Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the OBR’s report contains a series of recommendations. It was, in fact, published within a few days of the premature publication. We are acting on its recommendations, including the recommendation that we should determine whether this has happened before, at previous fiscal events. While the OBR indicated that it might have happened earlier this year, at the time of the spring statement, it did not look into previous fiscal events, either under this Chancellor or under Chancellors in the last Government. We are looking into that to find out what happened.
More widely, beyond the EFO and the OBR, we put the utmost weight on Budget security, as I told the House last week. That is why, as I have told the House, a leak inquiry is under way, with the full support of the Chancellor and the whole team at the Treasury. In addition, the permanent secretary to the Treasury will conduct a review of its security processes, which will inform future fiscal events. The Budget security review will happen in the new year, and we will publish the outcome once it has concluded. More immediately, however, while recognising the seriousness of what happened with the OBR’s forecast, we remain fully committed to working with an independent OBR, and we recognise its vital role as a core part of our fiscal framework. The Government will soon launch a competitive external recruitment process to appoint a new chair, subject to the consent of the Treasury Committee. In the meantime, Professor David Miles and Tom Josephs will jointly lead the OBR until the new chair is in place.
I am happy to come here every day to explain the decisions that we took in the Budget in the interests of the British people. It is clear that the Conservatives do not want to talk about £150 off energy bills, freezes in prescription charges and rail fares, our investment in our NHS, and the fact that we are cutting debt. They do not want to confront the fact that this is a Budget that not only delivers for Britain, but does so in challenging times. It is a Budget that invests in Britain, supports the NHS, helps people with the cost of living, and gets our debt and borrowing down. It is a Budget delivered by a Chancellor who takes challenges head-on, makes the right decisions for our country, and meets the priorities of the British people. It is a Budget from a Government who will not let Britain’s future be defined by the failures of Governments past. This is a Budget that we are proud of, and we reject the Opposition motion.
Chris Vince
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the OBR was very confident that the Chancellor did not mislead in the statement she put out, and I am confident about that.
The Chancellor was consistent in her priorities for this Budget: tackling the cost of living crisis, bringing down waiting times and cutting borrowing. It cannot be right that £1 in every £10 is being spent on interest payments alone. We cannot go back to the austerity we have seen, with schools and hospitals that would literally fall apart.
I would like to finish with two quotes. The first is from Margaret Thatcher:
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means that they have not a single political argument left.”
And finally, to quote Dickens:
“charity begins at home, but justice begins next door”.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Dame Harriett Baldwin.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. We will start the winding-up speeches at 6.40 pm.
Graham Stuart
I have very limited time, so forgive me but I will not.
It matters because the Chancellor has a nearly £3 trillion debt to service, and because trust is everything. Because the policies that are being implemented and the promises that were made by the Chancellor are at such variance, the markets—unlike in any other western nation, I believe —have put a higher and higher cost on borrowing for this country. That has very real-world impacts. Investors from Beverley to Berlin need to believe what the Chancellor says. After all, “credit” comes from the Latin “credo”, meaning “I believe”. If that belief falters, borrowing costs rise and more of our taxes go to paying lenders instead of funding the priorities of the British people. When trust goes, growth goes. Investors hesitate, businesses hold back and families feel the pinch.
The Chancellor appears to have learnt nothing from last year’s Budget of broken promises. It was a Budget that brought higher unemployment, fewer businesses and lower growth. She did not learn from that first exercise. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) pointed out, the weakness of the jobs tax is not just that it will hurt growth; it does not even raise much money. It was peculiarly poorly thought through.
This year’s Budget repeated more of the same. The British people know that the way to tackle the cost of living is by getting people into work, not increasing the number of people on welfare; and by creating opportunity, not dependency. But Britain has a Chancellor who talks about helping working people while making it harder to work, to save and to succeed—and throwing the OBR under the bus while she is at it. That is not a vision for the future, and it is certainly not leadership; it is fantasy dressed up as policy, and the people of Beverley and Holderness can see right through it.
Labour came to power promising change. Unfortunately, change has been delivered, but it is not what we were promised. We have 280,000 more people on the unemployment register, more than 200,000 businesses have closed, and 5,000 people are signing off sick every single day, because of the decisions made by this Labour Government. People are angry about the impact of Labour policy, but my constituents tell me that they are particularly angry about feeling misled. I hope I have shown my own candour in addressing my earlier error, for which I apologise again. Can we Members of this House try to speak honestly and accurately, and not gaslight or mislead?
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last time I checked, this debate was supposed to be about the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know the Minister is relatively new to the Dispatch Box; perhaps he may need a little guidance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure the Minister has heard it and will return to his speech.
Dan Tomlinson
Indeed; I heard the point of order loud and clear. It is worth remembering that this is an Opposition day debate—I think it is within the remit to talk about the Opposition and the fact that they have lost all their players to the other team.
