Economic Growth

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. We were once parliamentary neighbours, so I understand the concern that he is expressing. Over the weekend, I spoke to the Business Secretary about this issue. We are holding a consultation, which will be a quick one.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

I heartily welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box in her new role. In 1954, the Co-operative Permanent building society opened its office in Peterborough. In the 70 years since—now as Nationwide—it has provided advice and support for lenders and people buying a house. There are few better examples in this country of a commitment to our high streets and to growth in every postcode than building societies and the mutual movement. We have a manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual economy. We talk about growth in every postcode; will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that the building society movement can play its part in rebuilding our country?

[Emma Reynolds]

I can absolutely do that. May I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does to further the cause of co-operatives and mutuals? When I was Economic Secretary, I very much enjoyed working with the sector, because building societies often offer more innovative products—to first-time buyers in particular—and do sterling work.

UK Financial Services

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Callum Anderson]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In this space and across many policy areas, what business and investors require and demand from us as policymakers—regardless of which party happens to be in power—is policy certainty. When we risk lurching in various directions, with various priorities and changing timelines, the only result is that investors withdraw or deploy their capital in other countries. Frankly, with regard to the clean energy transition, that will ensure that other countries, be they our competitors or our foes, will have a massive, global competitive advantage over us. I do not think it is a good idea for us to enable that.

Changing tack, the UK also faces the challenge of our constituents accessing affordable financial services and products. We need to honestly confront the barriers that still prevent too many of our constituents from opening a basic bank account, building even a very modest savings buffer for when times are hard, and accessing safe and affordable credit or securing the insurance that protects people from life’s shocks.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend’s constituency sounds a lot like mine, which is underserved in many ways by financial institutions. The recent takeover by Nationwide of Virgin Money means that, in a constituency like mine, Nationwide’s high street network will soon be able to offer support to small businesses and innovators in the postcodes covering Peterborough. Does he agree that that highlights the vital role the mutual sector, credit unions and member-owned banks play in extending financial services to every postcode of the city, widening prosperity in our country?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Child poverty is absolutely not inevitable, which why we are lifting 550,000 children out of poverty. It is always Labour Governments who lift children out of poverty and Tory Governments who put children back into poverty. The numbers the hon. Gentleman refers to are appalling: 44% of children should not be growing up in poverty in Dewsbury and Batley. We have made the changes we have made to lift those children out of poverty and to give all of them a decent start in life.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the worst legacies of the previous Government is that 43% of children growing up in Peterborough are living in poverty. Nearly 10,000 children will be affected by the lifting of the child cap in Peterborough alone. Will the Chancellor assure me that, while we have made huge progress, we will keep a razor-like focus on child poverty as we deal with the cost of living crisis and the fallout from the war in Iran?

[Rachel Reeves]

The fact that some 10,000 children in one constituency have been lifted out of poverty, by just one of the policy changes we have made to reduce child poverty, shows the difference that this Labour Government are making. Combined with the breakfast clubs, the free school meals, the extension of childcare, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and the building of new homes, the Government are set to deliver the biggest ever reduction in child poverty in one Parliament.

Middle East: Economic Update

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I plan to let this statement run only until 2 o’clock. Many Members are still standing, so short questions and perhaps short answers would be very helpful in allowing me to get in as many as possible.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor is right: this was not our war, but its impacts are being felt by businesses and families in my constituency. What is almost as shocking as the recent price hike is how exposed our country is because of a decade of under-investment by the Conservative party in nuclear, onshore wind and updating our power networks. Can the Chancellor reassure me that while we keep a razor-sharp focus on the cost of living for families, we will also do our utmost to speed up the development and renewal of our energy networks, so that we can power this country from our own sources and not just rely on imports?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not our war—we chose not to join it, unlike the Conservative and Reform parties, which were egging us on to do so. However, we do need to become less exposed to global fossil fuel markets. That is why we passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will enable us to build the energy infrastructure we need. It is why we signed off Sizewell C and a fleet of small modular reactors; it is why we are giving planning permission to solar farms; and it is why we have ended the effective moratorium on onshore wind—the cheapest form of electricity—to keep prices down for families, businesses and pensioners.

