House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Last week I visited Kyiv to mark the fourth anniversary of Putin’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As well as meeting President Zelensky and his Ministers, I spoke to civilians, who have been targeted throughout the war, and I told them that Britain continues to stand in solidarity with Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for its freedom and its future, and threats to its security are also threats to the security of Europe and the UK. That is why we stand with Ukraine.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. As we mark the fourth anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, we salute the fortitude and bravery of the Ukrainian people. As we see conflicts open up elsewhere in the world, particularly the current situation in the middle east, how do we ensure that Ukraine continues to receive all the support it needs to determine its own future, and that the future of the Ukrainian people does not slip down the agenda, leading to another frozen conflict?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is exactly right to raise the importance of continuing our focus on Ukraine. This is about our security, as well as Ukraine’s security. That is why last week I announced additional support for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and additional sanctions to keep the pressure on Russia, particularly on its oil and gas system and its shadow fleet. That is why we are also continuing to provide Ukraine with significant military support. We will stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and for as long as it takes.
Rachel Gilmour
I would like to declare that I returned from Ukraine last week—I was part of a cross-party delegation—and my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will be updated to reflect that.
The newspapers and the television are this week full of pictures of people hunkering in bunkers in the middle east, but it is worth remembering that the people of Ukraine have been doing that for the past four years. The Foreign Secretary will of course be aware of the close relationship between Moscow and Tehran. Russia continues to deploy Iranian-manufactured Shahed drones to terrorise Ukraine’s population. With the crisis in the middle east intensifying, will she set out how the Government now assess the implications of these recent developments for Russia’s war in Ukraine?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right to point out that Iran has been a key enabler of Russia’s war in Ukraine by providing thousands of the Shahed-type drones used to inflict terror on the Ukrainian people, which are now being used to launch indiscriminate attacks across the middle east and the Gulf. That is why we are working with Ukrainian expertise to provide support for partners in the Gulf. We also recognise the importance of continuing to provide that support and working to develop that expertise with Ukraine. The Ukrainian people have shown remarkable resilience, and they have been underestimated for too long.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), I would like to note that my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will be updated to reflect the support of the UK Friends of Ukraine for our visit last week.
It was very good to see the Foreign Secretary in Kyiv last Tuesday for the very sad commemoration of the fourth year of the full-scale invasion. As the Ukrainian people have reminded us time and again, it is not just about territory; it is about their very identity. On our visit, we heard about the appalling inhumane treatment of Ukrainians who have been taken as prisoners of war by Putin. There have been constant violations of the Geneva conventions, including reports of torture and near starvation. What talks has the Foreign Secretary had and what more can she do to raise this issue in international circles and put pressure on the Russian regime to treat prisoners more humanely?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. The fact that there was such a strong cross-party delegation to Ukraine for the fourth anniversary of the invasion showed the cross-party commitment to supporting Ukraine. Like her, I met those who had the most horrendous stories of having been held and detained during the war by Russian troops, and of having been tortured. We are providing support for survivors and to secure evidence that could be used in future prosecutions, because we must hold the perpetrators to account.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary mentioned the importance of Russian oil and gas and the need to disrupt the activities of the shadow fleet. Will she confirm that she is working with allies to ensure that as much as possible is being done to stop people using Russian oil and gas, because of how important it is to reduce the cash flows that are behind Russia’s war effort?
Yvette Cooper
I confirm that we are doing exactly that. We have raised that in discussions with colleagues and partners right around the world, because we know that Russia has continued to use oil and gas to fuel its war machine. That is also why we are strengthening the operations, sanctions and pressure on the Russian shadow fleet. We will also continue to pursue further action. We would like to see international support for a maritime services ban.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
As the Ukraine war passes its fourth year, we continue to salute the bravery and heroism of the people of Ukraine as they fight for their independence and freedom. This is the moment, however, for the Government to spearhead a new campaign with our allies to starve Russia of the funds it needs to wage war. It is clear that we need to target not only the shadow fleet but the refineries in Turkey, India and China buying Russian crude so that they rapidly diversify. Will the Government now take action with our allies to put huge new pressure on those refineries? With the foundations of the Russian economy crumbling away, that action would make it much harder for Putin to sustain the costs of his war.
Yvette Cooper
On my visit to Kyiv last week, I announced nearly 300 new sanctions to target Russian revenue streams and military supply chains. More broadly, we are targeting not just the shadow fleet and the oil and gas companies in Russia directly, but those who might support them in third countries. That was our largest Russian sanctions package since 2022, and it is important that we get other countries to support that as well.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The UK strongly condemns the expansion of illegal settlements and the recent Israeli Security Cabinet decisions that introduced sweeping extensions to their control of the west bank. These actions threaten peace and stability and undermine the 20-point plan. They risk making a two-state solution impossible to achieve. Our position is clear and unequivocal: the Israeli Government must stop the expansion of settlements, they must stop the threats of forcible displacement and annexation, and they must stop the unacceptable levels of settler violence.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Minister for his answer, but since December 2015, 19 new settlements have been approved, bringing the coalition’s total to 68 in three years and around 210 overall, housing 750,000 settlers. Last month, the Israeli Cabinet approved measures to designate large areas as state property and resume land registration in area C—de jure annexation. Those steps defy International Court of Justice advisory opinions and dispossess thousands of Palestinians. Given the scale of sanctions that the UK is willing to impose on Russia, when will the Government impose meaningful trade measures, arms controls and sanctions that match the scale of Israel’s illegal actions?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right in his characterisation of the increase in settlements. That increase has been accompanied by a very concerning increase in settler violence. I know that many hon. Members will have been shocked by the footage they have seen of these incidents. The Foreign Secretary raised those issues directly, including the risks of instability that they cause, with Israel’s Foreign Minister Sa’ar in New York last month. We will not accept attempts to advance settlement expansion under the cover of regional instability. We will consider concrete steps in accordance with international law to counter the expansion.
Caroline Voaden
Last year, the Israeli Government issued nearly 10,000 units of settlement housing tenders, which was more than the combined total of tenders over the previous six years. The extremists in Netanyahu’s Cabinet clearly have the explicit intention of undermining any prospect of a viable Palestinian state, let alone a two-state solution. The Minister said that he condemns the expansion and is considering actions to take, but will he do the right thing now and introduce a full ban on all trade with illegal settlements in the west bank, to show that this Government are truly committed to pursuing a two-state solution?
Mr Falconer
The Government are truly committed to pursuing a two-state solution; it has been at the heart of our policy in relation to Israel and Palestine for the entire duration of our time in government. As the hon. Lady will know, I have stood at this Dispatch Box and announced three waves of sanctions, and I am sure that she will have listened carefully to my remarks in answer to the previous question.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The British Government recognised Palestine last summer, and that was greatly welcomed around the world. The concern now is that Israel may be about to annex the west bank. If Israel does that, where is Palestine? The Minister spoke last week and said that they were considering concrete steps, and he has said that again today. I just wondered what they were.
Mr Falconer
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question; I know she is extremely focused, rightly, on the deterioration of the situation in the west bank. She focuses correctly on the threat of annexation. We oppose that absolutely, as do our American counter-parts, as I am sure she is aware. I am not in a position to provide further commentary on what the steps I alluded to might yet be, for the reasons that we have rehearsed in this Chamber many times. We have taken action, including the three rounds of sanctions that I described, and we will continue to take action while the situation continues to deteriorate.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister is absolutely right: Israel must stop. What estimate has he made of the time that we have before a separate Palestinian state becomes, geographically and economically, utterly untenable?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Member and my predecessor for that important question. We have pointed to a whole range of areas of concern in relation to the viability of a Palestinian state. One that has not received mention so far in our exchanges, but which is vital, is the E1 development. The British Government are deeply concerned by the speed with which the Israeli Government are proceeding with a project that we completely oppose. It is clearly designed to try to split two parts of a contiguous Palestinian territory. We oppose it, and we will continue to do so.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The rapid growth in Israeli settlements in recent months has been fuelled by settler violence, which not only goes unpunished, but receives tacit support from the Israeli Government. The UK Government continue to avoid responding to the International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion condemning Israelis’ forcible transfer of Palestinians—a war crime. Last month, the UN high commissioner for human rights noted that the forcible transfer of Palestinians from their homes in the west bank raises concerns of ethnic cleansing. Does the Minister agree with his analysis?
Mr Falconer
As ever, I thank my hon. Friend for her important questions. I wish to clarify quickly. The British Government oppose forced displacement in Palestine, and that is our long-held position. While we are due to update Parliament on the wider issues posed by the ICJ advisory opinion, I would not wish for there to be any ambiguity about our position. We oppose forcible displacement and, of course, there must be accountability and justice for all crimes committed right across Palestinian and Israeli territory.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister says that he is concerned by the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and the expansion of settler violence, and he says that he is considering concrete steps. He refers to previous actions, but it is now many months since the last concrete action by this Government. Actions speak louder than words. It is now way past time to end all settlement trade and impose new sanctions on those responsible for this violence.
Mr Falconer
We have taken a range of steps and we continue to take steps, including raising those issues both with our partners and directly with the Israeli Government.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
When I visited the Sudan border a month ago, I promised the women that I met in the Adré camp that I would take their voice to the United Nations, and that the world needed to listen to Sudanese women, not to the military men who perpetuate this war. That is what I did two weeks ago, when I chaired a dedicated session of the United Nations Security Council, where we considered the horrendous fact-finding mission’s report on El Fasher and ensured that Sudanese women’s voices could be heard. As I told the Council members, we need a renewed effort from across the globe to end this brutal war.
Kate Osamor
With half of Sudan’s population under 18 and millions of children growing up amid widespread violence, Sudan is confronting what many now describe as the world’s largest child protection emergency. In that context, what concrete steps will the Department take to promote and defend the UN’s children and armed conflict mandate, so that the protection of children in Sudan remains a sustained diplomatic priority across the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell my hon. Friend that we continue to champion the UN children and armed conflict mandate and its monitoring work. It is clear that children are the innocent victims of this horrendous and brutal war, and that is why the world must not look away from Sudan. It is why we need a ceasefire, it is why we need to prevent the arms flows, and it is why we need to continue the humanitarian support from across the globe.
Irene Campbell
We know that conflict can dis-proportionately affect women and children and exacerbate gender-based violence. We cannot let this crisis in Sudan be ignored. There has been an alarming rise in gender-based violence and sexual abuse against women and girls. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me what further steps her Department is taking to tackle this horrific abuse against women and girls in Sudan at this time of conflict?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right; the scale of the use of rape as a weapon of war in Sudan is truly horrific. Two weeks ago, prior to the Security Council briefing, I convened an event in New York in the UN building to include four women speakers who have been working to tackle sexual violence in Sudan, and also to hear, through video testimony, from a Sudanese woman who has been working to tackle the levels of sexual violence and provide support to survivors in Chad. I have announced a new £20 million programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan. The voices of Sudanese women must be heard.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will read the evidence from Samaritan’s Purse to the International Development Committee last week, which reiterated the issues on sexual violence. We also heard that in refugee camps, many people have to be naked because they have had no option but to sell their clothes to get food. I am sure she agrees that is completely and utterly unacceptable. In her last statement, she said that she was seeking to engage with the African Union and to bring it more into participation in bringing a resolution to the conflict. Has she made any progress in that regard?
