Winter Fuel Payment

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

3.16 pm

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets that the Government approved the use of the urgency exemption in section 173 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to make and lay the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024 before the Secretary of State had referred the Regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee; further regrets that the Government decided it was not necessary to publish an impact assessment for the Regulations, despite, for example, the evidence which shows that living in a cold home increases the risk of serious illness for vulnerable people and those with disabilities and so restricting eligibility for the Winter Fuel Payment is likely to lead to increased burdens on the National Health Service; regrets that the Government made time to debate the prayer motion from the Official Opposition without the Social Security Advisory Committee’s Report, and Government response; and calls on the Government to lay those papers before Parliament without delay, and to publish a full regulatory and equality impact assessment for these Regulations.

The decision to remove winter fuel payments has come as a complete shock to millions of pensioners—pensioners on as little as £11,500 a year. We have had no adequate explanation as to why this measure is so urgent. We have had no explanation as to why the Government had to invoke the special emergency provisions that allow them to bypass the scrutiny of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We have had no explanation as to why no impact assessments were provided. This is a major policy change that will remove the entitlement for up to 10 million pensioners, including many who are already in poverty. It is a cut worth £7.5 billion over the course of this Parliament. Rushing such a policy through—without taking time to consider the impacts, ensure effective and fair implementation, and allow possible scrutiny—is impossible to justify. This is not the way to make good policy, and this is not good government.

It is worth considering the conclusions of one of the few bodies that have been afforded the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the Lords has been damning in its criticism of the Government’s approach, and I refer the House to my remarks in the previous debate, when I quoted the Committee at some length. As the Committee points out, such measures would normally be subject to the SSAC’s consideration. That is an important part of the process for any legislation of this nature, as I know well from my time as Work and Pensions Secretary. Conveniently, Ministers have claimed that the measure is too urgent to wait for the SSAC’s scrutiny.

We understand that the SSAC is due to consider the measure tomorrow. Can the Minister commit to the House today that the SSAC’s report, and the Government statement responding to any recommendations, will be laid before Parliament before the regulations come into force next week? As the Lords Committee has pointed out, it would seem wholly inappropriate for the SSAC’s views to be taken into account only once the regulations are already in force. In the words of the Committee,

“It remains unclear what the practical impact of any statement might be on regulations which will have already come into effect.”

If the Government do not intend to provide us with the SSAC’s observations before the House rises on Thursday, why were Members asked to consider and vote on the prayer motion against the regulations today, before the SSAC has met?

The lack of any impact assessment means that we are severely hampered in our ability to scrutinise this measure. We were told in the explanatory memorandum that:

“A full Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because there is no significant new impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.”

This seems a bold claim to make about a measure that removes hundreds of pounds of support from some of the most vulnerable elderly households in our country.

The guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is clear:

“For a vulnerable person, living in a cold home increases their chance of serious illness or death.”

It also notes that

“being housebound increases both the exposure to an underheated home and the cost of heating it.”

So can I ask the Minister on what basis it was concluded that there would be no significant impact from this policy on those charities and organisations that support elderly people or on the wider health and social care system? Will he now commit to the publication of a proper impact assessment?

The only basis for the urgency seems to be a claim that this measure is vital for public finances. We have even been subjected to the Leader of the House claiming that it was needed to avoid a run on the pound. I might ask the Minister to comment on that when he appears at the Dispatch Box. The only real relevance of a measure of this kind to the public finances is its impact on the Government’s fiscal rules. Those fiscal rules are based on levels of debt and borrowing at the end of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s fiscal forecast period in five years’ time. The rules that the Chancellor has claimed she will sign up to were already being met when the Government came into office, according to the OBR’s own forecasts.

The Government could have opted to bring this measure in next year, with greater time for scrutiny, better notice for pensioners, more time to drive up pension credit uptakes and perhaps time to consider whether there were much better ways of going about it. It would still have been a broken promise, and we on this side of the House would still have opposed it, but it would have been a much better way to make policy and it would still have delivered exactly the same savings at the end of the forecast period.

Ministers will claim that they needed to make immediate in-year savings, but that is based entirely on a black hole that they have confected themselves. The real reason this is being rushed is pure politics. The Government want to rush this measure through while they can try to blame it on their predecessors in order to avoid proper scrutiny. There is no need whatsoever for the haste with which this is being done.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend, like me, find it inexplicable that the Government should fail to go through the proper process when their own research suggested that thousands of people could die as a result of precisely this measure? That is something that the whole House should find deeply uncomfortable.

