Richard Fuller MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2024 · Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of the official Opposition, I thank the Government for bringing forward the Bill and concluding its stages in this House before we break for Christmas. I also thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for the way he has handled the discussions on the Bill at each stage, providing Members with all the information they need at any stage and in answer to all questions. He has done an exemplary job. I note the uniformity of support across this House from Members, whichever party they represent. However, it goes deeper than that: since former Prime Minister Boris Johnson galvanised the west into defence of Ukraine, through former Prime Minister Liz Truss, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and now, with our current Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the United Kingdom Government have been determined in support of the people of Ukraine. It says something of the depth of support in this country for the people of Ukraine that if we swept away a large proportion of the Members of this House and replaced them with different representatives from across the country, the resolve in support for Ukraine would remain the same. We must not give up our efforts. Since we started our debates, there have been further actions in Ukraine. I will quote the latest summary from the Institute for the Study of War, which demonstrates the urgent need for the support set out in the Bill that we are passing today: “on December 14…Russian forces fielded more than 100 pieces of equipment in a recent assault in the Siversk direction and noted that there were 55 combat engagements in this direction on December 13—a significant increase in tempo in this area of the frontline.” It goes on: “The GUR reported that a contingent consisting of Russian and North Korean servicemen in Kursk Oblast lost 200 personnel as of December 14 and that Ukrainian drones swarmed a North Korean position, which is consistent with recent reports of North Korean forces engaging in attritional infantry assaults.” Our support, the military support the United Kingdom provides under this measure, is desperately needed, but the need goes further. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an estimated 8 million Ukrainian citizens have been displaced and 6 million people have left the country as refugees, with many still unable to return. As hon. Members have said, over 200,000 Ukrainian citizens are living in the United Kingdom. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families. We should also note the work of British charities and non-governmental organisations, including the British Red Cross, which estimates that, with other Red Cross and Red Crescent societies around the world, assistance has been provided to over 18 million people in Ukraine. As we take our break, many of us will be celebrating Christmas. I hope that the Christian message of peace and hope will resonate in the new year, and that all of us in western Europe and particularly in Ukraine can look forward to a peaceful future.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for opening the debate. The Conservative Government were a vociferous advocate for mobilising Russia’s frozen sovereign assets to support Ukraine. We drove G7 and European partners to try to coalesce around the most ambitious solution possible to achieve that outcome. The announcement on 22 October marked progress on that journey and is a step in the right direction. We understand that the Government’s position is that the United Kingdom’s contribution should be earmarked for supporting Ukraine’s military expenditure, including on air defence, artillery and other equipment. The Opposition would support that. We need to persevere with our efforts to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to counter Russia’s unprovoked and illegal invasion. Matters since Second Reading have been fast moving, so let me pose some questions to the Minister. Since Second Reading, the United States has given Ukraine $20 billion, funded by the profits of frozen Russian assets. That economic support forms a significant part of the overall $50 billion package agreed by G7 member nations and announced in June. The US Treasury said that it had transferred the $20 billion to a World Bank fund, where it will be available for Ukraine to draw. Money handled by the World Bank cannot be used for military purposes. The US Administration had initially hoped to dedicate half the money to military aid, but that would have required approval from Congress, which the President did not seek. Perhaps the Minister can update the House on what discussions the UK Government have had with the US Administration, Canada and the European Union about the use of funds provided for military purposes. Are any strings attached to the funds that will be provided by the UK? As the US has already provided its share of moneys anticipated in the G7 package, can the Minister advise the House on the timing of the UK’s contribution? I think it was made clear on Second Reading, but it would be helpful to have an update, given the move by the US since then. As the Minister and the Government have advised, the loans that the UK will pay will form part of the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan agreement by the G7. The loans that the UK will provide will be repaid by the Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism, established by the European Union under regulation 2024/2773 on 24 October. The ability of the UK to have its loans repaid depends in large part on a decision by the European Union to maintain its freeze on Russian assets. The EU renews Russian sanctions every six months, and efforts to extend that to a three-year review cycle were rebuffed by Hungary earlier this year. Will the Minister confirm that there is a risk, in the event that the EU does not extend its sanctions on Russia, that the costs of the loan will be borne by UK taxpayers, and what mitigations he might consider if that situation arises? Finally, the EU controls more than two thirds of Russia’s $300 billion of sovereign assets that have been frozen by western allies following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Of those EU-held frozen assets, 90% are held by the Belgian-based financial services company Euroclear. The profits from the EU-held assets, estimated to be between $2.6 billion and $3.2 billion per year, have been used to arm Ukraine and finance its post-war reconstruction. We understand that the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said in an interview with The Guardian on 12 December that the European Union should use the billions in frozen state assets to aid Ukraine. She emphasised that Ukraine had a legitimate claim for compensation, and described the Russian assets held in the EU as “a tool to pressure Russia.” The Minister responded to earlier interventions, but can he confirm the UK Government’s position? Has he discussed the matter with the EU and Belgium, and does he have any plans for the UK to go further on the use of those assets?