Yvette Cooper
I will certainly look further at the evidence and the horrendous accounts that the right hon. Member describes. We are establishing, with international partners, a coalition for atrocity prevention and justice to work on Sudan and to work together on preventing atrocities and gathering evidence. We have been pursuing some of the findings in the UN’s report on El Fasher, which talked about systematic starvation, torture, killings, rape and deliberate ethnic targeting. The right hon. Member has added a further horrendous account to that, which is why it is important not only to pursue these atrocities but to ensure that there is basic humanitarian support. That is why we are prioritising Sudan for humanitarian support as well.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary has referred to the UN report published on 19 February, which said that the horrific events in El Fasher bore all the “hallmarks of genocide”. Does she agree with that assessment?
Yvette Cooper
The account in that report is truly appalling and shocking. It describes deliberate ethnic targeting of particular groups, as well as some of the most horrendous torture, and the use of rape as a weapon of conflict. The long-standing position of successive British Governments is that any formal determination on genocide is a matter for the courts. However, we should be clear that the evidence of atrocities committed by the armed forces across Sudan is staggering and horrendous, and the perpetrators must be held to account.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The UK-United States relationship has been a cornerstone of our security and prosperity for over a century, and we will never turn away from it. The Foreign Secretary and I have regular and wide-ranging discussions with our counterparts. Indeed, in the past week, we have discussed economic ties with governors from across the United States. The Business and Trade Secretary speaks regularly with his US counterparts—including, most recently, the trade representative—to reinforce the importance of delivering on our economic prosperity deal.
Blake Stephenson
Given that the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran without British involvement, and that this Government seem increasingly at odds with the US in relation to Diego Garcia, can the Minister assure me that the Government’s actions are not damaging the special relationship and increasing the likelihood that further tariffs will be imposed on the UK, driving up costs for the Great British public?
Stephen Doughty
I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Our relationship with the United States is strong; it has endured, continues to endure, and will endure into the future on the economic and security fronts. We were the first to strike a deal with the US Administration, which removed tariffs on UK aerospace exports and secured reduced tariffs for cars. That saved manufacturers hundreds of millions and protected jobs across this country.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
China’s imposition of the national security law on Hong Kong has significantly eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. We remain deeply concerned about that. Our most recent assessment was set out in the last six-monthly report on Hong Kong to Parliament in October, and the next report will be published soon. On his recent visit to Beijing, the Prime Minister raised our concerns at the highest level, including with President Xi, about the situation in Hong Kong and about Jimmy Lai’s case specifically.
Adam Thompson
Many people who have come to us from Hong Kong have made their home in Long Eaton in my constituency. Their children are thriving in our local schools, new businesses are being established, and a vibrant community is taking shape. Will the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking, in partnership with local councils and Members of this House, to support the continued integration of Hongkongers into our towns and communities, and to ensure that those who have chosen to settle in Long Eaton feel fully welcomed as part of our community?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his constituency work. I am proud that the UK has welcomed around 200,000 Hongkongers since 2021. We will continue unequivocally to uphold our commitment to them. As he will know, their contribution enriches our economy and our society, including in Long Eaton. We remain committed to ensuring that they feel safe, supported and valued. Indeed, for five years, the welcome programme has delivered successful integration for the British national overseas community, and mainstream provisions will continue to be available.
Daniel Francis
In addition to the situation on the ground in Hong Kong, there remains evidence of transnational repression against Hong Kong nationals living overseas, including here in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister update us on the work being done on that issue across Government Departments, and on the measures that she is pursuing to end the deliberate targeting of opposition voices in the UK?
Seema Malhotra
Any attempts by foreign Governments to intimidate or harm critics overseas are unacceptable. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the United Kingdom are protected by law. Ministers have raised those issues—including the arrest warrants placed on individuals in the United Kingdom by Hong Kong police—with the Chinese authorities. It is important to note that training and guidance on state threat activity is now being offered to all 45 territorial police forces across the United Kingdom.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has just raised a case that I am aware of. I do not want to steal her thunder on that, but I will say that there is a real issue with what is happening in Hong Kong. China has trashed the Sino-British agreement. Hong Kong no longer uses common law, and every single system is being abused. When will the Government deal with these deficiencies by sanctioning somebody? America has sanctioned many people. Many other countries have too, but the UK, which used to run Hong Kong, has sanctioned absolutely nobody. Surely we should do so now.
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member will be aware that our concerns in relation to China’s breach of the Sino-British declaration are laid out clearly in our six-monthly report on Hong Kong. There will be a further report coming shortly, but Hong Kong is required to ensure, for example, that national security legislation upholds rights and freedoms, as is set out in the Basic Law. Indeed, we have repeatedly called on Beijing to repeal the national security law and release all individuals charged under it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Bounties have been placed on the heads of pro-democracy activists living in Hong Kong—a shocking act of transnational aggression. May I add my voice to that of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and ask: when will the Government use our Magnitsky sanctions regime against those in Hong Kong and Beijing responsible for the unacceptable targeting of Hong Kong pro-democracy campaigners? It is time that we used those sanctions.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will know that any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm those in the UK are utterly unacceptable. Indeed, these arrest warrants and bounties encourage reckless behaviour on UK soil, and damage Hong Kong’s international reputation. It is important that we continue to address these issues, and we will look further at the situation. We will publish our six-monthly report on Hong Kong soon.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Last month, the Foreign Secretary held an unpublicised meeting in Munich with Wang Yi, which we only know about because the Chinese Communist party boasted that the Foreign Secretary told the party that the Prime Minister’s visit to China was
“a complete success with fruitful results”
for UK-China relations. Can the Minister, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, confirm whether or not the human rights of those living in Hong Kong were raised at the meeting? With Jimmy Lai languishing in prison, the CCP looking to toughen up the Hong Kong national security law, and Hongkongers living in Britain with bounties on their heads, on what basis was the Prime Minister’s visit a complete success? Given how little the UK got, it was a complete failure, wasn’t it?
Seema Malhotra
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had many meetings with counterparts on very important issues of national and international security in Munich, and raised a number of issues, including Jimmy Lai. The Conservatives were in charge for 14 years, and they had almost as many different policies on China during that time. They talked about state threats, but delayed the essential reform of our outdated security laws. In May 2021, the shadow Foreign Secretary launched her consultation on the new legislation, but it took more than two years to get the National Security Act 2023 passed into law, leaving our country without the powers needed to prosecute such cases.
Priti Patel
Clearly, the Minister is desperate, and is having to go backwards, rather than moving forwards to address the situation. For her information, China oppresses Hongkongers, refuses to free Jimmy Lai and supports Russia and Iran in their barbaric actions to undermine freedom and democracy. Those are issues that the Government should take a grip of now. China plots, spies and undermines our security. Rather than kowtowing to China, when will her Government wake up, deal with the threat posed by the CCP, and put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? When will she start taking action and expel CCP diplomats, to show our disgust at their appalling actions when it comes to transnational repression?
Seema Malhotra
The Government have not yet made any decision about whether China will be added to the enhanced tier, but the right hon. Lady will know that we condemn in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. This issue remains a priority for this Government, and she is fully aware of that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The hon. Member refers to sections 3 and 8 of the UK’s 2025 UK-Palestine MOU, which is clear on our commitment to supporting the PA’s reform agenda on education. We welcome President Abbas’s pledge in 2025 to continue reforms in line with UNESCO standards. The Foreign Secretary and I have pressed him and Prime Minister Mustafa on this personally. An external review has been commissioned to verify the implementation of those reform commitments. I will report to the House on our assessment when it is completed in the coming months.
Jack Rankin
The Palestinian Authority have given the British Government repeated assurances that textbooks are being reformed, which one would have thought would be a minimum requirement for the recognition of a Palestinian state. However, in my office, I have an Arabic-language textbook, currently in use on the west bank, that describes Arab fighters using “explosive belts” to
“turn their bodies into fire burning the Zionist tank”.
That is accompanied by an image of a gunman shooting Jews riding a tank. The book is aimed at 14-year-olds. Is the Minister aware that this is going on, and does he have any faith that the Palestinian Authority can change their ways?
Mr Falconer
As I said, there will be an external assessment. I am aware that the process of education reform, which is being led by some of our friends in the European Union, is happening grade by grade. As I understand it, there has been considerable progress on grade 12, and they are looking at some of the other grades. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to send me the textbook, to confirm which grade it relates to.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I accept that there are problems with the curriculum in Palestinian schools, but the eyes of the world are now distracted, and settlement expansion continues, as far as we can tell. I am concerned that when the dust settles and the rubble is cleared, the viability of the Palestinian state will be significantly jeopardised. Does the Minister share my firm belief that what is going on does not really represent the will of the Israeli people?
Mr Falconer
I am sure that the whole House will recognise the authority with which my hon. Friend speaks. He is right that violent settlement expansion is not the will of most Israelis; polling reflects that time and again. As the Israeli public approach Israeli elections, I hope that there will be a discussion in Israel about the appalling nature of this violence and this expansion.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Palestinian Authority continue to show an absolute disregard for the MOU, with deeply disturbing and antisemitic content still being promoted in Palestinian schools. How are the UK Government monitoring this, and ensuring that no UK taxpayer money is being used to fund that? With “pay for slay” continuing, will the Minister tell the House if he raised these concerns with the Palestinian Authority when he met their ambassador last week? What is his assessment of the payments being made? What direct action is he taking to stop “pay for slay”, such as withholding payments until this vile practice ceases?
Mr Falconer
I have tried to answer as precisely as possible on all the sections of the MOU. If the right hon. Lady has a particular area that she would like to raise, I am happy to address it, as I did the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). I can confirm that I raised these questions in my most recent interaction with the Palestinian ambassador. She refers to what is sometimes described in public as “pay to slay”—the Tamkeen system. That is being externally audited by a United States auditor. Once we have that audit, we will be in a position to provide a further update to the House.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
The UK condemns in the strongest terms the politically motivated persecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. We continue to call for his immediate release, and for giving him full access to independent medical professionals and all necessary treatment. The Prime Minister raised the case of Jimmy Lai when he met President Xi in January, and we will continue to raise at every opportunity.
Gregory Stafford
Jimmy Lai now faces a jail term described by Ministers as an effective life sentence. It is clear that his life sentence directly reflects this Government’s weak policy on China, so will the Minister tell us what clear steps she and the Prime Minister are taking, and—more importantly—what sanctions she and the Prime Minister will put on the Chinese, to ensure that Jimmy Lai is released, and that his case is not forgotten?
Seema Malhotra
We continue to keep sanctions under close review. It would not be appropriate to speculate on any future designations, since doing so could reduce their impact, as the hon. Member knows. However, although we will not get into the details of any private discussions on Jimmy Lai, the Government will continue to raise his case at every opportunity, as the Foreign Secretary, the previous Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done. Diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong have attended all court proceedings, and continue to press for consular access.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Sticking with detentions in China, last week I had the great honour of meeting Grace Jin Drexel, the daughter of pastor Ezra Jin, who—along with 18 other pastors from Zion House Church—was arrested and detained by the Chinese authorities last October on the very vague charge of illegal use of information online. Basically, they had an online church service. What can the Government do to advocate for the release of all the Zion House Church leaders, and to promote freedom of religion or belief for all people in China?