I also think it is time to move on from talking about process, because on this side of the House, we have a country to run, an economy to build and public services to mend. Instead of this subject, we could have talked about whether it is right to raise wages for those on the lowest incomes, but the Opposition did not want to bring that up. Maybe that is because wages have risen faster in the first 10 months of this Government than they did in the first decade of the Conservative Government, or maybe it is because it turns out that their latest policy is a real-terms cut to the living wage. We could have talked about the cost of living, but again, the Conservatives did not choose that as a topic because its mini-Budget crashed the economy and added thousands of pounds to mortgages, and since this Government have come to power, the Bank of England has cut interest rates.
Taxes
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected either of the amendments tabled. I call the shadow Chancellor.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I do expect Members to be here for slightly longer before intervening.
Sir Mel Stride
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a great shame. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for any of the debate, but that does not mean that he might not have given the best possible intervention from the Labour Benches so far. Perhaps he may like to come in a little later.
We have a Government who are engaged in serial breaches, who have no backbone to take the right decisions, and who will always fold to pressure, including from their own Back Benchers—and all at the expense of businesses and hard-working people up and down our country.
Kit Malthouse
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Minister has said that he is unwilling to discuss what might be in the Budget with the House. He did not, however, deny that he may have done so with journalists, or that he may have authorised others to brief to the media what may or may not be in the Budget. In the absence of that denial, are we within our rights to demand that the House be privy to what those conversations contained, in the same way that the business pages of The Times may have been?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. I can calm Members’ nerves by saying that it is not many more sleeps until Budget day.
James Murray
It is for the Health Department to set out the details in response to any questions that the hon. Gentleman has tabled. The point about the merger between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care is that it is a way of cutting costs and ensuring that that money is reinvested in frontline services. Rather than having duplicative structures within our system, we want to ensure that we are merging NHS England and the Department of Health to make those savings, which we can reinvest in patient care.
As I said, there are still many challenges ahead and we are impatient to see things improve. Globally, inflation remains high and confidence is low, deterring investment and hindering growth. As geopolitical uncertainty grows, we are also faced with a critical need to invest in our defence spending. Domestically, we must continue to cut NHS waiting lists, lower the cost of living and improve our country’s productivity. We must invest in our roads, transport, housing, infrastructure, public services, towns and cities and the businesses for which the last Government failed so completely to provide.
Conservative Members will see the Budget two weeks from today. They will have plenty of opportunity to scrutinise it and participate in a serious debate about it later this month. We will, of course, oppose today’s motion, which speculates on what the Budget might contain. The effort of rebuilding a country requires the contributions of everyone in that country. Together, we can renew the UK and build an economy that is fair and thriving. That is what this Government were elected to do and that is what the Budget in two weeks’ time will play its crucial part in achieving.
Stamp Duty Land Tax
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bradley Thomas
My hon. Friend is spot-on. That is incredibly short-sighted, and I think it will prove to be a false economy.
I urge the Government to embrace good design to provide a justification to my constituents for why they are pursuing the current house building targets in such a disproportionate way across the country. Most of all, I implore the Government to put at the centre of their fiscal plans the scale of ambition that hard-working people have every single day when they set their alarms and go out to work—they want to do the right thing for their families. The Government must realise that pulling the right fiscal levers and cutting the right taxes will stimulate the very activity that will drive the growth they are so desperate to achieve.
Spending Review 2025
Judith Cummins Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I need to be able to hear, and I am sure our constituents also want to hear.
Rachel Reeves
The shadow Chancellor said:
“The credibility of the UK’s economic framework was undermined by spending billions…with no proper plan for how this would be paid for.”
I could not put it better myself. He could have gone a lot further. For example, he could not even bring himself to mention Liz Truss by name—Stride by name, baby steps by nature—but at least he has made a start. He also spoke about
“the death of what we might call the Age of Thoughtfulness.”
Speaking of the death of thoughtfulness, let me turn to the shadow Chancellor’s response to the spending review. He welcomed our nuclear investment of £30 billion, but he said it is not enough. He welcomed our defence investment of £11 billion, but he said it was not enough. He and his party opposed the decisions that this Government have taken to make those announcements possible by voting against the Budget in October. You cannot spend the money if you will not raise the money. That is a lesson from Liz Truss that he has already forgotten.
The shadow Chancellor complained about the level of investment that I have announced, ignoring the fact that the reason this investment is so important is because his party oversaw 14 years of cratering investment, stagnating wages and public service collapse. Let me remind him of what I said: the Tories’ fiscal rules guaranteed neither stability nor investment, and that is why I changed them, so we can get stability and investment. All their fiscal rules enabled was them to crash the economy, and the working people of Britain will never forgive them for doing that.
