their own. Whenever

the Shadow Chancellor speaks, he

tries to paint a picture of a

fading, failing divided nation. He

talks down our economy, our

prospects, our public services and

our people. It suits his purpose I

suppose. But the country he

describes is not the country that I

recognise. Because when I look at

the world that my parents grew up

in, no electricity, no plumbing, my

mother wasn't even allowed to go to

school, it reminds me again of just

how lucky I am to have been born

British. Just how lucky we all are

to have been born British. We have

one of the world's biggest, most

successful economies. We speak the

language of global business, the

language of the World Wide Web, the

World Wide Web that we invented. We

are home to more Nobel prizewinners

bar one. Our legal system is the

most respected in the world. We are

unrivalled in art, culture, the

creative industries. The NHS is the

envy of countless nations. We've

given the world everything, from

steam engines to Shakespeare and

even the glorious game of cricket.

We may not be the biggest, we may

not be the brashest, but Britain is

without doubt the best country in

the world to work, to play, to learn

and to live. A country with an

incredible history and an amazing

future still yet to come. This

Budget builds on that history and it

embraces the future. This is a

country that should be proud, and

this is a Budget that truly does it

justice and I commend it to the

House.

It's an honour to speak on

behalf of the SNP in this second day

of debate on the second 2017 Budget.

But this Budget is no better than

the last one. The UK Government are

in chaos. The Cabinet are hamstrung

and unable to take basic decisions.

Brexit and the likely economic

fallout is said to have a dramatic

impact on household budgets of so

many people. The OBR unlike the

government has taken this threat

seriously. They've downgraded our

GDP figure accordingly. This is the

worst downgrade in the OBR's

projections since its creation seven

years ago. The outlook of GDP growth

is worse on all counts than even the

OBR's predictions in spring.

GDP might seem like anything aerial

concert -- concept. But this equates

to £1000 per year in wages. That is

£19 per week. £19 per week less to

spend on essentials like food and

electricity. How will lower income

families cope if they are spending

-- Krista Bakker spending slashed by

an extra £19 per week. -- if their

spending is slashed by next June 19

pounds per week. The Fraser and

Islander institution have reported

that the GDP damage the heart Brexit

could cost Scotland 80,000 jobs.

That is 80,000 folk having to

struggle through the job centre

system, whose journey back to

employment has been even more

painful and less dignified why the

number of job centre is closed by

this Government. The Scottish

Government estimates that a heart

Brexit could reduce GDP by £11 per

year in Scotland by 2013. -- hard

Brexit. That is even less to spend

on public services. That is only the

impact on Scotland. This amount

would pay the salary for 185,000 new

police officers. 161,000 teachers,

and that is only the impact in

Scotland. The Chancellor has

announced large as for Scotland, £2

billion, but this is smoke and

mirrors. -- has announced largesse.

This money has to be paid back. It

can't be used for front line

services. If the Chancellor was

going to make an announcement for

Scotland he should have done an

actual announcement, real money

which could be spent by the Scottish

Government at its discretion.

Between 2011 and 2019 Scotland's

Budget has seen a cut of £2.6

billion in real terms. Over £200

million less to spend on front line

public services next year. The grant

as been reduced by £531 million. Is

this £2 billion more for the

Scottish Government to spend? It is

not. The Chancellor has announced

the VAT will not apply to police and

Fire Services. He hasn't agreed to

give us the rebate we are owed, £140

million is owed to Scotland.

Thank

you. Is it not the fact that the SNP

Government were given good notice

and warning that the impact of their

centralisation of Scottish police

and fire and rescue would create

this situation? Is it not the case

that it is the Scottish members of

parliament here who's lobbying of

ministers has delivered a situation

where we get the SNP Government out

of the mess they created?

Not long

ago Murdoch Fraser, Scottish

Conservative member, was saying in

the Scottish parliament we shouldn't

have the money paid back to us. That

it should not be paid back because

it was our fault for centralising.

Centralisation which the Scottish

Tories supported. It was in their

manifesto. The Chancellor has agreed

this was unfair, that this was

taking money away from our front

line public services, yet he is

refusing to refund this money. We

have raised this issue. We have

called for this change to be made

140 times by the Deputy Speaker. The

Scottish Tories have raised it once

in this house. Once. 140 times we

have raised it. It's ridiculous for

them to suggest that pressure from

them has twisted the Chancellor's

arm. And in fact, if it was true

that the Scottish Tories had twisted

the Chancellor's arm, if it is true

that he was only willing to listen

to representations from Conservative

members of Parliament, what does

that say about the Chancellor's

honour? On money for Scotland...

Order. I missing

-- I am listening very carefully.

She's choosing her words carefully.

I'm sure she isn't impugning the

member of any member of this house.

She asked a rhetorical question, and

I'm sure she will not push it any

further than that.

Thank you I

won't. The other thing the SNP have

been calling for, that the Scottish

Tories have been unable to do, is

the £190 million convergence uplift

owed to our farmers. That money

should come to Scottish farmers and

we will continue to push for that.

If the UK Government was not in such

chaos it would have recognised the

folly of Brexit. But even if they do

decide to proceed with this

incredibly damaging policy, there is

certainty they could give now that

would reduced slightly the economic

harm. They could abandon their

migration cap. This would help keep

our public services fully staffed.