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This weekend, 50 households in Cleat Hill were able to return home, nine weeks after the gas explosion there. That was thanks to the efforts of the local council and the local emergency services but not, I am afraid, to the actions of the Government. There has been a deafening silence on whether they will help the council with funding, and whether they will fund a scaling and scoping of the gas reservoir. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for meeting me, but will she chivvy her other Ministers along, so that we can get a reply?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Ecuador) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the Minister in saying it is a pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The Minister will be pleased to know that it is not the intention of the official Opposition to divide the Committee on this tax treaty. However, I have a number of questions —he may be able to answer them today, but I am perfectly happy if he wants to reply in writing subsequently. This treaty follows on from the agreement signed in Quito on 6 August this year. Can the Minister provide us with an update on the status of Ecuador’s ratification of this treaty? As I understand it, that will be subject to its National Assembly, but there are elections to the National Assembly coming up in March next year and the President only holds a majority through a coalition. I would be grateful for any update on the status and expected date of ratification. I echo the Minister’s comments about the importance of stimulating exports and trade with Ecuador. We have very limited trade at the moment, and hopefully this agreement will help from the point of view of both imports and exports, and of direct investment. The Minister mentioned that this agreement was based on the OECD model tax convention. That model, as hon. Members probably know, has been in place for 30 or 40 years—maybe even longer—and many tax treaties around the world are signed around these conventions. However, there is a slight deviation in part of this agreement. In paragraph 5.16 of the explanatory memorandum, relating to article 5 on permanent establishment, it says that the agreement “has a wider scope than the OECD Model, reflecting Ecuador’s preference. In particular, it has a lower threshold of 183 days for a building site to give a PE. It also deems there to be a PE where services are provided by an enterprise in the other territory for more than 183 days in total in a 12-month period.” As there is very little for the Committee to note that is different from the OECD model, I hope the Minister does not mind me asking about that one point I have highlighted. Furthermore, Ecuador is, as best I know, not a member of the OECD, or certainly has not signed up to pillar 2, the agreement on global minimum taxation for multinational enterprises. Any implication in this tax treaty relating to Ecuador’s status on that question would be of interest, but again that is not a matter for us to divide the Committee on today.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Since the hon. Lady is reviewing history, she should look at the Bank of England review by Bernanke, commissioned under the last Government, which looked at the impact on interest rates in the UK compared with other countries and included that period. She will see that the real impact of those changes on interest rates was no different from any other year. The UK stayed in exactly the same place every year. There is a difference between facts and reality and what the Labour party thinks is history.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman talks about the Conservative record. Shall I talk to him about our record on national insurance? In 2010, when Labour was last in office, it broke the economy and left a note saying that there was no money left. We did have to increase national insurance rates—but not by as much as is proposed today. Thereafter, we increased national insurance thresholds with inflation; these proposals do not do that. We introduced the employment allowance, which admittedly the Government are increasing. We then introduced national insurance reliefs for young workers. We increased national insurance income thresholds in 2022, 2023 and 2024. That is the Conservative record. We do not believe in the jobs tax: we do not think it helps growth, and we do not think that it will increase taxation.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously it would be useful to have people with business experience in the Cabinet, if they are going to levy taxes on business. Sadly, the Government do not have that. My hon. Friend’s point about business confidence and the reaction from businesses goes to what the Minister was trying to say in his summing up about what the Conservative party would do. The way we raise more taxes is by enhancing business confidence, so that they invest, grow and make profits that can be taxed. This Budget has done precisely the opposite. Each and every day since the Budget, confidence in the financial competence of this Labour Government has been ebbing away. Less than one in four of the public now believe that this Government are handling the economy well.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman asks, “What’s not to like?”, but just a few minutes ago he was saying what he did not like in the Bill. He said he wanted exemptions that the Minister was not prepared to give him; I think his dispute is not with me, but with his hon. Friends on the Front Bench. The British Retail Consortium—another section of the economy—wrote to the Chancellor detailing the costs of the measures to retailers: £0.57 billion from the rate increase and £1.76 billion for the reduction in the national insurance contributions threshold. It spelled out the consequences: “For any retailer, large or small, it will not be possible to absorb such significant cost increases over such a short timetable. The effect will be to increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures, and reduce jobs, especially at the entry level. This will impact high streets and customers right across the country.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a bit more progress and then give way to my right hon. Friend. If the Minister does not like the Resolution Foundation’s judgment on this tax, he should just listen to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said: “Simple economic theory suggests that the incidence of employer NICs and employee NICs should be the same, at least in the long run. It is likely that the long-run incidence of both employer and employee NICs is predominantly on employees”. The measures in the Bill represent by far the largest part of the tax grab in the October Budget. The Treasury Red Book assesses that these measures will raise £23.7 billion in the next financial year, rising to £25.7 billion, but the Minister knows that behavioural changes means that they will actually raise substantially less; the IFS estimates about £16 billion. I note that in the Red Book there were three opportunities for this jobs tax to be referred to as “Delivering on our Promises”. There is: “Delivering on our Promises—New Policy to Close the Tax Gap”, “Delivering on our Promises—Collecting Tax That is Due” and even the catch-all: “Delivering on our Promises—Other Manifesto Tax Commitments”, but the increase in national insurance contributions cannot be included in any of those, because Labour politicians hid their intentions from the British voters at the election.