Budget Changes

The Government is delivering on its long-term economic plan through the Budget, which includes reducing income tax for more people, supporting small businesses and encouraging investment. This Budget has been approved by the British public and delivers growth, employment creation, deficit reduction and future prosperity.

The Government's decision to cut personal independence payments for disabled people is indefensible. The proposed cuts are disproportionately impacting poorer working-age households with children. There needs to be clarity on which other vulnerable groups might face budget cuts, as this could further widen the fiscal gap.

A Chancellor should prioritise medium-term national interest when preparing a Budget. The current approach of providing popular spending commitments while failing to control Budgets may lead to economic instability similar to that experienced by Greece, Italy or the UK under Gordon Brown.

Given the expected changes to last week’s Budget announcements, there should be a requirement for a supplementary corrective Budget. This is not just a quick statement; it warrants significant scrutiny and debate.

The Chancellor's decision to cut personal independence payments is causing considerable distress among disabled people. There needs to be transparency regarding the revised Budget scorecard without these cuts.

Thanking the Minister for £3.5 million provided by the Chancellor to the Samaritans to assist military personnel suffering from mental health issues.

The Minister must accept there will be a serious problem with the votes on Budget resolutions tomorrow due to changes made. He asks how embarrassed the Minister is today.

Responds that there are no votes on personal independence payments in the Budget resolutions, and criticises Chris Leslie for not knowing this fact.

Praises the small business rate relief measures, stating they have been widely welcomed by the Federation of Small Businesses because they promote growth and employment.

Agrees with Stephen Hammond, noting that there has been strong support from small businesses for the Budget's content and emphasises the Government's commitment to them.

Critiques the Chancellor's absence and his Budget policy, highlighting that it will leave the richest 10% better off while potentially punishing the disabled. He suggests scrapping the fiscal charter.

Responds by noting that under current policies, the highest earners are paying more than half of all tax revenues, which would not have been possible had they stuck with the inherited system in 2010.

Supports the Government's policy and suggests that it aligns with what the British people want: a focus on growth, employment, helping low-income earners, and investing in healthcare and mental health issues.

Agrees with James Morris, stating that last May, the British people endorsed their long-term economic plan and they must stick to it.

Questions whether local authorities will be fully compensated for the reduction in business rates as promised by Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers, suggesting another budget shortfall of £1.7 billion.

Asserts that local authorities will indeed be compensated for the reduction in business rates.

Supports the Chancellor's efforts to balance the budget, but suggests ending the ring-fencing of the international aid budget as it limits other Departments' spending flexibility.

States that fulfilling the 0.7% target for international aid is a manifesto commitment and cannot be changed.

Questions the length of time for which the current economic plan can realistically be called 'long-term'.

Reiterates that the Government has turned around the economy, delivering record employment levels and a forecasted fastest-growing major western economy in 2014 and beyond.

Asks if spending on disability payments will increase by £2 billion over the past five years, and further £1 billion over the next five years.

Confirms that spending has increased significantly for disabled people despite inheriting a large deficit in 2010.

Asks the Minister to apologise on behalf of all disabled individuals affected by recent turmoil over benefit support and seeks clarity on future plans for them.

States that spending has increased for disabled people, and indicates the Secretary of State will make a statement shortly regarding Government policy in this area.

Points out that the shadow Chancellor previously promised to not play politics with disability benefits issues if the Government revisited their policies, and asks for agreement on treating this seriously.

Responds sceptically about the opposition's past assurances of non-politicisation.

Questions whether the Red Book still forms the basis for the Budget, and if so, confirms that a £4.4 billion cut to disability benefits remains in place.

Asserts that the Government's plans are on course to deliver a budget surplus by the end of Parliament, which would not have been possible under Labour’s approach.

Asks if the Financial Secretary will continue supporting small businesses and those generating jobs for others.

Affirms support for small businesses, stating that they are crucial to economic recovery and job creation.

Asks about the details of the north Wales growth field announced in the Budget.

Indicates that the Government will engage with Welsh authorities but suggests a Conservative government would be best for the future of the Welsh economy.

Praises the Chancellor and Treasury's steadfast stewardship over six years, supporting small businesses, motorists, local brewers, pubs, and job creation.

