Richard Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Labour’s jobs tax has really clobbered British businesses. The Office for National Statistics says that the number of available jobs is collapsing. Perhaps the Chancellor has not updated herself on how British business thinks about confidence: the Institute of Directors has said today that business confidence has plummeted; the Bank of England is warning of significant declines in wage growth; and the British Chambers of Commerce says that taxes on businesses cannot be increased. The Chancellor has bungled welfare changes, eviscerating confidence in the Prime Minister and blowing an even bigger hole in the public financing, meaning that she will raise taxes yet again this autumn. Will she avoid creating the same damaging uncertainty she did last summer by ruling out from the Dispatch Box today any further tax increases on British businesses?

• 19 Jun 2025 · UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement, and for providing early sight of it. Our ability to invest in public infrastructure is a positive for individuals, communities and the country as a whole, and it is right that the new Government set out their strategy. The last Government had to deal with a series of economic disruptions, including the impact of covid, the unwinding of quantitative easing across all advanced economies, and the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The global impact was disrupted supply chains, increased inflation and raised interest rates. Notwithstanding those shocks, under the last Government, public sector expenditure on capital increased in real terms, from £81.7 billion in 2019-20 to £117.8 billion in 2024-25—an increase of 44%. Today, the Chief Secretary has confirmed expenditure of £725 billion, but has provided very little detail. There is no project pipeline today; will he commit to coming back to this House when it is published? In 2024, the last infrastructure pipeline analysis included an investment pipeline of 660 projects over a 10-year period, commencing from 2024-25. The Chief Secretary’s last statement to the House was, in very large part, a restatement of the investments in local transportation projects that had already been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Will he confirm how many of the 660 projects in the previous pipeline will be retained? Will he advise the House which major projects are being abandoned, and give some insight into his reasoning for doing so? Translating a pipeline into reality requires a labour force of sufficient size and with a range of skills—in construction, project management and engineering, for example. Again, the 2024 analysis by the Construction Industry Training Board indicated that that project pipeline would create labour pressures in many of those skills areas. Since coming to office, this Labour Government have increased national insurance and are proposing new regulations on employment, both of which will disproportionately affect the construction sector. Does the Chief Secretary have any concerns about the impact of those changes on the availability of labour? Will he advise the House what assessment he has made of skills pinch points and what steps the Government are taking to alleviate them? Fulfilling these plans will require investment by taxpayers and private capital. Will the Chief Secretary advise the House on whether there has been any significant change in the mix of private and public investments—within discrete sectors or overall—compared with the last pipeline analysis in 2024? The Government created the National Wealth Fund, and said that it was their principal investor—a critical part of the Government’s growth strategy for infrastructure. The Chief Secretary has given the National Wealth Fund £7 billion, but has made no mention of it today. Why has there been no mention of the National Wealth Fund? We are moving through an era with a rapidly accelerating pace of change, in which the period from technological innovation to obsolescence can be vanishingly short. The risk that public investment in new technology solutions will become redundant is increasing. While being forward-looking, the Government should also be careful to nurture both existing technologies and new but proven ones, so what are the Government’s priorities for technology choices in the energy sector, and what actions will he take to protect taxpayers from technology redundancy risk? The Pension Schemes Bill, introduced by this Government, includes a reserved power for the Government to mandate the investments of pension schemes. Has the Chief Secretary had any discussions about—or had the Treasury do any analysis of—the use of mandation powers to provide financing to the capital investments he has announced today? Have the projects announced today been assessed according to the revised Green Book rules? If not, will they be reassessed at some point on the revised basis, and what assurance can the Chief Secretary provide that these projects will give value for money to taxpayers? As this Government have stated, and as we acknowledge, when pressures on public expenditure increase, it is frequently capital expenditure that suffers. What actions is the Chief Secretary willing to take if finances are tight to protect the budgets for the projects he has announced today? Investment in infrastructure benefits from a stable economic background, a clear set of priorities, efficient delivery, and optimal returns for taxpayers and investors. Madam Deputy Speaker, I miss the Chief Secretary in his old guise as Chairman of the Business Select Committee, when there was less of the rhetoric and the partisanship. These big decisions need open communication and critical analysis if we are to improve value for money and get projects delivered on time and on budget. In those endeavours, the Chief Secretary will always have our support.