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am drawing my speech to a close, because plenty of people wish to speak. UKHospitality is also concerned. It estimates that our pubs, clubs, hotels and restaurants will have to stump up £1 billion more because of the Bill. It points out that for a typical staff member aged 21 or over earning the national living wage and working 38 hours a week, the jobs tax will increase by 53.9%, from £1,863 to £2,869. Does the Minister honestly think that that will not mean job cuts in the hospitality sector? The Government claim to have shielded the public sector from the jobs tax, but the reality is murkier. Many of our GPs will have to stump up more money, and our hospices and charities will have to find more money. As we approach the Christmas season, will the Minister give some hope to our charities, voluntary groups, GPs and hospices, and say that they, too, will be exempt from Labour’s jobs tax? The Labour party in government is stumbling badly. I know from my own experience that no amount of resets will inspire confidence, and certainly not when a Prime Minister is forced into a reset within five months of taking office. The Labour party in government is also getting a reputation for a series of cruel policies motivated by socialism based on hate. The removal of winter fuel payments for the elderly was cruel. The family farm tax, penalising British farmers who have toiled in our fields for generations, was cruel. Today’s jobs tax, attacking businesses, charities, GPs, hospices and employment opportunities and growth is cruel, too. I urge all Members of this House to support our amendment.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will be very happy to give way, but I will make some progress first. If we take the Government at their word that their intention is to raise funds for public services, this measure is an inefficient way to do so. Under the provisions of the 1992 Acts on social security provision, only a proportion of the moneys raised by this form of taxation will be allocated to public services; the vast majority is essentially hypothecated to the national insurance fund. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of the moneys raised by the Bill will actually be allocated to the national health service? Will he also advise us of why the Chancellor chose this particular tax, which, uniquely, will burden the economy with far more in taxes levied than will actually end up going to support public services? Employers large and small across the United Kingdom have been pleading with the Government to reverse this measure, letting them know about the impact it will have on jobs and on wages; the particularly harsh impact it will have on female workers and on young people starting out in their careers; the vulnerability of our hard-pressed hospitality businesses and high street retailers; or the pre-Christmas pleas of our charities, hospices and GPs about the way their contribution to public services has been completely ignored. Has the Minister been listening to the voices of people who actually have experience of running a business, creating jobs or delivering public services, who are telling him about the negative impact the Bill will have on jobs and pay, and even on their own viability, or has he been turning a deaf ear?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To be fair, my former colleague did not last quite as long as the lettuce, and the public made their judgment clear on that and many other issues at the general election. The hon. Gentleman’s point is fair, but it is not particularly relevant to the decisions he will be asked to vote on today. Hospices in his constituency will know how he votes. GPs in his constituency will know how he votes. Charities in his constituency will know how he votes. I will be interested to see whether he votes with his conscience or with the party line. Less than one in four of the public now believe that the Government are handling the economy well. It is not just the public who have lost faith in the economic competence of His Majesty’s Treasury; it is the Prime Minister himself, who apparently on Thursday will ditch the ambition for the United Kingdom to be the fastest-growing economy in the G7, removing at a stroke one of the key planks of Labour’s economic plans. The Bill will add to that lack of faith in this Labour Government, because this measure to raise national insurance contributions directly contradicts Labour’s election promise not to increase taxes on working people. In the election campaign, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the entire Labour Treasury team, including the Minister, repeated the phrase from their manifesto, which stated: “Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.” Yet today, with the election behind them, increasing taxes on working people is exactly what Labour is proposing to do. The shadow Minister is shaking his head.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill because it breaks the manifesto commitment of the Labour Party not to increase National Insurance; and will lead to lower growth, lower wages for working people, fewer jobs and the closure of businesses. Today we turn to the latest chapter in this Government’s book of economic incompetence, which is their choice to increase employers’ national insurance contributions—Labour’s job tax on workers across the UK. Today’s measures are the major reason that the public’s immediate reaction to the Budget was negative, with YouGov polling the day after the Budget showing that nearly twice as many people thought it would leave the UK worse off than thought it would be better off. When it came to judging each of the many measures in the Budget in turn, today’s proposal to increase national insurance was rated the second worst decision of all in the Budget, just behind hiking bus fares by 50%. Back in October, 47% of the public thought Labour’s job tax was the wrong thing to do, but as employers have spelled out the impact of Labour’s job tax, the public’s view has soured further. In polling last Monday, those saying that this measure is wrong have increased from 47% to 57%. The public know that the Labour Chancellor has got this choice wrong.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am terribly sorry—the Minister. He shakes his head and says that it is not true. Let me turn to one of his favourite independent economic groups, the Resolution Foundation, whose analyst James Smith said, “Even if it”—the employers national insurance change— “doesn’t show up in pay packets from day one, it will eventually feed through to lower wages…This is definitely is a tax on working people, let’s be very clear about that.”

