Richard Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jan 2026 · New Towns · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to make it clear that I am speaking in an individual capacity as the Member of Parliament for North Bedfordshire. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on her speech and on the extraordinarily human way in which she described her life in a new town. For people in North Bedfordshire, the hon. Lady’s testimony may be a timely one. I would like to draw the focus of the debate to the proposals for new new towns that are recommended by the Government’s new towns taskforce. Tempsford is a historic village in North Bedfordshire. It was the site of a decisive battle in 917 AD when the forces of King Edward the Elder stormed a Danish stronghold, killing the Danish King and effectively breaking Danish power in the region. It includes the former RAF Tempsford airfield, from which multiple special operations were flown to send people to help resistance movements in Nazi-occupied countries. It is a village of 234 households, comprising fewer than 500 people, and one that has been in two parts since the dualling of the A1 in 1962. It is also a village that, according to the report by the new towns taskforce, presents “a unique opportunity with potential to provide over 40,000 homes in a standalone greenfield settlement”. Tempsford is the largest of the proposed new towns and would turn this village of 500 people into a new town of at least 40,000 homes—that is 100,000-plus people. I want to take a few minutes, speaking in this individual capacity, to raise points that have been voiced by my constituents in recent meetings with residents, the parish council and local councillor, Adam Zerny. One of the questions, of course, is, “Why Tempsford? It’s not what we want—we don’t want this change,” and so on. That is an important issue for consideration, and we await the final decision of the Government on it. If that decision is made, the No. 1 source of scepticism is that much of Tempsford is a floodplain. There is a legitimate question about how the flood risk will be managed in any new town. Tempsford is a floodplain for both the River Ouse and the River Ivel. Sticking on the theme, local residents have for years dealt with a range of sewage overflow issues; I myself have been witness to a number of these incidents and have helped residents with them. This is important because the water company will obviously wish to improve this issue if we have a new town, so adequate funding must be available both to provide the necessary waste water and sewage water infrastructure and to solve the existing problems. As the Minister will be aware, the pressure on water resources in Bedfordshire is extensive. We are also the site of Universal Studios’ new theme park, which will attract between 8 million and 10 million people a year—the equivalent of an additional population of 50,000 in terms of water usage. The site is being developed over the next five years. The River Ouse is the one source of water running through this area, which contains both the theme park and the new town, so we need to make sure there is a plan for this river. Bedford borough council has set up the North Bedfordshire water management group, run by Paul Leinster, formerly of the Environment Agency. I encourage the Minister to meet him to discuss the issues of both Universal Studios and Tempsford. The Minister should also recognise that the proposal for this new town fits into a context of very rapid housing growth. Hon. Members should be aware that the number of households in Bedfordshire has been growing at two and a half times the national average for the past decade or more, meaning that we have already had a build-up of additional pressures on local services over the past 15 to 20 years. At the meeting held last week with the parish council and residents, the main issue other than the floodplain was the provision of local services, as people already do not have sufficient access to GP and transport services. Just a few miles away is the village of Northstowe, which is sort of the poster child for getting it wrong with local service provision. All the things the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said should already be there were not there in Northstowe—there were no shops and no GPs for a number of years while residents were moving in. Obviously residents do not want to see that happen with Tempsford new town, if it comes forward. Tempsford is a village that still runs on oil heating—there is no other power supply. A number of residents were keen to understand whether solar and ground source heat pumps would be a prerequisite for housing in the new town. A key point for a village with a proposal for a new town of up to 100,000 people is, of course, its village identity and heritage, in particular around RAF Tempsford, and there is a lot of concern about one of the most important buildings there, Gibraltar Barn. Any plans must take account of that. My residents are also connected to nature and wildlife. They chose to live in a rural area, and they are proud of their rural environment—the head office of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is just 5 miles away from Tempsford. It is crucial, if the Government move ahead with this proposal, that we do whatever we can to maintain the nature and wildlife of the area. There are also questions about the adequacy of road networks and the type of employment. I will briefly cover a couple more areas. Professor Doug Clelland and Dr Nigel Moor, two independent planning experts, have completed research on Tempsford in the past two years and provided evidence to the House of Lords Built Environment Committee for its report “New Towns: Laying the Foundations”, relating to the footprint, scale and timeline. In the evidence, Professor Clelland and Dr Moor present a “compact centre” of 25,000 homes over 4.5 square miles with a footprint connecting St Neots to Sandy in an area between the A1 and the Great Northern rail line—an extensive area. There is also a wider footprint that could accommodate the building of an additional 15,000 homes in satellite developments stretching south from Tempsford to the village of Blunham and