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 2 of 13.
“The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe there is a requirement for an escrow fund to be put in place for the removal of plants should a business go bust. Can he say what weight is placed on the historical experience of applicants for large-scale plants in installing and operating such plants in the past? Does that factor at all? I have reviewed a number of these debates, and in many of them the issue of best and most versatile land has come up. The Minister must accept that East Park Energy’s proposal of 74% of the site being best and most versatile land is a pretty high proportion, well in excess of almost every single plant that has been adopted or accepted to date. It is a generational loss of arable land.”
“There are substantial issues of project failure or poor management, and therefore the risk that the current developer sells the site on to somebody else with a whole new set of investors and objectives. The Minister may not be able to speak about this, but at least one political party in this House has said that it might cancel such projects in the future, raising the risk of stranded assets. The Government should be considering that, not because they agree with it, but because if there is such a change in Government, it is the people of North Bedfordshire in this instance who will be left with those stranded assets—solar panels stretching for three miles one way and three miles the other way, with no economic return and no financial viability to remove them.”
“Will the Minister advise on whether the Government have put in place, or have plans to put in place, a limit on the debt ratios that large-scale solar plant operators can carry? I did a quick check but could not see that such a limit was in place at the moment. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that. Tied to that point—again, from a financial point of view—is my own understanding about corporate and political risk. In the case of East Park solar, I am concerned about the corporate history and financial viability. I mean no disrespect to the business, but it has no prior experience in developing or operating such large-scale solar projects.”
“However, that additional investment makes financial sense only when the purpose is to arbitrage energy costs—producing energy at low price points to sell at high price points—but that is not really the intention of trying to get low-cost energy. As a business person, I say that the overall structure of the contracts, which the Minister inherited from previous Administrations, directly encourages maximum financial leverage—taking on as much debt as possible in order to maximise returns to investors. We have seen in other areas of public infrastructure—particularly with Thames Water—the problems that arise when so much leverage can be put up. Essentially, the returns are privatised and the losses socialised. I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s observations on that.”
“Thirdly, it is important to note that we are paying the cost of buying the energy produced, even when it is not necessarily needed or used—paying essentially for wasted energy. In addition to those points, which the Minister is aware of and which have already been factored in, the combination of solar-generated energy and energy price arbitrage via battery energy storage systems fundamentally changes the economic case for solar—certainly from a public benefit point of view. Returns to investors will already be supercharged by the addition of new capacity in the form of battery storage—a very significant additional investment.”
“Given my interest in financial matters, I hope that I have the House’s discretion to make a couple of general points about the finance of solar farms, of which I know the Minister will be aware. First, it is important to note that, with large solar plants, we are paying the cost of capacity, not of output. Capital costs are excessive because of the inherent process inefficiencies in solar farms. That is fine as long as it does not end up on the public purse, but ultimately investors look for a return, so it does indirectly end up on us. Secondly, we are paying for the cost of variability of output from solar plants—the hidden costs of changing the national network to cope with that new factor of energy production.”
“Even if planting to screen the panels is successful, it would take years for the trees to mature, and even at full maturity, large parts of the site would still be visible because of its topography. The site will be a huge, permanent, unmissable and miles-long change to the local environment of that part of England. It will not blend in with the existing environment; it will crush it. It is important to say that we in Bedfordshire are not against solar farms in general. In fact, we have 44 solar farms that are already operational or proposed in both Bedford borough and Central Bedfordshire, which are the two local authorities that traverse my constituency. However, this specific proposal is different.”
“East Park Energy would permanently and fundamentally change the area’s rural aspect and character and transform open countryside into industrial land. It is important that we stop referring to these installations by the rather cute term of “solar farm”, because the truth is that they are industrialised complexes. This one is made up of 700,000 solar panels, each up to 3 metres high, along with fencing, lighting, CCTV, inverter stations, transformer units, battery storage infrastructure and cabling. That sounds a long way from what we understand a farm to be. Proposed mitigations to plant trees in order to screen the development are usually insufficient.”
“It engulfs the rural parishes of Pertenhall and Swineshead, Bolnhurst, Keysoe, Little Staughton, Staploe and Dean and Shelton in my constituency, as well as the parishes of Hail Weston and Great Staughton in the constituency of Huntingdon. Some 74% of the land is classified as best and most versatile agricultural land, and East Park is one of six nationally significant infrastructure projects impacting North Bedfordshire. I have called this debate to discuss with the Minister the impact that East Park Energy could have on North Bedfordshire’s local residents and on its landscape and rural character, and to raise with him points specific to the proposal that, in my opinion, warrant serious consideration for its rejection.”