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and for early sight of it. I will start with an area of agreement: it is a shared ambition to enable all parts of this country to participate in our growth and our future. Potential in the United Kingdom is everywhere, and it is right that the Government seek to unlock it with every means they have. Indeed, that was one of the guiding principles of the 2019-24 Conservative Administration’s levelling-up policy. They always say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now, we know that this Chancellor has a reputation for copying, so I thought I would have a look at the statement made in 2023 on Network North allocations, which I am sure the Chief Secretary has seen. I thought I would compare those allocations with the Government’s announcement today. I have the Conservative announcements in one hand and the Labour announcements in the other. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members can shout all they want. Here we go. In 2023, the Conservatives promised the west midlands £2.64 billion— [ Interruption. ] I say to Labour Members that the Chief Secretary is also only making a promise. In 2023, we promised £2.64 billion for the west midlands, and the Government have announced £2.4 billion for the west midlands today. We promised £2.1 billion for West Yorkshire; today, the Government have announced £2.1 billion. We promised £2.5 billion for Greater Manchester; they have announced £2.5 billion today. We promised £1.45 billion for South Yorkshire; they have announced £1.5 billion today. We promised £1.581 billion for Liverpool; they have announced £1.6 billion today. We promised £1.84 billion for the north-east; they have announced £1.8 billion today. We promised £0.752 billion for the west of England; they have announced £0.8 billion today. We promised £978 million for Tees Valley in 2023, and Labour has announced £1 billion today. I know the Chief Secretary is occasionally good with numbers, but does he not agree that what he is announcing today is essentially nothing more than a rounding error on the Conservatives’ plans from 2023? The only difference between the 2023 and 2025 announcements is that we would have spelt Rotherham correctly in our announcement. The truth is, the Chancellor will go around the country rewriting history as frequently as she writes her CV, but nobody believes in her £22 billion black hole. What people do believe is that this Chancellor is open to change. She is going to roll back the issues on the winter fuel allowance, her botched welfare reform and changes to the two-child policy. Look at those on the Treasury Bench—they have not got a spine. If Labour Back Benchers have an issue in their constituency and want to stand up for their constituents, they should make a bid to this Chief Secretary, because he will back down and give them the money. That is what we know from Labour. We also know that in the Government’s analysis of the Green Book, they are looking to change the assessments of the cost-benefit analysis. My question to the Chief Secretary therefore is— [ Interruption. ] I do have a number of questions. First, will he publish the cost-benefit ratios for each of the projects he has announced today? Will he state whether they have been evaluated on the existing Green Book rules or on new rules? Will he give an indication today of what those rules might be? Secondly, as the Labour Government try to decide whether their commitment on defence is for 2%, 2.5%, 3% or 3.5% of GDP, with both those numbers and today’s investments stretching into the next period of government—whoever is in government—can the Chief Secretary confirm that it is this Government’s intention that the investments made today will be secure, whatever the changes made on defence expenditure? The Chief Secretary said that he is able to make this announcement because the Government changed the rules, which has enabled £113 billion more of investment. But that is not quite right, is it? The Government can afford the additional investment only if people are prepared to fund it, and there are two sources for funding: taxpayers or the bond market. Can the Chief Secretary therefore advise whether he is going to look for additional funding from taxes or additional borrowing, if there is a shortfall? The truth is, despite what the Back Benchers say, this Labour Treasury team are out of their depth. They are addicted to tax increases and to more borrowing. The Chief Secretary can republish as many press releases as he likes, but we know that because of their reckless mismanagement of the economy, come the autumn, this Labour Government will be back for more.

