Tulip Siddiq
MP for Hampstead and Highgate · Labour · United Kingdom
“I explained that no one has ever contacted me about all those allegations—not even now—because apparently they cannot find me, even though I am standing here right now in Parliament.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some people in the House may have noticed that a year ago a foreign state took an enormous interest in me and went to town with the newspapers.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On 24 September, Melissa Premaratne was on her way to school when she was run over by a private hire vehicle on a crossing. Her parents, family, friends and teachers at Highgate school are understandably devastated.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Vincent Chan abused baby girls at a Bright Horizons nursery in my constituency for seven years. The Guardian has now revealed that three years before he was arrested, a complaint was made about him.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the topic of local businesses, 87% of my constituents voted to remain in the EU, but kitchen designer Neil Lerner told me that he had to close the doors on a family business that had lasted for more than 30 years because of a severe downturn in sales caused by Brexit, a local bakery told me that its paperwork nearly doubled before it c…”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While I recognise this was not the main part of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, I thank him for raising the plight of British Jewish children who are fearful going to school. As he will know, a lot of British Jewish children live in my constituency, and their safety is my main priority.”
House of Commons8 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
2,049 lines on record for Tulip Siddiq, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“There was a widely held expectation across the sector that RIF would broadly mirror the conditions of the existing authorised contractual schemes, or ACSs, but offer less regulatory supervision, freeing the RIF to become a more flexible investment vehicle for a range of more experienced investors. Due, however, to the Government’s decision to categorise the RIF as an alternative investment fund instead of a special investment fund, the RIF and the ACS will now differ in two key aspects. First, the supply of fund management services will be standard-rated at 20% as opposed to being VAT-exempt, and secondly, an alternative investment fund comes with a requirement to raise capital from a number of investors with a view to investing it in accordance with the defined investment policy for the benefit of those investors.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I am pleased to respond to clauses 20 to 24 on behalf of the Opposition. Clause 20, as the Minister set out, introduces the necessary powers to set the scope and design of the tax regime and rules for the RIF. Labour welcomes the introduction of the RIF, as it will add to the investment products available here in the UK, particularly for the UK commercial real estate sector. However, the trade bodies representing investment managers and real estate fund managers, the Investment Association and the Association of Real Estate Funds, have raised some concerns that I would like to put to the Minister.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his response. He said that he considered the options and decided to proceed with it as an alternative investment fund, but he did not actually set out the reasons why. Was there any reason why he decided that it made more sense to do that as opposed to a special investment fund, especially in line with the international comparisons that I gave?”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Minister agree that better feedback and wider publicity around successes could help AML-regulated firms to see the value and importance of work in this area more clearly, keeping it at the forefront of their minds? What are the Government doing to ensure that happens?”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We also know that most scams originate on social media or via telecommunications networks yet those sectors do not face the same obligations regarding contributions, nor do they compensate victims defrauded through their platforms. Does the Minister agree with UK Finance? Does he accept that until the Government find a way to bring the tech giants to the table, efforts to tackle fraud and scams will continue to fail? UK Finance has also raised concerns about the transparency of the levy and reporting on economic crime. On reporting for anti-money laundering purposes, I have heard from numerous City firms that, despite frequent requests, they receive little granular feedback on the impact their reports make.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The consensus from experts in the industry is that the measures in the strategy will not significantly move the dial, as they do not establish a regulatory framework for tech companies and telcos to participate in the fight against fraud, including through data-sharing with financial services firms and enforcement agencies to enhance detection and prevention measures. UK Finance, for example, has stated that it is increasingly difficult to understand the imbalance between the financial services sector’s contribution through the levy and that of other sectors that do not contribute but are known to be introducing risk into the same system.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We support the measures in clause 21 to raise the funds needed to tackle money laundering, fraud and other types of economic crime, but I cannot ignore the fact that the Government’s efforts to tackle economic crime have been a complete failure. Fraud and scams, for example, have rocketed under this Government, with at least £7.3 billion stolen directly from consumer bank accounts in the UK through fraud last year alone. Last year, the Government published their fraud strategy to widespread criticism from industry for largely rebadging old measures and re-announcing existing national teams, such as the re-announcement on the replacement of Action Fraud from 2022.