Jeremy Hunt MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Feb 2025 · Mental Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Minister aware of the brilliant work done by Mersey Care NHS foundation trust in reducing in-patient mental health suicides to zero, which is an extraordinary achievement. Under a former Health Secretary, who may be standing not a million miles away from where I am standing now, that became an objective for all mental health in-patient units across the NHS. Will the Minister look into whether that objective still stands? If not, can it be reinstated?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  When the UK persuaded NATO to spend 2% of GDP on defence in 2014, just two other countries did so; now, 23 countries do. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time once again for the UK to play a leadership role in Europe by persuading NATO to spend the money it should and keep America part of the alliance?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the Office for Budget Responsibility refused to endorse the £22 billion black hole figure—in fact, it refused to say that there was any black hole at all—will the Secretary of State tell the House what possible justification there can be for the removal of agricultural property relief, which will do untold damage to the growth prospects of family farms in my constituency and across the country?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Digital Connectivity: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Can I add to the Minister’s list of beautiful villages to visit the wonderful villages of Cranleigh, Shamley Green, Peaslake, Gomshall and Bramley? They are all having big problems with 4G and 5G mobile phone reception, not least because apps need to be used to pay for parking there. Can he meet me to discuss what more can be done to help those beautiful, but also economically important, places?

• 19 Nov 2024 · NHS Health and Social Care Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s plans to reform the NHS, but may I caution against the idea that the answer is to fire more incompetent managers? The problem is not bad management: it is micromanagement from the centre that sees hospitals managed with more than 100 targets by NHS England, making ours one of the most micromanaged healthcare systems in the world. Will the Secretary of State’s plans allow managers more autonomy, helping them to innovate, save money and improve care for patients?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to open this day of the Budget debate with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, for what will be my last contribution as shadow Chancellor. I am aware that may be a relief to Members on the Government Benches, and possibly to those on the Opposition Benches as well. Yesterday’s Budget was the biggest tax-raising Budget in British history. It was a huge tax on business and takes our tax burden up to German levels for the first time. After the pandemic, the previous Government also put up taxes, but we started to bring them down, because higher tax leads to lower growth. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that yesterday’s £40 billion of tax rises would lead to lower pay, lower living standards, higher prices and more expensive mortgages. Without remorse and without hesitation, a triumphalist Government have ripped up the pre-election promises that they made in the biggest ever assault on our economic competitiveness since the 1970s. Let us look at the promises cast aside so casually. The Chancellor said that she would not change the debt target, because she was “not going to fiddle the figures or make something different to get better results”. Yesterday, she did exactly that. In May she said that Labour policy “will be fully costed and fully funded. No ifs, no ands, no buts”— and no additional tax rises. A total of 30 times this year, she promised not to do exactly what she did yesterday. She even said that she wanted to bring the burden of tax down. Ordinary families, small businesses and working people believed her. Yesterday, they were betrayed. It went further. When we said in the election that taxes would go up by £2,000 per household over four years, the Leader of the Opposition at the time accused the then Prime Minister of a deliberate lie. Three months on, they will go up not by £2,000 over four years, but by £2,000 every year. Paul Johnson called it a “straightforward breach of a manifesto commitment”. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has today said: “The continued pretence that these changes will not affect working people risks further undermining trust.” The OBR said that 76% of the impact of the national insurance rise would pass through to lower wages. And because the Government planned this all along, we now know why they rushed so fast to concoct the fiction of a black hole—something that was not corroborated by the OBR yesterday. It was cover not just to raise national insurance, but to impose countless other tax rises on working people: capital gains tax up; energy taxes up; stamp duty up; and taxes on family farms up—something we will oppose, for the sake of farmers up and down the country. Working people whose wages the Chancellor promised to protect will see them go down; businesses whose profits fund new investment will see them raided; markets to which she promised stability are absorbing the biggest tax-and-spend Budget in a generation; and all of us on the outside are left wondering which is worse, the damage to the economy or the damage to trust.