Banking Services: Accessibility

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on not only securing the debate but opening it so clearly. He laid out the particular issue in Penzance, but in doing so highlighted common concerns about bank closures. He raised some interesting questions in his excellent speech. I am sure the Minister will address them, but I will highlight a couple that I thought particularly interesting. The first was about the manner in which the closure was done—there was no consultation. He also talked about access to banking, not just to cash. The Minister will be aware that the Labour party had thoughts on that prior to the election; I do not want to prejudge the consultation, but I would be interested in her observations about that.

The hon. Member for St Ives has been joined by several other Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) made an important point, among many, about the communal role that banks have played historically, and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) mentioned the impact on town centres. Those two points highlight how central bank branches were to our country’s culture. The hon. Member for St Ives also talked about the buildings that once housed the recently closed banks. The withdrawal of bank branches not only strikes at the way financial services operate in this country, but says a lot about the type of country we are. I will come on to that point later.

In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) raised the issue of the criteria used in the selection of banking hubs. I would be interested to know whether the Minister is considering that. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) talked about face-to-face banking, which goes to the nub of the matter: future trends in banking, an issue that I will raise in my own comments. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), made a wide-ranging speech and talked about how mobile banking must be dependable to be successful, as well as the availability of mobile networks.

I had an exceptionally brief ministerial career, part of which included introducing to the House of Commons the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which contained the provisions that provided for banking hubs. It might be helpful to share some of my own thinking, or the thinking of the Conservative Government at the time. Some comments have been made about the impact of closures. I share people’s concerns about that issue, but the Government of the day—the Labour Government, today—must take a view on whether they will work with trends in how financial services operate in this country. They must decide either to seek to mitigate the social consequences, which is the rightful role of Government, or to stand steadfast against such changes. Patently, the decision made by the then Conservative Government, which has been supported by this Labour Government, was to work with the grain of how financial services are moving. It is about facilitating that, as far as possible, while recognising the social disbenefits that can arise.

It is fair to say that when consultations were done at the time, which was during covid, accessibility to cash was the primary focus of concerns about the decline of branches. It is also fair to say that the provisions in the 2023 Act on the future accessibility of banking were not set in stone. It was clear that we were in a period of trend and change that would require further consultation and review on how it was working, and what further trends were occurring. The Opposition welcome the Government’s taking the opportunity to look at these issues again.

To give a sense of the pace of change—this has not been mentioned so far—in 2024, for the first time, cash accounted for less than 10% of payments in this country. We need to go back only eight years for it to be, by far, the No. 1 form of transaction in this country. For those Members who are old enough to remember them, cheques now account for only 0.2% of all payments, so there has been a significant change.

On the pace of change of bank branches, since January 2015 there have been 6,700 bank branch closures, according to Which? magazine. To put that into context, there are approximately 12,000 towns in the country, and about another 100 cities. That shows the significant withdrawal of physical premises across the country. The number of ATMs has also fallen by 40% since 2015.

On the plus side, we have largely seen an end to the long decline in post offices in this country. One of the benefits of our post office network was that post offices were present in many locations, although not all, and could provide aspects of the banking services that were important to people. The change to the trend for post offices is welcome. We want our post offices to continue to provide a broad range of services to local communities. Postmasters and postmistresses are often among the most trusted people in their community, and they can provide a range of services, but of course they do not necessarily have the same level of expertise in banking that one would find in a bank branch.

That takes me on to another point. This debate was starting to look like a bit of a hit-job on Lloyds bank. I think that it was just by chance that the first three bank closures referred to were all of Lloyds branches, so let me say that this is not just a Lloyds thing; it affects all financial institutions. On the other hand, our financial institutions and banks do a very good job for people. They are effective in making sure that people have a safe place for their money and that money can be transferred from A to B. They are good at developing new products and at trying to adapt to technological change.

[David Chadwick]

The hon. Member says that banks do a very good job. Is he not aware of the numerous outages that Lloyds has had on its banking apps over the past couple of years and indeed the past couple of weeks? Those outages create a reliance on physical infrastructure for people to access cash if they need to.

Does the hon. Member also agree that the banks can afford to pay for banking hubs? It is not the Government who should have to pay for them. Does he agree that banks have more than enough to cover the cost of these hubs?