“Madam Deputy Speaker, may I start by thanking you and, through you, Mr Speaker for permitting me to speak on this important constituency matter. I also welcome the Minister. For the benefit of those who may be not familiar with the process, the Minister will probably be very limited in what he can say specifically about the topic I am raising today. The topic is a proposal by East Park Energy for a large-scale, ground-mounted solar plant and battery energy storage system spanning North Bedfordshire and also the constituency of Huntingdon. This proposal is currently under consideration as part of the nationally significant infrastructure project process. East Park Energy spans 1,900 acres of land—to give some perspective, that is larger than Gatwick airport—on what is currently open countryside.”
“There have been 12 solar panel development consent orders for evaluation since July 2024, each of which has been approved. Some of us may be old enough—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but certainly me—to remember the musical “Oklahoma!”, in which there is a song, “I Cain’t Say No”. That is a very old reference, but I am very old. I encourage the Secretary of State to avoid any caricature that he “cain’t say no”, because in the case of East Park Energy, my personal view is that there are considerable and specific reasons why he can say no.”
“Finally, before I yield to the Minister, I know that he is limited in what he can say about specific projects and that, given his role, the Secretary of State would not be able to comment at all. As I mentioned briefly to the Minister earlier, I am in a small minority of Conservative Members who agree with some of the Secretary of State’s criticisms about past energy policy, even though I may not agree with all of his proposed remedies, so I hope that the Minister understands that my observations come from a positive place. The role of a Secretary of State or his designated Minister in making a decision is a crucial step in an evaluation process, which the public must trust. They must assess each proposal individually on its merits, not just on overarching goals.”
“It provided no consideration of the over-concentration of solar development in North Bedfordshire—my constituency is part of the 1% club, which is constituencies where over 1% of the land area will be covered by solar panels—and it ignored the impact of overlapping construction periods that it would be adding to for two and a half years, or 30 months. Just imagine all the traffic from building Universal Studios, getting in construction because we want shovels in the ground to start building at Tempsford if the Government decide to go ahead with that, and trying to build East West Rail. East Park Energy completely ignored that, so from the point of view of understanding the impact of what it is going into, the proposal that was presented fell significantly short.”
“For example, it completely omitted any reference to Luton airport expansion, the Universal theme park, and any potential new town at Tempsford. It dismissed the need for an assessment of Black Cat roundabout on the assumption that construction would be finished before East Park Energy starts, but there will be consequential effects, including further construction from the change at Black Cat roundabout. It dismissed the need for an assessment of East West Rail on an assumption, but it is highly likely that there will be an overlapping construction period should East West Rail go ahead. It lacked any assessment of medium or long-term effects such as permanent land use change and increased perception of the urbanisation of the area.”
“My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, during world war two, London would have starved without agricultural produce from Bedfordshire. More importantly, the Minister must recognise that we are supportive. We know that the Government have a growth strategy—we may have disagreements on national economic policies, but we want to do our bit. Indeed, the people of Bedfordshire are doing their bit, and a lot more. The Minister will appreciate that, with so many projects happening all at once, at some point those things are going to break, and my hon. Friend makes an important point about that. In East Park Energy’s documentation, it chose not to be comprehensive in the scope of its evaluations, and was insufficient in the depth of its analysis.”
“The Minister is talking about cumulative impacts from projects. Just so that it can be on the record, the point I was trying to make is that one consideration is the cumulative impacts from solar farms; the other is that there are a lot of other types of infrastructure construction going on. Could the Minister be clear that cumulative impact includes consideration of both?”
“Local residents are keen to make sure that their voice is heard. I had a meeting with the civil servant who is dealing with this issue, for which I prepared some documents, and she was 100% on board with that— I can see that the Minister is nodding. My residents are clear about that. Once the decision is made, if Tempsford is one of the new towns, I would strongly encourage the ministerial team to come and visit, have a conversation with the villagers and listen to them, because there is so much that can be done. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said, in the end this is about people. If the Government take people along with them at the start when they make that decision, they will set themselves up in a much better way.”