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I always listen to the IFS, and indeed to the Resolution Foundation, very carefully. I think that the IFS was right— [ Interruption. ] Let me answer the point, if I may. The IFS was right to say that it would be very challenging to hold to 1% spending assumptions, but in the Budget earlier this year I explained exactly how we would do that. I asked the NHS, “How are we going to improve efficiency so that we can live within tight spending limits?” The NHS said, “We need to overhaul the IT systems.” We gave the NHS £3.5 billion to do so, and in return it was able to deliver 2% productivity savings.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but there was an even more basic difference between our Budget earlier this year and this one: as a result of measures in our Budget, the growth rate went up, whereas as a result of measures in Labour’s Budget, the growth rate went down. Reducing the number of working-age people claiming health-related benefits back to pre-pandemic levels would save £34 billion a year. It would bring more people into the workforce and improve the wellbeing of the individuals concerned, but welfare reform was dropped from the King’s Speech, and yesterday’s Budget saw the welfare bill rise by an average of £13 billion a year. According to the OBR, increasing public sector productivity—another area that we did not hear much about—to pre-pandemic levels would raise £20 billion a year. We heard some warm words about that, but delivering it requires difficult negotiations with the unions. That was too difficult for the Government, who cancelled plans to reduce the civil service to pre-pandemic levels, increased the salaries of train drivers by £10,000, and gave junior doctors a 22% pay rise—all without asking for a single productivity improvement in return. It was no strings for the unions, but no help for 2.5 million pensioners in poverty. The Government should be ashamed. Picking the pockets of businesses, which do not vote, is the easy path, but when it damages economic growth, the result is less money for the NHS, less money for schools and less money for the armed forces, which is why, in the end, Labour Governments always run out of money.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  Let me tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happened to business investment under the last Government. Since 2010, we attracted more foreign greenfield direct investment than not just anywhere in Europe, but anywhere in the world apart from the United States and China. That was foreigners voting with their dollars as to where they wanted to invest in the world, and they said, “Outside the United States and China, there is nowhere that we want to invest more than the United Kingdom.” Compare that with what the OBR said about yesterday’s Budget: business investment will not just fall, but fall by even more than the amount of the extra investment caused by public investment going up.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman ought to read the next paragraph, in which the OBR says that it is “not possible to judge” how much those pressures would have been offset by savings elsewhere, which demonstrates that they were within the range of the normal cost reductions that a Chief Secretary to the Treasury would make ahead of any Budget.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that for decades we have had lower business investment in the UK economy than our peers. That was why, in the autumn statement a year ago, I introduced full expensing, which was the big business tax request, to make it more attractive to invest in new factories, capital, machinery, here than anywhere else in the OECD, and that was widely welcomed. The other part of our legacy—the so-called worst inheritance since the second world war—was the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and one that the IMF said would grow faster than Italy, France, Germany or Japan over the next five years. The Government probably thought it was a clever political trick to rubbish their inheritance, but trash-talking the British economy has real- world consequences. We see the sharpest decline in consumer confidence since the beginning of the pandemic. Lloyds bank, KPMG and the Institute of Directors all saying that business confidence has plummeted. The former chief economist of the Bank of England says that the Chancellor has generated “fear and foreboding” and uncertainty among consumers, among business, and among investors in UK plc. And we see higher bond yields, leading to higher debt interest payments. Careless talk costs jobs and money, and this Government have been careless. What every economist does, however, agree is that if we are to increase our living standards to German or American levels we need higher productivity, and that means more investment. But according to the OBR, yesterday’s measures will mean lower investment overall. Higher public investment is more than offset by lower business investment because of huge tax increases. Lloyds bank said that the increase in employers’ national insurance is a “handbrake” on investment. UKHospitality said it is a “tax on jobs” and “makes it harder to employ people and to take a risk on recruitment and expansion.” The Federation of Small Businesses says it will shrink small business employment, and the Institute of Directors has likened it to the poll tax.