Acknowledged interventions by John Redwood and Richard Fuller about the impact of Bank of England's actions on government debt.

Expressed condolences for Jack Dromey. Criticised the Chancellor for not appearing in the debate, highlighting concerns over the cost of living crisis and tax burdens. Emphasised Labour's plan to offer financial relief to families, funded by a windfall levy on energy companies. Questioned the transparency and effectiveness of government spending and procurement practices.

Redwood criticises the current charter for budget responsibility, suggesting that it is too similar to the Maastricht rules. He argues for a framework that focuses on controlling inflation and promoting growth. He suggests embedding an inflation control policy in the charter and establishing a growth target as a second criterion. Redwood also questions why balance-sheet items are not shared with the public and discusses the implications of quantitative easing.

Thewliss criticises the Chancellor's absence and argues against austerity measures, stating that cutting support too soon poses a risk to the economy. She highlights the OBR report which shows missed fiscal targets and sets new rules with little space for manoeuvre. She also discusses the impact of welfare cap changes, inflation, energy price rises, tax increases, and their disproportionate effect on lower-income households. Thewliss calls for an emergency package of support including a low-income energy payment, reversing the universal credit cut, and raising the minimum wage to a real living wage.

Mr. Fuller criticises the excessive spending by successive Parliaments, noting that the UK now has its highest peacetime tax burden since World War II and a direct debt of £2.6 trillion. He discusses the risks associated with quantitative easing and the potential long-term consequences on interest rates. Mr. Fuller highlights the declining economic growth in developed OECD countries and warns about geopolitical risks linked to China's integration into global politics and trade. He welcomes the Government’s charter for budget responsibility, which includes an assessment of public debt affordability, a cap on investment expenditure at 3% of GDP, and a new key indicator of public sector net worth. However, he questions the lack of consequences for breaking fiscal rules. Mr. Fuller also raises concerns about the Bank of England's view on real interest rates being too benign, asking if it expects negative and declining interest rates in the long term.

The debate has wandered over the fiscal rule and welfare cap, with my right hon. Friend highlighting the economic and political farce of the current Government. The welfare cap is described as iniquitous, forcing people into poverty and affecting mental health negatively. McDonnell argues that austerity was a political choice rather than an economic necessity, leading to cuts in public services and pay freezes. He criticises Lord Freud's admission of finding a scapegoat for austerity measures targeting the unemployed, disabled, and children, describing this as shameful. The welfare cap is seen as an anachronism that will likely be used again during periods of economic pressure, targeting those who are poor or unable to find sufficient work. McDonnell expresses his intention to vote against the welfare cap due to its inhumane impact.

I oppose the principle of the welfare cap, which is neither useful nor adequate in addressing structural issues such as low pay and gender inequality. The SNP would end sanctions and conditionality, abolish the five-week wait for universal credit, end the bedroom tax, reinstate the £20 uplift in universal credit, and extend it to 2 million legacy benefit claimants. Devolution in Scotland is a sticking plaster to mitigate Tory austerity; Scottish independence could tackle poverty better without an arbitrary cap on welfare.

The welfare cap is repugnant and regressive, driven by Conservative ideology. It does not address underlying causes of reliance on social security, such as low pay and insecure work. The cap exacerbates the cost-of-living crisis in Cynon Valley, where unemployment doubled during the pandemic and economic inactivity is at 42%. I oppose this welfare cap due to its demonisation of those who need support.

I argue for reviewing and lifting the welfare spending cap due to dire circumstances. I highlight increased costs of essential items, such as groceries, gas, and electricity, which are pushing families on low wages into poverty. The number of referrals to food banks in my constituency has doubled this year. People need more help.

I oppose the welfare cap as it is a continuation of a policy that demonises the least well-off and does not address the root causes of the cost of living crisis, such as insecure work, low wages, extortionate rents, and rip-off energy bills. The Government's fiscal rules are imprudent and do not work, leading to them breaking the cap twice recently.

The Government's fiscal charter represents a world-leading framework to guide us towards fiscal sustainability. It allows debt reduction while enabling economic support and future investment, increasing the welfare cap level to reflect pandemic impacts. The focus is on productivity through skills, infrastructure, and innovation for levelling up and net zero goals.