[Richard Fuller]

I have to say to my Liberal Democrat friend that the Liberal Democrats’ position is that taxing big businesses, big banks and big tech can pay for everything. I think I have heard the moneys from that being allocated to well over 20 different applications. That may have a role—it is up to the Liberal Democrats to say—but the key point I was making is that, whether we like it or not, a vast number of the things we do are moving from analogue to digital, and banking is not isolated from that. Look at the way in which people communicate, the way in which legal services are likely to change and the way in which public services are likely to be delivered. The role of Government, back in 2022-23, was either to put up a block against that or to facilitate the change. We said that we would facilitate the change.

There are contributions made through the banks to fund the banking hubs. More broadly, on the major transition of banking into the digital age, I take the hon. Member’s points about outage concerns and about someone receiving £1 million in their bank account and wondering how it got there, but overall the transition by financial services in this country has been done very well. It is important, though, that the Government of the day recognise the importance of maintaining essential banking services as a foundation for public confidence in the sector.

The issue of footfall is crucial, as is the point about being able to talk to a person. I recently went into a bank to withdraw some cash—not a huge amount, but a fair amount. I was asked, “Why are you taking your money out?” That might seem a rather intrusive question—I was going to say, “I’m putting it all on red in Las Vegas,” although I was not, obviously—but the reason for asking the question relates to a serious point that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch made. One issue that, back in 2022-23, I did not anticipate becoming so significant was how sinister online fraud on vulnerable people would become. With just a phone conversation, people can be intimidated or forced into thinking that they have to take money out of their account, and it ends up in criminal hands.

Online fraud is an evil crime, and it can affect anyone. It is a very sophisticated way to get to people who feel vulnerable. The best defence against it is the fact of having to go into a branch of a bank or financial institution and have someone over the counter look you in the eye, see how you feel, and ask important questions to reassure themselves that you are not the victim of a crime. I take that very seriously; when I was looking at the issue a few years ago, I was perhaps not as cognisant of it as I am now. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts.

Notwithstanding certain disagreements about the overall role of banks, this has been a debate in which all sides have urged the Minister and the Government to look at the update and the consultation in a serious way, think about what has been done correctly and see what, in today’s world, are the best changes to be made to the regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Government’s spending plans look very, very iffy. The Minister has a chance of fitting in with the Chancellor’s fiscal rules—if there is no further downgrade on economic growth, which seems unlikely; if the Government have the backbone to rein in public spending and to increase taxes in the last years of the Parliament, which seems very unlikely; if the Government do not have to step in with any significant energy support because no money has been set aside; and if the Government can get £4.8 billion in salary sacrifice in 2029-30 revenues, which the industry says is a pipe dream. So here is another “if”. If the Minister’s spending plans start to fall apart, will he prioritise cuts in public spending over tax increases?

[James Murray]

I will give the hon. Gentleman an “if”. If he were honest and remembered his time in Liz Truss’s Government, he might not have the gall to make comments like that across the Dispatch Box—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Last month, The Times reported that the Government may drop their pledge on minimum wage equalisation over fears of youth joblessness, and the BBC reports that the Government are considering a delay. Can the Minister advise whether the Government have considered any such delay or policy changes, and if so, what decision has been reached?

[Torsten Bell]

I want to offer my condolences to the hon. Gentleman for the recent loss of his father. It is something we all have to face at some point in our lives, but it is a lot to deal with. All our thoughts are with him at this time.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, no, there is no change in Government policy. Our view is that we should see alignment of the national minimum wage and national living wage rates, but that should happen in the right way, which is with the guidance of the Low Pay Commission, which will continue to play an important role.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Persistently high inflation and fears that things will get tougher for their children are top issues for the British public, but the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of Labour’s plans was that:

“Growth in real household disposable income per person is projected to fall… to around ¼ per cent a year… well below the last decade’s average”.

Minister, why is the sum of all this Government’s economic policies condemning the British public to such a despairing prospect?

[Torsten Bell]

Mr Speaker, that is called leading with your chin. Members on the Conservative Benches were in power in the last Parliament, which saw living standards fall by 2.9%. Living standards have already risen under this Government by 1.5%, because we are turning around their mess day after day after day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Minister said this was “fair”—no, no, no. Perhaps breaking the election promise on tax thresholds is the reason why, by two to one, the public view the Budget as unfair, just 3% think it will make them better off, and two out of three think things will get worse. Does the Minister want to tell the public they are wrong, or will he explain to the House why this Budget has been received so badly by the British people?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Conservative spokesperson talks about fairness. Let me just identify one element of unfairness he left in the tax system that this Government is correcting, and it is a popular measure when we look at the views of the public up and down the country. We on this side of the House do not think it is fair that someone in a £10 million property can pay less council tax than someone in a typical terraced house in his constituency, my constituency and constituencies across the whole of England. We are making that change to make things fairer in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

As this is my last question before Christmas, I want to ask my counterpart a nice and constructive one. As he will know, rural residents and businesses already pay more on fuel than their urban counterparts and there are fewer public transport options. Can he advise what were the results of his assessment of the relative impact of the Budget’s introduction of road pricing on rural, compared with urban, areas?