Seema Malhotra
Reports from within China about the detention of Zion House Church leaders are a very worrying indication of further persecution of Christians in China. This Government continue to engage with China on the issue of human rights and freedom of belief. We will continue to champion freedom of religion and belief for all and uphold the right to that universal freedom through our positions at the UN and in the G7, as well as through our bilateral engagements.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I welcome the progress that many overseas territories have made on financial transparency. St Helena, Montserrat and Gibraltar now have fully public registers of beneficial ownership, while the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands have implemented legitimate interest access registers. However, I have also been clear with those overseas territories where progress has not been quick or comprehensive enough, including the British Virgin Islands, and at the joint ministerial council in November, I pressed for further progress, and agreed to provide technical-level support for that work. We will reconvene later this month to assess the latest position, and we reserve the right to consider all options, if progress is not made. Of course, we prefer to work in constructive co-operation, recognising the wide range of constitutional arrangements, but there are crucial issues here for tackling illicit finance, and for our national security.
Steff Aquarone
Perhaps I can help with that assessment. Transparency International uncovered at least 160 cases since 2022 of luxury yachts being transferred into or out of Russia that were registered to companies in British overseas territories. While the brave Ukrainians are defending their country from a brutal invasion, Putin’s cronies are joyriding their multimillion-pound yachts, enabled by the likes of the BVI. Does this sicken the Foreign Secretary and the Minister as much as it sickens me, and can the Minister tell certain overseas territories that we are fed up with their excuses and their shielding of evil regimes and tax dodgers, and that they must deliver transparency now?
Stephen Doughty
I welcome the work of Transparency International and others in shedding light on these issues. Those are exactly the concerns that I have raised directly with overseas territories’ Governments and have expressed in this place, and we will work to ensure rapid progress on these issues.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
Tens of thousands of children have been killed, injured, orphaned, or separated from their family during this conflict. The UK has medically evacuated 50 children for treatment in the UK, but help on the required scale can only be delivered on the ground in Gaza. We are providing £81 million in humanitarian and early recovery support this year, including social protection services, which have so far supported over 335,000 Palestinian children.
Mrs Blundell
It is estimated that 40,000 children in Gaza have lost either one or both of their parents in the appalling war of recent years, leaving many as orphans without the love and protection that they need in one of the most dangerous places on the planet. As crisis engulfs the region once again and vital aid is still being blocked, what assurances can the Minister give that the UK will play a leading role in supporting those children in the long term, after all the horrors they have had to endure?
Chris Elmore
International NGOs remain indispensable to the UN-led humanitarian response, and we have supported key INGO partners, including through the Disasters Emergency Committee. In January, we marked the UK’s £3 million aid match for the middle east appeal. In total, we have provided £13 million since the appeal began. On 30 December last year, the UK led a statement with nine other countries to underline the vital role that INGOs play in Palestine. We continue to engage those organisations that have been impacted by new registration requirements, and we have raised that issue directly with the Government of Israel.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Amid the illegal attack on Iran by America and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has closed all the border crossings into Gaza. What does the Minister know of this? Food and humanitarian aid are once again being blocked.
Chris Elmore
We would like all borders, including Rafah, to be open as quickly as possible and not in a phased process. We are making representations to the Israeli Government in that regard.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
In recent days, we have seen Iran attack multiple countries that did not attack it. Just as Iran is a threat to the region and to the UK’s allies, it is also a threat to its own people. Time and again, it has responded to legitimate protests with brutal violence, as we saw in January when thousands of protesters were killed. That is why last month, alongside international partners, the UK led efforts to secure a special session of the UN Human Rights Council and imposed a sweeping package of sanctions to hold Iran to account for its human rights violations. Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out the action we are taking in response to Iran’s attacks on Gulf partners, where UK citizens are currently residing.
Mark Sewards
Not content with suppressing its own people, the Iranian regime now lashes out at civilians and our allies across the region. The new head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is an internationally wanted terrorist, implicated in the 1994 attack on the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina in Buenos Aires and responsible for the repression of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests in 2022 in Iran. I urge the Foreign Secretary to urge the Home Secretary to implement the Jonathan Hall framework, so that we can proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible. Will she implement sanctions on those responsible for the bloody crackdowns in Iran, including Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that as Home Secretary, I commissioned the Jonathan Hall review exactly because I thought that the legislation might need to be strengthened. He has concluded that it needs to be strengthened to broaden existing counter-terrorism legislation to include state and state-linked threats. We will be taking that forward, and my hon. Friend will know that we keep all proscription decisions under close review.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
When some of us campaigned for Hezbollah to be proscribed in full, Foreign Office officials and others said that it was impossible, because it would harm diplomatic relations. That was overcome. The same spurious argument was made with respect to Hamas. That was overcome. Imagine how foolish our country would look today if we had not proscribed Hezbollah and Hamas in full. The same argument has been made by the last Government and by this Government with respect to the IRGC. Will the Foreign Secretary be clear that she will not stand in the way of the full proscription of the IRGC, so that these dangerous criminals who harm our own people and our allies around the world have no place and no home in the United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
I just point out to the right hon. Member that I take the threats on UK streets immensely seriously, but he was a Home Office Minister and a Cabinet Minister during an entire period when we saw Iran-backed threats on UK streets. He did nothing to strengthen the legislation in so many years in government. This Government are now taking forward measures to strengthen that legislation.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It is currently unclear whether the turmoil unleashed by Trump and Netanyahu’s unilateral military action will bring freedom and security for Iranians who deserve a better future, but we can be certain that the IRGC will seek to crush domestic opposition and, if given the chance, export terror abroad—and that includes the United Kingdom’s streets. Members of the Iranian diaspora here, and the UK’s Jewish community, have expressed their fears of attack. May I echo the words of Members on both sides of the House, and ask whether the Foreign Secretary will work with her colleagues in heeding the calls of the Liberal Democrats and other parties for emergency legislation to enact the recommendations of the Hall review and proscribe the IRGC?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the hon. Member that we are taking forward the legislation that Jonathan Hall has recommended, but I also tell him that we take immensely seriously any Iran-backed threats on UK streets, which is why our counter-terrorism police work extremely closely with our security services. They are pursuing live cases, and have been for some time, where Iran is suspected of being involved, and they will continue to do so, to keep all our communities safe, but particularly our Jewish communities that have been so targeted.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister updated the House on the conflict in the middle east and the Gulf. Overnight, we have continued to see Iranian strikes on Gulf nations.
The safety and security of British nationals is our top priority, and I want to update the House on support for British citizens who are in the region. As of this morning, 130,000 British nationals have signed up to the “register your presence” programme, which is vital to the FCDO’s ability to know where people are and to provide updates and advice. As Members will be aware, the airspace is still closed in many of these countries, but I am in close contact with my counterparts across the region. Yesterday, I spoke again to the United Arab Emirates about the excellent support that it is providing, and the departures that it is now securing as they become viable.
We are also working with airlines on increasing capacity out of Muscat for British nationals, with priority being given to vulnerable nationals. A Government charter flight will leave Muscat in the coming days, prioritising those vulnerable nationals. However, British nationals in Oman must wait to be contacted by the Foreign Office about these options. We will continue to work 24/7 on supporting British nationals in the region. This is a very fast-moving situation, and we have unprecedented numbers of British nationals in the region. I will continue to update Members and affected British nationals as the situation evolves.
Lauren Edwards
We are all deeply concerned about the escalating situation in the Gulf. Following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, has the Secretary of State had any discussions with her counterparts in the US, Europe or Israel about measures to secure any nuclear or radiological material in Iran, in the light of the possibility of its trafficking as a result of current events?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. It is extremely important to ensure that Iran is not able to develop a nuclear weapon, and there are obviously concerns about the security of materials as well. Obviously, we continue to work closely with our operational partners on this issue.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Government’s indecision on how to deal with Iran has left the UK weaker and has undermined our own security, but, as the House has already started to discuss, proscribing the IRGC will strengthen our position. I proscribed Hamas when I was Home Secretary, so I have dealt with state proscriptions.
Last year, in her role as Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary spoke about bringing forward the Hall review and recommendations, and about introducing a series of powers. Let me make a suggestion. When will the Foreign Secretary and her Government provide the parliamentary time that is essential if we are to have emergency legislation to proscribe the IRGC? If she desperately needs parliamentary time that has not been timetabled so far, will she scrap the Chagos surrender Bill so we can legislate to do that now?
Yvette Cooper
Again, I point out that we have had a record number of former Home Office Ministers—both Conservatives and former Conservatives—coming forward to call for things that they failed to do while they were in government. I say to the right hon. Lady that this Government are determined to introduce legislation to take forward the Jonathan Hall review, but it is legislation that the Conservative Government could have delivered over their very many years in office. We will also strengthen the action on the Iranian threat on our streets and internationally.
Priti Patel
Events in the middle east remind us how important to our collective defence and security the Diego Garcia base and the whole of the Chagos archipelago are, and nothing should be done to undermine that. Given the latest comments from the President of the United States on the importance of the base and on the folly of giving sovereignty away, will the Foreign Secretary finally do what is right for the defence of our country, British taxpayers and British Chagossians and tear up Labour’s terrible Chagos surrender treaty?
Yvette Cooper
I say to the shadow Foreign Secretary that this Government believe that decisions should be made in the UK’s national interest and according to UK values, not according to any other Government’s national interest, whether in Europe, the US, the middle east or beyond. We will take decisions on the Chagos islands in the interests of our national security. She knows the national security issues that are at stake here. Instead of simply travelling round the world trying to undermine the UK’s national security and the decisions that we are taking, perhaps she should start standing up for the UK’s national interest.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
I want to praise the UK armed forces in Akrotiri for their huge professionalism, and for the work that they do to defend the UK’s national security. We have already increased the deployment, with additional defensive capabilities including radar, F-35 jets, and air defence and counter-drone systems, and we work closely with the Cypriot Government on safety and security issues.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister argued that the Government were distinguishing between defensive and offensive operations by US bombers making use of UK bases. On issues of such gravity, clarity is essential to avoid mission creep. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK will agree the target, and monitor the outcome, of each of these US sorties? Will the Government report those to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and can she confirm that if one were found to have hit anything other than a missile battery or missile store, the UK would suspend its agreement for the use of its bases?
Yvette Cooper
We have long-standing operational arrangements for partners and allies with which we work closely, and we ensure that those are implemented. The principles that we follow are about ensuring that there is a lawful basis for action and that it is in the UK’s interest. At a time when we have seen strikes from the Iranian regime on countries that were not involved in this conflict and where 300,000 British citizens are currently resident, I think we would find it extremely difficult to justify not taking action to support and protect British citizens who might be threatened with attack.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
The UK’s task must always be to act in the UK’s national interest according to UK values, but at the heart of that national interest and those values are things such as the NATO alliance—the transatlantic alliance—as well as our partnership with other European countries and other countries on our defence.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Yvette Cooper
What I can tell the hon. Member is that we take the safety of UK personnel immensely seriously, and I pay tribute to their service for our country. That is why we have already increased deployments to ensure that there is added radar and air protection in Cyprus, for example. We will always continue to take safety seriously and ensure that operational matters are dealt with in the normal way.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
My hon. Friend asks an important question. We are absolutely committed to strengthening our defence co-operation with the EU and European partners, but with NATO of course as the bedrock. We negotiated in good faith on SAFE, but the terms were not in the UK’s national interest, but we will continue to engage constructively across a range of areas of co-operation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I assure the hon. Member and the House that we are prioritising those areas of continued support in the health sphere of development funding.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Chris Elmore
We take this extremely seriously. Journalists on frontlines across the world are often how we find out where atrocities have taken place. Tomorrow I am hosting a Media Freedoms Coalition discussion, and I reassure my hon. Friend that this will always remain a priority for the UK Government.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Chris Elmore
I thank the hon. Member for his question. [Interruption.] Tomorrow is estimates day, and perhaps he would like to raise it then. On the wider point, he and I have been in correspondence, and discussions about these costs are ongoing.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Chris Elmore
Improving road safety is a global challenge. Every year, 1.2 million people die on the roads—it is the biggest killer of young people. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this to the House’s attention. Through the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK contributes £12.5 million to the Global Road Safety Facility and is represented on its partnership council, and we continue to work on this truly important issue.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We have spoken many times about the risks to children in the west bank and Gaza. It is a priority for this Government. We raise it regularly with our Israeli counterparts, and I am familiar with the report the hon. Lady references.
