Graham Stuart
MP for Beverley and Holderness · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I hope and expect that we can move forward in the right way and get the balance right between being overly prescriptive to the banking industry and setting a clear sense of direction to make sure that no one is left behind, as so many Members have set out.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate.”
“Is my hon. Friend as astonished as I am that the Minister—I know she is new to her post—has come here to propose a six-month extension of the movement of costs from bills to the Exchequer and cannot tell the Committee how much money that will cost?”
“The Minister is being most generous again. I did not ask her about protecting consumers from energy price shocks; I asked about a clear, unequivocal manifesto pledge to reduce household energy bills by £300. She, like her predecessors, refuses to address it directly. It was a clear promise.”
“Banking hubs themselves came out of an industry response from the NatWest executive. Does the Minister agree that we must present the information from the Lloyd review to the banking groups, be clear about what we want, and give them the opportunity to respond and provide a solution, as they did with banking hubs, so that we can perhaps a…”
“I am pleased to say that Lloyds listened and, as of this morning, people can deposit cheques at those places. These issues being raised by Members across the House today are important. I trust that given the timing of the Richard Lloyd report, the Minister in her seat will make sure that they are be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,829 lines we hold for Graham Stuart, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 117.
“We are seeing a kind of socialist envy and attack on misguided targets. For instance, children with special educational needs in private schools will be pulled out of those schools mid-year because their families can no longer afford to send them there. That was not the intent; not only did Labour Members want to stand on an honest prospectus, but that is not, I am sure, what they wanted. Nevertheless, that is what is happening. [Interruption.] It is exactly what is happening. My hon. Friend is right, however, to point out that this is not just about a class-based assault on people who do not deserve to be assaulted. It is also about sheer ineptitude. Let us consider the £22 billion for the NHS. Why so little for social care?”
“As well as farmers, oil and gas have been touched on today. When I was the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, it always struck me as absurd to look at the production of oil and gas rather than the consumption. It is the consumption that is the problem. We must change our factories, our vehicles, our buildings, so that they no longer need oil and gas if we are to move away from them. Attacking production when it is driven by demand is attacking the wrong end. In this measure, the Labour Government are raising the energy profits levy, on top of refusing to issue new licences. The net effect of that, notwithstanding the Liberal Democrats’ saying that they support the policy—I do not know why or how they can do so—”
“I am extremely grateful to you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try not to refer too much to the impact of national insurance contributions, because we will have that opportunity next Tuesday. None the less, my hon. Friend was right to talk about the impact of this Budget overall, and the effect on hospices and charities in particular. Yesterday I met the chief executive of HICA, a large not-for-profit provider of social care homes and in-home care. HICA is a brilliant organisation, which has made real progress over the last few years. It finally managed to make a surplus last year, so it can pay its staff more than the minimum wage and invest in its stock. Now it is facing a £3.5 million impact on its £40 million turnover as a result of this Budget and this Finance Bill.”
“I will in a moment. This does not make the slightest difference to how much we consume, but it means that we import more from abroad, and, in the case of liquefied natural gas, those imports have embedded emissions four times higher than the emissions of what we produce domestically. We are going to bring this in from places that are less careful than we are in its production. We are going to lose tens of thousands of jobs and £13 billion of tax revenue, and we are going to lose the engineering expertise and companies that we need for the transition. There is literally no way to make that make sense, and I hope the hon. Lady will now do a U-turn and see the logic of my argument.”
“The Government will pour all of the £22 billion into the NHS in the next year—it is in the figures—and we are supposed to believe that public services will rise by 1.3% or 1.4% in the rest of the period up to the next general election. Is that credible? It is not. I think Labour Members know that, which is what they have signalled by their absence, because they realise, as we do, that this Finance Bill and the Budget are ruinous for this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) was absolutely right to say that they make this country more vulnerable to the shocks that may and most likely will come, and it will be the Labour party that owns the mistakes that are being sown today.”