The Conservatives set themselves against investment in the renewal of Britain. They set themselves against NHS investment, free school meals, investment in skills, investment in carbon capture and storage, investment in transport in our towns and cities—investment in everything that we have set out today—and yet the British people voted for that investment. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Home Office budget involves an increase in asylum costs. It does not. Asylum costs are coming down under this Labour Government because we are deporting more people and getting them out of hotels. He says we are cutting police spending; we are increasing it by 2.3% a year in real terms. We have had no apology for the damage the Conservatives did to our economy and our public services.
Interest rates have been cut four times in the past 11 months; GDP was the fastest growing of all G7 economies in the first quarter of the year; business confidence is rising; 500,000 more people are in work; record investment has been made in Britain; real wages have increased more in 10 months than they did in 10 years of a Conservative Government; the national living wage has increased, giving 3 million working people a pay rise; and we have done all that without increasing taxes on working people. Those are the choices we have made. That is the difference we are making.
In the spending review today, we set out the spending that we announced in the Budget last year and in the spring statement—not a penny more, not a penny less. I said in the Budget and in the spring statement that public services must now live within the means that we have set, and we have achieved that. There will be a Budget later this year, and in that Budget we will set out all the fiscal plans in the round. But we have already drawn a line under the Tory mismanagement, with tax rises last year, and we will never have to repeat a Budget like that again because we will never have to clean up after the mess that the Conservatives made again.
The reason that this Labour Government have spent their first year fixing the foundations of our economy and stabilising our public finances is because it is what we had to do. The Government of which the shadow Chancellor was a part of left an unenviable legacy, which is why his party is, in his own words, “in a difficult place.”
We have made our choices. We are removing barriers to growth, which were untouched by the Conservatives in their 14 years in office; strengthening Britain’s security with the biggest real-terms increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, which the Conservatives did not do in their 14 years in office; bringing our health service into the 21st century after 14 years of Conservative neglect; investing in Britain’s renewal to repair the damage done by the Conservatives in their 14 years in office; and, in stark contrast to the Conservatives’ 14 years of chaos, waste and decline, we are delivering on the priorities of the British people.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on delivering this spending review—the first zero-based review in a very long time. It is vital that as taxpayers—the citizens—are looking carefully at their spending in this cost of living crisis, that Government do that too. We look forward to having the Chief Secretary to the Treasury before the Committee in two weeks’ time to consider the review in more detail.
I note from the figures that the Chancellor has made a good fist of ensuring that Departments have more than they did under the Conservatives in many cases, and I welcome her work to deliver on tackling child poverty, a scourge on our society. I note from my brief glimpse, however, that there is a smaller increase for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government than there would have been—there is the £39 billion over a decade for affordable social housing. Children living in poverty also face poverty of situation in many cases. Will she expand on how she and the Deputy Prime Minister will deliver that money to provide the social housing that so many children in poverty desperately need?
Rachel Reeves
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s welcoming of the breakfast clubs, free school meals and the capping of school uniform costs, which will help families living in poverty. The free school meals will, as she knows, lift 100,000 children out of poverty. She mentions the affordable homes grant, which will have its biggest ever increase. We have set that budget for 10 years to give certainty to the sector, so that it understands what is available. In addition, we have set out some social rent changes to give certainty to the sector to invest for the future.
Rachel Reeves
We as a Government were proud to be able to step in and save British Steel at Scunthorpe, and again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, but it is not just Scunthorpe. There are also opportunities in Sheffield and Port Talbot, because as we build this infrastructure—whether it is trams and trains, nuclear power or submarines—we want to use steel made in Britain. That is a really exciting opportunity, and the investments we are making in small modular reactors and fusion in Nottinghamshire and Derby create great opportunities for jobs. That is why we are also making a record investment in skills through the spending review, so that young people in North East Derbyshire and beyond can get access to the jobs that are being created.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. The announcement of just £44.5 million a year for the next 10 years for Welsh rail is Labour’s flimsy fig leaf of an excuse for the multibillion and multi-decade scandal that is HS2. The money announced today is only significant if it matches what Wales will continue to lose from all England-only rail projects, up to now and in the future. Can the Chancellor guarantee that from now on, Wales will receive the full £4 billion HS2 consequential funding, or will she admit that her announcement on Welsh rail funding is nothing but smoke and mirrors?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for making those representations to me and to the Secretary of State for Transport on the importance of better rail connections so that people in Bangor Aberconwy and across north Wales can better access good jobs and public services. That is why we have put in £445 million at the spending review.