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What steps will HMRC take to ensure that involvement and objection defences under the clause are not ambiguous or uncertain, and to ensure that those charges do not prove to be increased excessively for taxpayers? My final point is that the changes introduced by clause 22 appear to be retrospective, as no date is specified whereafter transactions are affected; the clause says only that income arising after April 2024 is caught by the regime. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Will commercial transactions that were carried out many years ago, but from which income arises after April 2024, still be caught?”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thirdly, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that these changes could damage the UK’s international competitiveness, because the test as set out in the legislation leaves too much discretion to HMRC, which compounds uncertainty for businesses. For example, a UK holding company that provides a loan to an offshore subsidiary that in turn generates profits could be caught by the changes, despite that being a routine transaction. The Chartered Institute of Taxation argues that that could lead to an increased number of inquiries and appeals to the tax tribunals and could seriously undermine the UK’s attractiveness for international headquarters. What does the Minister make of those concerns?”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Could the Minister explain the thinking behind the Government’s decision to tackle corporate tax avoidance in this way, rather than through the corporate tax regime? Does he agree with the Chartered Institute of Taxation that it could add unnecessary complication to the tax system? Secondly, the Chartered Institute of Taxation made the case that the Government’s position that any participator in a company is deemed to be involved in a company’s decision to move assets abroad is unfair. For example, a company may have several minority shareholders who have no participation in the running of the company. What is the Minister’s assessment of the case made by the Chartered Institute of Taxation that only major shareholders, directors and shadow directors should be assumed to be involved for the purposes of this legislation?”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We believe that individuals or companies generating wealth in the UK should pay their fair share, so we are in complete support of the aims of this clause. However, we have heard concerns raised by the Chartered Institute of Taxation about the effectiveness of the Government’s proposals and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on those concerns. First, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has argued that the clause adds complexity to the tax system, because it uses income tax legislation to tackle perceived corporate tax avoidance. Clause 22 extends provision within the Income Tax Act 2007 to cover avoidance of any tax through transfer made by a closely held company.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Has the Minister given any thought to reinstating HMRC’s ability not to charge interest on VAT errors where the supplier did not charge VAT, with no loss to the Exchequer because the customer could claim in full?”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Opposition support the changes that will assist with compliance checks by making online applications equivalent to paper applications. Has the Minister considered adding the online application as a service to the agent services accounts so that an agent can prepare and submit the claim on behalf of their client? We also support the provisions for modifying the application of VAT for terminal markets, as that will allow for further reforms such as bringing trades in carbon credits within the scope of the Value Added Tax (Terminal Markets) Order. We feel that is a vital and necessary step in developing this important market. We support the changes to legislation that governs the interaction between late payment interest and repayment interest for VAT.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This clause is so uncontroversial that we give it our full support. For the first time, I agree with everything the Minister has said, and the Committee will be happy to know that I have no further questions for him. Question put and agreed to. Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 Interpretation Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, I am sure the Minister will be aware that the sector still has concerns that the existing language creates some uncertainty. Does the Minister share those concerns, and has he raised the matter with the PRA? Many of the industry’s concerns regarding risk retention and credit granting were not addressed in the current version of the rules, so will the Treasury be working with regulators to ensure that these concerns are taken into account with future policy developments? Finally, in terms of next steps, which the Minister did outline, the FCA and the PRA expect to consult on further changes to their securitisation rules in Q4 2024 and Q1 2025. How confident is the Minister that these timelines will be met?”
House of Commons14 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of the statutory instrument before us today, which is complementary to the Securitisation Regulations 2024, which we debated in January. We supported those regulations in January and we will be supporting the ones before us today. We feel that these form part of an important package of reform aimed at developing a securitisation market in our country that contributes to growth in the real economy. I have a couple of questions, which are based on the specific measures introduced by this SI. I welcome the fact that the PRA listened to our objections during its consultations and restored the existing language to do with confidentiality.”
