Richard Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jun 2026 · East Midlands Railway Collision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State and her ministerial team for the support they have given Members of Parliament in affected constituencies since the collision, and add my voice to the many who have praised the response of Bedfordshire emergency services immediately following the collision, the brilliant work of the Thameslink staff at the stations, who redirected passengers who were not on those trains but had journeys to make, and the tremendous work being undertaken right now by Network Rail to move the carriages off the track. My condolences go to the family of the deceased driver, and my thoughts are with those in hospital. I spoke to one of my constituents, who is in hospital, at the weekend. He faces two very serious operations, and I ask this question on his behalf. We want the RAIB to complete its investigation thoroughly and without speculation. When it is complete, will the Secretary of State give her assurance that she will work tirelessly and fully to implement the RAIB’s recommendations as speedily and effectively as possible, so that this rare incident becomes ever rarer still?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Banking Services: Accessibility · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on not only securing the debate but opening it so clearly. He laid out the particular issue in Penzance, but in doing so highlighted common concerns about bank closures. He raised some interesting questions in his excellent speech. I am sure the Minister will address them, but I will highlight a couple that I thought particularly interesting. The first was about the manner in which the closure was done—there was no consultation. He also talked about access to banking, not just to cash. The Minister will be aware that the Labour party had thoughts on that prior to the election; I do not want to prejudge the consultation, but I would be interested in her observations about that. The hon. Member for St Ives has been joined by several other Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) made an important point, among many, about the communal role that banks have played historically, and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) mentioned the impact on town centres. Those two points highlight how central bank branches were to our country’s culture. The hon. Member for St Ives also talked about the buildings that once housed the recently closed banks. The withdrawal of bank branches not only strikes at the way financial services operate in this country, but says a lot about the type of country we are. I will come on to that point later. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) raised the issue of the criteria used in the selection of banking hubs. I would be interested to know whether the Minister is considering that. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) talked about face-to-face banking, which goes to the nub of the matter: future trends in banking, an issue that I will raise in my own comments. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), made a wide-ranging speech and talked about how mobile banking must be dependable to be successful, as well as the availability of mobile networks. I had an exceptionally brief ministerial career, part of which included introducing to the House of Commons the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which contained the provisions that provided for banking hubs. It might be helpful to share some of my own thinking, or the thinking of the Conservative Government at the time. Some comments have been made about the impact of closures. I share people’s concerns about that issue, but the Government of the day—the Labour Government, today—must take a view on whether they will work with trends in how financial services operate in this country. They must decide either to seek to mitigate the social consequences, which is the rightful role of Government, or to stand steadfast against such changes. Patently, the decision made by the then Conservative Government, which has been supported by this Labour Government, was to work with the grain of how financial services are moving. It is about facilitating that, as far as possible, while recognising the social disbenefits that can arise. It is fair to say that when consultations were done at the time, which was during covid, accessibility to cash was the primary focus of concerns about the decline of branches. It is also fair to say that the provisions in the 2023 Act on the future accessibility of banking were not set in stone. It was clear that we were in a period of trend and change that would require further consultation and review on how it was working, and what further trends were occurring. The Opposition welcome the Government’s taking the opportunity to look at these issues again. To give a sense of the pace of change—this has not been mentioned so far—in 2024, for the first time, cash accounted for less than 10% of payments in this country. We need to go back only eight years for it to be, by far, the No. 1 form of transaction in this country. For those Members who are old enough to remember them, cheques now account for only 0.2% of all payments, so there has been a significant change. On the pace of change of bank branches, since January 2015 there have been 6,700 bank branch closures, according to Which? magazine. To put that into context, there are approximately 12,000 towns in the country, and about another 100 cities. That shows the significant withdrawal of physical premises across the country. The number of ATMs has also fallen by 40% since 2015. On the plus side, we have largely seen an end to the long decline in post offices in this country. One of the benefits of our post office network was that post offices were present in many locations, although not all, and could provide aspects of the banking services that were important to people. The change to the trend for post offices is welcome. We want our post offices to continue to provide a broad range of services to local communities. Postmasters and postmistresses are often among the most trusted people in their community, and they can provide a range of services, but of course they do not necessarily have the same level of expertise in banking that one would find in a bank branch. That takes me on to another point. This debate was starting to look like a bit of a hit-job on Lloyds bank. I think that it was just by chance that the first three bank closures referred to were all of Lloyds branches, so let me say that this is not just a Lloyds thing; it affects all financial institutions. On the other hand, our financial institutions and banks do a very good job for people. They are effective in making sure that people have a safe place for their money and that money can be transferred from A to B. They are good at developing new products and at trying to adapt to technological change.