“There is no way we can plop this additional amount of housing on top of that pace of growth and expect things not to break. Thirdly, will the Government’s specific social housing target apply in the context of these very large new towns? Fourthly, can I alert the Minister to the fact that the new town is potentially just one of six nationally significant infrastructure projects in Bedfordshire, two of which are directly within this footprint? One is the Black Cat roundabout, which is under way and will be completed, so that is fine. There is also a proposal for a large-scale solar farm of over 1,900 acres—that is the size of Gatwick airport and a bit more—within that satellite boundary. What on earth will happen with that? Clearly, it is a choice: we can do one or the other, but we cannot possibly do both.”
“If the Government decided to move forward with these plans, there is a lot of work they would have to do, in particular with regard to the use of farmland, as this is a primary agricultural area. If I may, I will leave some questions with the Minister. First, the Government have a housing target of 1.5 million —personally, I am not sure they have got off to a particularly good start on that. That target may have an impact on the type of housing being built, so I would be interested to hear the Minister comment on that with regard to Tempsford. Secondly, I have mentioned that the housing growth in North Bedfordshire is two and a half times the national average. It is the Government’s position that new towns should not count in that total, but come on—we are already struggling to keep up.”
“There is also a wider footprint that could accommodate the building of an additional 15,000 homes in satellite developments stretching south from Tempsford to the village of Blunham and on to Great Barford, Wilden and Little Staughton then across to Hail Weston, including the villages of Staploe, Honeydon, Roxton, Potton, Everton and others, with a similar impact on the Cambridgeshire side of Tempsford. I do not expect Members to know all those villages, beautiful though they are; they are well worth visiting, and Members should do so. I simply want to ensure that local residents are aware of the scale of what might take place if this proposal goes ahead in North Bedfordshire and in parts of Cambridgeshire. I am not sure that local residents have internalised that.”
“There are also questions about the adequacy of road networks and the type of employment. I will briefly cover a couple more areas. Professor Doug Clelland and Dr Nigel Moor, two independent planning experts, have completed research on Tempsford in the past two years and provided evidence to the House of Lords Built Environment Committee for its report “New Towns: Laying the Foundations”, relating to the footprint, scale and timeline. In the evidence, Professor Clelland and Dr Moor present a “compact centre” of 25,000 homes over 4.5 square miles with a footprint connecting St Neots to Sandy in an area between the A1 and the Great Northern rail line—an extensive area.”
“A number of residents were keen to understand whether solar and ground source heat pumps would be a prerequisite for housing in the new town. A key point for a village with a proposal for a new town of up to 100,000 people is, of course, its village identity and heritage, in particular around RAF Tempsford, and there is a lot of concern about one of the most important buildings there, Gibraltar Barn. Any plans must take account of that. My residents are also connected to nature and wildlife. They chose to live in a rural area, and they are proud of their rural environment—the head office of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is just 5 miles away from Tempsford. It is crucial, if the Government move ahead with this proposal, that we do whatever we can to maintain the nature and wildlife of the area.”
“At the meeting held last week with the parish council and residents, the main issue other than the floodplain was the provision of local services, as people already do not have sufficient access to GP and transport services. Just a few miles away is the village of Northstowe, which is sort of the poster child for getting it wrong with local service provision. All the things the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said should already be there were not there in Northstowe—there were no shops and no GPs for a number of years while residents were moving in. Obviously residents do not want to see that happen with Tempsford new town, if it comes forward. Tempsford is a village that still runs on oil heating—there is no other power supply.”
“The River Ouse is the one source of water running through this area, which contains both the theme park and the new town, so we need to make sure there is a plan for this river. Bedford borough council has set up the North Bedfordshire water management group, run by Paul Leinster, formerly of the Environment Agency. I encourage the Minister to meet him to discuss the issues of both Universal Studios and Tempsford. The Minister should also recognise that the proposal for this new town fits into a context of very rapid housing growth. Hon. Members should be aware that the number of households in Bedfordshire has been growing at two and a half times the national average for the past decade or more, meaning that we have already had a build-up of additional pressures on local services over the past 15 to 20 years.”
“Sticking on the theme, local residents have for years dealt with a range of sewage overflow issues; I myself have been witness to a number of these incidents and have helped residents with them. This is important because the water company will obviously wish to improve this issue if we have a new town, so adequate funding must be available both to provide the necessary waste water and sewage water infrastructure and to solve the existing problems. As the Minister will be aware, the pressure on water resources in Bedfordshire is extensive. We are also the site of Universal Studios’ new theme park, which will attract between 8 million and 10 million people a year—the equivalent of an additional population of 50,000 in terms of water usage. The site is being developed over the next five years.”