“We are losing all that tax, all those jobs and all that expertise, which is exactly what we need for carbon capture, and for hydrogen, for the green economy. It is utterly insane. I note that there are very few Labour Members present. I watched them as they came in for the Budget, full of cherry-cheeked enthusiasm and reading out their Whip-prepared rote remarks about the disaster left behind, which, as we know, was the fastest-growing economy in the G7, with inflation at target, debt coming down and the economy coming up. They are not all mad, socialist loons, and day by day we can see them losing spirit in the Tea Room and in the corridors as they realise that the deceit that their Front Benchers practised not only on the people, but on them, is coming home to roost.”
“The hon. Lady did not actually refer to the measure in front of us. I know it is the Liberal Democrats’ policy to have a windfall tax on anyone who does not sound popular—big banks, big tech, and oil and gas. That is their answer. If anyone says, “How would you do it?”, they trot that out and lose not a single vote, because the very definition of not taking a tough choice is suggesting that there is easy money. The measure in front of us, which the hon. Lady specifically said she supported, is not a windfall tax. It is a further tax, in tandem with the removal of any new licences, which effectively destroys investment in the North sea. I point to Apache—which says it is looking to withdraw by 2029, risking 500 jobs—Harbour Energy, JAPEX and Chevron, to name just a few. They are pulling out, and there is no environmental benefit.”
“It is tempting for Members to read out the rote stuff that is given to them—as some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have been prepared to do, but are mostly not prepared to do today—but I just gently point out that there was never a reduction in NHS spending; in real terms it went up in every single year. If there is a belief that the NHS can be magically turned around by having above-inflation increases in spending alone, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not true, because we did it every year and we still had demand going beyond the resource.”
“The Cherry Tree community centre on the Swinemoor estate in Beverley provides support for up to 150 young people in the area, despite not having any permanent premises. It has planning permission and some money from the National Lottery, but could I please meet the right hon. Lady or one of her colleagues to discuss how we can find the funding for the right premises to support young people in Swinemoor and across Beverley?”
“When I led our delegation to last year’s COP, the first to commit to phasing out fossil fuels, I knew my team and I were following in the footsteps of someone who may have come from a humble background but went on to change the world.”
“He would often come to Beverley, when Pauline would go shopping and he would go to the Royal Standard pub, the finest establishment in Beverley, where he was always very welcome, and people to this day hold him in the highest regard. As has been remarked, he led our delegation to the COP at Kyoto in 1997, and was widely regarded as the key element in delivering its historic outcome, the first time an international agreement was made to recognise and cut climate emissions. The former US Vice-President Al Gore said that he had “never worked with anyone in politics…quite like John Prescott.” John continued to take climate issues seriously, and we would have passionate and rather loud conversations on the train as we went to and fro from east Yorkshire.”
“When eventually he did come out, I was just about the only demonstrator left. I immediately berated him and his entourage, and we had a surreal dance around the car park, before he went up to a Jaguar and tried to get in: it was not his. I think it took him quite some time to forgive me for that. I regularly saw John—as did colleagues from Hull, such as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who is sitting on the Government Front Bench—on Hull trains, and he was normally surrounded by papers at a four-place table that he was trying to keep entirely to himself. Although he was gruff, he was also engaging.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When I was elected for Beverley and Holderness in 2005, John Prescott, the MP for neighbouring Kingston upon Hull East, was of course already a legend. He was the word-mangling, fast-fisted former bar steward who had, for the last eight years, been Deputy Prime Minister of this United Kingdom. Hearing the tributes from across the House and all the ways in which that one man was able to influence history and make a difference is, I hope, an inspiration to aspirant working-class politicians all over the country, but also to people in this House. I knew John from a few years before I entered Parliament. He came to Cambridge for a transport summit, so I organised a demonstration against it and stood outside all day. The day went on and he did not come out.”
“The hon. Gentleman is giving a thoughtful and impassioned speech. Notwithstanding his support for the Government’s policy, I wonder whether he regrets the fact that it is being introduced midway through the year, so that children, including those with special educational needs, will find themselves struggling to get involved with the curriculum and to fulfil the examinations for which they have put in a lot of effort and preparation.”