• 20 May 2025 · Spending Review: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, the best way to improve economic growth is for this Chancellor to stop punishing businesses with higher taxes. Within the spending review, the key is to improve public sector productivity. As the Chancellor knows, one of the key aspects in doing that is the use of technology. This Government have substantial advantages over the next few years with major advances in artificial intelligence technology, but those can only be captured if the Treasury sets clear directions for Departments, including incentives and penalties. What directives has His Majesty’s Treasury given to Departments to improve productivity through the adoption of artificial intelligence? Specifically, does that advice include a requirement for the use of agentic AI during the multi-year spending period?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Planning and Development: Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful for the Minister’s thoughtful speech. One of the problems with the provision of public services in Bedfordshire—and, I am sure, some other high-growth areas—is that we are dealing with a backlog, due to the fact that for many years the population has grown too fast for us to provide the additional services. If the Government come forward with a new town in Tempsford, it is important that the Minister addresses the legacy issue—the backlog—as well as the provision for the additional houses that will come with the new town.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Planning and Development: Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He has rightly pointed to the fact that Bedfordshire has been doing more than its fair share of growth for two decades. We are growing at two and a half times the national average, which has put pressure on public services, particularly GP services. Biggleswade in my constituency has been waiting years for a health hub to deal with the growing population. Does my hon. Friend, like me, want to hear a bit more clarity from the Minister today about new towns? The potential for new towns comes on top of the pressure we have from organic growth. Tempsford in my constituency has been highlighted for one of those new towns. We do not know whether the Government plan for that to be a community of 15,000 or 30,000; there are some reports of 250,000. We have no clue whether this Government are committed to infrastructure first, either. What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on what the Government should be saying now about new towns such as the potential one in Tempsford?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Planning and Development: Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  Honourable.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Two weeks ago, the spring statement rushed through changes to disability benefits, or “pocket money” to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to help plug the £14 billion gap in public finances created by the first Labour Budget. Now we are already in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s scenario 2 on tariffs, and the Chancellor is once again forecast to be out of room on her fiscal targets. What does she plan to ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to do to update departmental budgets in his multi-year spending review in order to avoid punishing businesses and people once again with further taxes?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Green Book Review · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that I am very short on time. I would love to give way, but I know Mr Pritchard, and he will not give me any more time. The view that focusing on the BCR as the answer is incorrect. East West Rail, which goes through my constituency, has a BCR of 0.3. It loses money, but the Treasury still wants to push ahead with it—that is another question for the Treasury. There is not sufficient quantification, so we do not understand what those benefits may be for people. I have one final question for the Minister, as I have only a little time—I do have some other questions, which I will send to him. Can he look at the implementation of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012? Getting that done is really hard for small businesses and social enterprises in particular.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Green Book Review · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) on calling this debate, and the nine other speakers on speaking with great passion about the potential of their constituents and their constituencies, as well as about the role that the Green Book review—a rather obscure topic—can play in seeking to unlock that potential. I note that they spared the blushes of the Chancellor. When she announced the review, to unlock the potential of which those hon. Members are so hopeful, she announced further growth measures in the south and south-east of the country. That shows the difficulties there are in achieving some of the objectives. The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) was kind enough to say that those objectives were the intention of the 2020 review: levelling up this country. I am, perhaps, an ironic choice to respond in this debate. If I may stretch your tolerance, Mr Pritchard, I will mention some things about the area of the country that I represent, North Bedfordshire. To give hon. Members some sense of the disparities, let me enumerate some of the growth potential projects going on in my county: our housing growth rate is already two and a half times the national average; we have a proposal for a solar farm in my constituency, which will be seven times the size of the largest one in the country; we have the country’s largest road project at Black Cat roundabout on the A1; we have a proposal for a railway line, which will be the third largest railway construction project in the country; and we have the doubling of the capacity of Luton airport to bring people into the country. We are also awaiting, when the Treasury finally pulls