Richard Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 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?

• 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.