on to Great Barford, Wilden and Little Staughton then across to Hail Weston, including the villages of Staploe, Honeydon, Roxton, Potton, Everton and others, with a similar impact on the Cambridgeshire side of Tempsford. I do not expect Members to know all those villages, beautiful though they are; they are well worth visiting, and Members should do so. I simply want to ensure that local residents are aware of the scale of what might take place if this proposal goes ahead in North Bedfordshire and in parts of Cambridgeshire. I am not sure that local residents have internalised that. If the Government decided to move forward with these plans, there is a lot of work they would have to do, in particular with regard to the use of farmland, as this is a primary agricultural area. If I may, I will leave some questions with the Minister. First, the Government have a housing target of 1.5 million —personally, I am not sure they have got off to a particularly good start on that. That target may have an impact on the type of housing being built, so I would be interested to hear the Minister comment on that with regard to Tempsford. Secondly, I have mentioned that the housing growth in North Bedfordshire is two and a half times the national average. It is the Government’s position that new towns should not count in that total, but come on—we are already struggling to keep up. There is no way we can plop this additional amount of housing on top of that pace of growth and expect things not to break. Thirdly, will the Government’s specific social housing target apply in the context of these very large new towns? Fourthly, can I alert the Minister to the fact that the new town is potentially just one of six nationally significant infrastructure projects in Bedfordshire, two of which are directly within this footprint? One is the Black Cat roundabout, which is under way and will be completed, so that is fine. There is also a proposal for a large-scale solar farm of over 1,900 acres—that is the size of Gatwick airport and a bit more—within that satellite boundary. What on earth will happen with that? Clearly, it is a choice: we can do one or the other, but we cannot possibly do both. Local residents are keen to make sure that their voice is heard. I had a meeting with the civil servant who is dealing with this issue, for which I prepared some documents, and she was 100% on board with that— I can see that the Minister is nodding. My residents are clear about that. Once the decision is made, if Tempsford is one of the new towns, I would strongly encourage the ministerial team to come and visit, have a conversation with the villagers and listen to them, because there is so much that can be done. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said, in the end this is about people. If the Government take people along with them at the start when they make that decision, they will set themselves up in a much better way.

• 15 Jan 2026 · New Towns · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point about making brownfield sites a priority, and I think he is giving the Minister some very good advice. The first question that will be asked by people in Tempsford and the villages, who may see so much more housing come upon them, is, “Well, why haven’t you built in areas that are already developed? Have you maximised the potential in those areas?” It will be to the Government’s benefit if they can demonstrate, as I am sure the Minister will from the Dispatch Box shortly, that they will push existing urban areas as hard as they can to maximise housing potential and avoid some of the artificial blockages to which my hon. Friend is referring.

• 17 Dec 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 17 Dec 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For a Bill that proposes to raise taxation on working people by such a large amount, this has been a remarkably brief debate. But I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who correctly said that this was yet another anti-aspiration measure from this Government, and the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who made it clear that this was yet another example of Labour breaking its manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people. He also asked one of the key questions, which I hope the Minister will address in his reply: as this measure is due to come into force in three years’ time, what assessment have the Government made of behavioural changes, and can the Minister be assured that the amount in the OBR forecast is robust on a dynamic accounting basis? This is the final economic Bill of the year to be voted on in the House of Commons, and it is another Bill that targets people who are trying to do the right thing. The Bill is a bad measure. It is an anti-savings measure and it is an attack on prudence, so of course the Conservative party will oppose it. This final Bill, at the end of this full-on year of Labour government, leaves me with one fundamental question: why do the Labour Government hate the private sector so much? If you are a family farmer, the Labour Government will snatch your farm away from your children when you die. If you believe in private education, the Labour Government will put up a barrier at the school gate. If you save for your retirement, Labour will tax your every effort to achieve security in retirement. Why do the Labour Government take every opportunity to punish people who are trying to do the right thing? The Bill makes a mockery of the Government’s own Pensions Commission, set up in July this year, when it wrote: “Put bluntly, private pension income for individuals retiring in 2050 could be 8% lower than those retiring in 2025—undermining a central measure of societal progress.” Back in June, the Government recognised the problem of a secure retirement. Now, they are adding to the problem. I have a question about the numbers. It is interesting that this measure is scored by the OBR in that crucial year of 2029-30 at £4.845 billion, falling the following year to £2.585 billion. That is an important year, because that is when the Chancellor says she has put in all this headroom—how interesting. Does the Minister agree with the director of Willis Towers Watson, one of