Claim: Rupert Lowe Introduced a Bill to Ban Quantitative Easing
Summary of the Claim
In January 2025, Rupert Lowe introduced a Ten Minute Rule Bill titled the Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) Bill. The bill sought to prohibit the use of quantitative easing by the Bank of England and stop the Government from indemnifying any losses that result from it. Lowe argued that quantitative easing had distorted the economy, contributed to inflation and weakened accountability in public finances.
This fact-check analyses what the bill actually proposed, whether the claims made about quantitative easing reflect economic evidence and how accurately the public reporting reflects Lowe’s position.
Where the Claim Was Made
The bill was read in Parliament on 8 January 2025 under the Ten Minute Rule procedure. News outlets covered Lowe’s speech in which he stated his intention to prohibit quantitative easing and limit what he described as financial irresponsibility in national policy.
Ten Minute Rule Bills very rarely become law without government backing and are commonly used to signal political positions or draw attention to specific issues.
Verdict: ⚠️ Misleading
The claim that Lowe introduced a bill to ban quantitative easing is accurate. However, his economic explanations and his claims about the impact of quantitative easing on inflation, public finances and national stability were overstated. The bill presents the issue in a simplified and incomplete way that does not align with mainstream economic analysis.
Evidence and Analysis
1. What the Bill Actually Says
The Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) Bill would amend the Bank of England Act 1998 to stop the Bank from undertaking quantitative easing. It would also prohibit the Treasury from indemnifying any related losses. This description is correct and matches the bill as introduced.
2. Lowe’s Argument and Framing
In his statement, Lowe criticised quantitative easing as a tool that allowed governments to avoid financial discipline. He presented QE as a direct cause of inflation, a contributor to the weakening of sterling and a sign of moral decline in public life.
However, these claims simplify the economic research and omit key context. QE has been used primarily during crises to stabilise financial markets and lower borrowing costs. Economists have found that QE can contribute to asset inflation, but consumer inflation in recent years has been driven largely by global supply chain shocks and energy prices rather than quantitative easing alone.
3. What Economic Evidence Shows
Independent analyses from the Bank of England, City A.M., academic economists and financial research organisations have found the following:
• QE has mixed effects, with both benefits and drawbacks.
• It helped stabilise the economy after the 2008 crash and during the pandemic.
• It contributed to an increase in asset prices such as equities and housing.
• It played a limited role in the post-pandemic surge in consumer inflation.
• Banning QE outright would severely restrict the Bank of England’s crisis-response toolkit.
Lowe’s argument did not acknowledge this mixed evidence and instead focused solely on negative effects.
4. Practical Feasibility of the Proposal
A Ten Minute Rule Bill has little chance of becoming law. Even if it progressed, banning QE entirely would remove a central bank tool used internationally in crisis conditions. No major economic institution is calling for QE to be abolished. Most support reform, not prohibition.
5. Why the Claim Is Misleading
Although Lowe did introduce the bill, the accompanying narrative suggested that banning QE would solve inflation and prevent economic mismanagement. The available evidence does not support such a direct link. The claim oversimplifies a complex policy area and understates the role QE played in stabilising the economy during periods of financial stress.
Conclusion
Rupert Lowe’s Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) Bill was genuine and correctly described as a proposal to ban quantitative easing. However, the reasoning used to justify the ban is incomplete. The bill’s narrative exaggerates the harmful effects of QE while ignoring its widely documented role in stabilising financial markets during crises.
The claim is therefore rated ⚠️ Misleading. It correctly identifies the bill but presents an oversimplified and selective account of quantitative easing’s impact.
Sources
• UK Parliament – Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) Bill text
• UK Parliament – PDF of Bill as introduced
• The Independent – Reporting on Lowe’s bill and comments
• City A.M. – “Give Parliament a vote on quantitative easing”