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I actually liked neither. I was the person who reversed the decisions made in the mini-Budget, but I will say this: at least Liz Truss wanted to grow the economy and said so explicitly. What we had yesterday is a Budget where the Government’s official forecaster said the impact would be lower growth, fewer jobs and lower investment. We were promised the most pro-growth Government in history, but in just 17 weeks we have ended up with German taxes and French labour laws, higher taxes, higher mortgages, less investment, lower wages, lower living standards and lower growth, less money for public services on which we all depend, and less money in the pockets of working people—same old Labour, same old spin. It didn’t end well before and it won’t end well this time, either.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member shakes his head, but yesterday the Chancellor said that she was going to roll that out to the whole of the public sector. I think that it is possible to do so; my concern is that doing so involves difficult decisions, and the track record of this Government is that when those decisions involve a conversation with the unions, they run a mile. The final spurious claim from the Chancellor was that yesterday’s draconian measures were necessary because she had received the worst economic inheritance since world war two. Not a single independent economist supports that claim, and it is not hard to see why. Inflation is at 1.7%, around half what it was in 2010. Unemployment is at 4%, nearly half the 2010 level. If the public finances were in the same state today that they were in back in 2010, the deficit would now be £160 billion higher, which is the entire budget of the NHS. Instead, we left behind a deficit that had been halved, and was lower than that of France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend—I say “my hon. Friend” because he is a great friend to us—for what he has said and I could not agree with him more. When we talk about stability, anybody who has run a business knows that the most stable businesses in the country are family businesses that are passed from generation to generation. This is not just about farms, but about any small businesses that are passed down through the generations. This is a hammer blow to their plans to invest for the future. I wish to move on, because the main argument that the Government make—I am sure that we will hear this from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—is that all this is necessary to improve public services. We on the Conservative Benches want to say, right up front, that it is absolutely right to prioritise public services. As Health Secretary, I negotiated an increase in the NHS budget of £20 billion a year, and, in this year’s Budget, I increased it by a further £6 billion. Many times I said as Chancellor that I wanted to avoid austerity cuts to public services. We would have done so this time, not by using tax rises that harm working families and businesses, but by taking difficult decisions on welfare reform and productivity—decisions that were ducked yesterday.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This are indeed our final exchanges in the House, so before tomorrow’s fireworks I wish the Chancellor well for the future in her role. There has been a lot of common ground between us. For example, before the election she said that raising employers’ national insurance was a jobs tax that would take money out of people’s pockets. I very much agree with her on that; does she agree with herself?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We all know why the Chancellor is inventing this fictitious black hole. Thirty times this year, before the election, she promised not to raise tax, and now she is planning to present the biggest tax-raising Budget in history. More consensually, however, as this is our final exchange, I welcome her announcement last week of a £2.3 billion loan for Ukraine. Does she agree that the strongest signal of resolve that we can send to Putin is a commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and does she understand why so many people are worried by the fact that she has yet to do so?

• 3 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  When the Chancellor was sitting on the Opposition Benches she repeatedly attacked cronyism, so will she tell the House whether she told the Treasury permanent secretary that Ian Corfield had made a donation to her before she got him appointed as a director in the Treasury—yes or no?

• 3 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I think that means the answer is no. The ministerial code states: “Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise”. That did not happen. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House why cronyism is wrong under the Conservatives but acceptable under Labour?