the world’s biggest advisers on pensions, when he said: “While earlier introduction would be unwelcome, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029/30—the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rule. £1.6 billion of revenue in that year is a temporary gain which will be returned to taxpayers who pay employee contributions instead and claim back part of their tax relief”? On the £4.845 billion—the full amount—is any of that actually a fiction that will be returned the following year, as experts suggest it will be? The Bill makes it less attractive for employers to contribute to private sector pensions. We all know that there is less certainty in the private sector, because that is where defined contribution schemes predominate, whereas in the public sector, greater certainty is given by a defined benefit scheme. In the public sector, there is also benefit because the contribution from the employer to employee pensions is much higher than in the private sector. In the public sector, employer contributions are equivalent to 27% of earnings, on average, according to research by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, but in the private sector the average contribution is only 8%. Why are the Government proposing to make it harder for private sector employers to contribute to the pensions of their employees? The Bill actively exacerbates the differences. By the way, it does nothing to tackle the unfunded £1.5 trillion liability of unfunded public sector pensions, which will fall on taxpayers. The Bill is yet another example of the lack of private sector experience on the Government Front Bench. This Government are the least business aware Government in our country’s history. They are taxing and regulating growth out of our economy. Labour Ministers are punishing workers who want to save more for their retirement, and making it harder for their employers to help them to do so. While they can rely on their cushy, gold-plated public sector pensions, private sector workers are worse off.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Economic Growth: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  As this is my last question before Christmas, I want to ask my counterpart a nice and constructive one. As he will know, rural residents and businesses already pay more on fuel than their urban counterparts and there are fewer public transport options. Can he advise what were the results of his assessment of the relative impact of the Budget’s introduction of road pricing on rural, compared with urban, areas?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Income Tax and National Insurance Threshold Freeze · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister said this was “fair”—no, no, no. Perhaps breaking the election promise on tax thresholds is the reason why, by two to one, the public view the Budget as unfair, just 3% think it will make them better off, and two out of three think things will get worse. Does the Minister want to tell the public they are wrong, or will he explain to the House why this Budget has been received so badly by the British people?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He is right to talk about the torrid history of East West Rail, but he misses some crucial points. First, the railway loses taxpayers an enormous amount of money. Secondly, East West Rail chose a long, hilly, environmentally damaging route that it did not need to choose. Thirdly, the railway brings with it the fundamental question of how it will be propelled. The hon. Member talked about the problems of a 20th-century technology; railways are a 19th-century technology. Does he accept that the Oxfordshire part of the railway has been built on the assumption it would be diesel, and now we are looking to retrofit that with a 21st-century technology? This is still a terrible mess, is it not?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  On the point of cross-Bedfordshire roads, we will have potentially Tempsford new town in my constituency and an entirely new railway being drawn across the area, in addition to Universal Studios and the expansion of Luton airport. Over time, that will all create enormous internal pressure. To amplify the point about co-ordination, does my hon. Friend agree that local councils will be overwhelmed without clear support from the Government?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady needs to recognise that people are struggling because of decisions made by this Government. The people do want better public services, but they do not understand why, after the Government handed out a 15% pay hike to train drivers, more trains are running late this year compared to last year. People are striving to make ends meet as prices rise, perhaps putting a little aside to create a better future for their children, and they say that this Budget will make their lives worse, not better. The verdict is in: by more than two to one, the public think that this Budget is unfair, and only 2% think it will make them better off. They are right. This Budget attacks the strivers in our society—the engines of our economic growth. It confirms the devastating attack on family farms when we need greater food security, increases taxes on dividends when we need to encourage risk taking, discourages saving for retirement, and widens the division between pension protections for public sector and private sector employees. It deals a blow to start-up businesses that want to share their success with their employees, and raises taxes on working people, breaking the Labour party’s own manifesto promise. This Budget makes it clear that the Labour Government do not believe in personal responsibility, do not understand the spirit of enterprise, will punish aspiration and are too weak to make the hard choices that our economy so desperately needs if it is to get back on the right track.