[James Murray]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the changes we announced in the Budget in relation to electric vehicles and their contribution towards public finances. If people drive electric vehicles, wherever in the country they drive them, they benefit from investment in roads and maintenance alongside those of us who drive petrol cars, so it is important to ensure that we make the tax system fit for the future. This is a decision that people have talked about for many years. The hon. Gentleman’s party ducked it, alongside many other difficult decisions, but we are taking them head-on to ensure that we are fit and stable for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

What is the Chancellor’s definition of “working people”?

[Rachel Reeves]

A working person is somebody who goes out every day to earn their income. They rely on prices that are affordable in the shops, low interest rates and taxes that are as low as possible, but also public services that work for them, like the NHS, where waiting lists have already come down by more than 200,000.

[Richard Fuller]

That is a very broad definition. Maybe the Chancellor should speak to the Prime Minister, the Transport Secretary, the Education Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who have all given different definitions of working people over the last 12 months. After last year’s Budget, the Chancellor said that she had wiped the slate clean, but that was not true, Chancellor, was it? She said that she would not be coming back with more taxes, but that was not true, Chancellor, was it? At the election, the Chancellor said that she would not raise taxes on working people, but that was not true either, was it, Chancellor? When will the Chancellor learn the truth that she is not a commentator on the country’s economic problems; she is the cause?

[Rachel Reeves]

When we came into office last year, there was a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. The reserve that is set out for genuine emergencies had already been spent four times over only three months into the financial year. That is the reality. We increased taxes in the Budget last year to stabilise the public finances and to put a much-needed injection of cash into our public services, principally our national health service. Since then, anyone can see the big challenges facing the world, as well as the productivity that never materialised under the past Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

UK long-term borrowing costs are now consistently above the range of G7 countries—something that did not occur at any time under previous coalition or Conservative Governments. It is because markets are pricing in the specific weakness of this Labour Government’s economic policies. The cost of that weakness means rising prices, lower investment and less money for public services in the long term. Having carpet-bombed the private sector with extra taxes, will the Chancellor rein back the splurge of unproductive public spending that she let rip last year?

[Rachel Reeves]

The only person that carpet bombed our economy was Liz Truss and the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman supported Liz Truss in leadership contest and throughout her time—

[Richard Fuller]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

May I welcome the new members of the Treasury team, with their courage in joining it? I also do so for the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who cannot be with us today. May I particularly welcome the new Chief Secretary, who replaces the old Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who is now another new Chief Secretary?

Earlier this year, Labour made a mess of its welfare reform proposals because they were rushed out to help plug a £5 billion gap in public finances. The result was chaos and a humiliating reversal for the Chancellor. Welfare spending is too high—it does need reform—and today the Leader of the Opposition has pledged Conservative support to help the Government to develop a thoughtful plan on welfare reform. Will the Chancellor take up this offer of support?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the shadow Minister that it is topicals for everybody.

[Rachel Reeves]

While the Leader of the Opposition is talking down the British economy, we are setting our sights on growing the economy and making working people better off. No, we will not be taking any advice from the Leader of the Opposition, who was part of a Government who crashed the economy, sending mortgage rates spiralling and putting pensions in peril.

[Richard Fuller]

I fear that the Chancellor’s dismissive response fails to acknowledge either the serious state of public finances or the serious difficulties of her own position. Having extended economic uncertainty until just before Christmas, will the Chancellor at least confirm that the November Budget will include savings from welfare reform?

[Rachel Reeves]

In the Universal Credit Act 2025, which passed before the summer recess, we reformed the universal credit system to reduce the gap between what people on the health element and those on the standard element got. That reform will help more people into work, as well as the £1 billion package of measures to help people—particularly those who have been long-term unemployed—get back to work. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) says that that is spending. Actually, getting people into work and paying taxes, as well as paying less on benefits, is good for the economy and good for those people who get back into work.

Taxes

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

We have had an exciting and heartfelt debate. I commend for their speeches my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), the hon. Members for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).