• 29 Jul 2024 · Public Spending: Inheritance · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor says that the information is new, but she told the Financial Times : “You don’t need to win an election to find” out the state of public finances, as “We’ve got the OBR now.” Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said: “The state of public finances were apparent pre-election to anyone who cared to look” which is why he and other independent figures say that her argument is not credible and will not wash. Those public finances were audited by the OBR just 10 weeks before the election was called. We are now expected to believe that, in that short period, a £20 billion black hole has magically emerged, but for every single day in that period—in fact, since January, in line with constitutional convention—the right hon. Lady had privileged access to the Treasury permanent secretary. She could have found out absolutely anything she needed. Will she confirm to the House that she did have meetings with the permanent secretary of the Treasury before the election? Will she tell the House whether they discussed public finances? Will she tell the House whether they discussed any of the pressures that she is talking about today? If so, why are we only hearing today what she wants to do about them? That is why today’s exercise is not economic—it is political. The Chancellor wants to blame the last Conservative Government for tax rises and project cancellations that she has been planning all along. The trouble is, even her own published numbers expose the fiction behind today’s announcement. Just four days ago, she presented to the House the Government’s estimates of spending plans for the year. Those estimates are a legal requirement. The official guidance manual is clear that Departments are responsible for ensuring that estimates are consistent with their “best forecast of requirements”. They are signed off by the most senior civil servants—the accounting officers—in every Department. Yet, four days on, she is saying that those estimates are wrong. Who is right: politically neutral civil servants or a political Chancellor? If she is right, will she ask the cabinet secretary to investigate those civil servants and apologise to the House for laying misleading estimates? Of course not, because she knows that those civil servants are right and today’s black hole is spurious, just like when she says that she inherited the “worst set of economic circumstances” since the second world war. When BBC Verify asked a professor at the London School of Economics about that claim, he responded: “I struggle to find a metric that would make that statement correct.” The metrics speak for themselves. Inflation is 2% today —nearly half what it was in 2010 when we had to clear up the mess inherited from a Labour Government. Unemployment is nearly half what it was then, with more new jobs than nearly anywhere else in Europe. So far this year, we are the fastest growing G7 economy. Over the next six years, the IMF says that we will grow faster than France, Italy, Germany and Japan. Just two days before the election was called, the managing director of the IMF praised the previous Government’s handling of the economy, and said it was in a good place. This week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that it was “not a bad situation to take charge of” and certainly not comparable to the 1940s or 1970s. If the right hon. Lady is in charge of the economy, it is time to stop trash talking it. What is the point of going to New York or Brazil to bang the drum for more investment if she comes home with a cock and bull story about how bad everything is? She should stop playing politics with Britain’s reputation and get on with running the economy. When it comes to public finances, will the Chancellor confirm to the House that, far from being broke and broken, as Downing Street briefed the media, the forecast deficit today is 4.4%, compared with 10.3% when Labour left office in 2010? In other words, when Labour was last in office, we were borrowing double the current levels. Will she confirm another difference between today and 2010? The Conservatives came to office then, honest about our plans and saying straightforwardly that we needed to cut the deficit. She has just won an election telling us repeatedly that taxes will not go up. How many seats were won on the back of commitments not to raise tax, while she is quietly planning to do the exact opposite? On the details that the Chancellor has announced today, will she confirm that around half of today’s fictitious black hole comes from discretionary public sector pay awards—in other words, not something that she has to do, but something where she has a choice? Will she confirm to the House that, apart from the teachers recommendation, none of the other pay review body recommendations was seen by the last Government, as they arrived after the election was called? Today she has chosen to accept those recommendations, but before doing so, was she advised by officials to ask unions for productivity enhancements before accepting above-inflation pay awards, to help to pay for those awards, as the last Government did? If she was advised to do that, why did she reject that advice and simply tell the unions, “Here’s your money, thanks for your support”? Will she confirm— [ Interruption. ] I know Labour Members do not like the truth, but here it is. Will she confirm that one of the reasons for her funding gap is that she has chosen to backdate a 22% pay award to junior doctors, to cover the time when they were striking? We are just three months into the financial year, so why did the Chancellor not mention today that, at the start of the year, the Treasury had a reserve of £14 billion for unexpected revenue costs, and £4 billion for unexpected capital costs? Additionally, why has she not accounted for the Treasury’s ability to manage down in-year pressures on the reserve—last year alone by £9 billion? Why has she apparently not accounted for underspends—typically £12 billion a year? Has she totally abandoned the £12 billion of welfare savings planned by the last Government? If so, will she confirm that to the House? Has she also abandoned £20 billion of annual productivity savings planned by the last Government? If not, why are they not in her numbers? Finally, for someone who claims continuously the mantle of fiscal rectitude, will she confirm that in order to pay for her public spending