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start my comments on the subject of this debate, let me say that I am aware, and I think a number of right hon. and hon. Members are aware, that since you presided over the opening of this debate last Wednesday, you have been subject to abuse online, with a series of presumptions on your ethnicity and your place of birth. I would like to say—I think on behalf of all of us here—that you have presided over this debate fairly, competently and in the best traditions of this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Whereas—what a colossally inept and incompetent Budget process this has been. The public believe they have been misled, seasoned journalists have been shamefaced, and the head of the OBR has resigned. This is a Budget not guided by principle or a road map for the future, but by a sleight of hand on the British people. It is a Budget that means even lower growth in real disposable incomes for households up and down the country, that increases taxes and increases borrowing rather than controlling them, and contains a total of zero measures that will have any impact on economic growth. Yet after all the chaos, after all the briefings, and after all the kite flying, leaks and resignations, the core theme of the Budget remains what it has always been: a Budget for “Benefits Street” paid for by raising taxes on working people—a Budget delivered by a Chancellor who is out of her depth, enabled by a Prime Minister who is out of touch. Held captive by Labour Back Benchers, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister decided to put party before country, but despite all the pandering, their careers are still held captive. This Budget is the most expensive botched hostage rescue operation in British history. This Budget process has raised important issues of accountability. Labour’s election manifesto said: “Labour will not increase taxes on working people”. But this Budget extends the freeze in tax thresholds for a further three years. Last year, the Chancellor said: “we now wipe the slate clean” and that she would not need to come back for more. But this Budget increases taxes by a further £37 billion and borrowing by a further £57 billion over the next five years. The Chancellor held an unprecedented breakfast address to the nation. But the BBC’s Chris Mason said: “the words on the day left an impression not at one with the facts we were later to discover and which the chancellor knew at the time.” Yesterday, the chairman of the OBR resigned. Many in the country believe the Chancellor should reflect and make the same decision. This could have been a Budget for alarm clock Britain: for the people who work hard to create a better future for their families, their children and grandchildren—the sort of people who believe in an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, and who think it is unfair for the Government to increase their taxes to pay for more benefits; for the people who understand personal responsibility, especially when it comes to having children, and do not see why people on benefits should not have to make the same choices that they have to make.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to reflect on the fact that, when she stands in the next election, real household incomes will have gone up by just a quarter of the rate they went up by under 10 years of Conservative government. If we are to fund the defence of our nation against greater threats, enable young people to have the same security in their retirement as pensioners have today, and maintain public services, we have to create wealth. This Government offer no hope of wealth creation, but the Conservative party does. A society that encourages people to succeed and take the risks that underpin success; a society that expands individual freedom and the scope for personal responsibility; a society that is prepared to make sacrifices to make the lives of our children and grandchildren a little better—we will build that wealth-creating society by bringing down energy costs, cutting spending, cutting taxes, backing business and getting Britain working again.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very broad definition. Maybe the Chancellor should speak to the Prime Minister, the Transport Secretary, the Education Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who have all given different definitions of working people over the last 12 months. After last year’s Budget, the Chancellor said that she had wiped the slate clean, but that was not true, Chancellor, was it? She said that she would not be coming back with more taxes, but that was not true, Chancellor, was it? At the election, the Chancellor said that she would not raise taxes on working people, but that was not true either, was it, Chancellor? When will the Chancellor learn the truth that she is not a commentator on the country’s economic problems; she is the cause?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  What is the Chancellor’s definition of “working people”?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Government Debt Interest Payments · Hansard source

  More

  UK long-term borrowing costs are now consistently above the range of G7 countries—something that did not occur at any time under previous coalition or Conservative Governments. It is because markets are pricing in the specific weakness of this Labour Government’s economic policies. The cost of that weakness means rising prices, lower investment and less money for public services in the long term. Having carpet-bombed the private sector with extra taxes, will the Chancellor rein back the splurge of unproductive public spending that she let rip last year?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Government Debt Interest Payments · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 9 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I fear that the Chancellor’s dismissive response fails to acknowledge either the serious state of public finances or the serious difficulties of her own position. Having extended economic uncertainty until just before Christmas, will the Chancellor at least confirm that the November Budget will include savings from welfare reform?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  May I welcome the new members of the Treasury team, with their courage in joining it? I also do so for the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who cannot be with us today. May I particularly welcome the new Chief Secretary, who replaces the old Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who is now another new Chief Secretary? Earlier this year, Labour made a mess of its welfare reform proposals because they were rushed out to help plug a £5 billion gap in public finances. The result was chaos and a humiliating reversal for the Chancellor. Welfare spending is too high—it does need reform—and today the Leader of the Opposition has pledged Conservative support to help the Government to develop a thoughtful plan on welfare reform. Will the Chancellor take up this offer of support?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Solar Development: Newark · Hansard source

