Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

  1. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    I agree. Of course, higher taxes are bearing down on living standards, but so is inflation. We have the highest level of inflation in the G7 and are forecast to have the highest in the G7 next year, too. Within that sits food inflation, which is running way above the headline rate of inflation. Who does that impact the most? It impacts the very people that Labour professes to stand up for the strongest: the poorest in our society. It is a direct consequence of the policies pursued by this Chancellor.

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    There were many great things that the previous Government did, not least creating employment as a job-making machine and, despite the Russia-Ukraine war, bringing inflation down at the back end of 2022 from 11% to 2%—bang on target—on the day of the general election. Where is inflation now? It is almost twice that level. We also improved education in our country beyond all measure; Labour is now undoing those reforms, and we will see the consequences of that for generations to come. We did many things of which we should be proud, not least getting us through covid and through the inflationary times. On the day of the general election, we had the highest growth in the G7, we had near record levels of employment and a near record low level of unemployment, and we had seen 13 consecutive months of improving real living standards. That is not a bad record.

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The conclusion that one must draw on the mess that this Government have made of our economy is that it has become brittle, fragile and vulnerable to the kind of external shocks that it was able to withstand when the Conservatives were stewards of it. While per capita growth is almost on the floor, unemployment is at a five-year high; as we know, every Labour Government in history have left unemployment higher on leaving office than it was on entering office. Inflation is high and business confidence is at rock bottom. In a recent survey, the Institute of Directors found that business confidence among its members was the lowest in history. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) refers to covid—according to the IoD, business confidence is even lower now than it was during covid, when the economy contracted by more than 10% overnight. That is how bad business sentiment is out there.

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    To be fair, I think the Prime Minister was referring to facial hair growth, rather than growth in the economy. They are distinctly different things.

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    Well, he may or may not be—it remains to be seen. What all this ends up with, of course, is lost fiscal headroom. That is the story so far. We had a Budget last October with about £10 billion against the debt target; that vanishes, with 50% on top as well. It is rebuilt in the spring, and now it has all disappeared, and we are waiting to find out how deep that black hole is. We have entered something of a doom loop, with higher taxes destroying growth, leading to a loss of fiscal headroom, requiring—in the Chancellor’s terms at least—further tax increases, leading to further destruction of growth, and around and around we go.

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to correct the record, because I know this has been spun by the Labour party. At a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference, there was a long, extended debate about just how bad things are, with speculations about all the “what ifs” and “maybes” of different scenarios. If the hon. Gentleman reads the full transcript of those exchanges, he will see that the point I was very clearly making was that there is an alternative to putting up taxes, which is controlling spending. That is the point I was making. What is happening to the wealth creators in our country? About 16,000 of them have fled—they are going by the day. These are the people who generate the wealth, jobs and growth that we are all striving to achieve. Look at the cumulative tax take that has just walked out of the door with the 16,000 who have gone—it would probably require a third of a million to half a million people on average earnings to fill that gap. It is not sustainable. There is an alternative. The Conservatives set out this alternative at our party conference: a way forward through control of Government spending. Government spending could be controlled to the tune of at least £47 billion, which were the savings we identified. Of the £47 billion, £23 billion can be found from the welfare budget by getting people off benefits and into work. It is better for the economy, but equally, for those who have mild mental health conditions such as mild anxiety, mild depression and ADHD, it is a better outcome than parking them on benefits, which the Government are doing through time. By focusing on actual need rather than simply transfer payments and on medical diagnosis rather than self-assessments and by not paying benefits to non-UK citizens, we can make real savings. In some cases they are tough choices, absolutely. However, these are decisions that the Government have made.

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised my tenure at the Department for Work and Pensions, when I was the Secretary of State. I was very clear that we needed to arrest the rising welfare bill, and—

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    We did, actually. We did arrest it. We made changes to the work capability assessment, which the OBR scored at £5 billion-worth of savings. The OBR also scored the fact that there would be 450,000—almost half a million—fewer people going on to those benefits as a consequence. We had already started a consultation on personal independence payment, which I will come back to in a moment, but it was interrupted by the general election. The first thing the Labour Government did when they came into office was scrap all of that and then come forward with some ill-thought-through proposals that did not survive contact with their own Back Benchers. There are other areas where we can make savings. The size of the civil service is one. The civil service has grown by 37% since 2016. We could cut it back by 25% and make about £8 billion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) should listen carefully to this, because he is about to sit on those benches on the 26th of this month and listen to his Chancellor come up with some pretty unpalatable things. These are good alternatives that should be taken seriously. Raising taxes is simply a choice. The Labour Government are too weak to make the choice to control spending, so they fall back on taxes. They had to U-turn on the welfare reforms they brought through, and £5 billion was added to Labour’s black hole in an instant. We have seen the terms of reference for the Timms review of personal independence payment. They show quite clearly that there is no intention of saving any money from the PIP budget. That is grossly irresponsible. It is spiralling ever skyward. From what we hear, it is highly likely that the two-child limit will be scrapped and abolished. Why? Probably because the Prime Minister, shackled to his Chancellor, is feeling that he is being squeezed halfway out the door of No. 10 and thinks he had better do something to settle the troops on the Back Benches. But that comes with a price tag of £3.5 billion. The only choice that this Chancellor is taking is to fail to get on top of spending and to put up taxes in order to fund ever more welfare.