Middle East: Economic Update

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about heating oil. As well as the direct support for his local authority and many others, the CMA’s work is crucial to stop businesses exploiting the crisis to increase their profits. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), the CMA will report on that shortly. On ringfencing certain tax revenues, it is clear that a prolonged conflict will reduce other tax revenues and push up borrowing costs, so it is not possible to ringfence a particular tax for a particular use, because other tax revenues will be coming down. But the whole reason for the energy profits levy and the electricity generator levy is to have some stabilisation in the system to bring in money to support the Government and our constituents when that is most needed. Of course, we will be using it to do that.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the serious approach she has taken to the conflict, unlike the hokey-cokey approach we have seen from the Conservative party. Peterborough is willing to play its part in developing our energy infrastructure, and we have already had £1 billion-worth of private investment to upgrade the gas networks based out of Peterborough, but my constituents know that the price hike is not just about what is happening now in the middle east; it is about that decade when we did not build the energy infrastructure the country needs. Will she reassure me that her plan will speed up new nuclear, speed up investment in renewables and get the country building the energy infrastructure we need if we are to tackle this challenge for the long term?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is great to see that investment in the gas networks coming into Peterborough, supported by him. That is in stark contrast to the Conservatives, who got rid of our gas storage facilities, stalled on nuclear and stalled on renewables. As a result, they left us more vulnerable to an energy price shock.

Business Rates

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The definition of “pubs” that is used for the changes that have been announced today is the same one that was used when the previous Government implemented a relief. I believe that that was in 2017, so it is a long-standing definition. I encourage the hon. Member to find that on the gov.uk website and send it to the relevant business. I do not know the precise details of the pub that he mentions, but we are sticking with the long-standing definition.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

We in Peterborough are fond of a pint, so I thank the Minister and his team for their engagement today and in the months leading up to this decision. We are also proud of our independent beer festival, and we are home to Oakham Ales. Can the Minister reassure us that as he looks at the strategy for the high street and the rules on business rates, he will have due regard to the needs of the community sector—both the pubs that are going into community ownership, and the small businesses and others that provide communities on our high streets?

[Dan Tomlinson]

That is a really important point. There are many independent pubs up and down the country, as well as bigger chain pubs, and it is right that the support that the Government are bringing forward will support both. Around 75%—definitely above 70%—of independents and chains will receive support this year, ensuring that their bills are either flat or falling. We want to make sure that we are protecting both the independents and the chains.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government have set the thresholds for tax policies over the period of the OBR’s forecast, and it would not be right for me to comment on the changes that may or may not happen after that. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that throughout the time that Margaret Thatcher was in power, we did not have a system like the current system, so he is not quite right to say that this relief has always been there? It was not there when the political hero of many Conservative Members was in power.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all your team. I welcome the Minister’s comments. I thank DEFRA and Treasury Ministers for engaging with farmers and National Farmers Union members in my constituency, and for listening to their views. Farming has had a terrible decade—much longer than 14 months—with rural services cut, farming budgets unspent, failed Brexit plans and trade deals that sold out British farmers. Does the Minister agree with me that with the changes that we have made to APR, the findings of the Batters review and the funding that this Government are putting in place, we can now turn a corner on that terrible decade for British farming?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend’s powerful contribution. He made important points about how the trade deals negotiated by the previous Government undermined British farming and that there was no consistency of investment and support for farmers up and down the country. What do rural communities think about that? At the last general election, they turfed out hundreds of Conservative rural MPs and elected over 150 Labour MPs to represent rural and semi-rural constituencies. Labour Members are now the mainstream voice of rural communities up and down the country.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The Chancellor was clear at the Budget last week that we were taking the fair and necessary taxation decisions to ensure that everyone makes a contribution, but that the contribution of working people is kept as low as possible thanks to the other choices made. Increasing tax on property income, increasing tax on properties worth more than £2 million and reforming gambling taxation all mean that we can keep taxes on working people as low as possible.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