House of Commons14 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can he set out exactly what my constituents—British citizens living in Hampstead and Kilburn who have immediate family in Rafah—should say to their terrified and vulnerable relatives, as well as any Government assessment of what support these immediate family members of British citizens should be entitled to? I am sure that people in the Chamber, which is packed, know that my constituent’s family are not alone.”
House of Commons13 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is not clear what someone in that position should do. They are ultimately being forced to consider extremely risky and extortionate routes, because there are simply no other options available. There is no way of knowing the legitimacy of such routes, or of guaranteeing that they will get them to safety. Even then, they are an option only for people who can get hold of that extortionate amount of money. Does the Minister have any information about using such private companies as a route out of Gaza, and can he share the official Foreign Office advice regarding the companies?”
House of Commons13 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This seems to have been done without any understanding of the complete impossibility of getting out of Gaza, and it is clear that families like the one I am talking about cannot access these centres, meaning that the Government’s advice is completely unrealistic. Although I appreciate the detail of the Government’s answer, it is sadly nothing close to a solution for this family. Does the Minister have any practical advice that desperately worried family members in the UK can pass on to immediate family members who are going through this trauma? That desperation has led other constituents in similar situations to ask me for advice on paying up to $5,000 per person to a private company in Egypt to get family out of Gaza. The companies have put their prices up fourteenfold since outbreak of the conflict. That is complete exploitation.”
House of Commons13 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We know that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is catastrophic. My constituent is desperately worried about the safety of his brother and the young family, and he has been doing all he can to try to enable them to move to this country and be with their immediate family members. I wrote to the Home Office about the situation, and am grateful for the speedy response I received, but the reply made how desperate the situation is even clearer. The Government’s answer was to inform my constituent that the visa application centre in Gaza is closed, and to pass on the opening hours of the centres in Ramallah and Jerusalem.”
House of Commons13 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me turn to a constituent of mine, whose brother’s family have been forced to leave their home in southern Gaza after it was destroyed by aerial bombardment due to the fighting in the area. He moved with his wife and his four children—the youngest is primary school age—because he could not live there any more and it was too dangerous. They arrived in Khan Yunis and were forced to flee once again, with the four small children, to the border in the city of Rafah due to the extension of the aerial bombardment to that area. The family are now living without access to water, food or basic hygiene facilities, and my constituent is receiving regular updates from his brother, who describes bombs landing less than 1 km away from where he is sheltering with his wife and young children.”
House of Commons13 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for leading the debate. She has championed the cause of Palestinian people since we served in Young Labour maybe 20 years ago, and I am really pleased to see that she is still championing this cause in the Chamber—maybe I have given away how old we are. Before I speak about a specific case that I want to draw to the Minister’s attention, I pay tribute to the bravery of those who have been living in Gaza throughout the conflict. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) said, everyone has seen the appalling scenes on TV, but whereas we go about our everyday lives, that is the reality for the people who are living there. I hope that, when making policy and speaking in the House, we remember the trauma and conflict that they are going through every day.”
House of Commons13 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Finally—I know that lots of people want to speak—we know that almost no aid is entering northern Gaza, and it is vital that aid is allowed in as quickly as possible. The bleak picture in Gaza is the situation of my constituent’s family right now, and I am desperate to help them. We need the UK Government to take the strongest possible position to ensure that we get an immediate ceasefire. We also need the Minister—I know that he will listen to this debate—to look seriously at the desperate situation that people are in; they have no one to turn to. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s advice on what I should say to my constituent, who is desperately worried about his immediate family, who are living in a war zone when they could be joining their brother and his family in Hampstead and Kilburn.”
House of Commons13 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Everyone in this Chamber will agree that the fighting needs to stop. There must be a ceasefire, the immediate release of hostages and a serious political process towards a two-state solution. International law must be upheld, and it is has been deeply shocking to see reports that indicate that it may have been breached. The Government must ensure that Israel is complying with international law, as well as with the provisional measures set out by the International Court of Justice in January. Ministers have a duty to ensure that the UK Government themselves are fully compliant with international law when it comes to the clear licensing criteria that apply to arm sales to Israel, given the developments in this conflict.”