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very odd question when the Minister himself has said that the objective today is to provide more money for the health service. I guess I will think about what the hon. Gentleman has asked.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have been listening to questions from Members who believe that this is “not a tax on working people” asking for exemptions from it. When we hear that these taxes are being levied on hospices, charities, GPs and small businesses, we cannot help but believe that Labour thinks that people work only when they work for the Government. The truth of the matter is that working people work in many institutions across the country—in small businesses, large businesses and in the third sector—as well as for the Government. This Government are taxing working people.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Management of Public Finances · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor may find that in her job, she needs to listen and learn lessons. One of the many criticisms of the last Budget was that the Government fiddled the figures to borrow more money, and still left little headroom for if their forecast went wrong. Since the Budget, business confidence has collapsed, putting further pressure on that headroom. Does the Chancellor have a problem with balancing her books, and will she, like Oliver Twist, be coming back for more?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Management of Public Finances · Hansard source

  More

  A cornerstone of sound management is economic certainty, but this Government seem to specialise in creating economic uncertainty; most recently they did so by delaying the date for the critical multi-year spending review. It looks like the Chancellor does not have a grip on either her Cabinet colleagues’ spending plans or her own plans for public sector productivity. Which is it—or is it both?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Cleat Hill Heat Pump Incident · Hansard source

  More

  That may strike some people as odd, but it is the normal Commons procedure. There will be a further meeting tonight hosted by Bedford borough council. I record my thanks for the leadership shown by Laura Church, the chief executive of the council, and my thanks to Craig Austin and the other staff of the council for their considerable efforts on behalf of residents. The meetings are helpful in addressing immediate concerns, but I will raise some other issues. First, there is the return of residents to their homes. As might be anticipated, there are differences between residents regarding their confidence in returning to their homes. Many are eager to do so, but many residents have considerable anxiety about a return, with concerns for their safety and that of their children or loved ones. I have spoken to residents, and a major assistance in building that confidence would be an accountable, authoritative voice to underwrite the assertion that it is safe to return. However, it seems that none of the agencies have the combination of expertise and authority to make such a call. In the absence of that, the default may be that the risks of returning will be transferred from a responsible body to each resident, with potential implications for future insurance and other liabilities, which clearly should not happen. What steps can the Minister take to end this Mexican stand-off regarding advice on a safe return for residents to their property? Will she urgently investigate in what form a responsible agency or authority could provide the underwritten reassurance that it is safe for residents to return? Over this period, Bedford borough council has incurred considerable additional costs and diverted many officers and staff to manage the needs of residents. The exceptional demands for expenditure and human resources came shortly after one of the most significant incidences of flooding in the area; in fact, the Met Office reported that Bedfordshire had its wettest September since records began in 1836. Much of that rain came in the very last part of the month and caused significant flooding. As the Minister is well aware, there is a scheme—the Bellwin scheme—that can be used to support local authorities with covering those exceptional costs. I know that the Department has been in discussions with Bedford borough council and is waiting to hear whether a formal application will be made. I also understand that Ministers are empowered by section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to decide whether to activate a scheme after considering the circumstances of each individual case. There is discretion here. Should the council make a formal application, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to use the powers granted to her under section 155 to approve the application by Bedford borough council? The incident at Cleat Hill should also stimulate a review of regulations to see whether they are sufficient or should be updated. It may surprise hon. Members, as it did my constituents, that it is permissible to drill a hole 100 metres deep in a back garden without any permit or notification required. Such boreholes are considered permitted development. Will the Minister review whether the drilling of a 100-metre hole in a residential area should continue to be classified as permitted development, or whether there should be a permitting or notification requirement? The Cleat Hill incident also raises some questions about the regulation of the installation of heat pumps more generally. More than 30,000 ground source heat pumps have been installed in the United Kingdom, and this is the first known incident in which a gas reservoir has been tapped during the drilling for a ground source heat pump. However, the UK currently plans to roll out many more heat pumps—a large proportion of which will be ground source heat pumps—in its effort to achieve net zero. We must remember that boreholes are drilled for a variety of reasons, not just for heat pumps, and that the incident at Cleat Hill was about the drilling of boreholes, not the heat pump specifically. However, the Ground Source Heat Pump Association, which is not party to the investigation, wrote to me to say: “While this is the first incident of its kind in the UK, and is extremely unlikely to be repeated, we do not feel it would be appropriate to simply wait until the formal investigation has concluded.” It went