“The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the impact on small schools, which often have pretty low fees, so is he going to vote against the Bill tonight? The spirit of this legislation is to hit everything in the private sector, as if every institution was Eton, when he knows and we know that they are anything but.”
“I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). Many private schools actually charge less than the funding that goes to state schools. Every school is not Eton. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the most vulnerable schools and the children therein? Should the proper design of any policy not be grounded in looking at the most vulnerable rather than the strongest?”
“John Prescott was a remarkable climate diplomat, and a funny, moving, and strangely mesmerising speaker, but he was also aware that while ambitious climate targets are necessary, climate action is essential. On that point, I understand that the hydrogen allocation round 1 agreements are ready to go. Can the Prime Minister commit to getting those agreements issued to companies, so that we can get the hydrogen economy going before Christmas, together with the jobs that go with it?”
“Q12. The whole House recognises the authenticity of the right hon. Lady’s back story—her pride in being a carer, and indeed in her recent elevation. In contrast, the chief constable of Northamptonshire was sacked in June for misrepresenting his CV, and just last month a nurse, Tanya Nasir, was imprisoned for five years for doing the same. Does the right hon. Lady agree that such serious consequences are right and just in such cases?”
“Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), I welcome the £2.9 billion of extra defence expenditure from next year. However, not only do we not have a timetable for meeting 2.5% of GDP, which the whole House would like to hear about; will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no additional funding for the in-year pressures that this Department, alongside so many others, is suffering from?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [ Interruption. ] I did not mean to knock you down a peg, Mr Speaker; that would be very unwise. I regret the Secretary of State’s tone in response to the shadow Secretary of State, and I hope that, over time, she learns not to adopt that tone on issues such as this. The shadow Secretary of State noted that there is a capacity crisis, and the Secretary of State has said that we need greater early intervention now. Is the Secretary of State confident that she has the resources to support local authorities and others in tackling this twin challenge? Both parts need to be tackled at the same time, which is a truly serious undertaking.”
“The right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, be aware that the long-term economic growth of this country relies not primarily on public investment or indeed public infrastructure, but on a healthy private sector—the wealth creators from whom we can take the funding to deliver into those goods that he talks about and that are part of a balanced and successful society. This Budget does not help them. It does the opposite.”
“I know that my hon. Friend follows these things closely. According to the OBR, the £26 billion jobs tax bombshell actually nets only £16 billion because of reduced investment and other funds, and three quarters of the £26 billion falls on workers’ wages. Only this socialist Government could be so incompetent as to reduce wages by more than they will take from a tax that they have introduced. I have not heard that observation yet in the debate, but I share it with my hon. Friend.”
“The hon. Lady makes absolutely the right point about the NHS and its interdependence with social care, but the Government have done more than be silent on social care: through the minimum wage and the NICs, they have imposed £2.5 billion of additional costs on social care while giving just £600 million to local authorities. They are taking an already difficult situation and making it rather worse.”
“I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way that this Government are serially breaking all the promises they made during the election is corrosive for our politics?”
“My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It is good to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his place. I hope he will take on board these arguments, and perhaps the overall settlement can be reworked to minimise the negative impacts that my hon. Friend outlines.”
“No, it is relevant here. I wonder whether it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to have been given assurances by the Government that funding will be put in place to mitigate the impact on GPs, because that information has repeatedly been refused to this House. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker that you represent all Back Benchers, like me, in making sure the truth is out.”
“I do not want to rehearse—although there is so much to rehearse—the 50 promises not to raise taxes or the bogus £22 billion that was not validated by the OBR, but those are serious points. It is good to see the engagement from Labour Members, because in politics one cannot afford to have a reputation for being dishonest and not doing what one says. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members who laugh at that should remember Cicero’s advice. He was always better at giving advice than following it, but he said: “The foundation of justice is…good faith; that is, truth and fidelity to promises and agreements.” Without that, we lose trust.”