plans, she will not change her fiscal rules to target a different debt measure, so she can increase borrowing and debt by the back door? Every Chancellor faces pressures on public finances. After a pandemic and an energy crisis, those pressures are particularly challenging, which is why in autumn 2022, the previous Government took painful but necessary decisions on tax and spend. But we knew that, if we continued to take difficult decisions on pay, productivity and welfare reform, we could live within our means and start to bring taxes down. She, on the other hand, knew perfectly well that a Labour Government would duck those difficult decisions. She has caved in to the unions on pay, left welfare reform out of the King’s Speech and soft-pedalled on our productivity programme. That is a choice, not a necessity. That choice means that taxes will have to go up and the right hon. Lady chose not to tell us before the election. Instead, in 24 days—just 24 days—she has announced £7.3 billion for GB Energy, £8.3 billion for the national wealth fund and around £10 billion for public sector pay awards. That is £24 billion in 24 days: around £1 billion for every day she has been in office, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab for her profligacy. Doing it this way, she makes the first major misstep of her time as Chancellor, because that great office of state depends more than any on trust— [ Interruption. ] In her first big moment, she breaks that trust with an utterly bogus attempt to hoodwink the public about the choices she has. Over 50 times in the election, Labour told us it had no plans to raise taxes. Now, in a U-turn that will forever shame this Labour Government, she is laying the ground to break her word. When she does, her first Budget will become the biggest betrayal in history by a new Chancellor. Working families will never forgive her.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Public Spending: Inheritance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement, and I echo her thoughts for the people and emergency services of Southport. Today, she will fool absolutely no one with a shameless attempt to lay the grounds for tax rises that she did not have the courage to tell us about— [ Interruption. ]

• 22 Jul 2024 · Economy, Welfare and Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add: “but humbly regret that there is no mention in the Gracious Speech of the improved economic conditions the Government is inheriting, with the fastest recorded growth in the G7, inflation at the Bank of England’s target for the second month in a row, and unemployment at half the rate that it was in 2010; further regret that there is no mention of how to make necessary savings on welfare; urge the Government to meet the commitment set out in the Labour Party’s manifesto not to raise taxes on working people; regret that the Gracious Speech fails to make a commitment not to use changes to reliefs to raise taxes; and call on the Government to increase income tax thresholds to prevent income tax from being charged on the State Pension.” It is an important and rather painful part of our democracy that today I am a shadow Chancellor, responding to the King’s Speech in exactly the same way that the new Chancellor responded to me just a few months ago, so I start by congratulating her, as well as Mr and Mrs Reeves. As the father of two girls, one of whom has her 10th birthday today, I warmly welcome the smashing of a glass ceiling by Britain’s first female Chancellor. As I said on election night, she has led the Labour party on a difficult journey, which has changed it for the better. Her stated commitment to fiscal responsibility, stability and economic growth has been consistent and, I am sure, not always easy. Unfortunately for us, her success in holding the line means that we face rather a lot of Labour MPs on the Government Benches, but I wish her well in her new role. I also commend to the right hon. Lady the superb Treasury officials she now inherits, and put on record my gratitude to them the excellent work they did for me, staying up in the middle of the night ahead of fiscal events, engaging in tense negotiations with spending Departments—and occasionally, it has to be said, with No. 10—bringing me endless flat whites and Pret lunches to keep me going and, most of all, making my family feel welcome in the goldfish bowl that is Downing Street. It is part of the magic of democracy that those same officials have seamlessly transferred their allegiance from me to her, and I know that they will serve her extremely well. In opposition, we will not oppose for its own sake, and there are a number of Bills in the King’s Speech that we welcome. The right hon. Lady is right to focus on growth, and the improvements on planning will build on many reforms introduced by the last Government, including the 110 growth measures I introduced in last year’s autumn statement. Any boost to house building is also welcome. We delivered 1 million homes in the last Parliament, and she will soon find out that if she is to deliver 1.5 million, she will not be able to duck reforming environmental regulations—a change that Labour blocked in the last Parliament but will deliver an extra 100,000 homes. I caution her not to over-rely on bringing back top-down targets. In the end, we will build more houses only if we change attitudes to new housing, and that is unlikely to happen if unpopular targets are steamrollered through local communities. We will also look carefully at the right hon. Lady’s Budget Responsibility Bill. We are proud that a Conservative Government set up the Office for Budget Responsibility, and I commend the work of Richard Hughes and his team. We did not always agree, but in the end, that is the point of an independent watchdog. We all understand the politics of a Bill that allows the Government to make endless references to the mini Budget, but if the right hon. Lady is really committed to fiscal responsibility alongside growth, I hope that she will today confirm that she will not fiddle with the five-year debt rule to allow increased debt through the back door. We—and, it has to be said, markets—will be monitoring the overall level of debt very carefully to make sure that that does not happen. I also hope that she will commission the OBR to do 10-year forecasts of our long-term growth rate rather than five-year forecasts, as at present, in order to bake long-term decision making into Treasury thinking.