“I want to take a few minutes, speaking in this individual capacity, to raise points that have been voiced by my constituents in recent meetings with residents, the parish council and local councillor, Adam Zerny. One of the questions, of course, is, “Why Tempsford? It’s not what we want—we don’t want this change,” and so on. That is an important issue for consideration, and we await the final decision of the Government on it. If that decision is made, the No. 1 source of scepticism is that much of Tempsford is a floodplain. There is a legitimate question about how the flood risk will be managed in any new town. Tempsford is a floodplain for both the River Ouse and the River Ivel.”
“It includes the former RAF Tempsford airfield, from which multiple special operations were flown to send people to help resistance movements in Nazi-occupied countries. It is a village of 234 households, comprising fewer than 500 people, and one that has been in two parts since the dualling of the A1 in 1962. It is also a village that, according to the report by the new towns taskforce, presents “a unique opportunity with potential to provide over 40,000 homes in a standalone greenfield settlement”. Tempsford is the largest of the proposed new towns and would turn this village of 500 people into a new town of at least 40,000 homes—that is 100,000-plus people.”
“I would like to make it clear that I am speaking in an individual capacity as the Member of Parliament for North Bedfordshire. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on her speech and on the extraordinarily human way in which she described her life in a new town. For people in North Bedfordshire, the hon. Lady’s testimony may be a timely one. I would like to draw the focus of the debate to the proposals for new new towns that are recommended by the Government’s new towns taskforce. Tempsford is a historic village in North Bedfordshire. It was the site of a decisive battle in 917 AD when the forces of King Edward the Elder stormed a Danish stronghold, killing the Danish King and effectively breaking Danish power in the region.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point about making brownfield sites a priority, and I think he is giving the Minister some very good advice. The first question that will be asked by people in Tempsford and the villages, who may see so much more housing come upon them, is, “Well, why haven’t you built in areas that are already developed? Have you maximised the potential in those areas?” It will be to the Government’s benefit if they can demonstrate, as I am sure the Minister will from the Dispatch Box shortly, that they will push existing urban areas as hard as they can to maximise housing potential and avoid some of the artificial blockages to which my hon. Friend is referring.”
“By the way, it does nothing to tackle the unfunded £1.5 trillion liability of unfunded public sector pensions, which will fall on taxpayers. The Bill is yet another example of the lack of private sector experience on the Government Front Bench. This Government are the least business aware Government in our country’s history. They are taxing and regulating growth out of our economy. Labour Ministers are punishing workers who want to save more for their retirement, and making it harder for their employers to help them to do so. While they can rely on their cushy, gold-plated public sector pensions, private sector workers are worse off.”
“We all know that there is less certainty in the private sector, because that is where defined contribution schemes predominate, whereas in the public sector, greater certainty is given by a defined benefit scheme. In the public sector, there is also benefit because the contribution from the employer to employee pensions is much higher than in the private sector. In the public sector, employer contributions are equivalent to 27% of earnings, on average, according to research by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, but in the private sector the average contribution is only 8%. Why are the Government proposing to make it harder for private sector employers to contribute to the pensions of their employees? The Bill actively exacerbates the differences.”
“Does the Minister agree with the director of Willis Towers Watson, one of the world’s biggest advisers on pensions, when he said: “While earlier introduction would be unwelcome, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029/30—the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rule. £1.6 billion of revenue in that year is a temporary gain which will be returned to taxpayers who pay employee contributions instead and claim back part of their tax relief”? On the £4.845 billion—the full amount—is any of that actually a fiction that will be returned the following year, as experts suggest it will be? The Bill makes it less attractive for employers to contribute to private sector pensions.”
“Why do the Labour Government take every opportunity to punish people who are trying to do the right thing? The Bill makes a mockery of the Government’s own Pensions Commission, set up in July this year, when it wrote: “Put bluntly, private pension income for individuals retiring in 2050 could be 8% lower than those retiring in 2025—undermining a central measure of societal progress.” Back in June, the Government recognised the problem of a secure retirement. Now, they are adding to the problem. I have a question about the numbers. It is interesting that this measure is scored by the OBR in that crucial year of 2029-30 at £4.845 billion, falling the following year to £2.585 billion. That is an important year, because that is when the Chancellor says she has put in all this headroom—how interesting.”