  More

  I know that there are rules about shadow Ministers speaking in Adjournment debates, but with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make an intervention. My right hon. Friend has made an important point about the impact on the local economy and the options of farming and new housing. If 10% of the land area of Newark is being covered in one thing, that limits lots of other opportunities. Does he feel that the Government have got the right balance in their push for net zero?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  We have had an exciting and heartfelt debate. I commend for their speeches my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), the hon. Members for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). We have heard some excellent speeches from Members speaking with passion on behalf of the small businesses, farmers, workers and pensioners who have been hit by Labour changing its mind on taxes and doing things differently from what it said it would do at the election. We have also heard two new phrases today. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, we now realise we have to challenge the Chancellor based on her “flagship failures”, not her flagship policies. With great passion, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim told us how Labour’s tax on family businesses means that small businesses are no longer planning for growth; they are planning for death. The public feel they were misled by Labour at the general election. They think those on the Labour Front Bench are incompetent. They think the Prime Minister is woefully out of touch and the Chancellor is out of her depth—and why shouldn’t they? A Prime Minister who needs multiple attempts to define a woman, and multiple attempts to define a working person, does not exactly inspire confidence; a Chancellor who says that she will not raise taxes on working people, and then hikes national insurance, costing working people their jobs and earnings, does not inspire trust. Our motion provides the Government with an opportunity to draw a line, recognise the overreach and errors in their taxation policies, and give some hope to the makers in our society and those who work hard in our warehouses, offices, factories, shops, restaurants, and public services. They could recognise the errors in the Treasury’s assessment of the impact of the family farm tax on those who grow our food, and the trauma caused by the jobs tax for those who build our businesses. Those are the people who know how to grow our economy, not the numpties on the Front Bench, so why are the Government intent on holding them back? Alas, the Chancellor thinks that she knows best, and despite taxes being at their highest rate on record, she is on the hunt for new taxes: wealth tax, capital gains tax, pensions tax, council tax, savings tax, tax, tax, tax, tax—it is always the same with a Labour Government. The Government’s strategy is to tax their way to growth, but I have to tell the Chancellor that that strategy will not work. No economy can tax its businesses out of existence and create growth. Tonight the Chancellor starts her new tax campaign with a visit to the City. For the first time it will not be so much a Mansion House speech as a mansion tax assessment. The Chancellor will claim that the Government’s actions have brought about financial stability—well perhaps, but not in this country. The Government’s Chagos deal has eliminated income tax in Mauritius but given British taxpayers a new £30 billion tax bill, and the Government’s abolition of non-dom status is boosting the tax revenues of Portugal and Italy but will mean taxpayers here having to cough up billions a year more to plug the gap as people leave the UK, taking their tax payments with them. The truth is that the Chancellor has done the complete opposite of her claims of stability. She is the eye of an instability storm of her own making, where nobody knows when her next tax raid will come, and who will get hit the hardest—a second summer of doubt and uncertainty caused by this Chancellor, and tolerated by this Prime Minister. Labour Back Benchers know it. They know all the times that the Chancellor has led them up the hill, only to lead them down again: the “once in a Parliament” tax hike, the removal of winter fuel payments, the blundered attempts at welfare cuts, and it has only been one year! Labour Members are limping towards recess—look at them, Mr Deputy Speaker. Napoleon’s troops were in better humour on their march back from Moscow than some Labour MPs are as they make their way back to their constituencies, and back to the people to whom they promised so much just one year ago, only to deliver oh so little. No wonder people feel so let down. But let us be fair: some Labour Back Benchers are going back with a warm feeling. A reshuffle is coming soon, to clear away all the dead wood on the Front Bench —oh, so much dead wood—and some Labour Back Benchers have already had the tap on the shoulder. They already know who they are, and they are going home with great expectations of high office— [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] No, no, spare a thought, please, for the many other Labour MPs who have missed out. They felt that they were given a promise that if they did the right thing they would be looked after. Now they know that the Government have reneged on their promise, and that the change they hoped for will not come. For them, I am truly sorry. But there is one consolation: at least now they know how the rest of the country feels.

• 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.