We have heard some excellent speeches from Members speaking with passion on behalf of the small businesses, farmers, workers and pensioners who have been hit by Labour changing its mind on taxes and doing things differently from what it said it would do at the election. We have also heard two new phrases today. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, we now realise we have to challenge the Chancellor based on her “flagship failures”, not her flagship policies. With great passion, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim told us how Labour’s tax on family businesses means that small businesses are no longer planning for growth; they are planning for death.

The public feel they were misled by Labour at the general election. They think those on the Labour Front Bench are incompetent. They think the Prime Minister is woefully out of touch and the Chancellor is out of her depth—and why shouldn’t they? A Prime Minister who needs multiple attempts to define a woman, and multiple attempts to define a working person, does not exactly inspire confidence; a Chancellor who says that she will not raise taxes on working people, and then hikes national insurance, costing working people their jobs and earnings, does not inspire trust.

Our motion provides the Government with an opportunity to draw a line, recognise the overreach and errors in their taxation policies, and give some hope to the makers in our society and those who work hard in our warehouses, offices, factories, shops, restaurants, and public services. They could recognise the errors in the Treasury’s assessment of the impact of the family farm tax on those who grow our food, and the trauma caused by the jobs tax for those who build our businesses. Those are the people who know how to grow our economy, not the numpties on the Front Bench, so why are the Government intent on holding them back?

Alas, the Chancellor thinks that she knows best, and despite taxes being at their highest rate on record, she is on the hunt for new taxes: wealth tax, capital gains tax, pensions tax, council tax, savings tax, tax, tax, tax, tax—it is always the same with a Labour Government. The Government’s strategy is to tax their way to growth, but I have to tell the Chancellor that that strategy will not work. No economy can tax its businesses out of existence and create growth.

Tonight the Chancellor starts her new tax campaign with a visit to the City. For the first time it will not be so much a Mansion House speech as a mansion tax assessment. The Chancellor will claim that the Government’s actions have brought about financial stability—well perhaps, but not in this country. The Government’s Chagos deal has eliminated income tax in Mauritius but given British taxpayers a new £30 billion tax bill, and the Government’s abolition of non-dom status is boosting the tax revenues of Portugal and Italy but will mean taxpayers here having to cough up billions a year more to plug the gap as people leave the UK, taking their tax payments with them.

The truth is that the Chancellor has done the complete opposite of her claims of stability. She is the eye of an instability storm of her own making, where nobody knows when her next tax raid will come, and who will get hit the hardest—a second summer of doubt and uncertainty caused by this Chancellor, and tolerated by this Prime Minister. Labour Back Benchers know it. They know all the times that the Chancellor has led them up the hill, only to lead them down again: the “once in a Parliament” tax hike, the removal of winter fuel payments, the blundered attempts at welfare cuts, and it has only been one year! Labour Members are limping towards recess—look at them, Mr Deputy Speaker. Napoleon’s troops were in better humour on their march back from Moscow than some Labour MPs are as they make their way back to their constituencies, and back to the people to whom they promised so much just one year ago, only to deliver oh so little. No wonder people feel so let down.

But let us be fair: some Labour Back Benchers are going back with a warm feeling. A reshuffle is coming soon, to clear away all the dead wood on the Front Bench —oh, so much dead wood—and some Labour Back Benchers have already had the tap on the shoulder. They already know who they are, and they are going home with great expectations of high office— [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] No, no, spare a thought, please, for the many other Labour MPs who have missed out. They felt that they were given a promise that if they did the right thing they would be looked after. Now they know that the Government have reneged on their promise, and that the change they hoped for will not come. For them, I am truly sorry. But there is one consolation: at least now they know how the rest of the country feels.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Labour’s jobs tax has really clobbered British businesses. The Office for National Statistics says that the number of available jobs is collapsing. Perhaps the Chancellor has not updated herself on how British business thinks about confidence: the Institute of Directors has said today that business confidence has plummeted; the Bank of England is warning of significant declines in wage growth; and the British Chambers of Commerce says that taxes on businesses cannot be increased. The Chancellor has bungled welfare changes, eviscerating confidence in the Prime Minister and blowing an even bigger hole in the public financing, meaning that she will raise taxes yet again this autumn. Will she avoid creating the same damaging uncertainty she did last summer by ruling out from the Dispatch Box today any further tax increases on British businesses?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am not going to take lessons from the Conservatives: they increased taxes 25 times. When they increased taxes, it was always ordinary working people who paid the price. In our Budget last year, we protected the payslips of ordinary working people by not increasing their income tax, their national insurance or their VAT, and we did not go ahead with the increase in fuel duty that the Conservatives had planned. Instead of talking down the British economy, why do the Conservatives not back the plans that are backed by British businesses to grow our economy and make working people better off?

