Speeches by Baldwin.

“Dr Cribb, there will be a lot of people listening who perhaps are not aware of where the poverty line is currently drawn for a family with two children and for a family with three children. Could we have some IFS-style facts on where the poverty line is today for a couple with two children, after housing?”

“Thank you.”

“So you will follow up with some facts about the income level required to go from about £2,500 a month after tax and housing costs for a couple with three children?”

“Where are you drawing the deep line?”

“Persistent, deep poverty.”

“Perhaps because they are claiming asylum or are very limited in terms of their incomes?”

“A lot of pensioners in my constituency will think that after housing and after tax, having a disposable income of about £2,500 a month would not feel to them like a really difficult level of deep poverty, but you are saying that there is a much poorer group of people. My question to the panel is, would a change in the …”

“I just think that it would be helpful for the general population to understand the numbers that we are talking about. The other piece of information that would be helpful—I don’t know if you have this, Dr Cribb—is how clustered a couple with two children would be around that amount of £2,500 after tax and after housing…”

“So the IFS would agree that for a couple with two children the number we are talking about is about £2,500 a month.”

“Can the panel clarify what the amount would be for a couple with three children?”

“The shadow Chancellor is making a powerful speech. Is he aware that recently in the Treasury Committee we were given evidence by a range of tax specialists, all of whom endorsed abolishing stamp duty?”

“Thank you. My takeaway from your panel this morning, which has been very informative, is that there is a subset you are particularly concerned about that is causing social harm, but it is not the wider sector. I am happy with the evidence on that.”

“This is very interesting. When you started your evidence, Mr Jung, you made a statement—a very sweeping statement, I thought—that gambling is a social harm. But the more evidence we have heard from the panel this morning, the more we have heard of what I observe as an MP for West Worcestershire, near Worcester racecour…”

“Are you saying that there would be no change in employment or physical premises in this sector if these changes were to be made?”

“It is just scaremongering. That is your assertion.”

“The Chancellor has made extensive remarks on how UK regulation has become overly risk averse. Can you point to any examples where you think that the Financial Policy Committee has been overly risk averse?”

“We have asked some of the members of the FPC in the past about the potential risks of quantum apocalypse in the financial sector. I am afraid that, so far, we have mainly heard that it is not something they have particular expertise in, so it is good that you know people who can perhaps bring some of that lens to bear …”

“She has talked about “a boot on the neck” of business.”

“I reiterate the interest that I have met the professor before, when he was principal of my alma mater. I am very interested in taking up the theme of AI and how you see that combining with the power of quantum computing potentially to undermine the encryption that supports the whole financial sector. What are your thou…”

“So you disagree with the Chancellor?”