Regional Growth
Judith Cummins Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant lobbying on behalf of his constituents and the east midlands, and for welcoming the historic level of funding for transport announced today. He is right to point out that this is about not just transport infrastructure but the communities in which people live, livelihoods and the opportunities for them and their families. I know that he will continue to work hard with our brilliant Mayor Claire Ward in the east midlands to turn these numbers into stories that matter for people in his constituency and across the east midlands.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Jayne Kirkham to ask the last question on the statement.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the transport investment, which is needed in those city regions and spreads the wealth out. Cornwall also has ambitious transport plans, but does not have a large city region for 175 miles. It is very difficult to get public transport to our airport or a direct bus to our one acute hospital. I am also campaigning for a freight rail link for Falmouth, so I am heartened to hear that there will be more transport announcements in the spending review. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that that investment will go further down into the south-west? On investment more widely, he has talked about the National Wealth Fund, which we know is dealing in early-stage project development support in areas of the country. Will he confirm that those talks will also go wider than the city regions, so that places such as Cornwall that have political and business partnerships and a strong growth plan will be considered by the National Wealth Fund?
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]
Judith Cummins ExcerptsThursday 24th April 2025
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 View all Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 April 2025 - large print - (24 Apr 2025)
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) The Bank of England must not require the scheme manager to make a recapitalisation payment if it has directed the financial institution to maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) exceeding minimum capital requirements.”
This amendment seeks to prohibit the use of FSCS funds to recapitalise large financial institutions, defined as those which have reached end-state MREL.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 22, at end insert—
“(3A) No application to the scheme manager for recapitalisation payments may be considered by the Bank of England for a financial institution which has been directed to maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) exceeding minimum capital requirements, unless permission has been given, through regulations, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(3B) Regulations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, subject to subsection (4), shall be made through Statutory Instrument under the negative procedure.”
This amendment would ensure financial institutions that maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities exceeding minimum capital requirements are excluded from the provisions of the Bill, unless permission has been given through regulations.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(5A) As a further objective to the special resolution objectives in section 4 of the Banking Act 2009, when discharging its functions in respect of the exercise of recapitalisation payments under this section, the Bank of England must observe the competitiveness and growth objective.
(5B) The competitiveness and growth objective is facilitating, subject to aligning with relevant international standards—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom, and
(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”
This amendment would place a further objective on the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks through a levy on the banking sector.
Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 4, line 14, at end insert—
“(2B) The code must include guidance to the Bank of England on the exercise of its functions in relation to building societies to ensure that, in circumstances where the use of a recapitalisation power may result in demutualisation, due consideration is given to the impact of such demutualisation on members and on the mutuals sector.
(2C) In preparing the guidance required under subsection (2B), the Treasury shall consider the feasibility of selecting a purchaser from the mutuals sector as a means of avoiding demutualisation, provided such a purchaser meets the resolution objectives.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that, where possible, the selection of a purchaser from the mutuals sector is considered to avoid demutualisation, provided this aligns with the Bank's resolution objectives.
Mark Garnier
Before speaking to new clause 3 specifically, let me reiterate that the Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to carry over the legislation from the previous Parliament, and that the principles underpinning the Bill continue to enjoy strong cross-party support. We all want and need confidence in our banking sector, yet the failure of Silicon Valley Bank UK exposed a gap in our resolution framework for smaller banks. Unlike larger institutions, they do not hold the bail and bond mechanism known as MREL—the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—reserves to facilitate recapitalisation in the event of a crisis. By providing the Bank of England with new tools to manage small bank failures, the Bill remains both prudent and necessary to protect financial stability and public funds.
Moving on to the amendments we have tabled on Report, I want to make it clear that our approach is constructive and focused on strengthening the Bill, not obstructing its progress. As the Bill has made progress through both Houses, our intention has been to address a series of smaller but none the less significant issues that we believe require further attention. I appreciate that this might be a conversation we can continue in today’s debate, or beyond it, and I would certainly welcome conversations with the Minister, who has been incredibly open to direct conversations in her usual pragmatic style, to further discuss these matters.
We have three measures selected for discussion today. I will speak first to new clause 3, which addresses a critical gap in the Bill’s scope: the protection of credit unions. These community-focused institutions have seen significant growth in recent years, driven in part by the eradication of predatory payday lenders, and they continue to provide a vital role in delivering affordable finance to those underserved by traditional banks.
Membership of credit unions rose from 1.89 million in 2019 to 2.14 million in 2024—an increase of more than 260,000. However, while their importance has grown, their inclusion in our resolution framework has not kept pace. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid £10.1 million in compensation to credit union depositors over the past three financial years, primarily due to small-scale failures, underscoring their potential vulnerability and the need for a tailored approach as the sector expands.
The growth of credit unions is a success story, but it demands proportional safeguards. The Bill, however, excludes credit unions from its recapitalisation mechanism. While their smaller size and unique nature may differentiate them from banks, questions remain. How does the current resolution regime account for credit union failures as the sector scales up? Is there scope to develop a mechanism that protects members without imposing undue burdens on these community institutions? New clause 3 seeks clarity on this matter, requiring the Minister to produce a report outlining how the resolution framework can be adapted to protect credit unions, ensuring that their growth does not outstrip their regulatory safeguards. The vast amount of legislation for credit unions was written back in the 1970s. The previous Government made significant reforms for credit unions through amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act, and I welcome the common bond reform consultation, which closed last month.