its finger out, a potential £10 billion investment for Europe’s theme park from Universal Studios, which will then start a whole new range of investment potential in the south. The hon. Member for Congleton has the right person responding from the Opposition to answer some of her points—because frankly, that is too much for one area to take at one time. The 2020 review mentions some points that have been repeated today, and the allegations were: systematic bias towards London and the south-east; the tyranny of benefit-cost ratios; overlooked unmonetised benefits; no allowance for transformation or other complex effects; and that guidance was responsible for strategic policy faults with no focus on where, or by whom, effects are felt. Those allegations have been echoed today, but I have to say to Members that the findings were that there were no systematic methodological biases in the process. However, there were significant problems in understanding of the Treasury’s five case model, leading to significant poor practice in the application of the Green Book, and some changes have been made as a result. As I thought Members would raise the issue of disparities in expenditure, and whether those changes had any effect, I went to table 9.4b of the “Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2024”, which enumerates the public expenditure on services per head in real pounds between regions. It splits that between current expenditure and capital expenditure, which is the focus of today’s debate. I have to tell Members that, if we look at those statistics between the years 2018-19 to 2022-23, real capital per head went down by 3% in the east and by 5% in the south-east. Real capital per head did go up by 20% in London, but it also went up by 25% in both the north-west and the north-east, by 24% in the west midlands and by 22% in east midlands. That is not to say that everything is done, but it is important to build on the progress that is being made. There is a lot more commonality here than we perhaps think.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As is evident to many hon. Members, the Minister has, for the first time, found himself unable to answer some very straightforward questions from Opposition Members about the difference between the allocation of funding for capital expenditure and for current expenditure, and the impact that that difference will have on our hospices, children’s hospices, GPs and others affected by Labour’s jobs tax. I am sure Members of the House of Lords who brought these amendments back will also have noticed that the Minister has been unable to answer those questions. Prior to the Bill going back to the House of Lords, will the Minister agree to speak to the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to get a clear answer to the questions that have been raised today about which money will be available for capital and which money will be available to offset the national insurance charge increase?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Housing Development Planning: Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I have a couple of questions. In North Bedfordshire, the pace of housing growth is about two and a half to three times what it is nationally, and we also have two major watercourses—the River Ouse and the River Ivel. The issue with the way that section 106 moneys go with new housing developments is that it is always about the incremental impact on the network, but the problem is that the overall structure needs financial support. The hon. Lady has been thinking about making water companies statutory consultees. Does she think that that could help with a more comprehensive understanding of the impact across a network of any major development? Secondly, does she think that it could change the system to have greater demand for an escrow of funds by developers for the long-term issues she mentioned, rather than leaving those to individual householders?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Public Spending: Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  Improving public sector productivity was the No.1 ask of Institute of Directors’ businesses trying to weather Storm Rachel, but under Labour, public sector productivity has fallen further behind pre-pandemic levels. The number of civil servants working from home has gone up and, shockingly, as The D aily Telegraph has found, thousands of civil servants are being signed off to work from abroad. Therefore, whether it is on civil servants working from their bedrooms or from Benidorm, or on other blockers of public sector productivity, what has the Chief Secretary to the Treasury actually done in his last eight months in office, or is he too comfortable with what the Prime Minister calls “the tepid bath of managed decline”?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Charter for Budget Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm whether the OBR validated his £22 billion claim?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Charter for Budget Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  That is all very well, but the Chief Secretary is talking about the wrong budget. He is talking about increases to the health budget or changes to aspects of the DWP budget; he is not talking about why this Government are allowing an increase of up to 42% in welfare payments in this country. That is a different issue. It shows laxity on the part of the Government. Serious questions need to be asked, and I am sure will be asked, in the next debate. Let me return to the charter for budget responsibility, which was established by former Chancellor George Osborne as part of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. On Second Reading, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury explained why the measure was necessary: “We inherited the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history, we inherited a budget deficit forecast to be the largest in the G20, and we inherited the largest structural deficit in the whole of Europe.” —[ Official Report , 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 