House of Commons13 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. My mother came to this country as a political asylum seeker in the 1970s, because this country—our country, of which we are proud—has always been seen as a safe haven for people who are escaping conflict or places that are too dangerous to live in. We now need to show the same compassion to people who are fleeing unimaginable situations and trauma. I hope that the Government will listen—I know that the Minister will—when we say that the advice that we have been given is not realistic on the ground. We need practical advice that we can give to our constituents, who are constantly writing to us, petrified about their immediate family members. Nearly 75% of Gaza’s total population has been displaced by this terrible conflict, and over 33,000 people have been killed.”
House of Commons13 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We therefore fully support the proposals and for once, I do not have a host of questions for the Minister. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons13 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. We welcome this draft statutory instrument. The changes are part of the IMF’s worldwide resolution to change its funding model to reduce the level of IMF temporary loan facilities, and will increase the funding provided through the quota system to the same extent, as the Minister explained. We believe that the changes serve to make the IMF stronger and more legitimate, and are key to ensuring economic stability. The official Opposition are completely committed to such stability, which is underpinned by strong fiscal rules, robust independent institutions—the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility— and international economic institutions such as the IMF, which promote financial literacy, stability and monetary co-operation.”
House of Commons13 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Since 2022, almost 400 communities have lost their local bank branch, which has had a devastating impact on local and small businesses. Despite witnessing the decline of the British high street, the Government have been dragging their feet on rolling out banking hubs, which would help local and small businesses. Will the Minister finally back the Labour party’s plans to provide a banking hub in every community that needs one?”
House of Commons7 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes. In his response to me, the Exchequer Secretary said, “Any area that loses bank branches is entitled to get a banking hub”, but I have numerous examples of towns that lost bank branches, applied for a banking hub and then had their application rejected. Please could you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how I can get some clarity on this matter and what the Minister said about “any area that loses bank branches”?”
House of Commons7 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope the Minister will agree with me that it is now time to call a general election as soon as possible.”
House of Commons17 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In contrast, the Labour party’s offer to the country will be carefully costed and fully funded, and we will always put working people and British businesses first. The Government have failed to reduce the tax burden, failed to boost business investment, and delivered only stagnation and chaos, whereas our economic plan is built on the pillars of stability, investment and reform: stability brought about by iron discipline, and guarded by strong fiscal rules, robust economic institutions and certainty on corporation tax; investment, working with the private sector, so that we can lead the industries of the future and make work pay; and reform, starting with our planning system, to tackle vested interests. The British people deserve better than this. The British people deserve change.”
House of Commons17 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Likewise, we are committed both to strengthening the windfall tax to raise more revenue to support our country’s energy transition, and to giving as much certainty as possible to the companies affected. That is why our shadow Chancellor has made it clear that, under Labour, our one-off, time-limited energy profits levy will cease to apply by the end of the next Parliament. We will not be opposing the Bill today, but we will be looking closely at the detail in the specific clauses in the coming weeks. However, let us be under no illusions: this is an exhausted and directionless Conservative Government who are out of ideas and out of time. All they have to offer are U-turns, unfunded promises and an ever-growing tax burden on working people and our constituents.”
House of Commons17 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If not, will he accept that the Conservatives are once again putting the interests of non-doms before those of ordinary British taxpayers and British businesses? Let us take corporation tax, which clause 12 sets at 25%. All this Chancellor has had to offer British businesses is uncertainty. Despite promising to cut corporation tax from 19% to 15% in his 2022 leadership bid, he has increased it from 19% to 25%. In contrast, our shadow Chancellor has committed to capping the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate for the whole of the next Parliament, and we would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness. The Opposition will be supporting the energy security investment mechanism in clause 19 of the Bill before us, as it will help investors get the confidence they need.”
