Richard Fuller
MP for North Bedfordshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the Bill’s clauses. He emphasised the importance of the 2026 royal trustees’ review. The interesting thing is that it is their forecast of their needs over the next five years on which a lot of the mechanism rests.”
“I thank the Minister’s colleague the Exchequer Secretary, because on the 11th of this month, he wrote in reply to questions from my colleague, answering questions about some of the points that we may get into in detailed consideration of the Bill.”
“In his letter, the Minister said: “The Household forecasts that this income will increase by around 25% over the review period, based on recent performance, detailed modelling and increased visitor capacity… If income were lower than forecast, there is no expectation that the Grant would increase above £99.9 million per year.” Can the Min…”
“I thank the Minister for his speech. This follows a recent debate on ways and means that his colleague the Exchequer Secretary had with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild). I do not wish to repeat the points that were made on that occasion. His Majesty’s official Opposition are supportive of this Bill.”
“Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asked about powers to adjust the grant between reviews and the circumstances in which they might be used, the answer from the Treasury was: “These powers are intended for exceptional circumstances and are not expected to be used routinely”, which, of course, is the definition of except…”
“Will the Minister explain how those financial assessments were made? What discount rate was used to work out what the estimates might be? I am not questioning it, and I do not need a precise figure; what I am looking for is some comfort from the Minister that he feels that those financial projections, that model and the work of the truste…”
The complete record
Every one of 608 lines we hold for Richard Fuller, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 13.
“If they are going to waste public money, let us not spend the public money in the first place. Unlike some Opposition Members, I welcome the triple lock and the living wage increase. Those long-term Conservative policies have been put in place and year on year they have done so much to take working people and many pensioners out of poverty. Those measures are expensive for the state—of course, we need to understand that—but they are crucial parts of making our society more equal. I have one point to raise: I do not think anyone in this House is confident about introducing a regional living wage, as there are lots of problems with that. However, we must note that the living wage is rising to £11.44 and that is nearly 80% of median wages in Wales.”
“I worry, however, that HMRC is extending itself a little too far and not focusing on the bread and butter issues, such as picking up the phone and answering the inquiries of taxpayers day to day. The Chancellor was right to introduce productivity targets for the public, as it is clear that since the pandemic the private sector has roared ahead with productivity improvements and the public sector has done absolutely nothing to improve productivity. But why go for 0.5%? What institution cannot achieve more than a 0.5% improvement in productivity year on year? The Chancellor should look at strengthening that target. While he is at it, why does he not go through all the capital projects that do not have a positive benefit-to-cost ratio, on proper discounted cash-flow terms, and cancel the lot of them?”
“The Green Book contains an interesting item at paragraph 5.57, which is heroically called: “Investment in HMRC debt management capability”. I have a background in venture capital and this measure, for £163 million, promises an annual return of more than £1 billion. We put £163 million of extra resources into HMRC to chase on this issue and we get £1 billion back, according to the Government’s numbers. How does that happen? It is because this measure “will allow HMRC to better distinguish between those who can afford to settle their tax debts, but choose not to, from those who are temporarily unable to pay and need support.” That is a massive extension of the roles and responsibility of HMRC into the personal finances or the corporate finances of small businesses. Clearly, that may be a good measure, whereby we can close the tax gap.”
“They seek to strengthen economic regulation and impose, or introduce, a growth duty on Ofwat, Ofcom and Ofgem. Those important measures will stimulate growth, but my point would be: is that it? Regulators cover 25% of the productive part of our economy. Members in all parts of the House have pointed out numerous times the failures of our regulators to manage their sectors effectively, be it water or energy. What on earth are the Government doing to make regulators make more effort to stimulate growth? I ask the regulators, please, not only to stick with current efforts but to do more of what they can. I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary feels similarly. The Financial Secretary is not here, but he has responsibility for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.”