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This is a very serious step that the Government are taking. Of all the steps that should be properly scrutinised, surely this is one of them. I remember when I was sitting on the other side of the Chamber, I could barely breathe without the cry going out that an impact assessment should be held. It is extraordinary that on such an important measure as this, affecting millions of the most vulnerable, the Labour party should be utterly silent on this issue.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Old people die in cold homes, and they die particularly if they are very old. Does my right hon. Friend think that if the Government are not minded to change their mind entirely, they might look at those aged over 80? Those people are in receipt of the higher rate of winter fuel payment, and paragraph 3 of the regulations points out that there is a difference between those over 80 and those under 80. That might be one way that the Government could make this slightly less worse than it otherwise is.

[Mel Stride]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It has been suggested that the Government are examining ways of ameliorating some of the harshest effects of this policy, and that might be one of the things they consider. On that particular point, we cannot escape the fact that, whatever age people are, over two thirds of those who are currently pensioners below the poverty line will lose their winter fuel payments under the current arrangements.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I have the honour to represent the most remote, the most sparsely populated and the coldest constituency. The Secretary of State, in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), said earlier that the Government would try to maximise the take-up of pension credit, and I accept that, but would they accept that sheer remoteness and sheer distance can militate against people taking up this offer? I ask the Government, via the right hon. Gentleman, to please look at this issue, because it means an awful lot to my constituents.

[Mel Stride]

I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

The reality is that the Government want to rush this through so that they can blame it on their predecessor and avoid proper scrutiny. There is no need whatsoever for the haste with which this is being done, other than to meet the political ends of the Labour party. They are ripping the plaster off and hoping that the country will have forgotten by the time of the next general election. That is at the heart of it, but we will not forget. We would not have been given the opportunity to debate and vote on this measure without significant pressure from the Opposition and the wider public. This is nothing to do with fiscal responsibility and everything to do with political expediency—no scrutiny, no impact assessment, no notice. This is an appalling way to govern.

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I congratulate everybody who has made their maiden speech in this debate. It is a big moment in one’s parliamentary career, but you are out the other side and nothing will be quite as traumatic as what you have experienced today. To go through them very briefly, I thank the hon. Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), who told us that her great-grandfather—I think—came from Lithuania to set up a store in the middle of her constituency, which is her connection with it. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) paid a very generous tribute to Mike Freer and the dangers and intimidation that he faced. She was also generous to Mrs Thatcher—she is clearly a very generous lady.

The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) paid tribute to Grant Shapps and his numerous and frequent Cabinet positions, as well as his commitment to Ukraine. The hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh) paid tribute to the 190 Labour women MPs who are now in the House, as well as to Harriet Harman. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) managed to weave King John and A. E. Housman into his speech, and informed us that Hollywood is not a city on the west coast of the United States, but is actually within his constituency. If you want to see film stars, ladies and gentlemen, go to Bromsgrove.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) has the peculiarity of having three forebears who are still Members of this House. He was generous to each of them, which shows that he is a wise man and will go far. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) stressed the industrial and shipping heritage of his constituency, and how it was indeed bombarded by the Germans in world war one, but it gave as good as it got. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) praised his predecessor, Matt Hancock, of course focusing on racing and horses—although not, I noticed, on horseplay as such.

The hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) focused, with great pride, on the Hitachi Rail company in his constituency—shortly, I am afraid to tell him, to be seized by the Labour party and nationalised as part of its Government programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Greg Stafford) stressed defence spending, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) leasehold reform and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) the importance of agriculture.

I was out of the Chamber for the speech of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and the Whip’s note simply says, “He said that there was a cat rubbing his legs”, or something to that effect. [Laughter.] Representing a highly rural constituency as I do, I know that strange things do occur, particularly late on those dull winter evenings.

The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) stressed the importance of children in care. The hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) referred to her constituency as the new “Haliwood”, so another Hollywood reference there. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) gave a very witty speech, and stressed the association with the RAF in his commitment to veterans. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) paid tribute to David Morris and his support for the Eden project, and I was particularly pleased to see her do that.

The hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) made I think one of the most moving maiden speeches that we have heard in this House for a very long time. He spoke very movingly about his parents, and we all know what pride his dad would have had in the fact that he has been successful in his fourth attempt to join us here in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) referenced the fact that a Roman road—Watling Street—runs through her constituency and spoke passionately about the importance of community and tolerance.