on to say: “On that basis, the GSHPA has communicated with all its members advising them to procure gas monitoring equipment, if they do not already possess it. As a precautionary measure, we have instructed members to go above and beyond present regulations and guidance and to follow the procedures given in the Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations which apply to Coal Authority Areas when drilling boreholes for ground source heat pump ground loops at all sites.” In light of this, will the Minister ask the relevant Department to review the geographic scope of the Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995 and decide whether they should be extended to cover a broader part of the United Kingdom? More generally, will she ask the relevant Minister to engage with the Ground Source Heat Pump Association to review and, where necessary, update the regulations and official guidance on the installation of ground source heat pumps? As you might imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, my residents who have been out of their homes for five weeks have some practical questions about insurance and the impact on house values. I would like to put those on the record, although I appreciate that there is limited scope for consideration of official support by the Minister. The first question is about the variation between insurers regarding the number of days that a policy holder can be absent from their home. For some insurers, that number is 30 days; for others, it is 60 days. I wrote to the Association of British Insurers, which advised me that although those provisions remain in place, “insurers will take a case by case approach and look to respond sympathetically where customers are likely to remain out of their homes beyond the limits provided for in the policy due to the evacuation.” The second question is about the impact that the discovery of this shallow gas reservoir and the explosion may have on my residents’ future ability to obtain home insurance, and on the premiums attached to such policies. Again, I put those questions to the Association of British Insurers, and I am grateful for its response. The ABI cannot comment on individual pricing or commercial decisions by its members, but added: “That said, we have raised the concern with our members, and we are not currently aware of any general issues relating to Cleat Hill that would change the general underwriting approach applied to the area. It will be a commercial decision for individual insurers and a range of criteria unrelated to the incident may impact on an individual household’s future risk. These will continue to be assessed by insurers on a commercial and competitive basis.” On house values, I am grateful for the response to my question from the Minister’s colleague, which states: “On your question about the effect on property values, it is possible that there could be some diminution of property values, however our expectation is that property values will return relatively quickly to comparable local levels.” I am grateful to be able to put those points from the ABI and the Minister’s colleague on the record. I will close by commenting on the importance of gaining a comprehensive understanding. In July, my residents were alerted to the release of gas, but were content to return to their homes because they believed the situation was under control. Now they face a return to their homes in very different circumstances, with many more questions, much greater anxiety and much less trust in taking people at their word. Currently, the size and scope of the gas reservoir at Cleat Hill is not known. An assessment is being made of the costs of a project to provide this information, but it is likely to be beyond the budget of the local authority. The central issue remains the lack of a comprehensive understanding of the status of the gas reservoir. How significant is it? What is its geographical scope? Did the period of venting create fissures in the layer of rock that had kept the gas from seeping into the soil? Did the 109-day period of venting release such a proportion of gas as to make the rock layer susceptible to collapse from the downward pressure of the 100 metres of soil above? These are all very important questions to be answered. There is an emerging plan for the gas monitors and alarms to be available to local residents and connected to a 24/7 response centre. This longer-term monitoring plan is designed to provide an early alert to residents should there be any future change in detected methane levels. However, can the Minister advise us of which agency would be responsible for the ongoing monitoring if such a long-term plan were put in place? Can she assure me that the Department will be able to seek expert advice, so that the correct plan is put in place for both the regularity and duration of testing, including of the stability of the closed borehole and of the rock layer containing the gas reservoir? To remind the Minister, the incidence of breaking a seal on a shallow gas reservoir is historically extremely rare. It is not exactly comparable, but the drilling in 2007 of boreholes for geothermal energy in Staufen in Germany created significant problems a decade later. In that case, water was released, not gas, but I believe the incident reinforces the need to gather a comprehensive understanding of the situation at Cleat Hill. So will the Minister instruct officials in her Department to liaise with Bedford borough council to assess the proposals to conduct a full survey of the scale and scope of the gas reservoir at Cleat Hill, and see whether the cost of that survey can be borne centrally?