• 22 Jul 2024 · Economy, Welfare and Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it allows me to explain why he is completely mistaken in what he is saying. We offered a set of carefully and fully funded tax cuts—unlike the £38.5 billion of unfunded spending commitments that came from the Labour party—but we always said that they would be brought in over time over the next Parliament. We did not make a commitment that they would come in immediately, and indeed they would not have. We would have done it in a responsible way. When it comes to dubious claims, the new Chancellor herself has been making some that do not withstand scrutiny. She said, for example, that the economy would have been £140 billion bigger if we had matched the average OECD growth rate, but she knows that the OECD is a diverse group of 38 countries, including many with economies very different from our own, such as Turkey, Mexico or Luxembourg. A much more meaningful comparison is with other similar G7 economies, which shows that since 2010 we have grown faster than France, Italy, Germany and Japan. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund says that thanks to difficult measures taken by the last Conservative Government, we will grow faster than any of those four countries, not just in the short term but over the next six years. One reason for that is our record on attracting investment. Since 2010, greenfield foreign direct investment has been higher in the UK than anywhere in the world except the United States and China. In the last year alone, Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover, Tata, BMW Mini, Google and Microsoft have all voted for the UK with their dollars, not least because of cuts in business taxation, such as full expensing, introduced by the last Government. If the Chancellor now looks for back-door ways to increase business taxation, as many fear, she will risk the UK’s attractiveness to foreign investors, of which she is now the beneficiary.

• 22 Jul 2024 · Economy, Welfare and Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, we are minded to support the Bill, subject to having had a close look at it, because we think it is perfectly sensible. Whether it is completely necessary is a different question, but it is perfectly sensible. We have grave concerns about some elements of the King’s Speech, with a Times editorial this week describing some of its Bills as “a dose of traditional socialist dogma”. Tony Blair came to office having removed the old clause IV of the Labour party constitution, because he knew that state-run businesses are rarely successful and usually end up being bailed out by the taxpayer. Last week, with their railway and energy plans, the Government brought forward more nationalisation than Blair ever did—indeed, more than any Government in modern times. If the Chancellor really cares about fiscal responsibility, she should beware. The reason why unions like publicly owned utilities is that they give them more leverage on pay and more ability to demand bail-outs. Unlearning the lessons of history will mean more strikes and bigger bills for the taxpayer. An even bigger concern for business is the impact on jobs of Labour’s new deal for workers. We have seen the creation of almost 4 million jobs since 2010, which is nearly 800 jobs for every single day that Conservative Governments were in office. The president of the Confederation of British Industry described the UK as a “job-creation factory” but, like many others, he expressed concern that the Deputy Prime Minister’s new labour laws could put that at risk. Day one rights sound attractive, but employers fear they will mean a flood of tribunal claims, meaning it is safer not to offer a job at all. That is why the Federation of Small Businesses responded to the King’s Speech by saying that companies are worried about increased costs and risks. In the end, French-style labour laws will lead to French levels of unemployment, which are nearly double our own—indeed, they are close to what they were when the last Labour Government were in office. By contrast, the Conservatives nearly halved unemployment over the last 14 years, and it would be a tragedy for working families up and down the country if the new Government turned the clock back. Finally, the most dubious claim of all is this nonsense about the Government having the worst economic inheritance since the second world war, which everybody knows is just a pretext for long-planned tax rises. People can see what nonsense this is by simply comparing it with the last time we had a change of Government in 2010. Inflation was 3.4%, compared with 2% today. Unemployment was 8%, compared with 4.4% today. Growth was forecast then to be among the slowest in the G7, compared with the fastest today. Instead of an economy in which markets and the pound were facing meltdown, the Chancellor has inherited an economy in which the