I know that the Government are giving the sector serious consideration, and I am sure the Minister will agree that this is not about applying bank-style rules to mutuals, but about recognising their unique role and risks. Credit unions are more than financial institutions; they are engines of financial inclusion. They often serve small, working-class communities, whom I know the Government want to support specifically. As the sector evolves, so too must our approach. We must ensure that our regulatory framework grows. I hope the Government will support this amendment, which simply seeks to look more clearly at the options available when a crisis happens.
Amendment 2 seeks to address a concern that has been raised with me by the mutual and building society sector. These institutions are not relics of the past, but vital components of our financial ecosystem. Although the first known building society was set up in 1775 by ordinary working people helping themselves to build their financial resilience and get a home of their own, they remain current today. Building societies today hold more than £360 billion in assets and provide mortgages for more than 3 million people in the UK. They represent a significant proportion of the housing market and are a trusted source of savings for millions more. They provide a clear and important diversification in our financial markets, offering a clear alternative to shareholder banks.
The Labour party stood on a clear manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector, which the Opposition agree is a very good policy. Today presents a good opportunity for Labour Members to demonstrate that commitment to the sector by enshrining in the Bill a requirement that the Bank of England consider the risk of demutualisation when using the mechanisms enshrined therein. There is a genuine fear in the building society sector that, without proper safeguards, the recapitalisation mechanism offered by the Bill could inadvertently become a back door for demutualisation. When a mutual institution faces resolution, the selection of a purchaser from the plc sector risks permanently dismantling its mutual status, undermining the very ethos that makes these institutions unique.
Our amendment would provide a proportionate solution, requiring the Bank of England to consider the impact of demutualisation on members and the sector as a whole, while also exploring the feasibility of selecting a mutual sector purchaser, if one exists and meets the resolution objectives. This is not about privileging mutuals at the expense of financial stability; it is about ensuring that the Bank’s resolution tools do not inadvertently homogenise our financial landscape. Silicon Valley Bank demonstrated the need for agile resolution frameworks, but it also highlighted the importance of preserving institutional diversity.
Mutuals and building societies often serve communities and demographics that larger banks frequently overlook. Their potential loss would leave gaps in financial inclusion and weaken the resilience of the sector. Importantly, without the millions of mortgages provided by the building society sector, particularly for first-time homeowners, Labour’s house building plans would be simply impossible.
I hope the Minister appreciates that our amendment strikes a careful balance between safeguarding financial stability and honouring our commitment to a pluralistic banking system—one where mutuals continue to thrive as a cornerstone of community-focused finance. I remind Labour Members that it will be much harder to double the size of the mutual sector if, in the event of a failure, recapitalisation defaults towards the banking sector. I hope the Government will therefore demonstrate their manifesto commitment to the mutual and co-operative sector by voting today for new clause 3 and amendment 2.
There remains genuine concern—shared across this House and reflected in the debates in the other place—over the risk of the recapitalisation mechanism being applied too broadly and potentially capturing larger banks that already hold substantial loss-absorbing resources, such as MREL. We continue to believe that the mechanism should be limited in scope and targeted at smaller banks that do not have the same capacity to manage their own failure. Amendment 1 would limit the use of the mechanism to what it was always intended to be: a mechanism for smaller banks outside the MREL regime.
I appreciate that new clauses 1 and 2 have already been ruled out of scope, but it may be worth noting a couple of points on these measures. I wish to place on the record today that the Opposition believe the time has come for a review of how we set the threshold for MREL, as well as the protection ceilings for depositors under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The current static nature of MREL thresholds disproportionately affects smaller and mid-sized banks, particularly challenger banks. By indexing MREL thresholds to inflation, we can ensure that the regulatory framework remains robust over time without stifling competition. These institutions often operate on tighter margins and face significant barriers in meeting rigid capital requirements, hindering their ability to scale and compete effectively with larger incumbents. While we appreciate that the Bank of England’s consultation on MREL closed earlier this year, we hope that the Government will consider these points. Threshold limits should not stay static with time.
Likewise, we welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to review the Financial Services Compensation Scheme deposit limit. The recent announcement of the increase of the deposit protection scheme from £85,000 to £110,000, although very welcome, is certainly overdue. It is worth noting that if the limit had kept pace with inflation, it would be nearly two thirds higher, at around £140,000, according to the Federation of Small Businesses. It is worth noting that only 4.6% of Silicon Valley Bank’s UK deposits were insured by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing what is in scope, rather than what is not in scope and has not been selected?
Mark Garnier
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are points that we feel are worth noting, but I take your comments.
I will turn to amendment 3, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Although we share the intent behind the amendment, which mirrors the Conservatives’ amendment on MREL limits for banks, there is a critical difference in its approach that gives us pause. Like us, the Liberal Democrats recognise that end-state MREL banks should not be the primary target of this legislation. However, their amendment introduces a requirement for a statutory instrument under the negative procedure that we believe would create more problems than it solves.