The report on the OBR leak makes deeply worrying reading. I welcome the resignation of the chair of the OBR, because leadership on these issues matters. It turns out that the leak was not unprecedented as we thought last week. It has leaked other documents, and it may need to go back further to look at that. Such leaks could have led to speculation and costs running into millions. Does my right hon. Friend know how many times this has happened before, and if not, does he know when we will know that information? More importantly, does he know how many times the OBR Budget report was viewed externally before the Chancellor delivered the Budget last week?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and he is right to draw attention to the seriousness of what happened last week. The initial report by the OBR sets out just how many times the report was accessed and shared before the Chancellor had given her Budget speech. There were 32 attempts to access it, starting at about 5 am that day, and it was then shared multiple times before the Chancellor had delivered her Budget speech. We do not have all of the answers to his questions, and the OBR has acknowledged that in the limited time available it has not done forensic analysis of what happened at all previous fiscal events. We know that the EFO for the March 2025 spring statement was certainly accessed. What we will do as a Government is work to make sure we have full information, and urgently find out what was shared—or rather what was inadvertently shared—at previous fiscal events.

Property Taxes

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Mel Stride]

If I am an hon. Friend, I will certainly give way.

[Andrew Pakes]

I am sure Hansard will correct me.

The right hon. Gentleman just made some comments about high net worth or high value individuals. In my constituency, I am particularly interested in individuals on low incomes. In Peterborough, I represent a city with one of the highest levels of those employed on zero-hours contracts and in chronically insecure work. Does he not agree that his party often wants all the spending, but none of the funding for delivery? He talked about reducing taxation for some of those with higher net worth, but will he also talk about which doctors’ surgeries in my constituency would suffer cuts under his plans, which individuals would receive no protection for their employment rights, and how the people of Peterborough would be worse off because he wants to reduce the spending that will fix the foundations of this country?

[Sir Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman refers to cutting spending. His party attempted to cut spending, but entirely failed to do so. My point is that if he wants money to spend on public services, he needs to cut welfare and should worry about how to do so. I do not know how he voted when that was put to the test in this House, but if he in any way voted against his own Government and against getting on top of the welfare bill, he should ask his own question of himself.

As for those on low incomes, they are precisely the people who are now being devastated by the increase in national insurance. There is not just an increase in the rate, but a substantial reduction in the threshold at which national insurance kicks in, which has meant higher unemployment, in particular among younger workers, part-time workers, women and people getting that vital first job so that they can get themselves on a career path. They are the people whom the Labour Government are punishing most.

Financial Services Reform

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

Well, what do I say to that? I think there is, with the exception of the hon. Member, cross-party support for the twin peaks financial services regulation that we have. Of course, we need proportionate regulation to ensure that there are protections in place for consumers. He seems to be suggesting that we get rid of the regulators altogether, which I think most Members of this House would be opposed to. I have heard of the concept of caveat emptor, and I am suitably patronised by him.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

One of the first visits I undertook after the election was to my local branch of Nationwide, which for generations has been providing good financial advice and advice to first-time buyers in my seat, as have many other mutuals. In one of the previous periods of financial deregulation by the Conservative party, we saw a movement that led to the demutualisation of the building society movement, creating uncertainty for thousands upon thousands of potential homeowners and people looking for financial support. Can the Minister reassure the House today that the co-operative and mutual sector will remain absolutely essential to the everyday financial services that working people need?

[Emma Reynolds]

Absolutely. This is something that the Chancellor and I—and indeed the Business Secretary and the Business Minister—are passionate about, and we are making sure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to double the size of the sector. We have asked the financial services regulators to report by the end of the year on what more they can do to support the growth of the sector. We are supporting the industry-led Mutual and Co-operatives Business Council, which is chaired by the chair of Nationwide, Kevin Parry, and we have recently concluded a call for evidence on the credit union common bond, which is another form of mutual. We will be setting out our response on that issue in due course.