“It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have heard fantastic maiden speeches from across the House, and I am sure that we have all enjoyed the insights from them. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson). I loved the way he set out his aspiration for the kind of country of abundance that we should seek. He is entirely right, but I am just not sure that this Budget is the way to get there. If the penny drops with him over time, I hope that he will be able to engage with us in coming up with a more constructive way of delivering the growth that this country needs. Not only is this a Budget of broken promises, but unfortunately—and this is an important issue—it is a bad faith Budget.”
“Yes. And with respect to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I think that the former Prime Minister and Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip was true to himself, true to his heart and true in his expressions—although, like all of us, he probably had his moments. What he never did was set out on a deliberate path to mislead people. He set out his honest view of the way the world should be. Unfortunately, 9.7 million people, including 15,000 of my constituents, believed the promises of the now Labour Government, and even 410 Members of Parliament thought that they were being honest.”
“That is their lived reality, and the serious impact of this Budget should be recognised. Another broken promise was to pensioners, who were told that they would have security in retirement—that their benefits would not be touched. Taking £300 from the very poorest pensioners is not keeping that promise. [ Interruption. ] The very poorest pensioners are those eligible for pension credit.”
“Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) is grinning—I know he grins a lot, but it should not be funny to him that someone in a low-wage job who travels into Hull every day will pay £500 a year more because of the decisions his Government are making. For a couple, it is £1,000 a year. That cost is real, and it should not be glossed over. There is just one train station in my constituency, and people who live in Withernsea have no choice but to travel 26 miles to get there. The Prime Minister’s constituents are blessed with a pick and mix of ways to get to the office: the tube, the overground, trains, Ubers, Bolts, and even Boris bikes. That is not the case in rural and coastal East Yorkshire: my constituents get the bus at 7 o’clock in the morning, and they get another bus at 6 o’clock at night.”
“I think people do feel betrayed. We need to conduct our politics as honestly as we can. The Labour Government broke their promise not to raise taxes on working people, because, as the OBR has made clear, the NICs raise will overwhelmingly fall on working people. In fact, if we go through the numbers, as I did, it turns out that there is a bigger reduction in wages than there is net receipt to the Exchequer. That is quite a remarkable achievement—probably only a Labour Government could do that. Of course, the Government have also put up the cost of getting on the bus. If ever there was a symbol of working people, travelling from my constituency to a low-paid job in Hull, that is it. It will cost them £500 a year extra out of taxed income. I do not know why the hon.”
“I will not. The very poorest pensioners are those eligible for pension credit, and nearly 900,000 of them will not get that £300. That is the truth—there is no point denying it. Finally, there is the awful betrayal of British farmers, many of whom work from dawn to dusk to ensure our supermarkets are full of fresh fruit and veg. According to my constituent William Hodgson, who runs a small family farm near Withernsea, it is a “rural catastrophe”. I ask the Government to think again.”
“Not when an intervention is happening. Every Labour Government in history have ended with higher unemployment than when they began. From the look of these measures, does it not seem that this one will be exactly the same?”
“Cheekiness accepted. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the £600 million extra is for both children and adult social care, whereas adult social care alone is expected to have a £2.4 billion hit, so does he agree that if the NHS, however well funded, cannot move its patients into social care, that investment and expenditure will not work?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that no one would think less of the Government if they listened to these arguments, heard the message and changed? For instance, there is the message about social care being hit by £2.5 billion of extra costs. The £600 million that has been given to local authorities will not cover those costs. If the Government simply listened and changed, people would think much better of them, and we would have a social care system that supported the NHS, rather than one that stops the NHS being able to do what it needs to do.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that the absence on the Government Front Bench of anyone with any experience of running a business, when businesses create the wealth that pays for public services, may explain why the Budget is so financially illiterate?”
“My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech on this Budget of broken promises. People in Dudley and elsewhere did not vote for this Labour Government to put up taxes on working people, yet the OBR has said today that 76% of the cost of the rise in national insurance contributions will come out of ordinary working people’s wages. Does he agree that they are rightly angry about that and will get angrier still when they understand the implications?”