Earlier this year the NNN is the

produced an annual report on the

number of registered nurses and

midwives. -- NMNC. Registrations in

the last 12 years were down. 86%

from Italy. 87% from Romania. And

95% from Spain. These are trained

nurses and midwives who have done

their training, who are registering

to work in the UK, in the NHS, to

work in our front line services, to

provide nursing care and midwifery

care for people who are in

incredibly vulnerable states. This

Government is closing the door. They

are ensuring that few of these

people come. Ensuring our public

services are worse staffed as a

result. On housing, we need workers

from the EU. In London alone, one

third of construction workers are

from the EU. The Government cannot

say they intend to build more

housing while at the same time

shutting the door to many of those

skilled construction workers. The

Chancellor has announced this

wonderful new policy of no stamp

duty for first-time buyers buying a

house for less than £300,000 in

England and Wales. In time honoured

tradition one of the Chancellor's

biggest Budget commitments has

fallen apart in less than 24 hours.

The OBR have confirmed that house

prices would increase. £3.2 billion

it has cost. But the OBR expects

3500 houses to change hands as a

result of this. That's £924,000 each

the Government is subsidising these

new houses. £924,000 each house, for

this policy. One of the tax experts

I follow on Twitter has said that

virtually every tax expert thinks

this policy sucks.

Would she share with the house the

effects of the SNP Government's

housing tax, which has been an

unmitigated disaster. Perhaps she

should be more full as to the

effects of her Scottish Government

and what they have done to the

Scottish property market.

I was just

a way to talk about that. I was just

about to talk about that it is way

more progressive than the situation

put forward by the UK Government.

Before I go on to that, though, I

want to make clear the Scottish

Government is investing £3 billion

in affordable housing. 50,000

affordable homes will be built over

the course of this Scottish

parliament. 35,000 of those will be

for social rent, which is sadly

missing from the UK Government's

proposal. We are supportive of

social housing, council housing, and

housing association housing. It's

very important thereon more bodies

available to rent. On land and

buildings transaction tax, those

buying a house for less than

£145,000 in Scotland pay no stamp

duty in Scotland. Going over that

threshold incurs a low stamp duty

charge. For first-time buyers they

will only pay £600. That has been in

place for the last two years.

£180,000 is more realistic for a

first-time buyer than £300,000. How

many first-time buyers without

inherited wealth have got £30,000 in

the bank to put down for a deposit?

The effect of the LB TD in Scotland

was that over the first two years

93% of those buying a house in

Scotland for more than £145,000 paid

less stamp duty than they would have

done in England. -- the effect of

the LBBT in Scotland. 92% of those

paid less than they do down here.

That's a significant portion. That's

93%. The action our Government has

taken was thought through. The

action isn't like the piecemeal

approach the UK Government takes.

Successive chancellors have insisted

on the right to pull rabbits out of

hats at budgets. This has led to the

drastic unravelling that occurs

after almost every Budget. The

Chancellor, if the Chancellor was

Collegiate, if he consulted on

measures, is he approached issues

like stamp duty, small business

taxation, income tax, with the

intention to review the whole system

we would see much better policy

decisions being made. We need more

coherence from Government. We need

less drama from chancellors. They

shouldn't be trying to pull rabbits

out of hats, they should be trying

to create a system which works,

rather than a system that will give

them a big headline the day after

Budget day. Eve you were to ask

somebody under 30 whether they

expect to have a pension, they would

likely tell you they don't. -- if

you were to ask. If you ask them

whether they thought they would be

able to buy a house, they would

likely laugh at you. But if you

asked them about their security,

about how precarious their housing

situation is, their work situation

is, they will tell you how difficult

it is to save for the future. They

will tell you how difficult it is to

build a stable life when their

landlords move them on every year.

And when they have to share with

other people. They will tell you how

difficult it is to safer the future

when working on zero hours

contracts. When the Chancellor is

suggesting the minimum wage is not

enough to live on, and doesn't apply

to under 26s, what they need is not

a cut in stamp duty. What they need

is not the ability to put £20,000

into a savings account and save

tax-free. What that actually need is

for their income to be significantly

higher than their expenditure. They

need an increase in the minimum

wage. They needed the crease in

rent. And a decrease in the cost of

living. -- the need is a decrease in

rent. The price of bread has gone up

2%, the price of fish has gone 10%,

the price of butter has gone up 12%,

a 3% rise on children's clothing. We

have wage stagnation. People cannot

afford the most basic of essentials.

Millennials, people under 30, need a

decrease in rent. The typical

millennial has earned £8,000 less

during their 20s than those in the

preceding generation. We have an

economic time bomb which is ticking.

Household debts continue to rise.

Interest rates are going up. That's

a major problem, given the household

debt increase we have seen.

Increasing the personal allowance is

welcome news from the Chancellor,

but it isn't enough. Increasing it

by £350. That's £350 you will not

pay 20% tax on. That's pennies in

the grand scheme of things. It won't

make the difference we want to see

by having a real living wage. I

mentioned the issue is the IFS have

raised, that they are predicting two

decades of lost wage growth. The UK

Government continues to fail. This

Budget didn't help. This Government

is in chaos. The Chancellor has

taken no real action to undo the

years of austerity, wage stagnation,

that punishes our most vulnerable.

The Government should tear this

Budget up and start again. With

spending commitments that will help

our most vulnerable. With a U-turn

on the benefits freeze. With the

devolution of powers for Scotland so

we can tackle things properly. You

are harming the whole of the UK and

the SNP will fight you every step of

the way, Chancellor.

Thank you. I hope to find an early

opportunity to speak out on the

right level of defence spending to

meet the threats that our country

faces, and to do so more freely than

the constraints of government

allowed. But today I want to focus

on the Budget before us. This is the

first Budget of this Brexit

Parliament, and I warmly welcome it.

It is indeed extraordinary that we

still have no answers from the front