House of Commons17 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am delighted to say that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have finally come around to the Labour party’s way of thinking, but it is not quite what it seems. I am not denying that Conservative Members have come a long way after years of opposing our plan to scrap the non-dom status, but there are still some gaping loopholes in the Government’s plans. The discount in year 1 is unnecessary and unjustified, and particularly concerning is the loophole that will allow non-doms to exploit offshore trusts so that they can avoid inheritance tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North made clear, these loopholes must be closed. I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will commit to closing these loopholes, so I wait with bated breath to hear what he has to say on this policy.”
House of Commons17 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For every £5 that the Government are giving back to families, they will be taking an average of £10 in higher taxes under their plans, and they expect the British public to thank them for it. While we will always call out the Conservatives for pickpocketing the British taxpayer, we do welcome their recent pickpocketing of Labour policies. Labour has long argued that if people make Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here too. However, the Prime Minister himself has said that scrapping the non-dom tax status would somehow end up costing Britain money, and the Chancellor previously tried to argue that the non-dom status supports jobs and that reforming it would damage long-term growth.”
House of Commons17 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why we opposed the current Prime Minister when he wanted to increase national insurance two years ago, and it is why we supported the measures announced last month to bring national insurance down by an additional 2p. Although on the surface this Bill leaves the basic and higher rates of income tax unchanged, let us be clear: this is a Government who have raised the tax burden to record levels, and taxes are continuing to rise. Because of the tax choices that this Chancellor has made, households will be, on average, £870 worse off. His decision to freeze tax thresholds will create 3.2 million new taxpayers by 2028, and 2.6 million more people will be paying higher rates.”
House of Commons17 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Unable to defend his own Government’s record, and unable to offer any plan to get the country out of the economic mess that his party has created, this Chancellor has resorted to undeliverable promises. The Chancellor ended his Budget last month with a £46 billion unfunded tax plan to abolish national insurance, which would put our economic stability at risk. That is even bigger than the unfunded tax cuts announced by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) in her Budget, which added hundreds of pounds to people’s mortgages. In contrast, the Labour party has consistently said that we would reduce the tax burden on families.”
House of Commons17 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) set out in his opening speech, this Finance Bill and last month’s Budget are nothing but the last gasps of a dying, desperate Government. Neither does anything to address 14 years of Conservative economic failure, and as always with this Government, it is working people who pay the price, because taxes are still rising. The British people, already facing the highest tax burden in 70 years, will see tax rises in every single year of the forecast period. As much as the Government try, they simply cannot hide from that record: after a decade and a half of Conservative rule, people have less money in their pockets.”
House of Commons17 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, as the Minister may have seen in the Financial Times last August, UK challenger banks have faced multi-year delays to regulatory approvals, which has undermined the potential boost to competition in the market. Has the Treasury given any thought to whether section 138BA could be used to speed up the IRB model approval process for mid-tier banks currently on the standardised approach? I believe—and the Minister may agree—that that could dramatically improve competition in the banking market.”
House of Commons15 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. The Opposition are supportive of the proposed changes, which would enact section 138BA to enable the PRA to more easily adapt, disapply or modify its rules for individual firms. The greater flexibility the Minister outlined is welcome, but could a similar approach be used to clear the logjam of mid-tier banks wanting to use the internal ratings-based approach? The PRA has helpfully provided some flexibility in relation to IRB model approvals, which could narrow the capital requirements gap between mid-tier and large banks, therefore improving competition in UK banking markets.”
House of Commons15 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for that answer, and I understand what he is trying to say, but I would like to push this point. If we could speed up the IRB model approvals process for mid-tier banks currently on the standardised approach, that would help our country and the banking market generally, and both sides of the House obviously want to boost competition. I understand that that is not what this particular legislation will do, but have the Minister or the Treasury given any thought to the issue? In the long run, such a change would benefit the financial services sector.”
House of Commons15 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The tax burden is at a record high, wages are stagnant, rents and mortgages are up by hundreds of pounds, and food prices have gone up by 25%. The Resolution Foundation has confirmed that this is the only Parliament on record during which living standards have fallen. Our constituents deserve better. When is the Minister going to give the British public a chance to vote for change and call for a general election?”
House of Commons19 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I look forward to the Minister’s response, because I am sure he will break down exactly where that £46 billion will come from.”