“This is the final economic Bill of the year to be voted on in the House of Commons, and it is another Bill that targets people who are trying to do the right thing. The Bill is a bad measure. It is an anti-savings measure and it is an attack on prudence, so of course the Conservative party will oppose it. This final Bill, at the end of this full-on year of Labour government, leaves me with one fundamental question: why do the Labour Government hate the private sector so much? If you are a family farmer, the Labour Government will snatch your farm away from your children when you die. If you believe in private education, the Labour Government will put up a barrier at the school gate. If you save for your retirement, Labour will tax your every effort to achieve security in retirement.”
“For a Bill that proposes to raise taxation on working people by such a large amount, this has been a remarkably brief debate. But I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who correctly said that this was yet another anti-aspiration measure from this Government, and the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who made it clear that this was yet another example of Labour breaking its manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people. He also asked one of the key questions, which I hope the Minister will address in his reply: as this measure is due to come into force in three years’ time, what assessment have the Government made of behavioural changes, and can the Minister be assured that the amount in the OBR forecast is robust on a dynamic accounting basis?”
“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?”
“As this is my last question before Christmas, I want to ask my counterpart a nice and constructive one. As he will know, rural residents and businesses already pay more on fuel than their urban counterparts and there are fewer public transport options. Can he advise what were the results of his assessment of the relative impact of the Budget’s introduction of road pricing on rural, compared with urban, areas?”
“I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He is right to talk about the torrid history of East West Rail, but he misses some crucial points. First, the railway loses taxpayers an enormous amount of money. Secondly, East West Rail chose a long, hilly, environmentally damaging route that it did not need to choose. Thirdly, the railway brings with it the fundamental question of how it will be propelled. The hon. Member talked about the problems of a 20th-century technology; railways are a 19th-century technology. Does he accept that the Oxfordshire part of the railway has been built on the assumption it would be diesel, and now we are looking to retrofit that with a 21st-century technology? This is still a terrible mess, is it not?”
“On the point of cross-Bedfordshire roads, we will have potentially Tempsford new town in my constituency and an entirely new railway being drawn across the area, in addition to Universal Studios and the expansion of Luton airport. Over time, that will all create enormous internal pressure. To amplify the point about co-ordination, does my hon. Friend agree that local councils will be overwhelmed without clear support from the Government?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“It confirms the devastating attack on family farms when we need greater food security, increases taxes on dividends when we need to encourage risk taking, discourages saving for retirement, and widens the division between pension protections for public sector and private sector employees. It deals a blow to start-up businesses that want to share their success with their employees, and raises taxes on working people, breaking the Labour party’s own manifesto promise. This Budget makes it clear that the Labour Government do not believe in personal responsibility, do not understand the spirit of enterprise, will punish aspiration and are too weak to make the hard choices that our economy so desperately needs if it is to get back on the right track.”
“The hon. Lady needs to recognise that people are struggling because of decisions made by this Government. The people do want better public services, but they do not understand why, after the Government handed out a 15% pay hike to train drivers, more trains are running late this year compared to last year. People are striving to make ends meet as prices rise, perhaps putting a little aside to create a better future for their children, and they say that this Budget will make their lives worse, not better. The verdict is in: by more than two to one, the public think that this Budget is unfair, and only 2% think it will make them better off. They are right. This Budget attacks the strivers in our society—the engines of our economic growth.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“UK long-term borrowing costs are now consistently above the range of G7 countries—something that did not occur at any time under previous coalition or Conservative Governments. It is because markets are pricing in the specific weakness of this Labour Government’s economic policies. The cost of that weakness means rising prices, lower investment and less money for public services in the long term. Having carpet-bombed the private sector with extra taxes, will the Chancellor rein back the splurge of unproductive public spending that she let rip last year?”
“May I welcome the new members of the Treasury team, with their courage in joining it? I also do so for the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who cannot be with us today. May I particularly welcome the new Chief Secretary, who replaces the old Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who is now another new Chief Secretary? Earlier this year, Labour made a mess of its welfare reform proposals because they were rushed out to help plug a £5 billion gap in public finances. The result was chaos and a humiliating reversal for the Chancellor. Welfare spending is too high—it does need reform—and today the Leader of the Opposition has pledged Conservative support to help the Government to develop a thoughtful plan on welfare reform.”