James Murray

I will respond briefly to some of the points raised in the debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), repeated many points that I addressed in my opening remarks. He asked a fundamental question: why must the Bill be implemented? My response is because of the mess that his party left when we won the election last July. I noted that he refused to say whether he would reverse the national insurance changes that we are making, despite being asked by Government Members. He refused to make clear his party’s position, as the leader of his party did earlier. The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) spoke of choices in politics. She is right that politics is about choices. But she was also incapable of explaining what different choices she and her colleagues would make, since they oppose our changes to national insurance contributions. Would they go for higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises? My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) Poole and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) spoke about special educational needs transport facilities. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that the Budget and the provisional local government finance settlement set out £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26. That includes £515 million to support councils with employer national insurance contributions. However, it is not ringfenced, which means that it is for local authorities to determine how to use this funding across relevant services and responsibilities. There was a comment from the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), although he is not in his place and I do not know where he is—perhaps he is off feeding his spider. He made a rather colourful comparison between some of my points and those made by a former colleague of his. I do not know whether he realised that in doing so he implied that the position that the former Secretary of State for Health was defending was indefensible. I would be interested to see which of the previous Government’s policies he thought were indefensible. When he returns from his spider-care duties I will ask him, but in his absence, let me say what is indefensible: for Conservative Members to have voted for the Liz Truss mini-Budget. What is indefensible is what they did to public services over 14 years. What would have been indefensible would have been our letting the situation carry on as it was when we won the general election. The Bill makes some of the difficult but necessary decisions that we as a Government have had to take to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet. The amendments from the other place require information that has already been provided. They do not recognise other policies that the Government have in place, and most seriously they seek to undermine the funding that the Bill will secure. I therefore respectfully propose that this House disagrees with the Lords amendments. Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.