House of Commons13 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Rather than people being £900 better off, as the Conservatives claim, household income is set to fall by £200 over the course of this Parliament. A week ago, the Chancellor had the opportunity to deliver a Budget that would finally break our country out of the low-growth, low-wage, high-tax cycle that we have been trapped in because of 14 years of economic failure. The British people needed a Budget for the long term to bring prosperity and rebuild our public services, and yet the Chancellor ended his Budget with a £46 billion unfunded tax plan to abolish national insurance. That would leave a gaping hole in the public finances, put family finances at risk and create huge uncertainty for pensioners. I have not heard one attempt from the Government Benches to explain where that money will come from.”
House of Commons13 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“His decision not to increase tax thresholds in line with inflation means that the tax burden is forecast to rise by another £41.1 billion over the next five years. That fiscal drag will create 3.7 million new taxpayers by 2028-29. OBR figures show that for every 10p extra that working people pay in tax under this plan, they will get back only 5p as result of the combined cuts to national insurance contributions. As usual, the Conservatives give with one hand, and take with the other, and they expect the British public to be grateful. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said after last week’s Budget that “this remains a parliament of record tax rises”, and that is before we consider the rising cost of bills, with food prices up by 25%, rents by 10% and mortgages by an average of £240 a month.”
House of Commons13 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Indeed, this will be the only Parliament on record in which living standards have fallen. Unwilling and unable to fix the economic mess that they have created, the Government have resorted to empty promises—pledge after pledge, but never a plan. Last week, the Chancellor made a £46 billion unfunded promise to abolish national insurance altogether, with no explanation of how he would pay for it. I look forward to the Minister explaining in his speech exactly how it will be paid for. The British people are sick and tired of Conservative spin. Let us take the Government’s claim that a person on average earnings will be £900 better off as result of this national insurance cut, when combined with the changes made in January. That completely ignores the Chancellor’s own stealth tax rises.”
House of Commons13 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Labour will always support policies that ease the burden on working people. Labour has said consistently that we want taxes on working people to be lower. That is why, two years ago, when the current Prime Minister wanted to increase national insurance, we opposed it. That is why we supported the cut to national insurance last autumn and why we will support these measures we are debating to bring down national insurance by a further 2p. Let us be clear, however, that the measures come in the context of the highest tax burden on working people since 1949—a tax burden that is continuing to rise. The British public face not just further tax rises, but stagnant growth and wages, prices still going up in the shops, and higher mortgages and rents.”
House of Commons13 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that he will finally break with his party’s irresponsible promises and endless spin. I hope that he will be honest and say that, as a result of decisions taken by his Government, the tax burden on working people is forecast to go up each year over the next five years, and that for every 10p extra that working people pay in tax under the Conservatives, they will get only 5p back. Most importantly, I hope that he takes the opportunity to be straight with the British people, as we have repeatedly asked him to do, by setting out exactly how his Government will pay for their unfunded £46 billion promise to abolish national insurance.”
House of Commons13 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Chancellor’s commitment last week exposed a Conservative Government who are putting party first and country second. Labour is under no illusions about the state of the public finances after 14 years of Conservative government. We know that if we are elected at the next general election, we will have to take tough decisions in government, but instead of the chaos and recklessness we have seen under the Conservatives, Labour will bring stability and security back to the economy. We will never make a commitment without first saying where the money will come from. We will always be honest with the public because that is the responsible approach. I hope that the Minister, whom I like very much, will finally come clean with the British people in his response.”
House of Commons13 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not take any lectures from a party that puts oil and gas companies ahead of working people. If the hon. Member wants to change his policy on oil and gas companies having priority over working people, he can intervene again, but somehow I do not think that it will change. The last time the Conservatives implemented a proposal like this, just 18 months ago, they crashed the economy. In fact, the Chancellor’s plan to abolish national insurance contributions would cost more per year than the proposals in that disastrous mini-Budget. The Conservatives might deny it, but millions of people are still paying the price of their last ideological experiment: the typical family faces an extra £240 a month when remortgaging this year.”
House of Commons13 March 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