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    My hon. Friend absolutely gets to the core of it. This is an extraordinary point to have arrived at, but this Government, despite their majority, do not have the plan, political will or, seemingly, even the ability now to command enough support on their own Benches to push through vital spending controls that would allow us to get the taxman off the back of businesses and people up and down our country.

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    If the hon. Gentleman looks at absolute poverty after housing costs, he will find very significant reductions for children, pensioners and across the piece during the vast majority of our time in office.

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a great shame. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for any of the debate, but that does not mean that he might not have given the best possible intervention from the Labour Benches so far. Perhaps he may like to come in a little later. We have a Government who are engaged in serial breaches, who have no backbone to take the right decisions, and who will always fold to pressure, including from their own Back Benchers—and all at the expense of businesses and hard-working people up and down our country.

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentSir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have heard the various quotations at the beginning of my contribution exactly to that effect. The motion on the Order Paper asks a simple question. It is essentially this: even at this late stage, will the Government stand by their word, or will they dragoon those on the Benches behind them through the wrong Lobby tonight? If they vote with us, millions will heave a huge sigh of relief. If they vote against, the people will have their answer, and they will never forget.

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Taxes

    As somebody who has been around a long time and remembers when Chancellors used to have to resign for leaking things about the Budget in advance, may I ask the Minister to explain how it has been possible for the present Chancellor to make speeches about what may or may not be in her Budget in advance with no consequences forthcoming whatsoever?

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Taxes

    May I try to find some common ground with the hon. Gentleman? As has been pointed out, his party was in coalition with the Conservatives for five years. Can we at least agree that Nick Clegg’s decision to vote for trebling tuition fees, thus breaking a manifesto commitment, was a disaster for his party’s ratings? Can we also agree that if the Government do the same in respect of what they have pledged to do, it will be a disaster for their ratings as well?

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Taxes

    There is, of course, a third possibility, which some people with twisted minds have been suggesting: that the Government plan to do some pretty terrible things in the Budget but are setting up a strawman that they are going to break their manifesto promises. Then, when they do not do so, everybody will swallow those other terrible things. Is that too Machiavellian?

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Energy

    Can my hon. Friend throw any light on the apparent contradiction whereby the Government seem prepared to import fossil fuels—thus exporting our carbon footprint—but not to allow us to develop our own fossil fuel resources? Is it because they are afraid that, once we develop them, we will not want to stop using them, or is there some other explanation?

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    SEND Provision: Kent

    I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be short—but I am a kind and generous Chairman.

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    SEND Provision: Kent

    Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I ask the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) to forgive me; I should have recognised that the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) is nowhere near as glamorous or youthful as him. The hon. Gentleman can put that on his leaflets if he likes.

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    SEND Provision: Kent

    Before I call the shadow Minister, I point out to the hon. Lady the courtesies and behaviour in the House. If you are going to name another Member, you should notify them in advance. Did you do that?

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    SEND Provision: Kent

    Right. I suggest you drop the hon. Member for Clacton a note to say that you raised him in the House and copy it to me. That would be wonderful.

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Public Bodies: Governance and Accountability

    I will call Valerie Vaz to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. Other Members may intervene only with the permission of the Member in charge. As is the convention with these half-hour debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Public Bodies: Governance and Accountability

    I probably ought not to say so, Valerie, but that is music to my ears.

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

    Order. I see that quite a lot of people want to speak. I will not set a time limit, but if you can be disciplined in how long your contributions last, that would be very helpful.

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

    Order. There is a Division in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes, and when we return Ellie will draw her speech to its conclusion reasonably speedily.

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

    About six people want to contribute, so they each have about four minutes. I will not make it formal, but I know I can rely on you not to let me down.

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

    Order. I said four minutes a speech. This is partly a debate about targets and figures, Barry, and the difference between four and nine is five.

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

    Order. Can you bring your remarks to a close, otherwise no one else will be able to get in?

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

    Well done for keeping to time. I am calling the Front Benchers at 5.28 pm. I call Jim Shannon—you have a minute and a half.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

    Thank you, Minister; that leaves a moment or two for Abtisam Mohamed to complete our discussion.

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentSir Gavin Williamson

    Independent Football Regulator

    Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister, or anyone acting on his authority, declared his conflict of interest before Mr Kogan was asked to reinstate his withdrawn application? If a conflict of interest was declared, who declared it, and when?

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Independent Football Regulator

    It is not my style to attack the integrity of any Member of Parliament, so may I just ask a general question about the whole process of securing public confidence? Can we now consider tightening the ministerial code, and indeed the whole process, so that at the beginning of the process civil servants check on whether a Minister has received any donations, and if that is the case, the Minister recuses himself or herself at the very start?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    Taxes

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real downfall of the Government dates from when they did not face down their own Back Benchers and deal with the rocketing benefits bill? Frankly, the country is going broke and the Government must have the courage to deal with millions of people who are not contributing to society.