Agrees with Simon Hoare, stressing that the Government has turned around the economy and brought public finances under control after inheriting a mess in 2010.

Questions whether the Financial Secretary can respond to an allegation suggesting the Chancellor views disability benefit claimants as non-voters, allowing for unrestrained cuts.

Responds by noting that spending on disability living allowance and personal independence payments has increased since 2010, contradicting the allegation of cutting at the expense of disabled people.

Asks if the Government remains committed to halving the disability employment gap alongside current policies.

Agrees with Robin Walker and confirms that this issue will be addressed in a statement by the Secretary of State later.

Asks who from the next generation might succeed the Chancellor as per his claim that it is a Budget for them.

Responds by questioning Ian Lucas on whether this is his best effort at criticism.

Suggests that reducing the welfare bill should focus on job creation rather than punishing those dependent on benefits.

Responded to multiple questions regarding the Budget, affirming plans for small business rate relief and tax threshold changes. Emphasised the importance of reducing the deficit and controlling public finances.

Asked about the frequency of future Budgets, suggesting it might be weekly based on recent pace, though David Gauke dismissed this notion.

Noted the irony of an urgent debate delaying a Budget announcement and inquired about the influence of long-term economic planning over short-term thinking.

Asked for clarity on when the official Budget schedule will be published.

Inquired about the certainty of positive measures in the Budget, such as small business rate relief and tax threshold increases.

Critiqued past borrowing practices and challenged the Government on its approach to welfare changes affecting disabled people.

Praised measures supporting self-employed individuals, noting previous Labour party policies did less in this regard over 13 years.

Expressed condolences for a local tragedy and questioned the Government's approach to economic planning amid frequent Budget changes.

Highlighted support for tackling homelessness, including significant funding allocations.

Questioned the justification for retaining a substantial cut to capital gains tax amid lower growth and productivity forecasts.

Highlighted positive outcomes from Government policies, such as job creation and disability support initiatives.

Suggested that regional allocations in the Budget might be driven by political considerations rather than national interest.

Compared the current Government's responsiveness to previous administrations, highlighting changes made during the Conservative government.

Asked for clarification on missing funds from the Budget and when the Chancellor would reveal where these funds are found.

Acknowledged the Government's record in tackling unemployment and creating apprenticeships as a demonstration of their commitment to improving life chances.

Quoted former Minister Duncan Smith’s criticism of welfare changes for disabled people within the Budget, questioning their defensibility.

The shadow Chancellor's financial discipline is not lasting long as speakers have promised to spend more money without detailing how to finance it. The Government has allocated £2 million for a new children’s hospital in Southampton, which will greatly benefit young people and is separate from party politics.

The strong economy managed by the Government over six years allows steps such as funding the NHS properly. The deficit must be controlled, but it should not be done on the backs of the poor.

The SNP agrees with cutting the deficit and controlling debt without hurting the poor. However, with disability cuts and future budget cuts, combined with tax breaks for corporations and income thresholds, does the Minister believe we are all in this together?

The top rate of income tax is 45% today. It was 40% for 99.3% of the previous Labour Government's tenure, with about 4 million basic rate taxpayers now exempt from paying income tax under the Conservatives.

The Chancellor lacks courage in failing to show how he proposes to meet his fiscal targets. This discourtesy renders us incapable of properly examining the Budget.

Investing in education is one of the best ways to improve life chances for able-bodied and disabled individuals. The £1.6 billion investment set out in the Budget will help the next generation get the best start in life.

Cutting £4.4 billion from disabled people through personal independence payments is unfair when they are twice as likely to live in poverty, while at the same time giving tax breaks in corporation and capital gains taxes.

The Government's help for self-employed people through business rates or national insurance contributions demonstrates that they understand what makes the economy work and benefits many more people.

Over 7,000 disabled individuals in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan will be affected by the cut to personal independence payments. The Chancellor's absence is noted as he does not apologise for these cuts and does not explain how the £4.4 billion black hole will be filled.

The Cardiff city deal delivered by this Budget contrasts with Labour's centralising approach in Wales, welcoming business rates relief and localism. The Welsh Assembly Government should follow the lead of empowering businessmen and women.