“Lots of sensible words have been said by Members in all parts of the House about thresholds and the drag. When this rate was brought in, 4% of adults paid that higher rate. With measures not reversed today—it is important that we say to the Treasury, “You did not reverse this today”—that number will rise to 16% by 2027-28. That is not 16% of taxpayers, but 16% of all adults and so it includes people who are not working and it includes pensioners. The actual number will be nearly one in four taxpayers paying the higher rate of tax. That is not a Conservative way to run the economy. There are some specific hopes in what the Government have put in. I particularly welcome some of the measures, including those set out in paragraphs 5.95, 5.96 and 5.97 in the Green Book, which form part of the Chancellor’s 110 measures.”
“I do not want to get into the nitty-gritty, although it is true that, at the moment, this is the largest tax-raising Parliament of any, and that will be extremely difficult for me to explain to my constituents, but if we look over the longer term, four of the six Parliaments from 1970 to 1997 were tax-cutting Parliaments, and only two were tax-increasing. Of the seven Parliaments since 1997, five have increased taxes and only two have reduced them. We have a political-class problem: whichever party is in power, we are biased towards increasing the burden on taxpayers to increase the state. That is not a Conservative approach to the economy. Thirdly, the IFS looked at the proportion of taxpayers now captured in the higher and additional rate.”
“As Ministers have said, those were caused by exceptional items: the covid response and the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Those one-off increases should have been followed by significant real reductions in public expenditure, to get it back to where it was. If we have real increases, we are then at a higher level, and we get back to where we were before the one-offs only if we have real reductions. There was nothing in the announcements today that indicated that the Government have got to grips with that essential point about public spending. The second chart from the IFS looks at tax rises across Parliaments.”
“They talked about things that the Chancellor was not doing, and then they tried desperately not to sound too enthusiastic about the things that he was doing. That is part of the success of the Chancellor’s statement. I therefore congratulate him on making a reasonable and good start, but we have a very long way to go to get back to Conservative principles in public financing. I want to draw attention to three charts that the Institute for Fiscal Studies prepared. The first shows public spending increases in real terms, going back all the way to 1985-86. As one gets older, one likes looking at longer-term trends in things. The chart shows that in this Parliament there was a significant increase in public expenditure in two fiscal years.”
“You tempt me in the wrong direction, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that, in a few minutes, those on the Government Front Bench will wish that I had had fewer minutes. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He always speaks a lot of sense in the House, and I listened with interest to what he said. It is also a pleasure to welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), to his place. I am sure he will do a fantastic job in the Treasury, as will the rest of the team. I congratulate the Chancellor, because at the start of this debate the Opposition were struggling to have anything to say about what was in his statement.”
“The hon. Lady is exactly right on that. We have to have the courage to understand that there are different pressures in labour markets. As we push forward the national living wage increases, we need to take those pressures into account if we are to get the right balance for employment.”
“Would the Minister, either now or in summing up the debate, explain a bit about the phrase “free allocation”? On the face of it, if free allocation is to be set at 100% of the sector’s verified emissions, it does not sound like there is a lot of free space. He mentioned that free allocation was originally set at 127% because of concerns about carbon leakage. What has changed so that the Government are now satisfied that cutting it to 100% will not result in carbon leakage?”
“My right hon. Friend’s new clauses relate to debanking, prompted by a particular incident. Would he not accept that there is the broader issue that the pursuit of environmental, social and governance goals by corporations and the pursuit of values in association with diversity, equity and inclusion objectives raise the same issue on a much broader front than banking facilities? What would he recommend the Government should do on that?”
“I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. Does he share with me the humour that Opposition Back Benchers have proposals for new taxation that the Opposition Front Benchers are trying to bat away, while those of us on the Government Back Benches are telling the Government to cut taxes, and our Front Benchers keep batting that away?”
“On decision authorities, it seems odd to have a system where integrated care boards bring together local councils and the local NHS—my area has a £2 billion annual budget—yet local people who understand local health needs have almost zero decision rights over how that money is spent. I do not see how the future of the NHS in the long term can be such a top-down, budget-driven system with so little local discretion if it is to succeed.”