• 10 Mar 2026 · OBR Growth Projections: Departmental Spending · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s spending plans look very, very iffy. The Minister has a chance of fitting in with the Chancellor’s fiscal rules—if there is no further downgrade on economic growth, which seems unlikely; if the Government have the backbone to rein in public spending and to increase taxes in the last years of the Parliament, which seems very unlikely; if the Government do not have to step in with any significant energy support because no money has been set aside; and if the Government can get £4.8 billion in salary sacrifice in 2029-30 revenues, which the industry says is a pipe dream. So here is another “if”. If the Minister’s spending plans start to fall apart, will he prioritise cuts in public spending over tax increases?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Charter for Budget Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think his issue with the Barnett consequentials is one for the Minister to reply to, but the Conservative and Unionist party, as he knows, has very strong support for and kinship with our citizens in Northern Ireland. On his comment about the revenues that the Government received in January, I would just point out that that in large part was due to self-assessment returns and capital gains returns filed in that year. When we tease through the data, we will see that a lot of that came from people making economic decisions that, in the long run, were not in their interest, because of the uncertainty brought into the economy by the Chancellor, who has confused people for an entire year. To illustrate the chaos of the last year, let me remind the House what the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said in the equivalent debate on the charter last year: “Growth is the primary mission of this Government.” —[ Official Report , 29 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 344.] But since then, comparing the OBR forecast from 2024 and 2025, growth is down in each year of the forecast period. In 2026, it is down to 1.3% from 1.8%. It is down in 2027, 2028 and 2029. The then Chief Secretary also said that the autumn 2024 Budget “put the public finances back on track, and we will keep them there.” —[ Official Report , 29 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 345.] But since that statement the Chancellor has brought forward proposals to cut £5 billion from welfare. Then she reversed them. She said that she would stick to the two-child benefit cap, but then she caved in to Labour Back Benchers. The Chancellor has been forced to U-turn on her removal of winter fuel payments to pensioners. She has U-turned on her plans to tax our pubs out of existence, and she has U-turned on her damaging plans on the family farm tax and family business tax. After having said that she would not be coming back for more taxes, she did indeed come back to whack the British people again with tax increases amounting to over £26 billion. When this Government came into office, the forecast was that they would need to borrow £77 billion this fiscal year. But under this Chancellor, that level of borrowing has ballooned to £112 billion so far and is forecast to reach £138 billion by the end of the year. According to the OBR in November 2025, public sector net debt will continue to rise over the forecast period, despite Labour raising taxes to record levels, and debt will rise from 93.6% of GDP to 97% by the time of the next general election in 2028-29—if the Government last that long. Given the wreckage that they have caused in the general economy, Labour’s spin doctors have started to claim that the Government have the fastest deficit reduction plan in the G7. But that is only because this Government have spent so recklessly in their first years. Achieving this remarkable reduction rests on the credibility of the Government’s plans to raise taxes ahead of a general election and on their ability to rein in public spending in the out years—plans which, surely, their skittish Back Benchers will stymie, if the Government last that long. There are two changes in this revised charter that I would like to note. The first is the decision to change the definition of the current Budget being “in balance”. Paragraph 3.6 of the previous charter said that “balance is defined as a range: in surplus, or in deficit of no more than 0.5% GDP.” The current charter does not include that condition. Can the Minister tell us why the decision has been made to remove that flexibility? I would also be interested in what he thinks of the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ recent report, which stated: “The UK’s fiscal framework is based around a set of pass-fail, numerical fiscal rules. The fiscal debate is overly fixated on the amount of ‘headroom’ the government has against the most binding of those rules. The system incentivises the government to operate with the smallest amount of ‘headroom’ possible, with policy often fine-tuned according to the central point estimate of a highly uncertain forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility.” The IFS report recommended that “the UK would be better served by a new framework based around a set of ‘fiscal traffic lights’”. The Government appear to have gone in the opposite direction to the recommendations by stressing the importance of pinpoint accuracy, and I would be interested in the Minister’s views on that. I turn to the most significant change: the removal of what was paragraph 4.27 in the previous charter, which said: “At the same time as the forecasts, the OBR will produce its assessment of the extent to which fiscal policy has delivered, or is likely to deliver, the fiscal mandate.” The Government have, at a stroke, removed the opportunity for an independent assessment by the OBR ahead of the Government’s spring statement, yet last year the OBR significantly revised many of its previous assessments ahead of the spring statement. The OBR wrote that it was expecting GDP growth of 1%—half the rate of the October forecast—and that “CPI inflation is forecast to rise from 2.5 per cent in 2024 to 3.2 per cent in 2025, 0.6 percentage points higher than forecast in October.” [ Interruption. ] I have not been called “kiddo” for a while. I hope the Whip on duty, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), understands that this is an important point to make. It may have taken me some time to get there, but this is an important point. The issue here is: why make this change now? The Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 is clear that the OBR must prepare fiscal and economic forecasts and assessments at least twice a year. Clause 251 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill retains the requirement for the OBR to prepare forecasts twice a year, but it seeks to remove the requirement in the 2011 Act for the OBR to provide its assessment twice a year. Perhaps the Minister—the wannabe Chancellor—can confirm that the reason we are today debating a revised charter, which now excludes an OBR forecast just ahead of the spring statement, is specifically to preclude the OBR from doing its own assessment on the imminent spring statement. We support tonight’s measure, but not with any confidence in this Government’s handling of the economy. In lacking that confidence, we are not alone. According to the latest Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales survey, business confidence fell again in the last quarter of 2025, with record concerns about the tax burden on business. In its December 2025 survey, YouGov found that 80% of the British people thought the Government were handling the economy badly. It is a sorry, sorry state for our great country.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Living Standards · Hansard source

  More

  Persistently high inflation and fears that things will get tougher for their children are top issues for the British public, but the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of Labour’s plans was that: “Growth in real household disposable income per person is projected to fall… to around ¼ per cent a year… well below the last decade’s average”. Minister, why is the sum of all this Government’s economic policies condemning the British public to such a despairing prospect?

• 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?

• 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?

• 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.