Spring Forecast
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
This Government have the right economic plan for our country, a plan that is—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Look, both sides, if you are not interested, you don’t have to stay in the Chamber. I am interested, my constituents are interested, and your constituents are interested as well.
Rachel Reeves
A plan that is even more important in a world that has become yet more uncertain in the last few days. With unfolding conflict in Iran and the middle east, it is incumbent on me and on this Government to chart a course through that uncertainty, to secure our economy against shocks and to protect families from the turbulence we see beyond our borders.
I want to express my gratitude to members of our armed forces as they serve across the globe to protect our country. I want to reassure this House that I am in regular contact with the Governor of the Bank of England, with my international counterparts and with key affected industries, including our maritime sector. Tomorrow I will meet our North sea industry leaders to discuss the implications they face and work with them to manage this uncertain period.
In an increasingly dangerous world, I am proud to be the Chancellor that is delivering the biggest uplift in defence spending since the cold war, with £650 million committed in January to upgrade our Typhoon fighter jets, a new Royal Navy frigate launched from Rosyth last week and, just yesterday, our £1 billion helicopter deal with Leonardo.
I am in no doubt about Britain’s ability to navigate the challenges we face. The plan that I have been driving forward since the election is the right one: stability in our public finances, investment in our infrastructure, including our armed forces, and reform to Britain’s economy. It is a plan to reshape our economy and break with the failed ideas of the past: building growth on not just the contribution of a few people in a few places, but in every part of Britain, with a state that does not stand back but steps up; strengthening our trading relationships and our alliances; creating capacity in our economy through affordable housing, better transport and free childcare; and being an active and strategic state, building growth and economic security in an uncertain world.
Stability is the single most important precondition for economic growth. That is why we have committed to a single major fiscal event a year, limiting major policy changes to the Budget, and giving businesses and households the certainty they need. Today the new forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that our plan is the right one: inflation is down; borrowing is down; living standards are up; and the economy is growing.
This Government have restored economic stability. The previous Government allowed inflation to skyrocket to over 11%, stoked interest rates to 15-year highs and delivered the first Parliament on record where people were poorer at the end than at the start. That is the Conservatives’ record, and I recognise the impact it had on families. We promised change at the election, and I understand the responsibility on me to deliver that change. I know that the question that people will ask themselves at the next election is, “Are me and my family better off?” I am determined that the answer will be yes.
The change we promised has already started: there have been six cuts in interest rates since the general election—the fastest pace of reduction in 17 years—and inflation has fallen. For businesses, that means lower capital costs and greater certainty, and for families, it means more money in their pockets to spend in local shops and on the high street. Those interest rate cuts will save households over £1,300 a year on a typical new fixed-rate mortgage. Real wages have risen by more in the first 18 months of this Labour Government than in the first 10 years of the Tory Government.
At the Budget, I went further to deliver the change that people rightly demand. I extended the 5p cut in fuel duty for a further five months, froze prescription charges for the second year in a row and froze rail fares for the first time in 30 years, and I am taking £150 off energy bills from next month. In February, the Bank of England confirmed that inflation will fall faster because of the action I took at the Budget, and today the Office for Budget Responsibility expects inflation to come down even faster than it forecast in the autumn.
In the current global context, with the risk that rising energy prices will put upward pressure on inflation, the action that I have taken is even more crucial. Keeping inflation low and stable is the best way to support family incomes and reduce pressures on the cost of living.
But that is not all we have done: this Labour Government have funded 30 hours of free childcare for working families; we are rolling out free breakfast clubs at primary schools; and we are set to achieve the biggest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began by reversing the shameful two-child limit imposed by the Conservatives. That is the moral choice, for the children who will no longer go to school hungry and for the women who will no longer suffer the grotesque indignity of the rape clause. Scrapping the two-child limit is an enduring investment in our children and in our future to realise the potential of young people that would otherwise be wasted.
The Tories have said that they would reinstate that destructive policy, and now Reform is saying exactly the same thing—two parties united in their intention to plunge nearly half a million children back into poverty at a single stroke. If you import failed Tory politicians, you get failed Tory policies too. Labour—and only Labour—has the right economic plan for our country. [Hon. Members: “More!”]
Last year, we demonstrated the resilience of Britain’s economy in the face of global headwinds with the fastest growth of any G7 country in Europe. Today the Office for Budget Responsibility has updated its growth forecasts, including reflecting lower net migration. Average growth across the forecast period is largely unchanged, while the OBR has adjusted the profile of GDP so that it grows slightly slower in 2026—[Interruption.] And then faster in both 2027 and 2028. GDP is forecast to grow by 1.1% in 2026, 1.6% in both 2027 and 2028 and 1.5% in both 2029 and 2030.
I have always said that growth is for a purpose—to make working people better off. I can confirm that GDP per person is set to grow more than was expected in the autumn, with growth of 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. That compares with a fall in GDP per capita in the last Parliament. By the next election, after accounting for inflation, people are forecast to be £1,000 a year better off. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I did not hear the Opposition that time!
We promised change, and we are delivering that change. The economy is growing, living standards are rising and inflation has fallen, but I am not satisfied with those forecasts. I know that the economy is not yet working for everyone and that the deep economic scars left by the Conservative party and their mates in Reform are still blighting the lives of too many people.
In today’s forecasts, unemployment is set to peak later this year and then fall in every year of the forecast period, ending at 4.1%, which is lower than it was at the start of the Parliament. However, young people in particular are still suffering from the aftermath of years of Tory mismanagement. In the last five years of the previous Government, the number of young people not in education, employment or training increased by 113,000. The number of inactive young people reached record highs under the Conservative Government, and over the last decade, apprenticeship starts by young people fell by 40%.
This Government will not leave an entire generation of young people behind. We are already taking action to prioritise young people with additional investment to reform apprenticeships and through the £820 million youth guarantee, providing young people with employment support and a guaranteed job. In the coming weeks, I will set out more reforms to undo the Tory legacy of neglect, and give young people the support and the opportunity that they deserve.
In the face of global uncertainty, we beat the forecasts last year. In the year ahead, the choices that we are making give me confidence that we will beat them again. In the year ahead, more of the choices that we have already made will come into effect: discounts on business energy costs; trade deals with India, the US and the EU; reforms to back our entrepreneurs; investment in our infrastructure; skills funding for further education; and more planning reforms—progress opposed by the Conservatives, opposed by Reform, opposed by the Liberal Democrats, and opposed by the Green party too. It is Labour and only Labour that has the right plan for our country.
Our plan for growth is grounded in a profound rejection of the failed economic dogmas of the past—the trickle-down, trickle-out thinking that produced ever-diminishing returns for working people. I know that an economy cannot be working if it is delivering for only a few people in a few places; I know that it matters where things are made and who makes them; and I believe that the working people who keep our country moving deserve a fair day’s pay for an honest day’s work.
Since the election, I have been making the big choices that will bring about the deep structural changes that our economy needs so that it works again for working people: the choice to take on vested interests and back the builders, not the blockers; the choice to increase public investment and protect our public finances with new fiscal rules; and the choice to give people in all parts of our country the opportunities that they deserve by reforming the Treasury spending rules in the Green Book to unlock investment in all of our urban, rural and coastal communities. Those are the right choices for our country—for security, stability and growth. Today’s forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that they are starting to pay off. I am clear-eyed about where the opportunities for the British economy lie in this Parliament and beyond.
In my second Mais lecture in two weeks’ time, I will set out three major choices that will determine the course of our economy into the future: to go further in strengthening our global relationships, breaking down trade barriers and deepening alliances with our European partners for a more secure and connected economy; to go further in backing innovation and harnessing the power of AI, so that entrepreneurs and innovators thrive here in Britain, and so that working people reap the rewards; and to go further in transforming our economic geography so that we can build growth on a broad and stable basis, spreading opportunity and unlocking opportunity in every part of Britain.
I came into politics because I believe in Governments who stand up for working people; that everyone, no matter where they grow up, deserves security and a fair chance to achieve their potential; and that being able to manage the bills, afford a home and pay for a holiday should never be too much to ask. When Governments lose control of the economy, as the Tories did, it is working people who pay the price—in their pay packets, in their bills and in their mortgages.
That is what the Conservatives inflicted on working people over 14 years. We had austerity, which cut off investment; Brexit, which cut us off from our closest trading partners; and Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget, cheered on by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—oh, he’s not here today. [Laughter.] Five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, and 11 plans for growth, and at the end of it all, it was the only Parliament on record where living standards were worse at the end than they were at the start, and there was a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That is the Conservatives’ legacy.
And make no mistake, the Tory tribute act on the Reform UK Benches would do exactly the same thing. They may have changed the colour of their rosettes, but the British people will not forget that they are the exact same people who wrecked our public services and our public finances in the Tory Government—the same people, the same policies, and the same disastrous outcomes for working people.
The Tories left our country, our people and our allies exposed. They had no plan and no intention to fund their pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. Reform UK would go one step further, by ditching our allies and siding with Russia, while the Green party wants to take us out of NATO and jeopardise our alliances. Green Members are shaking their heads. I do not know if they have changed their policy, but it was to take us out of NATO. Let me be clear: it is Labour and only Labour that can provide social justice, national security and fiscal responsibility.
In its forecast today, the Office for Budget Responsibility shows that we are set to reduce borrowing by nearly £18 billion compared with the autumn. This year we are set to borrow less than the G7 average—something that the Tories never achieved in any of their 14 years. The forecast today shows that public sector net borrowing is set to fall from 4.3% this year to 3.6% next year, then to 2.9%, 2.5% and to 1.8% in 2029-30. Even after funding other measures announced since the Budget, including the new special educational needs system that was set out by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary last week, headroom against the stability rule in 2029-30 has increased from £21.7 billion to £23.6 billion, and headroom against the investment rule is also higher at £27.1 billion. Debt is now set to be lower in every year of the forecast compared with the autumn. It is because of the choices that I have made to keep our public finances stable and restore our credibility that we can invest in the priorities of working people. That means investment in our communities with Pride in Place; investment in our schools to fix crumbling classrooms and give every child the education that they deserve; and investment in our NHS, to bring waiting lists down and with a record cash settlement.
I have never accepted that we have to choose between social justice and fiscal responsibility, because there is nothing progressive, nothing Labour, about spending £100 billion a year—that is £1 in every £10 of what the Government spend—just paying the interest of the debt racked up by the Conservatives. After their disastrous mini-Budget, our debt interest rate soared towards the highest in the G7. From my Budget to this forecast, while average yields rose for the rest of the G7, yields on UK Government debt fell. The Tories squandered Britain’s credibility. My plan is rebuilding it.
Already, because of the action that I have taken, we are expected to spend nearly £4 billion less on debt interest next year than was forecast in the autumn. If we stay the course and stick to our plan, and our debt interest returns to the G7 average—where it was before the Conservatives wrecked things with Liz Truss’s mini-Budget—we will have £15 billion a year more for the priorities of working people and to make working people better off. That is the prize on offer. That is the prize within our grasp.