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentSir Christopher Chope

    Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability

    Order. The hon. Gentleman arrived late. He has made an intervention already and is now making a very long intervention. He should have some regard for other Members who have been here throughout the debate.

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentSir Christopher Chope

    Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability

    I call Luke Akehurst, who I am afraid has been left with only a couple of minutes.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentSir Christopher Chope

    Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability

    Order. Unfortunately, we have reached 11 o’clock, and although the next debate has been withdrawn, I do not have the discretion to extend this debate. That is something that we might consider on the Modernisation Committee, so that we have a bit more flexibility than we had today. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentSir Bernard Jenkin

    Energy

    My right hon. Friend is making a very able speech explaining why the clean power 2030 action plan is so ruinous for consumers. What she has not mentioned is that trying to connect up this very dispersed array of wind farms across the North sea requires an enormous amount of new infrastructure. We now know that the load factors are being reduced, so we will require 30% more wind turbines to create the same net zero effect. The wind farm investors themselves do not have to pay the full infrastructure costs for connecting all that up; it is the consumers who pick up the bill. So, there is another hidden subsidy for wind power that is not reflected in the guaranteed prices that are already being paid.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentSir Bernard Jenkin

    Energy

    The Minister will let me explain why, in the Alice in Wonderland world of the Government’s net zero policies, it is right to import liquefied natural gas, which for some reason does not count in our carbon footprint, instead of producing our own gas, which would count but which would be cheaper, far easier and more carbon-efficient to produce in our own country. Why are the Government pursuing that ludicrous policy, which is self-harming the economy, making our trade deficit worse and losing tax revenues for the Government because we are not exploiting our natural resources?

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    Taxes

    Would my hon. Friend agree that what has actually changed is the inability of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to control their Back Benchers, who now feel free to demand whatever public expenditure they think is convenient?

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    Taxes

    During the general election, the Labour party said that it would not increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. It repeated that it would not increase taxes on working people. In its manifesto, it said it would increase spending by only £9.5 billion and that that was to be paid for by £7.3 billion in extra taxes and £3.5 billion in extra borrowing. That was a modest plan with a prudent margin. It was a plan put forward to the electorate to show that the party could be trusted with the public finances. My constituents might be surprised to learn, however, that if they now look on the Labour party website, that manifesto is rather more difficult to find than it was a couple of months ago. It is fair to say that we Conservatives did not believe them, so we were not entirely surprised when, within weeks of moving into Downing Street, the Chancellor told the country that she would have to raise taxes after all. She had apparently found a magical £22 billion black hole. I say “magical” because nobody other than the Government seemed able to locate it—certainly, the Office for Budget Responsibility could not find it. It was, of course, a fiction to give the Chancellor cover for what she always intended to do, which was a massive increase in taxes, borrowing and spending, because that is what Labour does. Dogs bark, cats miaow and Labour increases taxes, borrowing and debt. In her first Budget last year, the Chancellor did not raise taxes by the £7.3 billion promised in the manifesto. She increased taxes by £40 billion. She increased borrowing not by the promised £3.5 billion, but by £32 billion. And believe it or not, she did not increase spending by the promised £9.5 billion. She increased it by £72 billion. The Chancellor imposed £40 billion of extra taxes on our economy. She increased employer national insurance, stamp duty and capital gains tax and she imposed extra taxes on family businesses and family farms, then she pretended that none of those were taxes on working people.

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    Taxes

    The hon. Gentleman will know that the Liberal Democrats joined a coalition Government in 2010 with the Conservatives. We inherited a deficit of £156 billion in 2010—11% of GDP—and it took 10 years, to 2020, to reduce that steadily to 2% of GDP. For all the moaning and whining from the Labour Benches about austerity, what we were trying to do—as a coalition Government for five years and as a Conservative Government for the remainder—was to live within our means, and that is tough. That is really difficult. It is about improving public services, but without necessarily hosing money at them. We see that most successfully in the field of education. In England we have seen a dramatic increase in reading standards and the standards of examination of English pupils caused by genuine reforms. That compares very favourably with what has happened in Scotland and Wales, where those reforms did not take place. The skill of government is in improving public services without always spending more money. The Liberal Democrats used to have a few Members who were called “Orange Book” Members. It is a shame there are so few of them left. Who does the Chancellor think she is kidding when she says she has not increased taxes on working people? Try telling the farmers in my constituency that they are not working people, or the young family where both parents work and are saving to pay the stamp duty on their first home. As Labour Members will recall, that first Budget was not well received, so to draw a line under her broken promises, the Chancellor said: “We’ve now wiped the slate clean. It’s now on us. We’ve put everything out into the open, we’ve set the spending envelope for the course of this Parliament. We don’t need to come back for more.” Except we know that that is not true. She is coming back for more. She is now set to break that promise again by putting up taxes again.

    Hansard source