Our concern lies in the potential impracticality of this approach. Banking crises can unfold rapidly, as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank UK, where decisions were made in a matter of hours, not days. A statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure becomes law the moment the Minister signs it, which is a good thing, and it remains in law unless either House rejects it within 40 sitting days. That creates a window of uncertainty. If Members were to pray against the statutory instrument, particularly in a hung Parliament, it could trigger market instability, which is precisely what this Bill seeks to avoid, so although we agree with the principle of limiting the Bill’s scope, we worry that the mechanism could tie the hands of a future Chancellor, hindering their ability to respond swiftly and decisively in a crisis. For those reasons, we cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendment.
Spring Statement
Judith Cummins Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I was pleased to mention my hon. Friend’s constituency in my statement. As the home of the British Army, on behalf of this Government, we thank the people of Aldershot and Farnborough for the service that they give our country every single day.
My hon. Friend is right to mention the importance of companies in the defence sector, whether big or small, being able to access finance. That has never been more important than it is today, when the threats posed by Putin continue to grow. I therefore urge everyone in financial services to do their part to make sure that our fantastic defence start-ups have the money that they need to grow and help defend our country and our values.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Will the Chancellor better explain how the civil service cuts will translate into the devolved regions and the impact on future block grant allocations? Are there lessons to be learnt from the fact that in 2015, the Northern Ireland Executive had a voluntary exit scheme, upon which it spent £700 million, and then proceeded to re-engage hundreds of civil servants as agency workers?
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsWednesday 19th March 2025
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Act 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 19 March 2025 - (19 Mar 2025)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
As the House was informed earlier, Mr Speaker is satisfied that Lords amendment 20 would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 December 2024. In accordance with Standing Order No. 78(3), Lords amendment 20 is therefore deemed to be disagreed to.
After Clause 3
Review of effect on certain sectors
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 21.—(James Murray.)
Family Businesses
Judith Cummins Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Unusually, I welcome the motion tabled by the Conservatives because it sets down on the record, loud and clear, that they are no friends of working people, and they are no friends of working women in particular. Their motion calls for an end to Labour’s groundbreaking Employment Rights Bill and would allow bad employers to continue to exploit workers, to sack anyone who objects and to continue paying women less than men. That is not a surprise, of course, because the Leader of the Opposition has already made it clear that she thinks maternity pay has “gone too far” and is “excessive”. Statutory maternity pay is based on earnings, and for most of the leave period it is set at a maximum of £184 a week or 90% of normal pay, whichever is lower. That translates to about £9,500 a year. I do not think many women, or their partners, would think that is excessive.
I am at least grateful that the Conservatives are being honest: they could not care less about working people. Earlier, the shadow Chancellor was unable to tell us which bit of the Employment Rights Bill they wanted to get rid of. Well, he should read his own motion—it is written in black and white. Their motion explicitly objects to Labour’s new law to finally make employers put a stop to sexual harassment in the workplace and to take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment of staff by customers, contractors and service users. The Conservatives seem to be especially against that in their motion, which is peculiar, because just two years ago they said that they would bring in exactly the same law. What happened? Oh yes, I know: they abandoned working women, broke their promises and left shop workers, office staff and women managers at the mercy of sexual harassers, and they want to do the same today.
The other new law in Labour’s Employment Rights Bill that the Conservatives seem to be especially against—it is in their motion, which the shadow Chancellor has not read—is the ending of exploitative zero-hours contracts. Their motion instead supports the continued mistreatment of often low-paid workers who do not know from one week to the next how much work they will get or if they will be able to pay their bills. Let us be clear: sexual harassment can often go hand in hand with exploitative zero-hours contracts. Imagine how difficult it is for a low-paid woman to complain about her manager’s inappropriate sexual behaviour if she relies on him to give her enough hours to feed her family next week. Zero-hours contracts put way too much power in the hands of managers, and, with proper business planning, there is simply no need for them to be forced on workers.
In their motion, the Conservatives seem to have confused knowing what people’s hours are in advance with the new right of flexible working, which Labour is also introducing. They claim that those two things are in conflict—of course they are not. People can still have a zero-hours contract if they want to, but if they want guaranteed hours so that they have a secure income for their family, they will be entitled to that. If people want to work part time because they have kids or elderly parents, they will have a new right to flexible working that will allow that. The Conservatives’ motion is not clear on whether they support flexible working, but surely the Leader of the Opposition should understand and embrace Labour’s new right to flexible working, given her reported invention of Kemi mean time, or KMT, to explain being half an hour late for everything. Maybe it is one law for her and another for the workers.