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Cleat Hill Heat Pump Incident · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to have secured this debate on the impact of the Cleat Hill pump incident on residents, and I welcome the Minister to her place. As she knows, I have a number of questions, some of which she will be able to answer, and a number of which will be for other Departments—although I am sure that she will be able to pass those on to the relevant Minister. On Tuesday 2 July, during drilling for the installation of a ground source heat pump in a residential neighbourhood back garden on Cleat Hill in my constituency, a reservoir of gas was encountered at a shallow depth of approximately 100 metres. Subsequently, certain discussions, recommendations and actions were made by various parties in response. On Saturday 19 October, an explosion at the property resulted in the death of two people: Paul Swales and Julia Harris. The blast happened close to where gas from the underground reservoir had been venting. By the time of the explosion, gas had been venting from the shallow reservoir for 109 days. Approximately 50 households were evacuated from their homes on Saturday 19 October, and for nearly five weeks now my constituents have been living with relatives, friends or, in the majority of cases, in temporary accommodation provided by Bedford borough council. I take this opportunity to commend my constituents for their resilience to the disruption caused to their daily lives, and to the anxiety that has been caused and which continues to be felt by many. I also commend the community and spiritual support offered by St Mark’s church in Brickhill, which has provided facilities, fellowship, food and a focus for residents over these five weeks. I pass my condolences to the families of Paul Swales and Julia Harris. There are currently a series of investigations, including by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, regarding the period between the encountering of gas on Tuesday 2 July and the gas explosion on Saturday 19 October. Hence, the focus of this debate is on the circumstances and regulations preceding the earlier date and subsequent to the latter date. However, there are some open questions on the minds of my residents regarding the period under investigation, and I believe that they are worth putting on the record in this debate, although I appreciate the Minister will not wish to comment at this stage. Which agency was in charge of making my residents safe after the discovery of gas on 2 July? Which agency was responsible for signing off the mitigation of venting gas? Who, if anyone, was responsible for the venting of gas for the period between 2 July and 19 October? Did the responsible entity have the requisite expertise to take on those responsibilities? What procedures were put in place to ensure that the venting of gas in a residential neighbourhood remained safe? Were the correct responses made when residents provided concerns about the venting of gas? Which regulations guided the response by agencies from 2 July, and were they sufficient? My residents hope that the various investigations will be able to provide answers to those questions and the many others that they have raised. I turn to the current situation. The British Geological Survey continues to monitor for gas in both the air and soil in and around the 100-metre cordoned-off area. Recent measurements have been consistently at negligible levels, but monitoring continues to take account of various climatic features—

• 20 Nov 2024 · Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before I turn to the Bill, I just say that the Chief Secretary, in an earlier debate, kindly welcomed me to my new role, and I would like to reciprocate that welcome today. He and I have worked together as members of the Business and Trade Committee, which he chaired and of which I believe you were also a member, Madam Deputy Speaker. We had a shared desire to use Parliament to hold to account fearlessly, factually and, when needed, ferociously those who hold authority and power over our constituents. He now finds himself in such a position of authority and power, and I will hold him to account fearlessly, factually and, when needed, ferociously. However, today is not a day for ferocity. We welcome this Bill. It is an important signal of the continuing commitment of the United Kingdom to the people of Ukraine, the defence of Europe and the achievement of peace through strength. We join the tributes to the people of Ukraine—the men and women who have had to leave behind their peaceful endeavours in order to stand shoulder to shoulder to defend their land and liberties. Today we are talking about financial contributions, but we should never forget that the greatest sacrifice is being made each and every day by members of the Ukraine military and civilians, upon whom Putin’s rockets rain down destruction each and every day. Under the strong leadership of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the United Kingdom led the world in defending Ukraine, and since 2022 we have pledged more than £12 billion in overall support. We were often the first mover on vital lethal aid, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger and main battle tanks. We imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, to cripple Putin’s war machine. We sanctioned around 2,000 individuals, companies and groups, and this economic pressure restricts Russia’s ability to prosecute its illegal invasion. More broadly, we built up a formidable sanctions regime during our time in office and brought in a major new sanctions strategy to deter and disrupt malign behaviour, and it is pleasing that the current Government are continuing those efforts. On behalf of the United Kingdom, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) hosted the Ukraine recovery conference last year, raising over $60 billion for Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction. This Bill takes a further step forward in our commitments to Ukraine, and does so alongside our allies. It fulfils the United Kingdom’s part of June’s G7 mandate—confirmed by G7 finance Ministers in Washington last month—to disburse for the benefit of Ukraine approximately $50 billion from the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan, or ERA, as the Chief Secretary termed it. The United Kingdom’s share is £2.26 billion, and this is earmarked as budgetary support for Ukraine’s military spending. I understand that it will be in addition to the UK’s existing annual commitment of £3 billion of military aid. Each loan will be in the form of a bilateral loan, but will be based on common principles to ensure consistency and co-ordination between each loan. We support the Bill and will support the Government if any other party seeks to divide this House, but I would be grateful if the Chief Secretary or the Minister could provide further clarification on several questions. The first is about disbursements to Ukraine under the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan. Point 5 in the annexe to the G7 statement says: “Loans will be fully disbursed to the benefit of Ukraine between 1 December 2024 and 31 December 2027.” The whole House will be aware of the current heightened levels of military activity and the urgent demands from Ukraine for assistance, including UK Storm Shadow missiles. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Defence about the timings and scale of distributions? Secondly, I want to ask about the asset base. Can the Minister update the House on the total value of Russian assets seized by the G7, and on the total assets seized by UK jurisdictions? The last estimates we had were in March 2023, when the total was £48 billion, of which £18 billion was seized by UK jurisdictions. As the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan refers only to sovereign assets, will the Minister tell us what consideration was given to the inclusion of income streams from other seized Russian assets, and why it was determined that they should not be included? Do the commitments made by each G7 country relate to the amount of Russian assets seized or held by a jurisdiction, or are they done on some other basis? If so, what is the basis for those allocations? Can the Minister give some indication of the allocation of seized sovereign assets by type? As they are sovereign assets, I assume that many will be in the form of cash holdings, but there may be properties and other assets. It would be helpful for the House to have some understanding of the allocation of these assets by type. Thirdly, I want to ask about the use of anticipated income streams from Russian assets to repay the loans. The Bill’s explanatory notes claim: “The extraordinary profits on the immobilised Russian sovereign assets will then be divided between the G7 lenders in proportion to their contributions. This will happen as the extraordinary profits accrue, on a 6-monthly basis…in three tranches”. I have three similar questions on this issue. Has there been any modelling of the future flows of anticipated income from seized Russian assets that will be used to repay the loans? Has the Treasury made an assessment of the expected period for their repayment? Can the Minister provide the House with a forecast or estimate for the anticipated revenues available for repayment in each of the tranches? Fourthly, I want to ask about contingencies. There are five participants in the loan agreement: the UK, the USA, Canada, Japan and the EU. Can the Minister advise whether the terms of the agreement will still stand if one or more of the participants do not ratify it? In the event of a peace settlement, subsequent to disbursements being made, point 12 of the annexe to the ERA loan initiative says that “the outstanding balances that cannot be covered by extraordinary profits shall be repaid by Ukraine to each lender.” Can the Minister advise whether that is the case? In such circumstances, what priority will the repayment of these loans have compared with other loans made to Ukraine? Finally, I want to ask about the Government’s overall defence expenditure. The Government’s Budget committed to setting out a pathway to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP at a future fiscal event. Since then, however, Labour Ministers have been unable to confirm whether it remains Labour’s ambition to meet that target by 2030. Can the Minister confirm whether it is still Labour policy to increase defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP, when that might be reached and whether the commitments contained in this Bill will be included in such estimates? The principles underlying the Bill are sound. Our commitment to the defence of Ukraine is reinforced. Our prayers are with the people of Ukraine and the cause of peace and freedom. We support the Bill.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury looks at these options on a continuing basis, but, consistently, the point of view held by the previous Government—and I would assume by the current Government—is that that is not the right step to take. But perhaps the Minister will update the House on her views on that in a moment. Given the support, there was the opportunity for the Government to move forward with all stages of the Bill, so that it could proceed and be completed in this House today. Will the Minister say why that decision was not made and perhaps provide some sense of the timetable for when the Bill will be brought to the House for its concluding stages? But the Opposition’s general message is that we fully support the intentions of the Bill, and we will support it on Second Reading.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will respond briefly to the debate for the Opposition. First, I commend all the speakers, and particularly the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). It is rare for so many in this House to congratulate a Member on their maiden speech, but it was warranted because she spoke so nicely and kindly about her constituency, as well as with great generosity about her predecessor and very movingly about her father. She should take away the great support from all Members across the House, and we wish her the best of luck in her future here. The Minister will be aware, having listened to the debate, of the comprehensive support for the Bill. She will have heard calls from some quarters to extend the provisions of the Bill to include seizing not only proceeds from the profits, but the assets. Such a move would be a very large step for the UK to take, and I do not think the official Opposition would support that without very strong convincing from the Government. But on all the other aspects, she will have seen the comprehensive support.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for permitting me to raise this important constituency matter from the Back Benches. On 2 July this year, during the installation of a ground source heat pump in a constituent’s back garden, a gas field was struck and gas was released. On 19 October there was an explosion, which resulted in the deaths of two of my constituents and the continuing evacuation of 50 households. Matters related to the period between 2 July and 19 October are subject to investigation. I am advised that this is the first such instance of gas being encountered, but given that ground source heat pumps are expected to play a significant role in decarbonising home heating, will the Minister undertake to review the regulations covering the installation of ground source heat pumps, and will she arrange a meeting for me with the relevant Minister to discuss these matters further?