746.] She did not have to make up numbers, as this Government have done, about some fanciful black hole; these were facts, and my former colleague, Justine Greening, was telling the truth to the nation. Indeed, truth is the foundation upon which any charter for budget responsibility is based. Let me be clear: when the Chancellor said on 13 November 2023 that she was “not going to fiddle the figures or make something to get different results”, the fiscal rules included in this charter demonstrate that she was not telling the truth. In this charter, the Chancellor has changed the rules on the measurement of debt from public sector net debt, or PSND, excluding the Bank of England, to public sector net financial liabilities, or PSNFL. This fiddling of the figures opened the taps for the Chancellor to borrow more, even while our debt to GDP ratio stands at historically high levels following the pandemic and the Ukraine war. The Guardian newspaper, which I am sure the Chief Secretary reads avidly, reported on 24 October 2024 that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), the former Conservative Chancellor, had acted similarly to the current Chancellor, his fiscal headroom would have ballooned from £9 billion to £49 billion, but he knew better than the current Chancellor. The Chancellor has even had to create her own name for things, just so that she can claim she is getting debt falling. She said in her Budget statement that she will call PSNFL “net financial debt, for short.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 823.] The reality is that the proper measure of Government debt, as per the previous fiscal rules, is rising in every single year of the forecast. The OBR has confirmed that on the previous definition, which she had said she would keep to, the fiscal rules are being broken. At the last election, Labour said it would get debt falling, and the Government continue to claim that they are delivering that. They are doing nothing of the sort. Let us be very clear: debt is rising, and it is forecast to continue to rise. We will be spending nearly £50 billion more on debt interest over the next five years as a result of their first Budget alone. There are also concerns about the rolling three-year targets for the rule that the current Budget should be in surplus and the rule that debt—the Government’s dubious definition of debt—should be falling as a share of the economy. Like the water and fruit for Tantalus, the rules permit these reasonable targets to remain just out of reach every time—they are always there but never met. To extend my similes, the charter rules are to the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary as St Augustine regarded self-control: “Grant me chastity and self-control, but not yet.” The charter begins on shakier ground with a weaker Treasury team, but it remains an important part of our country’s fiscal framework. Under the rules of the House, the motion is not amendable, so we shall not oppose the measure. We do need fiscal rules, but we condemn the Government’s approach of fiddling the figures to add more borrowing. They promised that they would not, but, as so many times before, they have broken their promises once again.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Charter for Budget Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, like so many on the Labour Benches, loves to talk—almost fondly—about the former Prime Minister Liz Truss. Well, at least she knew her time was up after 50 days; we are stuck with the Chancellor for five years. When it was noted a few months back that the entire Labour Cabinet could barely scrape together a year’s worth of business experience between them, it was thought to be just a curiosity. Little did we know it was an early warning sign of their lack of suitability for the task of managing the British economy: business confidence down, job losses up, consumer confidence in the gutter and Government debt spiralling further upwards—and they are just getting started. There are, of course, potential benefits from the investments that are being announced today. We share a desire for a more competitive, less regulated economy based on a passion for free enterprise, but while Labour celebrates the exodus of millionaires from our country, we recognise that it represents a loss of skills, lower job creation, and the evaporation of potential future taxation to support public services. While Labour sees the attack on family farms and family businesses as a vital part of its warped class-war ideology, we recognise that putting family at the heart of enterprise is a critical piece of our nation’s proud heritage of freedom.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Charter for Budget Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is making a bizarre comment. The point is that the Chancellor stated in 2023 that she would not fiddle the figures. She has now changed the numbers. The definition of debt for public sector net debt excluding the Bank of England is different from her PSNFL. They are different. It enables the Chancellor to borrow more. That is fiddling the figures to achieve an objective. It is not the same, and she did not tell the truth when she said that she would not fiddle the figures.