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement, and for providing early sight of it.

Our ability to invest in public infrastructure is a positive for individuals, communities and the country as a whole, and it is right that the new Government set out their strategy. The last Government had to deal with a series of economic disruptions, including the impact of covid, the unwinding of quantitative easing across all advanced economies, and the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The global impact was disrupted supply chains, increased inflation and raised interest rates. Notwithstanding those shocks, under the last Government, public sector expenditure on capital increased in real terms, from £81.7 billion in 2019-20 to £117.8 billion in 2024-25—an increase of 44%. Today, the Chief Secretary has confirmed expenditure of £725 billion, but has provided very little detail. There is no project pipeline today; will he commit to coming back to this House when it is published?

In 2024, the last infrastructure pipeline analysis included an investment pipeline of 660 projects over a 10-year period, commencing from 2024-25. The Chief Secretary’s last statement to the House was, in very large part, a restatement of the investments in local transportation projects that had already been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Will he confirm how many of the 660 projects in the previous pipeline will be retained? Will he advise the House which major projects are being abandoned, and give some insight into his reasoning for doing so?

Translating a pipeline into reality requires a labour force of sufficient size and with a range of skills—in construction, project management and engineering, for example. Again, the 2024 analysis by the Construction Industry Training Board indicated that that project pipeline would create labour pressures in many of those skills areas. Since coming to office, this Labour Government have increased national insurance and are proposing new regulations on employment, both of which will disproportionately affect the construction sector. Does the Chief Secretary have any concerns about the impact of those changes on the availability of labour? Will he advise the House what assessment he has made of skills pinch points and what steps the Government are taking to alleviate them? Fulfilling these plans will require investment by taxpayers and private capital. Will the Chief Secretary advise the House on whether there has been any significant change in the mix of private and public investments—within discrete sectors or overall—compared with the last pipeline analysis in 2024?

The Government created the National Wealth Fund, and said that it was their principal investor—a critical part of the Government’s growth strategy for infrastructure. The Chief Secretary has given the National Wealth Fund £7 billion, but has made no mention of it today. Why has there been no mention of the National Wealth Fund?

We are moving through an era with a rapidly accelerating pace of change, in which the period from technological innovation to obsolescence can be vanishingly short. The risk that public investment in new technology solutions will become redundant is increasing. While being forward-looking, the Government should also be careful to nurture both existing technologies and new but proven ones, so what are the Government’s priorities for technology choices in the energy sector, and what actions will he take to protect taxpayers from technology redundancy risk?

The Pension Schemes Bill, introduced by this Government, includes a reserved power for the Government to mandate the investments of pension schemes. Has the Chief Secretary had any discussions about—or had the Treasury do any analysis of—the use of mandation powers to provide financing to the capital investments he has announced today? Have the projects announced today been assessed according to the revised Green Book rules? If not, will they be reassessed at some point on the revised basis, and what assurance can the Chief Secretary provide that these projects will give value for money to taxpayers? As this Government have stated, and as we acknowledge, when pressures on public expenditure increase, it is frequently capital expenditure that suffers. What actions is the Chief Secretary willing to take if finances are tight to protect the budgets for the projects he has announced today?

Investment in infrastructure benefits from a stable economic background, a clear set of priorities, efficient delivery, and optimal returns for taxpayers and investors. Madam Deputy Speaker, I miss the Chief Secretary in his old guise as Chairman of the Business Select Committee, when there was less of the rhetoric and the partisanship. These big decisions need open communication and critical analysis if we are to improve value for money and get projects delivered on time and on budget. In those endeavours, the Chief Secretary will always have our support.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As Mr Fuller knows, there were three of us on that Committee back in those good old days.

Regional Growth

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and for early sight of it. I will start with an area of agreement: it is a shared ambition to enable all parts of this country to participate in our growth and our future. Potential in the United Kingdom is everywhere, and it is right that the Government seek to unlock it with every means they have. Indeed, that was one of the guiding principles of the 2019-24 Conservative Administration’s levelling-up policy.

They always say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now, we know that this Chancellor has a reputation for copying, so I thought I would have a look at the statement made in 2023 on Network North allocations, which I am sure the Chief Secretary has seen. I thought I would compare those allocations with the Government’s announcement today. I have the Conservative announcements in one hand and the Labour announcements in the other. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout all they want.