“There is much greater global competition, both in terms of trying to bring people to the UK—the NHS brand is not as strong as it used to be—and in what people will do when they leave their training, such as moving to the middle east or to other health markets. We also need to recognise that many of our junior doctors now carry student debt, which the original model did not anticipate that they would have, and therefore the charging of ongoing fees for annual training is important. We must also recognise that junior doctors want to spend most of their time training and being with patients. The Government should look acutely at ways they can reduce the admin burden.”
“I think that people are prepared to put private capital in place, but decision rights on how we all access diagnostics need to be given to us, not held by the NHS. Because of the limitations on time, I will mention compensation briefly. How on earth did we end up with a GP pay system that means that those who choose their hours and do not take on the responsibility of being a partner end up getting paid more lucratively than those who are full time or who are partner GPs? We need to reinforce the partner GP model, not turn our back on it. I know that the Government are in discussion with junior doctors about this, but the circumstances in which we train our doctors has changed substantially.”
“We are also seeing people coming forward to help with capital. We recently had a change in the elected mayoralty in Bedford, with the replacement of a Liberal Democrat Mayor by a Conservative one, Tom Wootton. I am delighted that as one of his first measures, he has provided capital from the council’s budget to bring forward the provision of primary care services in the constituency and the rest of the borough. I look forward to those improvements being made in Great Barford and in other constituencies—I know it is happening in Wixams and Wootton. I commend an elected Conservative Mayor as the way to get local primary NHS facilities improved. Well done, Mayor Tom Wootton. We need to provide more access for private capital if we are to enable a range of diagnostic centres across the country.”
“What a great form of outreach that charity and its volunteers and recruits have taken on with this role of social prescribing. In addition, there is a bit of pressure on local pharmacies, with some of the national changes altering their strategies. Others, however, are coming forward with positive initiatives, including Jardines pharmacy in Biggleswade, which has just launched its out-of-hours, Amazon box-type option for people to get their prescriptions. In discussing improvement, I wish to mention four areas where there is change. On capital for the NHS, the issue is not primarily one of needing more money. Capital for the NHS in this five-year period will be 60% greater than it was in the previous five-year period. The issue is the process by which that capital is allocated and the choices that are made.”
“Despite the fact that all Members here feel that primary care has gone through quite a difficult process after the covid experience, in my constituency we have made progress, although there is still more to be made. It is a shame to see my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) moving from his role in primary care, not least because I had just arranged a meeting with him and the leader of Central Bedfordshire Council to discuss the Biggleswade health hub. May I make a quick plea to those on the Front Bench that that meeting should be put back on the schedule as soon as possible? Social prescribing was mentioned by the Minister in her opening remarks and it is a positive initiative. I visited the Bedfordshire Rural Communities Charity, which has taken on that responsibility.”
“Some parts of the community find that making the transition from seeing their normal GP to seeing another differently qualified member of staff creates problems, but in the long term it is useful. I found out that the different methodologies for accessing primary care—not just walking in or getting an appointment by phone, but getting access through email, the net or an app—have created extra pressures on primary care doctors. However, they are there to see it through to the end and they think it will have long-term benefits. I thank all my local GPs across the constituency. A couple had particular difficulties, but I am pleased to say that progress in those two practices has been substantial since changes have been made.”
“That is why “infrastructure first”, whereby we get the infrastructure in place before putting in more housing, was important for the future, while recognising that the growth over the previous two decades had had a significant impact, most importantly on primary care. I have visited literally every GP practice in my constituency and spent an hour there, with one exception—it is still to come. I have found out about discrete issues that are important in how local residents feel about their GP services, including the choice of phone system. I think that the move to the cloud-based phone system by the NHS is welcome. I found out how people feel about the skills mix, where we have more non-GPs.”
