Andy Burnham

While the Budget provides some welcome support for high streets, so many businesses in Tiverton and Minehead tell me that excessive costs, regulation and red tape remain a drag on growth. Does the Minister agree that lasting economic growth will require not just short-term support but fundamental reform of business rates and tax administration so that businesses can invest, expand and create jobs with confidence?

I recently received an email from a publican in my constituency, who said: “I cannot find people willing to work minimum wage because they earn more on benefits, I cannot give my experienced staff a pay rise because minimum wage increases eat into my budget, and often people will turn up for interviews only to demonstrate that they are ‘looking for work’ at the Jobcentre before bunking off on their first day.” Can the Minister explain why he has used the Budget to compound the problems of an unaffordable minimum wage and an out-of-control welfare system?

The changes to business rates announced in last week’s Budget will provide some much-needed breathing space for many businesses in Weston-super-Mare, Worle and the villages. However, thriving high streets and coastal communities such as mine depend on businesses being able to take on new staff, particularly local young people. At a roundtable I held with small businesses last week, the cost and difficulty of employing young people were raised repeatedly as a major concern. What more can the Treasury do to ease those financial pressures, and will the Minister provide more information about the new high streets strategy and how the Treasury will ensure that vision is matched with funding?

Oil is the lifeblood of the refinery sector, but the Government missed an opportunity to back this foundational industry both upstream and downstream. The Rosebank oilfield is already priced into the OBR’s assumptions. If that does not get the go-ahead, it will be back to the drawing board, Chancellor—won’t it? Is the fiscal headroom not already thin and will it not disappear even more if Rosebank does not get the go-ahead? The reality is that this Budget is built on sand.

Critical to the competitiveness of the refinery sector is the taxation of the companies. I know we have just had the Budget, but will the Treasury keep in mind for forthcoming fiscal events that essential element to competitiveness in the sector?

I welcome the Government’s announcement in last week’s Budget of the intention to expand the scope of the CBAM to include refinery products. That is critical to preventing carbon leakage by ensuring that British refineries are on a level playing field when compared with imported refined products. It will protect thousands of jobs in Pembrokeshire and strengthen our energy national security. Will the Minister set out a clear timetable for implementation? What assurances will he provide on protecting the competitiveness of the export sector for refineries in this country?

Borrowing is high and I welcome some of the measures in the Budget, but we need to look at how every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent. Will the Minister reassure me that he and in particular his colleague, the Chief Secretary of to the Treasury, will be holding every spending Department tightly to account in the spending review, not just for future spending but for managing existing projects, so that every tax pound is spent as wisely as possible?

Does the Minister understand just how devastating the effects of his Government’s spending, taxing and borrowing policies are for my constituents in Romford? Does he recall that the last time we had a Prime Minister who understood that we need low taxes, a smaller state and lower borrowing was in 1990? Then the national debt was 21% of GDP; now it is heading for 100%. Will he please reduce the size of the state, cut taxes for hard-working people and start to live within our means?

Can the Minister clarify the extent to which the data centre covenant announced in the Budget will apply in Scotland? She will be aware that there are some very significant applications in Scotland, not least in my own constituency, and that clarity is very important.

For a young person in a South Cotswolds village, the barrier to an apprenticeship is often just getting there. Buses are rare or non-existent, and the cost of running a car is out of reach on an apprentice’s pay. Will the Chancellor work with the Transport Secretary to cap bus fares at £1 and to fund more rural bus routes?

Construction is a key sector for apprenticeships, yet the 1.5 million target for homes has been dropped. In London, the city we are in, the Government are meeting just 5% of their target. [ Interruption. ] It is 5%. There are no apprenticeships coming through, and we see Landsec, Taylor Wimpey and other companies in London pulling back even further. When will the Government recognise that stamp duty is standing in the way of getting those apprenticeships going, getting those houses built and getting this economy growing once again?

In Swindon, Honda trained up about 170 apprentices over the years, giving young people real access to good, high-skilled, well-paid jobs. When Honda left, so did those opportunities. Will the Minister outline what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the DWP to ensure that Swindon gets better access to apprenticeships for young people in the future?

The Office for Budget Responsibility said last week that higher taxes were weighing on living standards, with the tax burden heading for a record high. The Budget was a missed opportunity for the Chancellor to cut the cost of living by cutting taxes, but instead his answer was to cut the price of gherkins. The Chancellor promised “breathing space” nine times in his speech; does he really think that 6p a day in savings amounts to breathing space for hard-working families?

The measures in the Budget to help with the cost of living through cuts in energy bills were welcome. The Chancellor also said that he would adopt one of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s recommendations not to add further policy costs to bills, but can I encourage him to look at one of our other recommendations, which is to move policy costs from electricity to gas? That would help people take up electric heat and batteries, which will enable them to take advantage of the tariffs that are available now.

The Treasury is cutting £1 billion from the warm homes fund, including a smaller than planned pot for the boiler upgrade scheme. Combined with tax rises on heat pumps, these cuts risk creating a boom-and-bust cycle for installers and leaving more households exposed to the volatility of the oil and gas market. Can the Chancellor explain how cutting support for clean heating is consistent with the Government’s own mission for a clean energy transition?

1. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on funding for the infected blood compensation scheme.

Almost everyone in my constituency who speaks to me about immigration says that they welcome those who come to work hard in our country and play by the rules. As the Home Secretary knows, though, many of those workers across multiple sectors of the economy face significant exploitation from their visa sponsors. She referred to helping workers break away from rogue employers; will she meet those of us who are interested in introducing a certificate of common sponsorship to resolve this problem?

Given that those earning more than £50,000 will have a five-year route to settled status, while those earning less than £50,000 will have a 10-year route, how will we assess whether a lawyer offers more value to our society than a teaching assistant, setting aside how much they earn?

We continue to have acute workforce pressures in social care in Scotland, which often leaves people stranded in hospital when they are fit to go home. What conversations has the Home Secretary had with the Scottish Government about the need for robust workforce planning, which has been absent for so long, to ensure that existing skills gaps are not exacerbated by these changes?