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Charter for Budget Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I am aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is interested in a prolonged debate today—I am not sure whether that is because of the content of the debate, or for other reasons. I would say gently to him that writing rules is different from following rules, so he will be judged by this House on how he meets the rules that he has set. My purpose today is to cover some of those rules, and I will have some comments on them, but first, although we will be having a separate debate on the welfare cap, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made some points about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) will respond formally on that issue, so these are just my thoughts, really. The welfare cap, of course, was introduced in 2014 by Conservative Chancellor George Osborne, who recognised the particular difficulties with forecasting and managing certain welfare budgets. At the 2014 Budget, he explained his rationale: “Britain should always be proud of having a welfare system that helps those most in need, but never again should we allow its costs to spiral out of control and its incentives to become so distorted that it pays not to work. In future, any Government who want to spend more on benefits will have to be honest with the public about the costs, will need the approval of Parliament, and will be held to account by this permanent cap on welfare.” —[ Official Report , 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 785.] George Osborne’s initiative has shown its value over the past decade, and it is right that the new Government are following its intent in principle and, one hopes, also in practice. Our task today is to listen to the explanations for the breaching of the welfare cap for fiscal year 2024-25 and the rationale for the particular limits that the Chief Secretary’s Government will set on the welfare cap for future fiscal years through 2029-30. As the Chief Secretary said, in October, as part of the first Budget of the Parliament, the OBR provided its assessment of the status of welfare spending compared with the cap that was set in 2024. That assessment was an excess of £8.6 billion, which indicated a breach. With the country now spending over £156 billion on welfare every year and with the obvious pressures on public expenditure, there should be a determination to find savings in the welfare budget. Indeed, that was the intention of the Conservative party at the last election, with a commitment to reduce expenditure by £12 billion through better targeting of disability benefits, amending the levels of payments for those whose disabilities would not routinely be expected to lead to additional life expenses, overhauling the fit note process, and introducing tougher sanctions on those who shirk the opportunity to work and contribute to society. But the Labour Government today appear to be set on a different course, with a pathway for the welfare cap that is up, not down, growing from this year’s cap of £137 billion to reach £195 billion by 2029-30. That is a 42% increase in the welfare cap. It is important to note that at the same point in the last Parliament, when the Conservative party set the rules on the welfare cap, that increase was limited to 15%.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Charter for Budget Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  As the Chancellor scours the nation turning over every stone in her desperate effort to mitigate the damage from her choices in last year’s Budget of broken promises, it falls to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to keep his face straight as he lectures the House on the importance of fiscal responsibility. He has shown the performative skills of one of the greats of the west end, but his mouthing of the words of economic stewardship, even as his audience of wealth creators get up out of their seats and leave the show, leaves few of us impressed. They know what the British public know: that this is a Treasury team and a Government who, day after day, create more problems and, day after day, demonstrate that they are clearly out of their depth.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Charter for Budget Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  My friend, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on economics, makes a fair point about the impact of trade agreements on family finances. However, as she knows, that is very different from the pain that farmers are feeling right now about Labour’s attack on the ability of families to pass on their farm to their children—it is different in scale and in type. It is a damaging policy by the Labour party that we know, or at least hope, that Labour will change in due course. I am sure that today, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is also engaged in a series of phone conversations with his departmental colleagues as, ahead of the March update on the OBR’s financial forecast, they review what it will mean for their departmental expenditures. As he has those difficult phone conversations, I say to the Chief Secretary that we stand ready to support effective steps on prudent financial responsibility.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Charter for Budget Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I have to be careful, because I have a significant constituency interest in this issue, but I want to ask a more general question about the role of infrastructure investments and the fiscal rules. East West Rail’s proposal to complete the railway line had a benefit-cost ratio of 0.3 in its last business case: building it would basically lose 70p of every pound of taxpayers’ money. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury regard that as a loss? If not, will there be a business case that shows that the project has a benefit-cost ratio that does not lose taxpayers’ money?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Charter for Budget Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  That difference between 15% and 42% is important, is it not?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 28 Jan 2025 · Solar Farms: Agricultural Land · Hansard source

  More

  On the Minister’s comments about the Government’s announcements in December and the subsequent announcement by the National Energy System Operator about moving forward rapidly with renewable energy, and in relation to East Park Energy, which is a proposal in my constituency whereby 74% of the land used would be best and most versatile land, in neither the December statement nor the January announcement by NESO was there any reference at all to the criterion on use of best and most versatile land. Can the Minister just affirm that that criterion is still used in the assessment of which projects the Government will move forward?