“Let me make a counter point: many people think that the Government are already trying to do too much. These people are fed up with their businesses and lives being too regulated, and their taxes being too high. They are fed up with being told what they can and cannot say, and when they can and cannot demonstrate. People want to be free to live their lives. Government can play an important enabling role, but I say to her that the most important thing is the quality of the legislation proposed, which we all have a role in forming, rather than the quantity. The topic of today’s debate is an NHS fit for the future. When I became the MP for North East Bedfordshire, it was clear that growth in population and in housing was driving many of the issues that affected my generally rural constituency.”
“May I join my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in thanking His Majesty for his Gracious Speech, as there was much in it to commend? As this issue is dear to my heart and the hearts of many councillors in Bedford borough, let me thank the Government for saying that they will introduce changes on estate management charges to homeowners. Those charges affect perhaps 1 million homeowners across the country and this is an unregulated area. It is important that those people have improved rights to challenge and I look forward to seeing what the Government come forward with. Let me also say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). Like many of her colleagues, she bemoaned the fact that the King’s Speech contained so few Bills and that the Government were not trying to do more.”
“For a shadow spokesperson, the hon. Lady is making some good points, but she has just raised the interaction of the non-dom status and the health service. As she will be aware, the General Medical Council said today how important it was that we continue to attract doctors from overseas, but many would be impacted by a change in the non-dom status. How will Labour’s policy affect our ability to recruit people from overseas for our health service?”
“I want to ask a question that I do not think was addressed last time we debated Lords amendments, and that I do not think the Government have addressed today. What are the implications if there is an explicit threshold? What further thought have the Government given to the implications of putting in a threshold? Are they satisfied that some of the concerns raised by Opposition Members and Conservative Back Benchers have been taken into account?”
“Thirdly, will she reassure the House that the Government’s commitment, which they have shown year on year, to increase research and development spending will continue to focus on the competitive interests of the UK first and foremost?”
“It is a relief that the EU has relaxed its rather self-defeating ban on the participation of British scientists and researchers in projects with their European peers. I congratulate the Government on holding fast to achieve a deal that was in the best interests of British taxpayers. I will probe the Secretary of State on three specific points. She talked about the opportunity for the UK to lead projects, but she did not say that the UK will have the right to determine the focus of projects in the future. I am interested in that specific point. Secondly, it is always important to have all the brains in the building working on projects. Will the UK have the opportunity post 2027 to see the Horizon programme expand beyond its existing members?”
“The shadow Chancellor has said that she will not rule out mandating the use of pension fund money for the pet schemes that the Labour party thinks will achieve net zero, putting at risk the savings of many pensioners in this country. What does my hon. Friend think the impact of that will be on the British economy?”
“T2. For months, we have had the Labour economics team running down British businesses, berating them for not growing fast enough and ignoring the fact that the OECD shows that the British economy has grown faster since 2010 than Germany, Italy, Spain or France. With the recently announced Office for National Statistics upgrade that the Chancellor just referred to, what is his more hopeful message to British businesses?”
“I join the Minister in thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for leading on the measures included in new clause 63. On the renewable liquid heating fuel obligation, the Minister said that he would do a consultation within the next 12 months. Many of my constituents who are off-grid also want secondary legislation to come through in the next 12 months. Can he assure the House that that is his intention?”
“I interrupt my hon. Friend to pick up the intervention he received from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I warn those on the Front Bench about what he just said. Leaving the burdens on business to the courts or whichever procedures to define is not a reasonable protection for small businesses. They need the protection that the Minister outlines, because in such circumstances people will go to the most conservative position they can. Although my right hon. and learned Friend suggested that that would provide significant and effective protection, it will not do so in practice as behaviour will change and burdens will increase. I think the Minister is getting the right balance on this.”
“How will they know that they have taken the actions under prevention procedures to ensure that they will not be subject to legal prosecution?”
“The hon. Lady is making some excellent points on her side of the argument, but I think that the 0.5% figure misses the fact that that probably covers a substantially larger proportion of economic activity in the country. What intrigues me is this. There is a balance to be struck here. I think the hon. Lady will go on to ask the Government not to press their amendment, or to else to oppose Lords amendment 159; but what, in practice, will this mean for smaller businesses if they are to be held to the responsibility to prevent fraud? Is it a certificate on the wall? Is it an annual process that they will need to go through? How much is it going to cost? Ultimately, who will give a guarantee to all the small business owners around the country who are worried about this new responsibility?”
