Financial Inclusion: Young People

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. You have launched an unfortunate trend of people fessing up to their first jobs; however, it gives me the opportunity to make a point about the context in which we are debating the financial inclusion of young people. My first job—probably illegally, at the age of about 10—was a Saturday job helping out a milkman on the milk round. I then had a Christmas holiday job helping the Royal Mail to deliver Christmas letters, and a summer job packing electric parts, all of which I did in Bedford. The key point, which relates to financial inclusion, is that a lot of what this Government are doing is turning employers away from being able to offer those job opportunities to young people. I really hope that they will rethink that, because as we have heard, the number of young people out of employment is going up quite considerably.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on securing this debate. I also thank him for the tone and the insights with which he opened it, which all subsequent Members reinforced, and would like to refer to some of the points made. The first was from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, who recommended more action to support small sum lending and spoke about the beneficial effects that that can have on credit track records; I will reinforce that point a little later in some questions to the Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) raised a point that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke about from a different angle, which is that young people make quite an important decision that affects their financial wellbeing: university versus apprenticeships. At the moment, it seems that both paths lead to potentially detrimental effects on young people’s financial wellbeing. They spoke about the decision to take out a student loan at a young age, and whether people get the right advice about what that might mean for their long-term financial wellbeing. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley made a really interesting point about the potential disparity in how young people who decide to take an apprenticeship are treated in terms of access to financial resources, versus those in full-time employment, so perhaps the Minister can also say something about that.

The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) used her experience on the APPG for debt and financial inclusion to talk about the excellent work undertaken by Young Enterprise to improve young people’s understanding of money. That is quite timely, because My Money Week, which Young Enterprise started to try to teach young people in schools about finance and expand their knowledge, has just concluded. I echo the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire in saying that it would be good to extend that level of involvement beyond the age of 16 to young people more generally.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) used his experience to echo a point made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) about how young people are turning to social media as their source of understanding. Turning to social media for anything is usually not good for one, which is one of the reasons why the Government have come around to banning young people from social media. When it comes to getting advice about finances, young people are already at risk through a lack of knowledge and understanding. Social media is a very dangerous source of information that can undermine what they might learn from their parents or schools. I also echo the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello): familiarity with technology is not the same as access to financial services, although there is an opportunity for us to do something with financial technologies.

Financial inclusion for young people is a passion shared between my party, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. This is one of the areas where we are all looking to make progress. Under the last Conservative Government, we made financial education for 11 to 16-year-olds compulsory in the curriculum. I think the evidence shows—the Minister may confirm this—that we were not getting all schools doing what they should be doing, or at least that the results were not as we would have wished. However, it was the right step and the Government are moving now to make that compulsory in primary schools. That has to be a positive step.

The last Government also made progress in improving student attainment in mathematics. In the PISA—programme for international student assessment—ratings for mathematics in 2009, England, as education is a devolved matter, was ranked 27th; by 2023, it was ranked 11th. That is good progress and is part of ensuring that young people understand numbers and can therefore get to grips with things.

In the Government review by Professor Becky Francis, she commented on life skills and talked about the importance of young people learning about budgeting, interest, mortgages, pensions and financial planning. One thing that young people have to their advantage—the hon. Member for York Outer also mentioned this point—is the beauty of compounding interest. If they get the right start at a young age and are able to put some money aside, by the time they get to my age—perhaps even to your youthful age, Sir John—people will find it remarkable how compounding interest has worked on the savings that they have put aside. On the other hand, if they fall into debt, compounding interest can drive them the other way and into a much worse situation. It is absolutely crucial that we teach people the power of compounding, both positive and negative.

Let me move on to my questions. As I did not have a chance to advise the Minister of my questions in advance, I would be happy to receive a reply in writing afterwards. First, ironically, I want to ask about cryptocurrencies. What assessment have the Government done of the potential for cryptocurrencies to promote financial inclusion? I am sceptical, but there may be potential benefits as well as risks; cryptocurrencies can provide an easier way in than financial institutions and have lower transaction costs. I am interested in the Government’s view.

Secondly, I echo the point that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford made about microfinance. What assessment have the Government made of the use of microfinance platforms targeted at young people, to enable them to take the first steps in building up a credit record or potentially being small-scale entrepreneurs—another great thing that young people could do?

Thirdly, what is the Government’s view of the merits of leapfrogging traditional financial systems in favour of educating young people on emerging fintech platforms? Is that something that might raise young people’s engagement with financial education, and that might ultimately be in their best interests?

I have a small point on “know your customer” rules—I am not too familiar with this point, but the Minister may have a view. Is the Minister satisfied that the way the “know your customer” rules currently work is effective for maximising young people’s access to basic financing and banking facilities?

Finally, I am sure that the Minister and I agree on the need to ensure that schools are teaching financial inclusion at both primary and secondary level. How satisfied is she that schools are complying with the compulsory rules on financial education? What can we do collectively, as constituency Members of Parliament, to ensure that schools are delivering the quality of financial inclusion and financial education that we would all like to see?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Rachel, could you allow a short time at the end for Josh to wind up and for me to put the Question?