Finally, the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke warmly of Kevan Jones, whom all of us who have been in this House for a while remember with great fondness, and the importance of skilled and well-paid jobs in his constituency. I hope that I have pretty much covered everybody and said the main things that needed saying.

Let us now turn to the debate itself, and it seems to me that the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), while I congratulate her warmly on being the first female Chancellor—I think that is a huge achievement and is to be very warmly welcomed—is, I am afraid, suffering from some level of amnesia. She appears to have forgotten the legacy that we have bequeathed to her. Inflation, which was up at over 10% last autumn, is now back to target. Mortgage rates are softening, real wages have been growing in each of the last 11 months and taxes have been coming down more recently under the previous Government. When it comes to debt, we were on target, as we handed over to the right hon. Lady, to see debt falling in line with her own fiscal target at the end of the fifth year, and we of course have the fastest growing economy in the G7.

One wonders where this amnesia is coming from, and it is of course nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It is to cover up the fact that the Chancellor is rolling the pitch to raise taxes. Against all the commitments she made during the general election, she will be raising those taxes in the autumn. It will not be because we have bequeathed her something of which she was not aware in advance. The IFS has made it very clear that the books were “open”, as Paul Johnson said, for all to see.

When it comes to public services, we have a proud record. On education, we have the best readers in the western world. We have been going up the PISA scales for mathematics and sciences, something that did not happen under the last Labour Government. Crime has been halved, broadly speaking, across the period from 2010 to the present day. When it comes to work and welfare, we have a near-record level of employment, and we have a low level of unemployment. And economic inactivity is lower than in every single year under the last Labour Government. What was Labour’s record? When they left office, unemployment was double the level that it is today. Under every single Labour Government in history, unemployment has been higher when they left office than when they came in. Most disgraceful of all is that youth unemployment was up 43% under the last Labour Government; under the last Conservative Government it was down by over 40%.

As for welfare, under Labour there were 1.4 million people languishing on long-term benefits for almost a decade. On pensions, we saw the 75p pension increase and the Gordon Brown raid on private pensions of £180 billion—from which the pension system never fully recovered. It is, therefore, no surprise that, under Labour, we ended up with the fourth highest level of pensioner poverty across Europe. Under Labour there were 1 million more people in absolute poverty after housing costs. There were 200,000 more pensioners in poverty and 100,000 more children in poverty under the last Labour Government than there are today.

We will be a responsible Opposition: we welcome the commitment to growth in the King’s Speech; we welcome the commitment to building houses, as long as that is with sufficient local consent; we welcome the Budget responsibility Bill in principle; and we welcome the announcements that the Chancellor has made regarding pensions: consolidating pensions and ensuring that we get better returns for pensioners and that we invest in long-term pension capital.

But there are too many echoes in this King’s Speech of the Labour of old. The nationalisation of the railways. The consolidation of GB Energy. The long hand of Government reaching—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Labour Members cheer now but they won’t be cheering in a few years’ time. They have short memories; I remember when the railways were nationalised and it was not a pretty situation. They are bringing forward French-style employment laws that will lead to less efficient businesses and to tribunals. They will be increasing the freedoms of trade unions, who are their paymasters. And they will be dispensing with minimum service levels; that will lead to more strikes and the inconvenience of the public, but certainly not greater growth.

What have we heard in the King’s Speech on welfare, one of the biggest challenges of the modern age? Zip, absolutely nothing, nada, diddly squat—absolutely nothing from the Labour party. They talk about moving the National Careers Service from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions; well, I hardly think that will move the dial. Their back to work plan is named exactly as our back to work plan was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) the shadow Chancellor and I launched last autumn, but it has nothing standing behind it—not the billions of pounds of support we put in place to encourage people to go into work and to transform lives.

All we have heard from those on the Government Benches is a denigration of our job centres; these are described as places of fear by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and by the Minister for employment the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern) as places that do not offer real help. What an insult to the tens of thousands of hard-working people up and down our country who go into those offices to help people improve their prospects and improve their lives. They are against what they call punitive sanctions; it will cost hundreds of millions of pounds to remove those and it will result in less engagement with the help that is available and diminish people’s life chances. There have been no comments whatsoever from the Government Benches on our work capability assessment reforms, that according to the Office for Budget Responsibility will see 400,000 fewer people on long-term sickness benefits. They opposed in poetry; they have to govern in prose. They have not even picked up the pen, but let me be clear: we made mistakes in government and we have paid the price at the ballot box, and it is right that my party now faces a period of reflection and does so with humility. The electorate has spoken, and we must listen. But that is not the same as saying that the vision that is Conservatism has died, even if of late it has been too often obscured. That vision still burns bright. It burns bright as a beacon of freedom, enterprise, opportunity and, yes, stability and hope in the face of—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. Will the shadow Secretary of State please curtail his remarks now?