“The hon. Lady has made a point, which the shadow spokesperson also made, about harms being done to small businesses by businesses that are committing fraud against them. But there is already a law against committing fraud, so why does the additional law about not taking any actions to prevent fraud help in those circumstances?”
“I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. He seems to have some mixed views on the point of regulatory burden, particularly on this measure. He makes the point about fraud being a crime, but this legislation is about actions to prevent fraud, as he knows. What do I tell the good, upstanding owners and managers of small businesses in my constituency that they are doing wrong about fraud today? How are they letting him down because they are not taking the actions to prevent fraud that he thinks they should be taking?”
“I do not want to argue about that point, but the United States is also an incredibly litigious society. The main beneficiaries of much of this are the legal community, with which my right hon. and learned Friend will be particularly familiar. As a result of the clause applying to smaller businesses in my constituency, can he tell me specifically what they will need to do differently that they do not do today?”
“It would be ideal if that process were just a tick box. It would be ideal if that information could be communicated to accountants across this country who regularly have to file accounts on behalf of very small businesses, and it would be helpful if the Minister could advise that it is the Government’s intent that very small businesses in the circumstances I have outlined will not have very private personal financial information put in the public domain, although their information will still be required by Companies House and therefore placed under the protection that the Bill seeks to address.”
“The amendment lays out in proposed new subsections 468A(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 2006 that the Secretary of State “may by regulations make provision requiring the registrar, on application or otherwise”, and goes on further to say that regulations “which provide for the making of an application may make provision” as to who may make an application, the grounds on which an application can be made, the information to be included in it, the notice to be given, how an application is to be done and so on. My concern here is that Lords amendment 30, in seeking to correct the over-disclosure of public information, has put in its place quite a complicated application procedure. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister could say what he has or what the Government have in mind about that application process.”
“Yes, they will still provide the information, but surely it makes sense for companies in those circumstances not to have all their very specific financial information in the public domain. I believe Lords amendment 30—the Minister might refer to this if he has time—seeks to provide a mechanism for a restriction on that disclosure of such personal information.”
“Members to imagine, if they will, that in a town or a community there are two or three competing laundries or plumbers, all of them maybe husband and wife, father and son or whatever—concentrating on what I want to say of a small business—or just sole proprietors, competing with each other in a small market. If their profit and loss statements were to be a matter of public knowledge, that would have very serious implications for local understanding of that person’s or that family’s personal wealth. It would have significant implications for local competition. The provisions that were in place in the Bill originally provided no protection for people in those circumstances.”
“I think it is appropriate and prudent that we build the measures, as the Minister has said, in his amendment (a) to Lords amendment 151. That is all I will say on Lords amendment 151, However, I want to talk about another amendment that affects small businesses, which no other hon. Member has referred to in this debate: Lords amendment 30 regarding the disclosure of profit and loss accounts for certain companies, which the Bill will require of small businesses and microbusinesses that had previously been exempt. It potentially causes considerable concerns for owners of very small businesses if they are to have their profit and loss and their balance sheets publicly declared through Companies House reporting. I ask hon.”
“and learned Friends the Members for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who make the case for extending the failure to prevent fraud provisions to smaller businesses. I must say that they have not convinced me of the merits of their argument at this stage, and I think on balance I am with the Minister on this. I am a Conservative and therefore change is perhaps always difficult for me, but I think particularly of what the implications may be for smaller businesses. I have not been persuaded by the other examples put forward of health and safety or bribery; I think there will be quite a chilling effect if the responsibilities for preventing fraud are extended to small business owners.”
