Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer 2025-12-10

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central criticised the motion and called on the shadow Chancellor to apologise for policies under previous Conservative Governments, including the 15% spike in interest rates during the Liz Truss mini-Budget.

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness agreed with Sir Mel Stride, emphasising that the issue of trust was most corrosive for the Government, highlighting job losses in hospitality and reductions in teacher numbers.

The hon. Member for Telford thanked Sir Mel Stride for the debate but argued that it was a moment to celebrate their Chancellor who had taken steps such as removing the rape clause and giving justice to miners.

The hon. Member for Bolsover welcomed the debate, thanking Sir Mel Stride for giving way on issues affecting women and celebrating actions taken by their Chancellor.

The hon. Member for Calder Valley questioned whether work was a route out of poverty under previous Conservative Governments, citing data showing two-thirds of children growing up in poverty have parents who are in work.

The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens criticised the Chancellor's lack of experience in industry or commerce, highlighting the impact on family farms due to changes in inheritance tax.

The hon. Member highlights the need for a different approach in Northern Ireland with respect to funding and local growth, criticises the Government's refusal to understand these differences, and calls for a Government that listens to constituents' needs.

The hon. Member questions Sir Mel Stride on his support for the triple lock and challenges him by pointing out that under Labour, pensioner poverty was higher due to Conservative policies inherited from their predecessors.

The hon. Member criticises Sir Mel Stride for tripling the debt service while in office and urges him to apologise for mortgaging the future of children as a result of Conservative policies.

The hon. Member acknowledges the pressure that covid put on the economy but highlights steps being taken by Labour to reduce the deficit and borrowing.

The right hon. Member questions how best to describe the repeated failure of the Chancellor to keep her promises, suggesting synonyms for falsehood or untruth.

My right hon. Friend criticises Labour's borrowing as a career recovery loan benefiting only two individuals—the Chancellor and Prime Minister—and argues that these loans are politically motivated rather than economically necessary.

Dr Evans highlights the impact of budget cuts on health services, specifically mentioning staff redundancies in integrated care boards and how funding is being reprofiled into later years. He supports Stride's argument about the impracticality of back-loaded tax increases.

Burton-Sampson questions whether Labour can realistically implement future tax rises and highlights that the Chancellor created a significantly larger fiscal headroom compared to previous budgets, indicating responsibility in her approach despite criticism.

Swayne discusses political challenges faced by the Government due to their inability to reduce benefits bill growth. He criticises Labour's policy changes and the impact on pensioners who withdrew funds from their pensions based on uncertain budget briefings.

Murrison supports Stride’s argument by citing a specific example of how uncertainty in pre-Budget briefings led to pension fund withdrawals and economic impacts on businesses and consumers, reinforcing the need for fiscal responsibility.

Energy bills are currently almost £600 higher than Labour promised they would be at the election. Ofgem has come in with an additional £108 for infrastructure charges, making energy bills go up again in January and April.

Supports the Budget measures that take £150 off energy bills and provide extra £150 to households on lowest income. The Budget delivers for working people by investing in NHS, defence, roads, railways, and every region of the UK.

Chancellor's actions are a breach of Labour manifesto commitment not to raise income tax thresholds. Chancellor froze income tax thresholds but claimed it was not in breach of manifesto, which is rank dishonesty.

Chancellor did not mention the upgrade to public finances that was twice as much (£32 billion) as the downgrade (£16 billion). Chancellor knew about this at the time but omitted it, giving an inaccurate reflection of the state of public finances.

Asks if Minister truly believes that the Treasury and Chancellor discharged their duty of candour in dealings. Government's Public Office (Accountability) Bill is important, but actions over past couple of months suggest otherwise.

Proud of the 45% fall in people waiting more than a year for their operation in Black Country hospital trusts due to decisions made by Chancellor in last Budget that have enabled this.

Investment in NHS is not just an investment in buildings but also in people. People waiting years for NHS appointments affects the economy and their pockets, making it a serious drag on our economy inherited from previous Government.

Critics the Government for £11 billion of taxpayers' money lost in covid fraud. Claims that an apology is due from them.

Questions whether taxes went up as planned and if the manifesto was fully costed, suggesting the Chancellor misled the country before the election and during the Budget.

Inquires about who gave authority for a press briefing on incorrect information, questioning the seriousness of the premature publication of the Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

Asks if the recommendation to remove EFO publishing from the locally managed website has been implemented, suggesting immediate action is required.

Critiques the process of Budget preparation as being a mess with leaks and flip-flopping. Suggests Sweden's system for Budget publication should be emulated, promoting transparency and democratic accountability.

Asked about funding for dental training places in his constituency and criticised the government for accusing opposition parties of opposing tax rises without proposing alternatives, despite Liberal Democrats setting out multiple ways to raise taxes.

Expressed frustration with the Treasury Bench's chuntering about agreeing with Labour on taxes. Mentioned that this Government has taken £66 billion out of the real economy, which will negatively impact growth.

表达了对预算对企业影响的关注，特别是商业税。她提到去年的预算中，就业税将筹集100亿英镑，并且支持政府提高远程游戏税。认为经济增长是关键，而不是通过征税来实现繁荣。呼吁部长们重新考虑零售、酒店和休闲企业的乘数效应。

批评就业税是一个特别错误的税收政策，认为它对实体经济造成了250亿至260亿英镑的影响，并没有产生相应的收入。支持部长们需要更深入地思考与欧洲合作促进经济增长的方式。

感谢首席财政大臣和影子财政大臣的演讲，但对反对党的动议感到失望，认为它针对的是一个人而不是角色。强调他对人民生活的积极影响，并支持预算中取消两胎上限的规定。他认为这是个好预算是因为没有增加大多数哈罗居民的税收负担。

提到她在预算演讲后的讲话中提到了与预算相关的不当行为，认为现在开始了解这些不当行为的具体情况。她还提及OBR已经发表了关于错误的完整分析，导致了在财政大臣发表声明前发布了预算。

Dr Sandher argued that the debate should focus more on the challenges of affordability, climate change, and military preparedness rather than procedural issues. He discussed the Chancellor's budget addressing these crises and mentioned the impact of past hard decisions made during his time in Somaliland.

Mr Stuart criticised the Chancellor for deceiving the public about tax receipts, which were £16 billion higher than expected. He highlighted the economic consequences of such deception on trust and borrowing costs.

Mr Wild emphasised that the debate is about honesty, trust, and confidence regarding the Chancellor's conduct. He argued that misleading narratives damaged workers, savers, pensioners, and investors by causing uncertainty in economic decision-making.

Asks James Wild about the consistency of the Chancellor's narrative with OBR reports.

Defends the Government, stating that Opposition Members are focused on process rather than policy. Emphasises that the Budget will cut costs of living and invest in NHS while raising pay for the lowest earners.

Supports Dan Tomlinson's argument, highlighting how the Conservative party would plunge 4,600 children in his constituency back into poverty if they were to implement their policies.

Questions Dan Tomlinson about the shadow Chancellor's previous statements on the Government's mini-Budget, suggesting that he is focusing on process due to poor policy judgment.

Asked whether the Treasury accepts that hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions due to incorrect briefing around the Budget, an irrevocable decision.

Criticised the Opposition for fueling speculation with clickbait headlines which was damaging. He sought clarity from the Minister on this issue.