This is the right plan—a plan that is more necessary than ever before in a world of uncertainty. It is a plan for a stronger and more secure economy; inflation and interest rates falling; resilient public finances; and in every part of Britain working people better off. Every additional patient treated in an NHS hospital, every child lifted out of poverty, and every breakfast club in every school is because of the choices that we have taken and because I have the right plan for our country.
Let this House be in no doubt: every pound that we have invested, every pound in the pockets of working people, and every pound that we have secured in this forecast today can be wiped out by a change of course. We must reject a return to austerity, protect our public services and invest in Britain’s future. We must reject the temptation of easy answers and reckless borrowing, protect family finances and get the cost of living down. We must reject the political instability that would put at risk all the progress that we have made.
My plan is the right one. I am in no doubt about how great the rewards can be if we stay the course. The forecast today confirmed that the choices this Government have made are the right ones: stability in our public finances, interest rates and inflation falling, living standards rising, more children lifted out of poverty, more appointments in our NHS, more investment in our infrastructure, a growing economy, and more money in the pockets of working people. These are the right choices, this is the right plan, and I commend this statement to the House.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Is that it? What utter complacency—a Chancellor in denial. She speaks of stability, but what planet is she on? She has lurched from putting up taxes to destroying growth and headroom, and then to coming back and putting up more taxes, with more growth destroyed. Round and round we go, like a fiscal twister, ripping up everything in its path. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I will hear the shadow Chancellor. People need to recognise that there are two sides—let us hear the other side now.
Sir Mel Stride
Thank you, Mr Speaker; they just do not like the truth—that is the truth of it.
As our economy bleeds out, what does the right hon. Lady do? She comes to this House with nothing to say and with no plan—unless, of course, doing nothing is a cunning plan to avoid those U-turns further down the line. She is weak. She has even stripped the OBR of its ability to assess whether she is meeting her fiscal targets. Let it be remembered that at this time in this Chamber, this weak and chaotic Government gave up on the British people.
The right hon. Lady has nothing to say to us today. This is not a spring statement—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Gardiner, I expect better. We have to listen to you on a Thursday night; I do not need to hear you now.
Sir Mel Stride
No, they do not like it, Mr Speaker; they do not like the truth.
This is not a spring statement. It is a surrender statement. The Chancellor has the temerity to suggest that she is creating the conditions for renewed growth. She is rather like a dodgy estate agent standing in a crumbling building with the roof gone, the windows gone and the floor gone, saying, “Just think of the potential.” But that potential has been undermined by the terrible state of our public finances.
When it comes to the deficit, the right hon. Lady knows that borrowing this year is almost double that which was forecast at the time of the general election. She knows that the forecasts are predicated on the numbers that she has given to the OBR, which it has to accept. That includes squeezing spending at the end of the Parliament, and raising taxes and energy bills at the same time. We know that is unrealistic, and the reason we know it is because she and the Prime Minister have no backbone when it comes to taking difficult decisions. That is what we saw before the Budget: winter fuel payment—U-turn; welfare reform—U-turn; two-child benefit cap—U-turn. It is what we saw in a short period after the Budget: farm tax—U-turn; family business tax—U-turn; public houses—U-turn.
On the deficit, when the right hon. Lady rises again, will she tell the House how she will fill the £6 billion black hole in the special educational needs and disabilities budget? She mentions, quite rightly, the Iran war and the greater threats that our country faces, but could she explain how she is going to fund what we have been urging: 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament? How will she fund that—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Seriously, we need to hear this—[Interruption.] Oh, I can help hon Members if they do not want to hear it.
Sir Mel Stride
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The right hon. Lady says the cost of borrowing is coming down, but does she not know that the cost of borrowing in this country has been the highest in the G7 —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Somebody needs to switch their phone off; this is not acceptable.
Sir Mel Stride
Our borrowing is even higher than Greece’s. Indeed, if debt were a Department, it would be the third largest spending Department in Whitehall. That is money not going on the people’s priorities, but simply being flushed down the drain. The right hon. Lady puts great store in the latest forecasts on debt and says that it is coming down, compared with the forecasts back in the autumn, but if we strip away her dodgy definition of debt, we can see that it will be going up in just about every year of the forecast period.
The right hon. Lady has the audacity to praise her own performance. She points to growth, but does she not know that, only last month, the Bank of England downgraded growth for both this year and next year? A moment ago, she said that the Government had beaten the forecasts for growth from last year. The forecast at the beginning of last year was for 2% growth, but the growth outcome at the end of last year was 1.3%. By my mathematics, that is not an improvement. It should be of considerable concern to the entire House that the right hon. Lady clearly thinks that it is.
The right hon. Lady points to interest rates coming down, but does she not know that her ruinous inflationary policies have seen interest rates higher for longer, meaning more expensive mortgages for hundreds of thousands of people across our country? She was slightly coy about unemployment—because, of course, we know that it now stands at a five-year high. Under every single Labour Government in history, unemployment has risen, and this Government are no exception.
The right hon. Lady is fond of saying that she is simply asking people to pay a little more tax. Well, I do not remember the taxman phoning me up and asking me if I would awfully mind paying a little more tax. And what does it mean? It means workers struggling, employers laying off staff, and tens of thousands of the most talented people in our country going to other places, where they believe the opportunities are greater. That is what a little more tax means. And what has that tax done? It has destroyed and deeply damaged entire sectors of our economy. Hospitality has seen almost 100,000 job losses since this Government came to office, and that has particularly impacted our youngest people.
Youth unemployment is the highest in Europe for the first time in a quarter of a century. The dreams, aspirations and hopes of young people—of all those bright young faces—have been smashed on the altar of the right hon. Lady’s incompetence. What is her message to young people today? Her message today has been that her so-called plan is working, but what is the reality? Inflation? Up. Borrowing? Up. Spending? Up. Tax? Up. Welfare? Up. Unemployment? Up. All this speaks to the weakness and chaos of this Government. Is it any wonder that her so-called plan is not working? Our energy costs are among the highest in the world, and yet she is doubling down on net zero. Given where we are, the first thing that the right hon. Lady should do is get rid of those taxes on North sea oil and allow us to start exploiting those opportunities.
We have a welfare bill that is spiralling ever upwards, but what does the right hon. Lady do? She removes the two-child benefit cap. We have taxes heading to the highest level in history because of her choices, destroying the futures of men, women and children right up and down our country—and there is no contrition, no apology and no plan to do anything about it.
It does not have to be this way. At our conference, we set out how we can control public spending with £47 billion of savings, especially on the welfare bill, with some £23 billion of savings. We are a party that believes in work, rather than benefits. We are a party that will do something about it. We are a party of work; Labour is the party of “Benefits Street”. We will bring taxes down to kick-start the economy, abolish stamp duty, scrap business rates for businesses on our high streets, and give our young people a £5,000 tax cut. We have a cheap power plan. We will fix student loans and invest in apprenticeships. Though our golden rule, we will get on top of the deficit and, by doing that, grow the economy.
That is our plan. What is the right hon. Lady’s plan? The truth is that she has no plan, or, as her Health Secretary said, there is
“no growth strategy at all”.
Even if she did have a plan, she would be too weak to deliver it, given the psychodramas swirling around No. 10, the almost daily scandals visiting the door of the Prime Minister, the sight of a person once at the highest level in the diplomatic service being carted away in a car by the police, and Back Benchers calling the shots. The Chancellor’s credibility has gone. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff has gone. His Cabinet Secretary has gone. But somehow the Chancellor hangs on.
Through the chaotic fog, the drums are drawing ever closer. The British people deserve so much better. So, for the hard-working people in our country crushed by taxes, for those denied employment, for the farmers and the family business owners who have suffered in fear for too long, for every hollowed-out high street, for every young person robbed of their future, for every elderly person struggling to survive and for the generations yet to come, we say: go!
Rachel Reeves
I know that the OBR did not publish the forecast until I sat down, but I still think the shadow Chancellor could have done a little bit better than that. To be honest, I was hoping that the Leader of the Opposition was going to respond today; after that performance, I expect she does, too! [Hon. Members: “More!”] Don’t worry; I’ve got more.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives set out their economic policy at their conference a few weeks ago. Well, they had 14 years to set out their economic policy, and it is because of their economic policy that they are now sitting on the Opposition Benches. Today’s performance is yet another reminder of how irrelevant the Conservative party now is. I hate to break it to the shadow Chancellor, but people stopped listening to the Conservatives a long while ago. And we can see why: because whether it is in office or in opposition, the right hon. Gentleman’s party and his leader have been wrong about the economy time and time again. They opposed economic responsibility and backed Liz Truss—wrong. They opposed closer ties to Europe and backed Brexit—wrong. They opposed cuts in child poverty and want to repeat austerity: wrong values, wrong economics—they are just plain wrong.
After last year’s Budget, the right hon. Gentleman’s leader predicted with characteristic foresight that borrowing would increase every year. She was wrong: borrowing is now coming down faster. That is faster than under the Tories—well, that is not difficult, because under them it went up—it is faster than forecast in the autumn and it is faster than in any other G7 economy. Last year, the Leader of the Opposition told us that energy bills would rise. She was wrong; they are coming down by £117 next month. She also told us that there would be no more Tory defections to Reform. How is that one going?
Let me let me return to the substance of the shadow Chancellor’s remarks—although I have had to reduce this section somewhat! He mentioned student loans, but he neglected to mention that he was in the Government who tripled university tuition fees, froze thresholds and oversaw higher interest rates, which led to the problems we are in today. On special educational needs, the Conservatives left a system in utter crisis, as every parent, every child and every school will tell you, so we will take no lessons from them. But in terms of where the money is coming from, that is set out today in the documents. Of course, the shadow Chancellor does not know that because he did not even bother listening to my statement.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned defence, but he neglected to mention that it was his Government who left office without any plan to fund their pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. It is this Government, with me as Chancellor, who are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned the welfare bill. I have to say that that was a little bit rich, because he neglected to mention that the welfare bill rose twice as fast in the last Parliament and that he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. His Government broke the welfare system, and it is this Government who are fixing it.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned youth unemployment. As I said, there is more that needs to be done, after the Conservatives increased the number of young people not in education, employment or training by 113,000 and slashed the number of young people starting apprenticeships by 40%. We will take no lessons from them. They are the arsonists, not the fire brigade, and if they cannot be honest about the mess they made, no wonder they cannot recognise that we are fixing it.
Today’s forecast shows that debt is down, borrowing is down, inflation is down, and interest rates are down from 5.25%, where the Conservatives left them, to 3.75% today. And what about investment, living standards and growth? They are all up. Let me break it to the shadow Chancellor and to his leader: there is no blank page for the Tory party—no year zero. They gave us chaos and instability; Labour is fixing it. They gave us austerity; Labour is investing in Britain. They gave us 14 years of barely managed decline, and we are reversing it. We know that if they ever get the chance, they will do all of the same again: more chaos, more kids in poverty, and more and deeper cuts. It would be terrifying if there was any prospect at all that they would ever win an election again.