In this motion, the Conservatives have squarely and unashamedly set themselves against working people, especially working women, but the British people made a choice on 4 July: they voted for a party that would stand up for working people and keep its promises to outlaw sexual harassment at work and end exploitative zero-hours contracts. That is why Labour will vigorously and vociferously vote down the Conservatives’ attempt to stop those changes today.
Graham Leadbitter
I hear what the hon. Member is saying. There are a number of reliefs in Scotland, and Scotland went further and quicker than the Conservatives did in government when it came to the small business bonus scheme that was in place, so I am not going to take any lessons about what we do with business rates. It is a different system; there are other things going on that make the mix different. Also, that is not the issue that businesses are raising with me.
The first and foremost issue, as has been indicated by Family Business UK, is inheritance tax. That is what is causing the most consternation. The businesses that I met last week were saying that their financial advisers—or their finance directors, if they are big enough to have them—are already advising them to set aside substantial amounts of money to cover off risk. These are businesses that have never had to value themselves in their lives. They are family businesses that work on a model of working with what they have and getting on with it. They have never had to place an inheritance value on their business. That is yet another headache for them—another bureaucratic maze for them to work their way through—that does not apply to LLPs, which is a very unfair situation. I do not understand why a Labour Government in particular are tackling family-owned businesses in this way and allowing shareholder-owned businesses or LLPs off the hook. That does not make sense to me.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke very well and, had her amendment been selected, I would certainly have gone for it. I am sorry that I cannot, but—
Nick Timothy
I absolutely agree. I was baffled by the speeches of Labour Members; they were lining up to say that they had been meeting local businesses that were desperate to congratulate them on the tax rises that their Government are imposing on them. That is clearly ridiculous.
In my constituency of West Suffolk, I am proud to represent so many family businesses that contribute to the economy. The Hadley shipping group, owned by James Warwick, is one of the last remaining family-run shipping companies in Britain. The Claydon family has manufactured and exported world-class agricultural machinery since the 1980s. Wedge Group Galvanising in Haverhill is a leading business in hot-dip galvanising in Europe and beyond. We need those vibrant and successful family businesses to help us build again and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) has just said, they are telling us the same thing: that because of the policies of this Government, they are confronted with a choice between selling their business altogether, selling parts of their business or cutting much-needed investment.
I will conclude by saying that repeating the word “growth” in press releases, ministerial speeches and tweets does not make growth magically appear. Pummelling business, as this Government are doing, is the fastest route to killing growth and our prosperity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to what has been an interesting debate. We heard, in particular, excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins). We also heard interesting speeches from the Liberal Democrat hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and her colleague the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), and from the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), as well as Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru speeches from, respectively, the hon. Members for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) and for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi).
As my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury emphasised in his opening remarks, we are taking the tough decisions now to support family businesses. We recognise that they are the backbone of our economy, our communities and, indeed, our society. Unlike the Conservative party, who crashed the economy, we are determined to champion those family businesses. While the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), was sitting at the Cabinet table, the cost of loans to family businesses were going through the roof. He was part of a Cabinet that left this Government with a huge £22 billion black hole in the public finances. It is always interesting to listen to the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who never seems to mention any more that he was once in the Treasury helping to write the Liz Truss Budget. Any time he wants to intervene and apologise for that, he will find me willing to let him do so. He finished his time in Government as a business Minister, when a record number of family businesses went bust. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am interested, and my constituents will be very interested, to hear what the Minister is saying.
Gurinder Singh Josan
For my entire working life I have been self-employed in the family business which was established by my dad and my uncle in 1975. Does the Minister agree with my experience that family businesses do not operate in isolation? Lots of things matter to family businesses. If someone is ill in the morning, they cannot join the 8 am merry-go-round for a GP appointment—the state that the Tories left this country in—because they have to get to work, open up and get people through the door. If the buses do not work, staff cannot get in. If potholes are not fixed—
Gareth Thomas
I do agree with my hon. Friend. As he rightly alludes to, in the Budget we had to take tough decisions to fix the foundations of our economy, to restore stability and to begin to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure and address the terrible state of our public services. While we have raised employer’s national insurance contributions, we have mitigated the impacts by increasing the employment allowance to £10,500—a record amount—which means that 1 million small businesses will be paying either the same or less in national insurance contributions than they do now.
Several hon. Members rightly pointed out during this debate that a lot of family businesses are high street businesses. Many of them have been run for successive generations, and they are part and parcel of our communities. The Conservative party did next to nothing to help family businesses on Britain’s high streets. It allowed thousands of bank branches to close and thousands of pubs and other high street family businesses to go, too. That is why this Government are focused on our five-point plan to breathe life back into Britain’s high streets.
Crown Estate Bill [Lords]
Judith Cummins ExcerptsMonday 24th February 2025
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Act 2025 View all Crown Estate Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 February 2025 - large print - (24 Feb 2025)
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on Report, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will focus on amendment 4 and new clauses 5 and 6, which I tabled.
