Fact check: Four claims from the 2026 Budget speeches

This round-up of claims has been compiled by Full Fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity which works to give people access to reliable information they can trust.On Wednesday John Healey delivered Labour’s third Budget since entering Government – his first as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the first since Andy Burnham became Prime Minister.We’ve examined a number of claims from both the Chancellor’s speech and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s Budget response. Here is our analysis of four of them—for more, see Full Fact’s Budget 2026 round-up.When exactly will people stop paying gas standing charges?Mr Healey said in his Budget speech: “From next year, through Ofgem, we will remove standing charges from household gas bills.”This news had already been announced earlier in the day, but Mr Healey’s comments in his speech may have left some unsure about exactly when the change is due to come into effect.In fact, while Mr Healey said “from next year”, the Government’s own press statement and the Budget document itself suggest the change might not take effect until the year after next.The Budget document says the change is “aiming for delivery by the end of 2027 or as soon as possible after then”. And a Treasury spokesperson told Full Fact: “Our aim is by the end of 2027 or as soon as possible after then (so 2028).”An Ofgem spokesperson told us: “Our focus will remain on working with Government and industry to deliver these changes in a way that works for consumers and supports a fair transition.”The MoneySavingExpert website, whose founder Martin Lewis met Mr Healey to discuss the change early on Wednesday, has reported that it expects the change to come into effect on October 1 2027 or January 1 2028.How much will adjusting the triple lock save?The Chancellor said that adjusting the triple lock will “save £15 billion a year by the end of the 2030s”.This figure refers to how much less the Government thinks it will spend in 2039/40 on the state pension. That’s compared with what it would have spent in that year without making any changes to the policy, not with the amount it spends currently.Read MoreAs experts have pointed out, the exact amount this policy will actually “save” depends on what happens in the economy in the coming years.The Resolution Foundation has described the £15 billion figure as a “reasonable central case”, but depending on what happens in the next 10 years or so, the actual value of the policy could be more or it could be less.How has unemployment changed under Labour?In her response to the Budget, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: “Unemployment has risen by a quarter of a million people since Labour came in.”This is correct. However, it’s worth noting that the number of employed people has also risen, by more than one million in the same period.The rates of unemployment and employment have both increased too.While this might seem contradictory, both the employment and unemployment rates can rise together when more people move into the economically active population and so are now working, or unemployed and available to work. The number of economically inactive people has decreased by 327,000 since June 2024.Did Mr Healey set a date for 3% defence spending?Mrs Badenoch also appeared to claim the Chancellor had not set a date for defence spending to reach 3% of GDP.She quoted Mr Healey’s resignation letter from when he stepped down as defence secretary in June, in which he said: “I am certain that a headmark date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set.”Mrs Badenoch said: “Today is the day he should have set that date. Today. He is the man who failed to set a plan for 3%. Today is the day that we should have got the plan.”Earlier Mr Healey did say that 2030 was a “target date” for defence spending to hit 3% of GDP.He said: “At the spending review next year I confirm that I will set out the details of how we will meet our Nato commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035, with a target date for 3% in 2030.”However in the Budget, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted in its initial response, there was “very little detail” on how the 3% target will be reached.