The Leader of the Opposition can keep turning up every week, but it is a total waste of time. Her party is the past and not the future. I do not know what is more pathetic: the culprits who jumped ship and joined Reform and its Russian mates, or the culprits who stayed in the Conservative party and pretended that the last 14 years never happened. Either way, the choices are clear: investment with Labour or austerity with the Conservatives; stability with Labour, or more chaos with the Conservatives—wrong leader, wrong choices, wrong plan. Only Labour has the right plan for our economy and for our country.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I have to say that the sound and fury from the shadow Chancellor is extraordinary, given that it was his Government who ran the country and its citizens into chaos, with interest rate and inflation increases under the Truss mini-Budget. I welcome today’s forecast partly because there has been so little speculation along the way, which I am sure the Chancellor, the markets, the public and businesses welcome. That is the stability and confidence that we need to see. The Chancellor laid out her three choices to promote growth. She will be appearing in front of the Select Committee next week, when we hope to probe her further. In the meantime, can she tell us which of those three areas to grow the British economy she is most excited about?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The biggest change that we can make is ensuring that growth takes place in all parts of our country, rather than just for a few people in a few parts of Britain. The changes to economic geography that we have started by changing the Green Book to give every part of our country the fair chance to get the investment and opportunity that they deserve mean that growth will benefit everybody, not just a small few.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The country is paying the price for two anti-growth Labour Budgets. Growth has flatlined, youth unemployment is up, and the cost of living crisis grinds on, pushing people and businesses to the brink. So we plead with the Chancellor: please, for the sake of our country, put a laser-like focus on getting a better trade and defence deal with Europe so that we can protect our country, get Britain growing again and end the cost of living crisis.
The Chancellor said that she will make an announcement about trade relationships in a couple of weeks, but the Government are already 18 months in. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to announce the Government’s intention to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union to kick-start growth, cut red tape for business and build ties with our reliable allies in the face of Trump’s chaos. Why didn’t she?
The spring statement comes at a critical time for our national and economic security. OBR projections will soon be out of date. Trump’s illegal actions in Iran this weekend will be felt in people’s pockets right here in Britain, with the cost of fuel and food set to rise. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to scrap the fuel duty hike, which is due this September. Why didn’t she?
Young people are angry and fed up. The next generation of young people could always expect that they would have a better life than the generation before, but that promise for today’s young people has been ripped away. Almost 1 million young people—the highest in more than 10 years—are now unemployed. We are facing a youth unemployment crisis. The Chancellor’s youth guarantee is simply a sticking plaster for the damage that has been done by the jobs tax. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to reverse the jobs tax changes that have undermined job opportunities for young people and part-time workers. Why didn’t she?
Graduates are being ripped off. They have studied hard—[Interruption.] Graduates are being ripped off—[Interruption.] They have studied hard, they have done everything they were told to do, but they are facing eye-watering repayment costs and they are struggling to get on in life. On this issue, it is a plague on all our houses—partisan point scoring does no favours to those young people. We have set out what we would do. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to end the repayment threshold freeze, putting £100 back in graduates’ pockets in the first year, rising to £210 in the third. Why didn’t she?
With great instability and conflict around the world and a move away from the rules-based system to great power politics, we must look urgently at building our national energy, defence and food security. In so doing, we can and must turn the necessity of building national resilience into strategic opportunities for economic growth. We welcome the fact that the Government have done a deal for helicopters with Leonardo, as a result of the calls from these Liberal Democrat Benches, especially hon. Friends from the south-west, who have raised this issue week in, week out. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to launch a new defence bonds programme as part of a plan to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. Why didn’t she?
Finally, I will come full circle. I said that the country has paid the price for two anti-growth Labour budgets. The OBR today is clear: the downgrade in growth in 2026 is bigger than the upgrade in the next two years combined. We have to stop the cycle of short-term Treasury tax grabs over long-term growth. Our United Kingdom is an amazing country and has enormous potential, but we cannot take that for granted. We must accept that we are stuck in a rut, in a doom loop of low economic growth, and that is a big problem. I urge the Chancellor to take the measures that I have outlined to protect our country, to get Britain growing again and to end the cost of living crisis.
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Member gives less an economic programme and more a wish list of things that she would like to see, without any means at all of paying for them. She seems oblivious to the things that the Government are doing. She says that we should have a closer relationship with Europe, and I agree—I said it in my speech—yet she omitted to mention that that is exactly what the Government are doing. We have taken action, as the hon. Lady knows, with a sanitary and phytosanitary deal to back British agriculture and on Erasmus, and it is this Labour Government who are working with our EU neighbours to tackle illegal gangs and to improve our security.
The hon. Member calls for a big cut in taxes, but VAT at 20% as the standard rate is the rate the Liberal Democrats introduced when they were part of the coalition Government, and it has been ever since. We have provided £4.3 billion of support in business rates and further support for pubs and live music venues. If the Liberal Democrats want to deliver on this enormous unfunded promise, perhaps the hon. Lady would like to tell us which public services they would like to cut this time. They cut enough public services when they had a chance and were in office, but they are too scared to tell us which ones they would cut today. Is it the NHS? Is it schools? Is it investment in our regional transport infrastructure? Who knows? She will not tell us.
It is quite extraordinary to hear the Liberal Democrats having the nerve to raise student finance when they trebled tuition fees when they were in government and created the plan 2 scheme. In fact, it was a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State who oversaw that policy, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), was in that Cabinet meeting when they signed off that decision. We will take no lectures from them about how to support our young people.
The hon. Lady says that they have set out what they would do on student finance. Is that a bit like what they did in 2010, when they set out what they were going to do on student finance? In 2010, what was it that they were going to do with tuition fees? I think I remember. That’s it: they were going to abolish tuition fees. But that is not what they did, is it? What did they do? Oh, they tripled them. Why should we believe a word that the hon. Lady says now on student finance?
Some of us have not forgotten that they teamed up with the Tories to cut our police, cut local government and cut our armed forces spending. We are dealing with the consequences. This is why we are investing in our public services: to fix the damage that they did with the Conservatives. What have they been doing? They are opposing our investment in the NHS, because that is what it means when they say they want to reverse the tax changes that we have brought in. The only reason we have £29 billion more a year to spend in the NHS is because of the tax changes that we made. The Liberal Democrats need to understand that they cannot have one without the other. They oppose our plans to build more homes. They oppose our plans to make work pay. They opposed VAT on private schools to help the 93% of kids in our state schools. They are simply not serious.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her strong statement and, in particular, for her words on deepening our alliances with our European partners. This is crucial for bringing down the cost of food and for healing the economic self-harm done by the Conservatives. The Bank of England has said that her cuts to energy bills will help bring inflation down to around its target from next month. Will she commit to going further and continue to shield our constituents from global price shocks?
Rachel Reeves
The Bank of England forecast that the actions that I took in the Budget last year would reduce inflation by around 0.4 percentage points, and that inflation will be back close to target from April. That reflects not just taking £150 off energy bills, but freezing prescription charges and rail fares. The events unfolding in Iran and the middle east have resulted, over the last couple of days, in gas prices going up by more than 60% and oil prices by more than 10%. That shows why our plan to take money off energy bills and ensure that our public finances are in a stronger place mean that we are in a better place than we would have been 18 months ago, after the mess left by the Conservatives.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Given what the Chancellor has just said about gas prices going up by nearly 50% in the past week, her Budget promise to reduce household energy bills by £150 will ring hollow for many people. If the cost of living is the real concern, is the biggest mistake not to increase taxes by £66 billion, which is the equivalent of nearly £2,300 per household? If that money is needed for public services, nearly all of that—£54 billion, in fact—could be got by reducing the welfare bill to 2019 levels. Is it sustainable to keep raising taxes on people in work in order to pay ever more benefits to people not in work?
Rachel Reeves
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he left a massive black hole in the public finances. There had not been a spending review for years, and during that time inflation went through the roof because the Conservatives lost control of the public finances. We had to find the money to properly fund our national health service. It is a bit rich for the Conservative party to say that we should bring welfare spending down when it presided over a huge increase in welfare spending.
On the burden of taxation, our choices ensured that those with the broadest shoulders pay higher taxes. We got rid of the non-dom tax status and we are introducing the higher value council tax, VAT on private school fees and the energy profits levy. We are ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders pay the higher prices, rather than allowing the increases in inflation and interest rates in the last Parliament, which hit working people.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The plan that the Chancellor has set out this afternoon shows that inflation, debt and bills are down, and that headroom, growth and living standards are up. That is testament to a plan for stability that is working, but that stability would be undermined if she surrendered to the idea of the £47 billion-worth of unfunded tax cuts set out by the Conservatives, so will she resist those calls? As fiscal headroom opens up, will she look again at what can be done to drive down energy costs for small business and genuinely reform business rates, so that we are backing our wealth creators, and not gambling with the public finances, as the Conservatives did?
Rachel Reeves
We are backing the innovators through the reforms that we made in the Budget last year to make it easier to list in London, and easier to raise finance in the UK. We have permanently changed business rates, so that we have a lower multiplier for high-street businesses and smaller businesses, particularly in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. We did that by putting £4.3 billion into the system. All of that money would have been withdrawn by the Conservatives.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Undoubtedly, every Government deals with different challenges, and I note that the Chancellor did not mention the challenge of covid in the last period of government. When I was in the Treasury, I did everything I could to support businesses with bounce back loans, and to support our public services, but clearly, covid significantly scarred the economy. When the Chancellor last stood at the Dispatch Box, the “Economic and fiscal outlook” said that growth this year would be 1.4%. It is now 1.1% and flat over the period. The big strategic choice that this Chancellor faces, as the world is different in her tenure in office, is whether she will grip welfare spending at a time of grave insecurity in the world, because an open promise to raise defence spending some time over a five-year period will not cut it for this country’s best interests.
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the work that the previous Government did on covid, and of course it was right to support people with furlough and bounce back loans, but it was not right to hand money to friends and donors to the Conservatives through covid contracts. We are getting the money back that they wasted. I say again that it is a bit rich of the Conservatives—especially as the shadow Chancellor was previously the Work and Pensions Secretary—to talk about welfare spending when they presided over a 113,000 increase in young people not in education, employment or training. We have already made reforms to universal credit to narrow the gap between the health element and the standard element. That will ensure that more people are out looking for work, and employment has increased since the start of last year.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is a fundamental part of the British contract, but many self-employed people, and many of those on low wages, are paying to work because His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has failed to update its mileage rates for 15 years, while the cost of petrol, road tax and the rest has increased significantly. Can the Chancellor do what the Conservatives failed to do, and ask HMRC to update its mileage rates, so that working people are not paying to go to work?
Rachel Reeves
I would be happy to arrange a meeting between my hon. Friend and the responsible Minister. I recognise that this is an issue; it is being raised with me by the trade union Unison, among others. This does not just affect self-employed people; it also affects other people in work.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
In the three months to December, unemployment reached 5.2%, the highest rate for nearly five years, and youth unemployment has hit a staggering 16%. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues affecting businesses of all kinds across the country. The 2024 Budget added over £5 billion of employment costs on to retailers, almost half of which came from the changes to employer national insurance contributions, with the cost of employing a full-time worker in a retail job rising by 10%, and by 13% for those working part time. One in five people’s first job is in retail, so what steps are the Government taking to tackle these unaffordably high employment costs for the businesses that provide entry for young people into our job market?
Rachel Reeves
What the hon. Lady fails to mention is that the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that unemployment will come down in every year of the forecast, and will end at a lower rate than it started. It would be a bit more plausible for her to make these points if she did not oppose everything we are doing to grow the economy, whether that is constructing a third runway at Heathrow airport or building the homes that families desperately need.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The rail fare freeze benefits constituents who have seen rail fares rise by 60% since 2010. Also, the recent announcement of two new railway stations in Newport East is warmly welcomed. Can I encourage the Chancellor to continue to invest in Welsh transport infrastructure?