“The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill is an important Bill that has cross-party support. I do not know whether it is appropriate to say that the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) is in many ways its godmother, but she is certainly one of the key drivers of this important legislation. Whether it is perfect in her regard or nearly perfect in her regard, I would like to put on record that for all of us her efforts have been to the benefit of the country as a whole. It is with some temerity that I wish to make a few points perhaps not in accordance with some of the comments made particularly by my right hon.”
“I ask the Minister to ensure not that we pass retrospective legislation, but that legislation that changes the facility with which people can seek redress is open to people, so that they can make claims on historical excessive charges—not just charges subsequent to any legislative change. If the Government are not prepared to put that in legislation, then I would certainly table an amendment to enable my residents, who right now are being charged excessively by estate management companies, to claim that money back. This is an important debate. It bears repeating that residents across the country, including many in my constituency, are looking to the Government to bring forward the necessary legislative change to make effective what has been promised now for six years. It is time for the Government to take the action required.”
“It is an interesting judgment that was obviously conducted by someone with tremendous legal knowledge, who was able to get through the whole morass of issues and have an effective case. If the news reports are right, £479,000 in overpaid service charges were required to be paid back to the homeowners at St David’s Square, and £55,000 of the money the Government had provided in energy subsidies that had not been passed on had to be paid for. I would like to applaud the decision in that case. I do not know the details, but it seems to me to be on the right track. It is important that we understand that if we make changes to estate management charges, we should not let companies off the hook for charges that have been imposed unfairly and excessively before the point when the legislation changes.”
“We need investigation by the national Government to see what limitations might be prudent for that. We have heard in past debates—I fear I may hear it again—the phrase “when parliamentary time allows”. Well, I’m up for it. I think other political parties are up for it. I hesitate to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but I think she is up for it as well. Parliament clearly wants to look at this issue. We want progress to be made, so it is important that we should look at it. I do not often like to talk about specific companies, but in this instance I will. I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance to look at the tribunal decision in May 2023 between FirstPort and the residents of St David’s Square.”
“Another issue in my constituency has been the willingness of certainly one of the two local authorities in the past to slough off their responsibilities for what would normally be public services, covered by council tax, on to these new schemes of estate management charges. It really is not on for local authorities to set up a two-tier charging system, where some people in the local authority area pay once for their public services—communal areas, lamp posts, parking facilities, ponds, grass verges being mown—while another group of residents in the same local authority pay their council tax in exactly the same way as everyone else and then is stiffed with another bill for services that other people are getting covered by council tax. This two-tier system is a growing anomaly in local authority areas.”
“What responsibilities does the solicitor have to advise the purchaser about the charges for which they will be liable and what their rights might be if they wish to sell their house? Some clarity and transparency on that would be helpful. The Minister has indicated previously that she is alert to the issue of redress and understands people’s frustration at the fact that they are not able to find an efficient route to get it. I would be grateful if she could advise us on whether providing adequate redress can be achieved through non-statutory means. Is that feasible or not, and is it preferable or not? My answer is that it is not, but I would be interested in what the Minister has to say on that.”
“We really need to look at the limits on what estate management companies can challenge. If an estate management company has legitimate, unpaid fees, they should be paid—no one is questioning that—but why is it appropriate to go to the mortgage holder and not to pursue the unpaid bills through the civil courts? It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to separate the two and not combine them into one action. While I am on the issue of the sale and purchase of homes, will the Minister please look at the role of solicitors in advising on the sale of new homes? Often, estate management charges are for new estates. People often come and talk to the housebuilder selling the houses, and the housebuilder recommends a solicitor to them.”
“If it is good to make sure people understand that they are not being ripped off on fuel prices, surely it is also good for homeowners to know that they are not being ripped off on estate management charges. Since the last debate on this topic, I have been contacted by even more constituents who have had estate management companies speak to their mortgage provider in an attempt to put some restriction on the rights of the homeowner to sell their home. Regardless of whether that is legitimate—maybe it is; I do not know the details of each case—it is clearly a potentially tremendous impediment to somebody seeking to sell their home if they have to go through a process of investigating whether the charges placed on them were legitimate, or if they are not able to complete their transaction in time.”