“The hon. Gentleman talks about investment for our future. What is he going to say to the farmers of the Vale of Glamorgan who fear that they will no longer be able to pass on their farms to the next generation, as each generation before them has been able to do until this black day of broken promises in this Budget?”
“Residents of Joseph Rowntree’s St Ellens Court all gathered recently to tell me about the devastating impact that the cut in the winter fuel payment will have on their living standards, and people in Withernsea gathered Saturday last to demonstrate against it. Tomorrow, the Chancellor can do the right thing; will she?”
“After your statement yesterday, Mr Speaker, I think you will have been as disappointed as I was that when the Chancellor came to the Chamber for Treasury questions this morning, she failed to apologise for the serious and important announcements that she had made outside the House. Without deflecting any further by talking about the previous Government’s record, will the Minister promise now that the ministerial code, and the Speaker of this House, who represents us all, will be respected by the Government?”
“So many of my residents in rural Beverley and Holderness have benefited from the simply brilliant £2 bus fare. Could we have a debate or a statement from the Transport Secretary as soon as possible after the Budget on the future of the £2 bus fare, which has seen so many more of my residents able to get to work, be a full part of the community and meet members of their families?”
“There is only one route to sustained peace in Lebanon, and that is for the UN and the Lebanese state to stop Hezbollah carrying out its operations. That’s right, isn’t it?”
“Under the last Conservative Government, excluding fraud and computer misuse, crime fell by 50%— [ Interruption. ] I am pleased to say that in Beverley and Holderness, as across the rest of the country, it was community groups, local people and the police working together who helped to do that. Working with the local community, the Cherry Tree Centre helped to reduce antisocial behaviour in the St Nicholas area of Beverley by 43%, year on year, by last summer. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that such community co-operation leads to further cuts in crime, which was so welcome under the Conservatives?”
“The Government’s own impact assessment states that “the impact on growth could”— only could— “be positive”, and that any such impact “would be small in magnitude.” The negative impacts, not least on small businesses, will be very serious in magnitude, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) laid out. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please explain how she will minimise the negative impacts?”
“I believe it is. The Deputy Prime Minister just talked about the amount of money coming into the economy as a result of the measures. Is it appropriate for her and other Members across the House to speak in the debate without mentioning what they have received in donations from trade unions, given how central the law around trade unions is to the Bill?”
“Like my hon. Friend, I started a business—I started mine a little earlier than him, but that is how much older I am. I followed the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech as carefully as I could. From what I could understand, because of the changes in the Bill, someone can fail to turn up to work on day one claiming that they are sick and then, because they will now have rights against unfair dismissal, they will be able, without ever doing a day’s work, to hold a small business to ransom and put that business at risk.”
“At the end of the debate, we need to hear from a Minister how the Bill will be changed so that it supports rather than undermines the 4 million additional jobs created since 2010 under the Conservatives. The economic impact assessment, so rudely provided so late in the day, shows that the costs of the Bill will fall disproportionately on small businesses—something that we have heard no acknowledgment of from Government Members. Five out of nine measures will have that effect. Do Ministers have any plans to change that?”
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and the contribution from small businesses to my election campaign earlier this year. History is repeating itself. Labour’s antipathy and lack of understanding for business, and small business in particular, is rearing its ugly head again. This legislation will have ruinous results for those who desperately need a job and hope. The Federation of Small Businesses says: “This legislation is a rushed job, clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.” The federation goes on to say that the Bill will increase economic inactivity. That is a rather sanitised way of referring to the ruined lives, dashed hopes and huge waste of human potential that the Bill will bring about.”
“I entirely agree, and places like the Isle of Wight, with so many hospitality businesses, will pay a particularly high price. We should celebrate and support our wealth creators, not burden them with excessive taxes and regulations that kill the drive to work, invest and create wealth. Yet that is the destructive path that Labour is taking, with a jobs tax planned for every worker’s national insurance contributions in the Budget in a couple of weeks, and this Bill to deter SME employment.”