Office for National Statistics has said that growth is “going gangbusters.” That has been backed up by even more data since the election. May’s GDP figures show that Britain’s growth was double the rate predicted by economists, and the fastest in more than two years. New figures from S&P show that, in February, British businesses were among the most optimistic in the world—top of the league again, according to the ONS. Inflation has remained at its 2% target level. In her BBC interview yesterday, the Chancellor glossed over those figures, putting on the most shocked expression she could muster, to pretend that public finances are worse than she expected. But the root cause of the pressure on public finances—£400 billion in pandemic support and £94 billion in cost of living support—was never a secret. Indeed, the Labour party supported those measures and, in some cases, called for us to go further. Nor were the difficult decisions we had to take to pay for them a secret either. When we had to increase borrowing, increase tax and reduce spending plans in the autumn statement of 2022, Labour did not oppose us. Like all Chancellors, she faces fiscal challenges: welcome to the job. But that job is a whole lot easier because, faced with an economic crisis two years ago, Conservatives took decisions that her predecessor Labour Government ducked completely after the financial crisis. That is why she has a deficit of 4.4% this year compared with 10.3% left behind for the Conservatives in 2010. She did not just compare her inheritance to 2010; she claimed to have the worst inheritance since the second world war. Is she really saying that she faces conditions worse than Geoffrey Howe in 1979, with a winter of discontent, stagflation, an 83% top rate of tax and a Labour Government who went with a begging bowl to be bailed out by the IMF? The Chancellor knows perfectly well that that claim is nonsense, otherwise why, in her first week, would she announce £7.3 billion of spending on her national wealth fund, without a spending review, a budget or any external validation from the OBR? As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says, thanks to the OBR the nation’s books are “wide open” and “fully transparent”, so pretending things are worse than expected “really won’t wash.” As she establishes her reputation, it is surely unwise to base her big central argument on a claim so patently ridiculous. But we all know exactly why the Chancellor is doing it. She wants to lay the ground for tax rises she has been planning all along, which leads to two major concerns. First, she says her No. 1 mission is growth, but all around the world, evidence suggests countries with higher taxes tend to grow more slowly. Lower taxes, when funded properly, boost growth, as we saw with full expensing and the national insurance cuts last year, both of which the OBR confirmed add to our GDP. However, keeping taxes down is hard work. I saw the numbers the Chancellor has seen just a few weeks ago, and the official advice was clear: with public sector pay restraint, productivity plans such as those we announced in the Budget, and welfare reform, it is perfectly possible to balance the books without tax rises. It is not easy—government never is—but not impossible. Yet all those three things—pay restraint, productivity improvements and welfare reform—were glaringly omitted from the King’s Speech. Instead, she has chosen an easier path: what Labour party sources told T he Guardian was a “doctor’s mandate” to raise taxes. The Chancellor has ruled out raising income tax, national insurance and VAT, but she should not think for one second that other tax rises will not impact working people. Capital gains tax destroys the pensions people build up over their lifetimes; business tax rises are passed on to customers, leading to higher bills; and taxes on banks and energy companies lead to fewer companies operating in the UK, a lower tax take and less money for public services such as the NHS. That is the biggest contradiction in the new programme —a Government who say they want the fastest growth in the G7 but, in the very same breath, plan tax rises that will make that growth harder, if not impossible, to achieve. Even if such an approach were misconceived, it is none the less a legitimate choice for a governing party. What is not acceptable is, just 18 days after the election, to be laying the ground for tax rises after the Chancellor promised us 50 times in the election campaign that she had no plans to raise them. Every Labour Government in history have raised taxes and raised spending. If she wanted to do the same, she should have had the courage to make the case for that before the election. Instead, she is softening us up for a colossal U-turn that will lead to lower growth, less money for public services and massive public anger, which is why I commend to the House the amendment in the Opposition’s name.