Rachel Reeves
Constituents in my hon. Friend’s Newport constituency will benefit when they commute to work or college, or travel to meet friends in Cardiff, Swansea, Bristol and elsewhere. In addition, we are building new railway stations and investing in new transport infrastructure in Wales with the £450 million that we announced at the spending review last year.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Chancellor’s words on defence simply do not reflect the reality, at a time when the world has never felt more unstable. Every corner of our armed forces is being asked to find cuts. People in Gosport need only look out of their window to see that all our Type 45 destroyers are laid up in Portsmouth harbour, and this is the first year since the 1980s that we have not had a ship in the Gulf, at a time when the middle east is a tinderbox. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary is on its knees, and defence companies are being tied up with bureaucracy, dither and delay. The Chancellor has mentioned a couple of contracts, but so many of them are bogged down with dither and delay from this Government. She is gaslighting the British people. This is a disaster for our defence, and for our armed forces. When will she face reality?
Rachel Reeves
I am the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are spending more on defence than the previous Government were spending. That is why I was able to announce a helicopter contract worth £1 billion yesterday. It is why a new frigate came from Rosyth last week, and it is why we have been able to invest in the Typhoon jets. I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives, when we are increasing defence spending and they oversaw a cut.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the changes to the Green Book to support investment in coastal and rural areas. Can the Chancellor confirm that they will lead to investment in transport infrastructure in places like Cornwall, to support the investment being made in our industries, particularly the £50 million going into our critical minerals strategy?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has done to promote the investment opportunities in Cornwall. The Green Book means that for the first time, different parts of the country—urban, rural and coastal communities—will all have a fair chance of getting the investment that they need. This Government’s critical minerals strategy will have a direct impact—it is already having it—on Cornwall, where the National Wealth Fund is investing in lithium and tin, as I saw at first hand when I was there last summer.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We have just heard a 40-minute, self-aggrandising monologue on how wonderful everything is in the economy. Does the Chancellor have any clue how her tone-deaf monologue will have landed in the real economy, where growth has been downgraded, unemployment is soaring and the cost of energy has just spiked? There was nothing in her statement about what she intends to do on a strategic level when energy goes to the price it was during the height of the Ukraine crisis. Rather than reading her pre-prepared SNP attack lines, will she guarantee that she will step in and protect bill payers if those prices endure?
Rachel Reeves
We have taken action to reduce energy bills by £150 from next month. As I said in my speech, because of the stability that we have returned to the economy, and the cuts in interest rates, in inflation and in the cost of Government borrowing, we are in a strong position to respond to the headwinds from the middle east and Iran.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The conflict in the middle east is a reminder of the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, which set the price of our energy bills for consumers and businesses; 80% of the time, gas sets the price of electricity. The £117 reduction in bills that the Chancellor announced in the Budget is welcome, but will she recommit to giving long-term stability to our energy prices, and to bringing bills down in the long term, by supporting investment in the generation of renewables and nuclear, in the expansion of the grid, and in battery storage, which will help domestic and industrial consumers at the same time?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for that important question. He is absolutely right: whether through the successful auction round 7 that we have just completed for investment in new renewable energy, or through the planning reforms to make it even easier to build grid connections and wind farms, we are taking action to secure our energy supplies. Through the spending review last year, we invested in Sizewell C and small modular reactors, which will be built in Wales by Rolls-Royce.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does the Chancellor now accept that there is a correlation between increasing national insurance contributions on employers and higher unemployment, or does she still believe that those two things are not connected in any way?
Rachel Reeves
There is definitely a correlation between the number of years that the Conservatives are in office and how much worse off working people are.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and her commitment to growth in all parts of the United Kingdom. Could she set out in a little more detail what Barnett consequentials arise from her statement? Does she agree that it is increasingly important that, in May, we elect a Government who will spend that money wisely, which means electing a Labour Government in Holyrood, led by Anas Sarwar?
Rachel Reeves
In last year’s spending review, we set out a record settlement for the Scottish Government, as well as for the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. I can tell the House and my hon. Friend that, because of the decisions that we are making, I am able to announce an additional £900 million in resource departmental expenditure limits spending, and £20 million in capital departmental expenditure limits spending, for the Scottish Government over the spending review period between 2026-27 and 2028-29. Like her, I very much hope that it will be Anas Sarwar and a Labour Government spending that money, rather than the SNP wasting it and presiding over longer NHS waiting lists.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Chancellor is like a rogue landlord who keeps squeezing the tenant with higher and higher rent, and all the while, the property is going to rack and ruin. I do not know who she is speaking to, but she needs to get out and talk to hard-working people who are hard up right now—people who are worried about their bills and the lack of good jobs—rather than the extremists she cosies up to for votes. The Chancellor’s next scheme for raising taxes on working people is to hike fuel duty at the pump. Will she cancel that measure, and give some relief to care workers, white van men and other hard-working people who get up in the morning and drive to work? They are the backbone of this economy.
Rachel Reeves
May I be the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new role? I know that it was not the first job that he wanted, or indeed the second, but he makes a spirited intervention none the less. I am not sure whether he shared that one with George Osborne. I can offer one piece of advice: the thing about betraying your party is that you have to stop asking your old friends for advice. Perhaps, given that the right hon. Gentleman called his new colleague “Zia Useless” a couple of months ago, he needs all the friends he can get. It might have been a couple of weeks ago, but he used to be in a party that, just three months after losing office, was going to get rid of the fuel duty support. That was in the plans that we inherited, and we scrapped them. [Interruption.] Conservatives Members say that is rubbish, but it was in their last Budget. Indeed, it was in the right hon. Gentleman’s Budget and manifesto.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I absolutely agree that this year the British public will start to feel the difference that it makes to have a Labour Government. Will she expand on what she is doing to ensure that all dimensions of inequality—inequality of income, wealth, power and health—are tackled, and that the benefits are felt in all communities across the country?
Rachel Reeves
The OBR confirmed today that, by the end of this Parliament, people will be £1,000 a year better off. That is compared with the fall in living standards under the previous Government. My hon. Friend’s constituency benefits from Pride in Place funding, through which we are investing in the places that were forgotten about and left behind during 14 years of Conservative government.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I hope the Chancellor will accept that I have challenged successive Governments over inadequate defence spending. If she does, will she also accept that it is not a wise idea to keep comparing current defence spending with the levels of defence spending “since the cold war”? We are not in “since the cold war” now; we are in a hot war in Europe and an incendiary war in the middle east. Does she know what percentage of GDP Mrs Thatcher spent during the cold war years of the 1980s? I will give her a clue: it was twice what we spend now in terms of percentage of GDP.
Rachel Reeves
A year and a half ago, the right hon. Gentleman stood on a manifesto that had absolutely no explanation of how his party would increase defence spending. This Government have increased defence spending. I am surprised that he criticises that, rather than welcoming it.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for outlining how we will finally turn the corner on the 14 years of suffering felt by many of my constituents and people across the country. Many people still complain about the cost of living, and they are impatient for change. I hope that, through what the Chancellor has set out this afternoon, we will start to see that turn. Rightly, we are seeing a change in business rates, but my constituent who owns Chocolate Dino has highlighted that central London rateable values are still high, while small business rates relief thresholds have remained static. That is having such a big impact on independent and small businesses. Can the Chancellor look into other areas to ensure that such businesses, which are the backbone of UK plc, can thrive?
Rachel Reeves
In my hon. Friend’s constituency, thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty from next month because this Labour Government have chosen to get rid of the two-child policy that was introduced by the Conservatives and supported by their Tory tribute act friends on the Reform Benches. On business rates, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade or a relevant Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. The changes that we have made mean that there is a permanently lower multiplier for smaller businesses and high street businesses.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Many small and medium-sized enterprises add value to our towns and villages, but I am concerned about their survival. The Community Waffle House in Axminster is a community interest company that is struggling under the pressure of last year’s national insurance increases. Waffle Axminster boasts £3.9 million in public sector cost avoidance and value created, according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport wellbeing valuation for reduced loneliness. Will the Chancellor consider VAT relief to take account of the public sector cost avoidance by that CIC and other hospitality businesses?
Rachel Reeves
This Labour Government have permanently reduced the multiplier faced by small businesses and high street businesses—the business rates system that we inherited from the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman mentions VAT. When Labour left office in 2010, VAT was 17.5%, and the Conservative Government, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, increased it to 20%. It has been there for 15 years. If his party wants to cut taxes, it also has to explain which public services it is going to cut. We have increased spending on the health service by £29 billion. That was the right decision, but it was only possible because of the tax decisions we have made.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The stability the Chancellor has brought back to our economy has allowed us to allocate record levels of infrastructure investment. Alongside the Green Book review, this creates the conditions for meaningful investment in previously left-behind places like Lancashire. Yet, as the review highlights, places like Lancashire that do not yet have a mayor can lack the capacity and capability to bring forward fully investable business cases. In recent months, myself, Lancashire colleagues and leaders of Lancashire combined authority have written to the Government asking for interim capacity funding to develop fully investable proposals. The need is urgent, so will the Chancellor meet me and colleagues to discuss how we can bring forward the game-changing growth projects that Lancashire needs?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituents in Rossendale and Darwen, and he was also a big advocate for the reforms to the Green Book that we managed to bring in at the Budget last year. Because of those changes, we will now look more favourably at investment opportunities in rural areas, coastal communities and places that have been left behind. I welcome any suggestions for specific investments in his constituency, either through the British Business Bank, UK Export Finance or the National Wealth Fund, all of which have had their budgets expanded under this Labour Government.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The Chancellor stands there and says that living standards are up and the economy is growing, but people can see the reality in their everyday lives: unemployment up month on month and energy bills higher than when Labour came to power. The latest figures in fact show that per person, our economy is shrinking, yet she stands there and says she has
“the right economic plan for our country”.
Does she have any idea how that sounds to people out there who are working harder than ever, with less and less left over at the end of every month?
Rachel Reeves
It is good to see the hon. Member still on the Conservative Benches—I thought she was going to be joining her Tory tribute act friends over there with the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). What the Office for Budget Responsibility document shows today is that people are going to be £1,000 better off by the end of this Parliament, whereas under the previous Government living standards fell, and GDP per capita is set to be 5.6% higher by the end of this Parliament, whereas under the previous Conservative Government GDP per capita fell.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will hear a lot from politicians today—although it appears not from Reform Members, because they have all gone—but does she agree that the most important people to listen to are not those making the sound and fury in this room but those who lend money to the Government? They believe that her proposals are worth lending money against, and for that reason, the amount we will be spending on debt interest is falling. Unlike the Conservative party, they think the UK is a good credit risk in comparison with other G7 nations. Will she say more about how she can bring electricity prices down to support the growth that she is all about?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend knows that if we can improve living standards and also reduce how much we are spending on servicing the debt racked up by the Conservatives, we will have more money to spend on the priorities of people in Chesterfield and elsewhere. The numbers today confirm that we will be spending £4 billion less on debt interest next year than was forecast even in the Budget just a couple of months ago, and that is because of the stability that we have managed to return to the economy. Under the Conservative Government, before Liz Truss, we were spending the average of the G7 on our debt servicing costs. That rocketed under Liz Truss. We have already managed to reduce some of that borrowing premium, but if we continue, we have a £15 billion prize on offer, and that will be money to spend in our communities, on the priorities of working people, whereas under the previous Government, we just spent more and more on servicing debt interest costs.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The result in Gorton and Denton shows that voters want bolder action from politicians against sky-high privatised bills and rents and want no families to be left struggling in poverty. Will the Chancellor listen and scrap her dysfunctional fiscal rules, starting with scrapping the overall family benefit cap, which still means that over 200,000 children are not getting the help they need to live if not a nice life, at least one without needless grinding hardship?