The Bill was developed under the previous Conservative Government to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete by providing a broader power to borrow, in order to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. The assets managed by the Crown Estate, which total £15.5 billion, are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate; they are held in right of the Crown. Appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is therefore essential, which is what the amendment and new clauses I have tabled seek to ensure. Over the past decade, the Crown Estate generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, and it believes that the measures in the Bill will enable it to generate an additional £100 million in revenues to the Treasury by 2030, which is a prize worth seeking.
Before speaking to the measures in my name, I turn briefly to new clause 1, which proposes devolution of the Welsh functions of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) has support from businesses for this change, as splitting the Crown Estate at this time would introduce risk for assets and revenue streams. In Committee, we heard about the potential problems and complexity of licensing of the Celtic sea, to which the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) just referred.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute this evening. I will speak in favour of the Bill and address some of the amendments and new clauses, although there probably is not time to address them all. The Bill is an important and necessary step to help the Government take speedy action to tackle the climate emergency, and to help ensure energy security. It modernises the management of the Crown Estate, as we have heard, which potentially is a sleeping giant of green energy provision. The estate is responsible for vast amounts of coastal land and seabed, which have enormous potential to deliver wind power and other renewables.
Tackling the climate emergency is a significant challenge, but it is achievable. However, we need to step up to the challenge, and the Bill is part of a wider transformation of Government policy to do exactly that. As we heard in Committee, the Bill is urgently needed because although the Crown Estate has enormous potential, the rules governing its management are unduly restrictive. For example, the Crown Estate Act 1961, which governs the estate’s management of its resources, sets out rules that would now be deemed inappropriate for holding very large cash balances. That makes it difficult for the Crown Estate to work with private investors to develop new wind energy and to transmit urgently needed new power to the grid. There is a clear need for these measures. I hope that, after sufficient debate, it is time for the Bill to make further progress.
I would like to support the Minister by briefly pointing out the inherent errors of some of the new clauses and amendments. New clause 5 seeks Treasury approval for the disposal of more than 10% of the Crown Estate’s assets. Clearly, that would reduce flexibility for the Crown Estate in managing its estate and business. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy before Parliament. However, as we have heard, partnership agreements are normally commercially sensitive, and there could be a risk to further business if that was carried out.
Let me turn briefly to the amendments. Amendment 3, which in my opinion is misconstrued, would require the commissioners to assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities. However, the UK already has a whole series of dedicated statutory bodies in each of the devolved Administrations that are tasked with exactly that activity.
Equally, amendment 5 is unnecessary. It would ask the Crown Estate when reviewing the impact of its work to consider the impact on net zero targets, regional economic development and energy security. However, it is clear that the whole Bill is intended to tackle the challenge of addressing and eventually reaching net zero. Referencing specific targets risks further complicating what is already an important Bill that has had considerable discussion in Committee.
As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said at an earlier stage, this is an important Bill to help the UK achieve our climate targets, and it is a significant step forward in helping us retain energy security. It is time for the whole House to support it.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and provided further detail about their amendments or concerns.
I start by making it clear that the Government have carefully considered all amendments throughout the passage of the Bill. Where we have agreed with the intent behind an amendment, we have worked hard to find an appropriate way forward. That was evidenced in the changes made by this House to ensure appropriate protections for our seabed. As a result of changes made to the Bill, the Crown Estate will now be required to seek the approval of the Treasury for any permanent disposal of the seabed. I thank the Opposition for a constructive debate on that matter. Alongside that, further changes made in the other place have helped to strengthen the Bill, including changes to require the appointment of commissioners with special responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland; a reporting requirement in respect of activities with Great British Energy; and a requirement relating to sustainable development. In that spirit, I have considered the amendments that are before us.
I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for tabling new clause 1, under which, within two years of the day on which the Act commences, the Treasury must have completed the transfer of responsibility for management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. It would allow the Treasury, by regulations, to make provision about the transfer relating to reserved matters as necessary, and would require it to ensure that no person in Crown employment has their employment adversely affected by the transfer of responsibility.
I also thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for tabling new clause 4, to which her colleague, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), also spoke. It would require the Treasury to set out a scheme for transferring all Welsh functions of the Crown Estate commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers. The Welsh functions would consist of the property, rights or interests in land in Wales, and rights in relation to the Welsh zone. As I set out in Committee, the Government believe that there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form.
New clause 4 would most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the management of the Crown Estate in Wales—an entity that, by definition, would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability, capital and systems abilities. It would further fragment the UK energy market by adding an additional entity and, as a consequence, it would risk damaging international investor confidence in UK renewables. It would also risk disrupting the National Energy System Operator’s grid connectivity reform, which is taking a whole-system approach to the planning of generation and network infrastructure. Those reforms aim to create a more efficient system and reduce the time it takes for generation projects to connect to the grid.