[Mel Stride]

I commend our amendment to the House.

Economic Update

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It was both frank and bold, and it appears—in the very short term, at least—to have steadied the markets. One point that he raised at the Dispatch Box—although it was absent from his statement earlier today—was his renewed commitment to our financial institutions, and in particular the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility. He has also brought forward the economic advisory council, a number of whose members have appeared before the Treasury Committee; I think that he has chosen well. Will he reassure the House that the economic advisory council will not in any way conflict with the Bank of England, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority or any of our institutions and that it will be there to complement and not work against any of them?

[Jeremy Hunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who in recent weeks has spoken wisely about the difficult issues that we face. I can absolutely give him that assurance. I want, to be frank, to ensure that I am getting advice from fantastic institutions such as the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility, but also advice that is independent of those institutions, because that is how we will get the best result. Rupert Harrison in particular has enormous experience of running the Treasury under George Osborne over many years, and I think that he will make an important contribution, as will his colleagues on the council.

With respect to the markets, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to be cautious about what happens. They go up as well as they go down, and no Government can—or should seek to—control the markets. What we can do is the thing that is within our power, which is a very firm and clear commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Economic Situation

Mel Stride Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Mel Stride.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was quite right to bring forward the date for the medium-term fiscal plan and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. He now has, of course, a huge challenge in landing those plans in order to reassure the markets. He has to get the fiscal rules right and come forward with spending restraint and revenue raisers that are politically deliverable. Given the huge challenges, there are many—myself included—who believe it is quite possible that he will simply have to come forward with a further rowing back on the tax announcements he made on 23 September. Can my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary confirm that that possibility is still on the table?

[Chris Philp]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee for his counsel, which the Chancellor always listens to very carefully. The Chair of the Select Committee, along with others, suggested publicly that the date for the medium-term fiscal plan should be brought forward, and the Chancellor listened to him and responded by bringing the date forward from 23 November to 31 October.

There are no plans to reverse any of the tax measures announced in the growth plan. There is, I think, a measure of consensus—indeed, the Labour party voted only last night for the reduction in national insurance. We want to ensure that the UK is a competitive jurisdiction that companies and high-potential individuals who are internationally mobile choose to come to, to locate and grow. However, as the Select Committee Chair says, we of course need to do so in a way that is fiscally responsible, to ensure that debt over GDP falls in the medium term. The plan will lay out to the House in detail exactly how that will be achieved, scored by the OBR, on 31 October.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to bring forward the medium-term plan and the OBR forecast; he has listened, and he is right. However, may I caution him to reach out as much as he can across both sides of the House, to be certain that he can get through this House the measures he puts forward to underpin that forecast? Any failure to do so will unsettle the markets.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He does a brilliant job of chairing his Committee and is full of wise counsel; he is absolutely right that we will and should canvass opinion widely ahead of the publication of the plan.

The Growth Plan

Mel Stride Excerpts

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Mel Stride.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I welcome much in this statement. There is a great deal that will help millions of families and businesses up and down the country. There is, however, a vast void at the centre of the announcements that have been made this morning: the lack of an independent OBR forecast. At a time when the markets are getting twitchy about Government bonds and the currency is under pressure, now is the time for transparency and making it very clear that whatever tax cuts or otherwise there may be, they are done in a fiscally responsible manner.

I have to say to my right hon. Friend that he should have come forward with an OBR forecast. The Treasury Committee knows, because of our correspondence with Richard Hughes, the head of the OBR, that it was standing ready to come forward with such a forecast. We further know, because of that correspondence, that there is a baseline forecast that the Chancellor has at the moment and that would have been on his desk when he first arrived in office. May I gently and respectfully ask him to release that forecast to provide transparency to the House and calmness to the markets, and to do that without further delay?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I thank my right hon. Friend and gently and respectfully remind him that, in the statement, I committed in a very categorical way to the OBR coming up with a forecast before the end of the calendar year. It will be a full forecast, not a baseline forecast, and it will fully score the measures outlined in this growth plan. I would be very happy to meet him at his Committee at a convenient time.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Mel Stride Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I rise to broadly support the Bill. I echo the congratulations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on all his work, and I thank him for his appearances before the Select Committee in that regard—he probably bears the scars. I also welcome my good friend the Minister to his place and I thank him for setting out the Bill’s provisions with such clarity in his opening remarks.