• 6 Nov 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the 67 Back-Bench Members who have spoken in this debate, and I commiserate with the two Labour Members who did not get in. I am sure that they will have their opportunity in future. I congratulate the four Members who gave their maiden speech: the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) and for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh). Many in this House will remember their maiden speech and will know how anxious those four Members were before they stood up to speak, and how relieved they were when they reached the end and could sit down. That feeling does not go away. We end this Budget debate where we began: with the deceit that the Labour party showed to the British public about its intention to launch one of the biggest tax grabs in our history. At the election, Labour Front Benchers toured the country, staging photo ops, snapping cheeky selfies and soliciting reassuring quotes from businesses, farmers and senior citizens, saying to each in turn that they could trust Labour and that a Labour Government would have their back. This Budget of broken promises shows that they have all been conned. My Conservative colleagues have laid bare, always clearly and frequently with strong feeling, the consequences of the political choices this Labour Government have made with this Budget. Colleagues have spoken on behalf of Britain’s farming families, on behalf of our country’s small businesses, on behalf of parents with children in education, on behalf of GP surgeries and hospices, and, above all, on behalf of the working people they represent, who have been targeted by this Budget. This is a Budget of choices, and the choices are Labour’s, and theirs alone—their choice to increase taxes, their choice to increase debt, their choice to change the fiscal rules, and their choice to rip up election promise after election promise. Just as the Labour Government have made their choices, today we must start to make our own choices. Our choices are to help the small business owner, to help the aspiring entrepreneur, to help those thinking of using their talents to help build Britain, to help the farmers whose parents and grandparents have toiled in our fields, to help the children who will be turfed out of their schools in the middle of the year—some having no school place to go to—and to protect the workers of Britain who believed what Labour said at the election and who now know they were conned. That is why we will vote against Budget resolutions this evening. Two groups of people have been clobbered drastically by this Budget, groups who are the cornerstone of our economy. As we have heard throughout these debates, the Labour Government’s decision to increase employers’ national insurance contributions is not only a manifesto breach but a barrier to growth. Sadly, this Labour Government do not understand that there will never be a sustainable public sector without a thriving private sector. The private sector in this country is a delicate fabric of small and medium-sized businesses. Many have been just scraping by for years, but each is spurred on by the endeavour that is the spirit of free enterprise. Running a small business—Labour Members may want to take a note—is not easy. Our constituents run some 5.4 million small and medium-sized enterprises across the UK, so when the Minister responds, will she explain to those people, in my constituency and across the country, what they are to do in the face of Labour’s jobs tax—the massive increase in employer national insurance contributions? The Office for Budget Responsibility said that the jobs tax would be passed on by “most” firms to their employees through reduced wages; the Resolution Foundation said it will have the biggest proportional impact on low-paid workers; and the Federation of Small Businesses said it will cause “many SMEs” to “struggle”. That is the truth, and a far cry from the warm words the Labour Chancellor offered businesses during the election campaign. When the Prime Minister, in February this year, looked farmers in the eye and said that they “deserved better”, was he already hatching Labour’s family farm tax? The NFU has said: “The shameless breaking of those promises on Agricultural Property Relief will snatch away much of the next generation’s ability to carry on producing British food”. The truth is that the Labour Party does not understand even the basics of farming. Reducing the relief and imposing inheritance tax on farmland will devastate family farms and pose a serious risk to domestic food security and food prices. Throughout the debate, Labour MPs have sneeringly referred to those farmers as “millionaires”, but many family farmers are not rich. They eke out a modest and— [ Interruption. ] Labour Members should have been here for the debate. Many family farms eke out a modest and highly uncertain income, year after year. That is why we ask taxpayers each year to subsidise British farmers so they can continue growing food for Britain. The family farm tax is not just taxing farmers; it is taxing Britain’s farmland, the very land we need to grow the food we eat. This Budget of broken promises sends a series of clear messages: don’t start your own business, because Labour will tax you; don’t have a plan to hire new employees because Labour will tax you; don’t take a risk and expect to keep a reward, because Labour will tax you; don’t invest in the education of your children, because Labour will tax you; and don’t, whatever you do, farm your land to grow British food, because Labour will grind you into that very same ground, and tax you too. Finally, I say to the Minister that the trust that has been broken in this Budget will not be recovered. People will never forget what happens when Labour is given its chance. They will never forget the harm done when Labour makes its choices, and they will never forget that Labour’s first Budget was a Budget of broken promises.