Taxation (Energy and Vehicles)

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Chancellor has committed to doing what she can to support families and businesses to be responsive in a changing world and responsible in the national interest. The measures before the House assist the Government in that objective.

The way that the current energy system works means that households and businesses pay more for their electricity when the gas price is high. The electricity generator levy already recoups some of the excess returns made by renewable generators when high gas prices push electricity prices over the current threshold of £82.61 per megawatt-hour. The Government have decided to increase the rate of the levy from 45% to 55% from 1 July. That will do two things: first, it will ensure that a large proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to the Government, providing a revenue stream so that money is available to support businesses and families with the impacts of the conflict in the middle east; and secondly, in the longer term it will support the new voluntary contracts for difference scheme, which was announced in April, by encouraging participation in the scheme.

In March, the Government announced a review of mileage rates for employees using their own vehicle for work and the self-employed who use the simplified expenses rates. In recognition of the pressures facing drivers as a result of the effects of the Iran war, the Chancellor announced in May the first uprating of mileage rates in 15 years, backdated to April, to provide immediate support to both groups. Mileage rates will increase for 2026-27 from 45p to 55p for the first 10,000 miles, and then 25p thereafter, with effect from 6 April. That represents the largest ever increase to these mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, and saving over £120 a year for a worker doing 6,000 business miles.

It was a privilege recently to meet care workers and the Unison general secretary to hear directly about the difference that this uprating will make to those on the frontline. The general secretary said to me and the Chancellor that this measure is good news for people providing essential public services. It was an honour to meet those who work day in, day out looking after people across the country. I am glad that this measure will have a positive impact on those who do such vital work. Looking ahead, beyond 2026-27, the Government have already committed to a review of those rates and will set out further steps at the Budget.

The third measure recognises the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs. The Government are introducing a 12-month holiday from vehicle excise duty for the majority of heavy goods vehicles, which will save a typical HGV £600 on top of the savings from fuel duty. Fuel costs make up a substantial proportion of HGV operating costs, and this action will help to prevent cost pressures from the Iran conflict spreading across the economy.

The announcements on mileage rates and HGV VED were part of a wider package of measures announced in May, including on fuel duty. In total, the decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel duty will save motorists 11p per litre, or £120 for the average car, £250 for the average van and over £2,000 for the average HGV, compared with the plans we inherited from the previous Government.

This Government are taking action to support the economy at a time of global economic uncertainty following the Iran conflict. Our approach of targeting support at those groups who are hardest hit by the conflict will ensure that the measures we take are effective, while protecting the economy from the effects of reckless borrowing that took place under the previous Government.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

For covid!

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman says it was for covid, but he forgot to mention Liz Truss.

This Government’s record shows that despite that instability, our plan is working. UK GDP growth in the past two years was the second fastest in the G7. Real household disposable income per person has grown by more than 2% so far in this Parliament, compared with a fall of more than 2% in the last Parliament. Real wages have increased in every single month since this Government took office, with wages rising faster than inflation. These measures will continue that track record and demonstrate that this Government are committed to supporting working people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his very clear laying out of the measures before us. May I say that sometimes there is no place for partisanship? Perhaps we have had a taste of that today.

I have a series of questions for the Minister. As I did not have a chance to brief him about them beforehand, as I wanted to, it is perfectly okay if he wants to get his ministerial team to reply in due course. I do not expect him to have all the answers straightaway.

The first of the three measures is on the electricity generator levy. I will probe three points in the written statement about it. It states that

“the 45% EGL rate will increase to 55% and will be extended past its scheduled conclusion in 2028. This will support the Government’s objective of reducing the impact of gas prices on businesses and households.”—[Official Report, 21 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 10WS.]

What is the Treasury’s estimate of the amount it anticipates to raise from this measure? Is it a straight-line assessment—essentially going from 45% to 55%—which will mean roughly £600 million? Is it the intention of the Government that the revenues that come from the EGL will be treated in the future as an established line item in the Budget, or will they be seen as a levy that will potentially go away in a short period of time?

Secondly, one of the concerns about the levy is the uncertainty and the effect that it may have on investments in electricity generation in general. What feedback has the Minister had? What feedback has the industry provided to the Government about this change? Does the Minister have a view about what the impact on industry investment will be? Surely, at this time, we are looking to extend the energy capacity of the UK at all levels that we can, so I am interested to know if the Government feel that there is a chilling effect on investment from these taxes.

Thirdly, why has the Minister not announced an end date for this increase? It was originally supposed to be a temporary levy. Indeed, not announcing an end date adds to the uncertainty in the sector. It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about that. This measure is temporary, but how long is temporary? I am interested to know whether the Government would consider a sunset clause, with a review or some other aspect that might provide additional certainty for the sector.

Let me move on to the mileage allowance increase from 45p to 55p per mile. We have no opposition to the change being made, but it would be worth while if the Minister could say a few words about the mileage allowance after 10,000 miles. The Government have decided not to change that at this time, so I am very interested to know what their thinking was. There are some people, particularly in rural areas and in certain types of jobs, who may well hit that 10,000 mile limit. What is the Government’s view on that?