The Bill occurs because of Brexit—because of the opportunities and the new freedoms that we have as a consequence of leaving the European Union. We have heard much about solvency II in this debate and more widely when we have discussed the new regulatory landscape that we are moving into. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) presented us with a rich tapestry of additional ideas about where he believes that the Government can go still further, which makes me feel that we should perhaps have him before the Treasury Committee again to tell us more about that; that might be a recurrent nightmare for him, however, so perhaps we will not inflict it on him at this moment.

With that greater freedom comes the critical issue of scrutiny by Parliament and by Government. When it comes to scrutiny by Parliament, I believe that the Treasury Committee is and should remain right at the centre of that process. We are moving from a bureaucratic, committee-based process within the European Union that literally goes through regulation line by line. It is important that it does that in the context of what were 28 member states, because an element of negotiation is involved at every stage of the scrutiny of those regulations. We are in a different environment now; we can be much more flexible and nimble, but we still need to be effective in that regard, which is why the Treasury Committee should be at the heart of that process.

As has already been mentioned, we have set up a Sub-Committee that will look specifically at regulation as it comes out of the statute book and cascades down to the rulebooks and manuals of the regulators. We believe that we can be selective, nimble and appropriate in the way that we address that. The Sub-Committee will have the same powers as the full Committee to send for persons and to have oral hearings. In fact, we have already had our first hearing into the Prudential Regulation Authority’s work around the strong and simple regime for the lighter-touch regulation of firms that do not come anywhere near the threshold for being potentially systemically important within the sector. In terms of staffing and resources, the Sub-Committee has the ability to, and will, take on additional resource by way of expert assistance, and it has the capacity to gear up and gear down as necessary, depending on the workload that comes its way.

I noted the Minister’s comments about the statutory duty that will come in for the regulators to inform the Select Committee when a review is published, and for the regulators to respond to its various consultations as they occur. I suspect that the Select Committee will look at some possible amendments to that, because we will be particularly interested in making sure that we have the power and authority at the centre of this process to effectively carry out the things that we need to do in that area.

I turn to the Government’s powers of scrutiny in the Bill, which touch on the balance between the independence of the regulators and the importance of holding them to account, particularly in terms of seizing the opportunities of this post-Brexit world. Prior to the Minister’s opening speech, my understanding was that there would be—as there is in the current Bill—a requirement that the regulators could be instructed by the Treasury to review rules on the basis of a public interest test and, in particular, where there had been significant market developments or where the rules were not meeting their requirements or purpose. It was to be used only in exceptional circumstances. At that point, if a review were held, as I understood it, it would not have been incumbent on the regulator to make any particular changes.

I think I heard the Minister say earlier, however, that an amendment will be tabled in Committee to allow the Treasury to have the power to direct the regulators to make changes, which is a significant shift. I know that that was welcomed a moment ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks), and I understand the upsides of this. I think it is important that regulators are held to account, particularly when it comes to our competitiveness and so on. However, the questions arise: what is the threshold for this public interest test and how frequently will it be used? The fear must be there to some degree—this is something the Committee will want to look at very carefully—that this may be an overly overbearing power for the Treasury, which may impinge on the independence of the regulators themselves.

The Bill has the new secondary objectives for the FCA and the PRA, which I broadly welcome. I welcome the fact that they are medium and long-term objectives, not short-term objectives. I think that is very important because it means we are not going to take risks with the potential architecture, as it were, but focus on the medium and longer term when it comes to greater competitiveness. I also welcome the fact that they are secondary objectives and will not therefore interfere directly with the prudential objectives of those organisations.

Finally—I am aware of the time and know that many others want to speak—could I touch on the Bank of England and its mandate? I know that the Bank of England’s remit or mandate does not feature directly in this Bill, but much has been said about it and the importance of its independence, and I want to underscore that importance in this debate. There was a period, going back some weeks and months, when perhaps because, understandably, many Members and those who are now in government may have looked at the Bank of England and said that, because inflation is so far adrift from its target of 2%, it is therefore entirely unfit for purpose. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not believe that the Bank has been perfect, but I think it has faced extraordinary situations that have made its ability to keep inflation down to about 2% really a task that no central banker could have achieved.