Here we go. In 2023, the Conservatives promised the west midlands £2.64 billion—[Interruption.] I say to Labour Members that the Chief Secretary is also only making a promise. In 2023, we promised £2.64 billion for the west midlands, and the Government have announced £2.4 billion for the west midlands today. We promised £2.1 billion for West Yorkshire; today, the Government have announced £2.1 billion. We promised £2.5 billion for Greater Manchester; they have announced £2.5 billion today. We promised £1.45 billion for South Yorkshire; they have announced £1.5 billion today. We promised £1.581 billion for Liverpool; they have announced £1.6 billion today. We promised £1.84 billion for the north-east; they have announced £1.8 billion today. We promised £0.752 billion for the west of England; they have announced £0.8 billion today. We promised £978 million for Tees Valley in 2023, and Labour has announced £1 billion today.

I know the Chief Secretary is occasionally good with numbers, but does he not agree that what he is announcing today is essentially nothing more than a rounding error on the Conservatives’ plans from 2023? The only difference between the 2023 and 2025 announcements is that we would have spelt Rotherham correctly in our announcement.

The truth is, the Chancellor will go around the country rewriting history as frequently as she writes her CV, but nobody believes in her £22 billion black hole. What people do believe is that this Chancellor is open to change. She is going to roll back the issues on the winter fuel allowance, her botched welfare reform and changes to the two-child policy. Look at those on the Treasury Bench—they have not got a spine. If Labour Back Benchers have an issue in their constituency and want to stand up for their constituents, they should make a bid to this Chief Secretary, because he will back down and give them the money. That is what we know from Labour.

We also know that in the Government’s analysis of the Green Book, they are looking to change the assessments of the cost-benefit analysis. My question to the Chief Secretary therefore is—[Interruption.] I do have a number of questions. First, will he publish the cost-benefit ratios for each of the projects he has announced today? Will he state whether they have been evaluated on the existing Green Book rules or on new rules? Will he give an indication today of what those rules might be?

Secondly, as the Labour Government try to decide whether their commitment on defence is for 2%, 2.5%, 3% or 3.5% of GDP, with both those numbers and today’s investments stretching into the next period of government—whoever is in government—can the Chief Secretary confirm that it is this Government’s intention that the investments made today will be secure, whatever the changes made on defence expenditure?

The Chief Secretary said that he is able to make this announcement because the Government changed the rules, which has enabled £113 billion more of investment. But that is not quite right, is it? The Government can afford the additional investment only if people are prepared to fund it, and there are two sources for funding: taxpayers or the bond market. Can the Chief Secretary therefore advise whether he is going to look for additional funding from taxes or additional borrowing, if there is a shortfall?

The truth is, despite what the Back Benchers say, this Labour Treasury team are out of their depth. They are addicted to tax increases and to more borrowing. The Chief Secretary can republish as many press releases as he likes, but we know that because of their reckless mismanagement of the economy, come the autumn, this Labour Government will be back for more.

[Darren Jones]

I am pleased to see the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury back in his place today; I always enjoy our exchanges. I welcome the fact that he supports our plans and sees the good value in them. I will respond to one particular question, and then answer the rest in the round: all the Green Book details will be published next week at the spending review, so we will be able to share them with him and the House at that time.

The shadow Chief Secretary said that we were imitating the Conservative party’s promise to level up the country, but I think the British people voted and gave their verdict on the Conservatives’ success in delivering that at the last election. Whereas their version of levelling up was a set of false promises, this Labour Government are delivering real change.

The shadow Chief Secretary—rightly, given his role—asked how we will fund the announcements we have made today. As I explained in my statement to the House, it is because of the Chancellor’s decisions to amend the fiscal rules and invest in Britain, instead of continuing with decline, that we have been able to do so.

The shadow Chief Secretary and the Conservative party have not said what they would do differently. They were against the change in the fiscal rules, against our increasing of taxes on the wealthiest people at the Budget and against every single measure we have taken to be able to pay for today’s announcements. Whether it is the Conservatives, Reform or any other party, they need to recognise that the Conservatives’ false promises led to their decline and their unfunded promises are disrespectful to the British people, and that this Labour Government promised change at the election and we are delivering it. These are fully funded promises, unlike the unfunded promises of the Conservatives, which posed a risk to the economy and a risk to family finances. The sooner the Conservatives learn from their lessons, apologise to the British people, and come forward with some serious proposals, the better for the debate in this House.