As the Minister outlined, the allowance has not changed for a considerable period of time. Will he consider annual indexation? There are issues with that, because it is not just tied to the price of petrol or fuel; it includes issues to do with depreciation. Identifying some form of indexation therefore may not be straightforward, but I am interested to hear the Government’s view.

Finally, I think the Minister will recognise that the HGV vehicle excise duty holiday will probably have a limited impact, because it is just a one-year change. What sort of behavioural impact analysis did the Government undertake prior to introducing this measure? The industry is a little bit sceptical about whether it will actually change behaviour in the near term. However, I am very grateful to the Minister for laying the issues out so clearly and, as I said, I am happy to receive written answers to my questions in due course if necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank all those who have spoken, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) for his warm remarks. I will respond to the points made by the shadow spokespeople. I assume that this change will appear as a line item, although I would not want to prejudge any future decisions by the OBR on how it scores all these things and presents them in Budgets, as it is a specific tax head.

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespeople asked how much this change will raise. It is difficult to know. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), highlighted, prices are coming down. They are at the moment slightly above the threshold in the system, but prices, as the shadow Energy Secretary will know, are volatile. In the usual way, the independent OBR will set out its estimate at the Budget for how much this change will raise and how much will be raised overall by the electricity generator levy. He is right to note that the levy does not raise billions and billions. It is a relatively targeted policy. We have increased the rate from 45% to 55%, but we have not changed the threshold and the routine uprating that takes place within it.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), asked whether there will be a review and whether this new higher rate is now the rate out into the future. That is something the Government are considering. He is right to highlight that we have not made a definitive announcement on whether that rate will last a short period or will go on into the future, but we will update in due course—it is not something that we want to leave hanging. I would expect that update will be at the Budget, if not before. However, that issue will be reviewed by the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary in the coming weeks.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarification that there is active consideration of an end date for that higher rate of 55%, but he will know that the 45% rate had an end date too. Will the review also consider announcing the end date for the levy overall, or has that not yet been considered?

[Dan Tomlinson]

As the shadow Minister will know, all tax rates, thresholds and the design of tax policy are considered in the round in the run-up to Budgets. With the key policy intention of the increase in the rate, and by extension the decision to continue the policy in any form, one of the things that the Government have been considering is the fact that having the rate in the system should change the incentives and encourage electricity generators to partake in the wholesale contracts for difference, which are being developed and which the Energy Secretary will bring forward in the coming months.

The shadow Minister asked about investment. It is always difficult to make changes in taxation, particularly outside of the Budget cycle. The Chancellor have been cautious about making changes in response to the conflict in Iran. We wanted to take a measured approach to ensure that we manage the public finances well, but also to ensure that we support businesses and households that have been particularly affected by the impact of the conflict washing up on our shores. It is worth highlighting that new investment is excluded from the electricity generator levy, so a business owner thinking of investing in renewables or nuclear in the UK should note that their new investments will not be affected by the increase in the rate.

Turning to the second measure, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield were right to point out that the mileage rates have not been changed since 2011. It is very disappointing that, although we saw plenty of inflation spikes, the previous Government did not take the chance to uprate them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am sorry, but the Chancellor’s recollection of her record is fantasy economics from a fantasy economist. Is it not the case that her true record is poor decision making: with U-turn after U-turn on winter fuel payments, business rates and family farm taxes; tax after tax on jobs, investment and savings; a country more indebted with higher interest rates; and a Chancellor unable to cut welfare and unwilling to fund our defence?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am incredibly proud of my record as Chancellor of the Exchequer: the fastest growing country in the G7 within the EU, wages rising faster than inflation every single month since I became Chancellor, record investment coming into the United Kingdom, rolling out free breakfast clubs and free school meals, 500,000 children lifted out of poverty, creating the National Wealth Fund and leveraging in private sector investment. Those things are only possible because of the decisions I have made as Chancellor. As a result, for the first time since 2019, Government borrowing was less than 5% of GDP—a far change from the mess I inherited from the Conservatives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

This month, a comprehensive survey by UKHospitality showed that one in seven of our hotels, pubs and restaurants will close as a direct result of the Chancellor’s policies. Many of those businesses represent the hopes and dreams, hard work and savings of the people who set them up. Therefore, as I am permitted, rather than having the Minister come to the Dispatch Box, may I ask the Chancellor to come to the Dispatch Box to answer this? If it was not me standing here but one of those people who had founded a business and is now going through the gut-wrenching process of closing it because of her policies, what would she say to them?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Of course, the Government want to do all we can to support businesses up and down the country—small, medium and large. That is why we are working hard to put the economic stagnation we had over the last 14 years behind us. We are seeing economic growth rising—growing by 0.5% in February; we saw unemployment falling; and we were seeing Government borrowing falling as well. Those are the long-term changes we need to lay the foundations so that businesses can grow, invest and hire more people. It is disappointing that the Conservatives seem to have forgotten what we need to provide stability in our economy.

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.