It will be vital that the Bank of England maintains its independence, that politicians are kept out of monetary policy and that Chancellors do not determine interest rates if we are going to have a credible approach to monetary policy and all the benefits that brings. As my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor has said at the Government Dispatch Box on occasion in the past, if we take a 20-year view of the Bank of England’s performance, it has actually been spot-on at about 2%. Perhaps I can leave this debate with the thought that we must guard the independence of the Bank of England.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Our country is facing its highest tax burden since the 1950s, although it should be acknowledged that, more recently, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been bringing taxes down rather than putting them up. Does he agree that, with the elevated level of inflation, now is not the time for dramatic cuts, but that once inflation starts to recede—hopefully at the end of the year or into next year—that will be the opportunity to come forward with serious tax cuts to get growth and jobs going and to support our constituents?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, for his constructive and thoughtful dialogue with me on these issues. He makes an excellent point, and I direct him to the tax plan that we published at the spring statement to indicate the direction of travel on tax. There will be tax cuts in, I think, a day’s time to help people with the cost of living, tax cuts in the autumn to drive growth in business investment and innovation, and further cuts to personal taxation thereafter, once the situation stabilises.

New Wealth Taxes

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burgon]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a crucial point, and she is absolutely right: that is a moral imperative.

In the past few weeks alone, we have learned that the number of billionaires in Britain has risen to 177, and their wealth is now at record levels. Britain’s billionaires have increased their wealth by a staggering £220 million per day over the past two years. On top of that, we have learned that bankers’ bonuses are up 28% over the past year and are rising at six times the rate of wages. We have also learned that the bosses of Britain’s top 100 companies have seen their annual pay increase to an average of £3.6 million. We have food banks for nurses in hospitals, but at the top of Britain’s finance sector, the champagne corks are well and truly popping.

That phenomenon is not confined to Britain; it is global. The total wealth of the world’s billionaires is now equivalent to 14% of global GDP—up threefold since 2000. The global wealth of billionaires has risen more in the past two years than in the previous 23 years combined. If we are to tackle inequality and hardship, we need to address our rigged economic model.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making interesting points. I accept that there has to be a limit to the amount of wealth that can be accumulated by a small number of individuals; I do not think anybody would argue that equity is not important to some degree. He mentions the global situation. Many countries have actually stepped back from wealth taxes, which they found did not work because they are bureaucratic and administratively difficult, and they ultimately did not raise the money expected. Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Sweden have all tried wealth taxes and decided that they did not work. Why does he think that is the case?

[Richard Burgon]

I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to read the report I have here. It is by some top academics and makes a compelling case for a wealth tax in the UK. I will return to that point in greater detail later in my remarks.

Economy Update

Mel Stride Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is enough. Now we will hear from the Chairman of the Select Committee, Mel Stride.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I broadly commend the announcement. My right hon. Friend has made a significant intervention to channel billions of pounds in a targeted series of transfer payments to those who most need it, but, as he will know, similar approaches were taken in the pandemic and there were many who fell through the gaps and missed out on support.

I note the additional £0.5 billion increase in the household support fund, which is welcome. Will my right hon. Friend set out to the House how he arrived at that figure and why he feels it will be adequate for the demand?

On the issue of inflation that my right hon. Friend raised, these transfer payments will stimulate the economy—granted, they will come with some tax increases as well—but will he share with the House his assessment of the inflationary impact of the announcement he has just made?

Finally, will my right hon. Friend appear before the Treasury Select Committee immediately after recess so that we can look at these matters in greater detail?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his questions and for his thoughtful advice on how best the Government should respond to the current situation. We put extra support into the household support fund because, very specifically, the one group of those on means-tested benefits to whom we cannot deliver money automatically is those who receive only housing benefit, because that is administered by local authorities. That is the main group that needs that specific help, but of course there may well be others, which is why the fund is there.

On the inflationary impact, I believe it will be manageable, but my right hon. Friend is right to highlight it. That impact is why it is important that the support we provide is targeted where it can make the most difference, and that it is temporary and timely, and gets help to where it is required. That is the right approach: being fiscally responsible is going to help us to combat inflation in the long run.