Rachel Reeves
I believe in fair taxes, and I believe the wealthy should pay their fair share, but I believe in bringing that about in a credible way that actually delivers for our constituents. That is why, in my two Budgets, I have ended the non-dom loophole, charged VAT and business rates on private school fees, raised capital gains tax and introduced a high-value property tax, which I believe the Green party opposes in London. The hon. Member failed to mention her party’s policy on defence and defence spending. This is important, especially now. We know that the Green party wants to leave NATO. She does not want to say it, but it is her party’s policy.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that sound management of the economy has provided the fiscal headroom to invest in large infrastructure projects, in contrast with Scotland, where the SNP Government cancelled the Glasgow airport rail link and sold off the land at a loss?
Rachel Reeves
To be honest, when the SNP gets involved in infrastructure projects like trying to build a couple of ferries, it all seems to go horribly wrong. That is why, despite the fact that the SNP Government have had a record settlement from us, NHS waiting lists in Scotland continue to increase, while in England and Wales, under Labour Governments, they are falling.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Business has been crushed by the taxes brought in by this Chancellor. Just a year ago, in a fairly gloomy forecast by the OBR, it was suggesting 1.8% GDP growth over the forecast period. That has now been reduced to 1.5%. If the central mission of this Chancellor—and supposedly this Government—is economic growth, how can she stand there today and say it is working, when it has been marked by the OBR that she is going in exactly the wrong direction, making all our constituents poorer? Can she please explain that to the House?
Rachel Reeves
That is just completely wrong. What the OBR says today is that people will be £1,000 a year better off by the end of the forecast period and that GDP per capita will increase by 5.6% after having fallen under the previous Government. Yes, productivity growth was revised down at the Budget, because of the policies of the previous Government. It has not been revised today.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I was a young person while the Tories were in power, and the reality is that they locked my generation out of home ownership, living standards were worse than those of our parents, and the public services we relied on growing up were cut because of decisions made by their Government. I remember the mini-Budget, which meant that I saw interest rates on my student loan rise—a student loan that is so high because of the plan introduced by the coalition Government and because they changed maintenance grants to loans. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the Labour party can change this country for young people, who finally have a Government that will match their ambition?
Rachel Reeves
When I visited Kettering with my hon. Friend recently, it was just ahead of the capital investment in new SEND provision in her constituency, so that more young people—some of the most vulnerable—can be educated locally in Kettering, with better outcomes for them.
On student finances, the last Government lost control of inflation, and, of course, student loans under plan 2 and other schemes are linked to inflation. Because we have reduced inflation, we will be reducing how much interest people pay on their student loans. That is the best way to help them.
Rachel Reeves
I hear some shouting from the Conservative Benches. Inflation went to more than 11% when they were in government, and they froze the threshold on plan 2 student loans—which they introduced —for many years.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Chancellor raised a laugh at the start of her statement when she said she was following the right policies for this country—policies that have resulted in lower economic growth, higher unemployment, people staggering under an increased tax burden and businesses being damaged by employment taxes, and yet she has shown no change. Why has she not addressed the issues of lowering the cost of employing people, reducing the tax burden on hard-working people to help with the cost of living crisis, and reducing energy prices, which have been driven up by the net zero policies followed by this Government? Does she realise that people will be angered and amazed at her complacency today?
Rachel Reeves
GDP per capita, which is what matters in people’s everyday lives, has been revised up by 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. Unemployment is set to fall in every year of this Parliament, and to be at a lower rate at the end of the Parliament than when it started. We are taking £150 off energy bills from next month. In the spending review last year, we announced a record settlement for the Northern Ireland Executive. I can confirm today that that settlement increases further, by £318 million over three years for RDEL spending and £10 million for CDEL spending, and that money can be spent on the priorities of the people in Northern Ireland.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I commend the Chancellor on her laser-like focus on young people, including on apprenticeship starts and maintenance grants. Will she work with the Education Secretary so that by the autumn, when the exact impact of this awful war in the middle east will be clear, we will know whether any help can be given to graduates, so that they can become the next people to get mortgages and to get on to the housing ladder?
Rachel Reeves
The £800 million that we are spending on the youth guarantee, together with the increase in money we are spending on further education and apprenticeships, will all benefit young people, including the 60% of young people who never go to university. We are also reintroducing maintenance grants to help the poorest students and we are reducing inflation, which will mean that people pay less back every month on their student loan. My hon. Friend rightly mentions that we set out major fiscal policy in the Budget, but with the events unfolding in the middle east and Iran, we need to ensure we can fund all the Government’s priorities and all the priorities of our constituents.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
We have heard several different discussions about defence today, but may I remind the Chancellor that yesterday morning an Iranian Shahed drone struck the runway at RAF Akrotiri? It was not taken out by any counter-drone technology—technology that was due to be included in the defence investment plan that the Minister for the Armed Forces informed me would be announced in autumn 2025. It is now spring 2026 and, despite the fact that we have had a Budget and now a spring forecast since the autumn, we have still not seen the defence investment plan. Will the Chancellor assure us that all the recommendations from the strategic defence review that the Government have pledged to deliver will be delivered in the defence investment plan when it is announced?
Rachel Reeves
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be able to do an awful lot more because we are increasing defence spending compared with the legacy that was left by the Conservative Government, and it will be the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war because of the decisions that we have made as a Government. Because of our Prime Minister’s decisions at the weekend, we are degrading Iran’s capability to continue these attacks.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. The thing that animates my constituents most is the cost of living and the crisis in their living standards—a crisis that came about as a result of the failed economic policies of the Conservative party, whose record on living standards in the last Parliament was the worst on record. My constituents particularly welcome the action on energy bills, rail fares and childcare, but will the Chancellor confirm that she and the Government will continue to focus on driving up the living standards of my constituents through every future policy, piece of legislation and Budget?
Rachel Reeves
People in Basingstoke will benefit when they commute to work on a train, when they pay for their prescriptions and when they get their energy bills, which are coming down next month. Reducing borrowing and the cost of borrowing means that we have more money to spend on the priorities of people in Basingstoke, rather than just paying the interest on the debt racked up by the Conservative party.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The OBR’s forecast has again downgraded oil and gas revenue. From March to November last year, it was downgraded by over 41%, and from November to March this year, it has been downgraded by another 20%. By 2030, we are now expecting only £100 million in tax returns from the oil and gas industry, which used to return billions of pounds every year, because production is falling and investment is going abroad. When the Chancellor meets oil and gas companies tomorrow—I hope she has a great meeting—they will tell her that they need the energy profits levy to be taken away, because it is costing jobs, investment and energy security. Will she listen to those companies or will she keep ignoring the sector?
Rachel Reeves
Our country will continue to rely on oil and gas from the North sea for many years to come, but I encourage the hon. Lady to read the documents properly. The reason why the money from the energy profits levy—just that levy, not all the other taxes paid —falls is because oil and gas prices have fallen sharply since last year’s Budget. Of course, oil and gas prices have increased hugely in the last couple of days. The increase in oil and gas prices was the reason why the Conservative Government introduced the energy profits, and they used that money to take money off people’s bills—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady needs to go back and do her homework—that is just the money from the energy profits levy and the amount reflects the lower energy prices. As some of her colleagues have mentioned, those energy prices are unlikely to persist after what Iran has done.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The OECD and the International Monetary Fund have both recognised the importance of the Government’s fiscal discipline, which is important given the increasingly volatile global economic environment. Will the Chancellor set out more actions that she has taken with others across Government to control public spending, so that the Government can prioritise the long-term investments that boost our global competitiveness and dynamism, and fulfil our defence spending requirements?
Rachel Reeves
By controlling public spending, we can get the cost of borrowing down, as we saw in the most recent public finance numbers. They showed the biggest ever January surplus—in fact, the biggest ever surplus—on the Government national accounts, meaning that we have more money to spend on people’s priorities because we are controlling spending and bringing in the tax revenue that is needed. That is the first time that has happened, and it is because of the choices that we have made as a Government.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Chancellor refers to opportunities that young people deserve. However, hundreds of college students in my North Devon constituency have spent weeks unable to travel to college due to flooding and rail closures. Will the Government confirm that they will invest in their life chances by doing more to upgrade our transport infrastructure, especially our rural railway lines, such as the Tarka line in North Devon, because that infrastructure is not working?
Rachel Reeves
I am happy to ask the Secretary of State for Transport or one of her Ministers to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about that specific issue in his constituency. As he knows, as a Government we are committed to increasing capital investment by £120 billion over the course of this Parliament, because we know about the importance of infrastructure, whether it is energy infrastructure to get energy bills down, rail infrastructure to get people to work or digital infrastructure to make the most of the AI revolution.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
While I recognise the wisdom of increasing budget headroom and I very much welcome the record Budget settlement the Chancellor has given to Welsh Government, so that they can fund and improve public services, can she explain how she is ensuring that those with the most wealth pay their fair share, so that our Welsh Labour aspiration of “fairness you can feel” becomes a reality for my constituents in Llanelli?
Rachel Reeves
I can confirm that because of the choices in today’s spring forecast, the settlement for the Welsh Government over the next three fiscal years will mean an additional £514 million RDEL and £15 million CDEL to spend on the priorities of the Welsh people. It is important to me and to this Government that we ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share. We have introduced VAT and business rates on private schools, we have got rid of the non-dom tax status, and we are introducing a high-value council tax to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share, and that, as a result, we need to ask for less from ordinary working people.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Small businesses play a critical role in the economy of places such as Ceredigion Preseli. As the Chancellor will know, increased energy costs have put real pressure on their ability to operate in recent years. In the light of events over the weekend and the crisis in the middle east, what consideration are the Government giving to additional support to help small businesses to meet rising energy costs?
Rachel Reeves
We are only a couple of days into this conflict, and it is important to see where things go in the next few days. As I said in my statement, I am in regular contact with international counterparts right across the world, including in the middle east, with the Governor of the Bank of England, and with sectors—both maritime and oil and gas—that are most affected by what is happening. However, people can see from the actions of this Government—whether that is taking £150 off domestic energy bills or the extension of the supercharger to help energy-intensive industries with their energy costs, which will come in next month—that we are determined to help people. In addition, as I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), today’s spring forecast includes an additional £540 million of RDEL spending and £15 million of CDEL spending, which the Welsh Government can spend on the priorities of the Welsh people.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Through the National Wealth Fund and the Kernow industrial growth fund, this Labour Government have invested over £100 million in Cornish critical minerals and renewables, which in turn has unlocked vast sums of private sector investment. Does the Chancellor agree that it is precisely because of this Government’s careful nurturing of the UK economy that she can help unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger, and that while Opposition parties scurry around TV studios trying to talk down the UK economy, she is just getting on with the job of fixing the mess they created?
Rachel Reeves
There are huge opportunities in the Cornish economy—in defence, energy and critical minerals—as I saw when I was in Camborne and Redruth and in other parts of Cornwall last summer, including visiting the South Crofty tin mine, which has received National Wealth Fund money. That, alongside the Kernow plan, gives me great confidence that the opportunities that exist in Cornwall will be invested in, both by this Government through our public finance institutions and by the private sector.
Dr Luke Evans
I want to raise the issue of the freezing of thresholds and its effect on the state pension. When the Chancellor froze thresholds in the Budget, she told Martin Lewis that some people would be pulled into paying tax, but would not have to pay small amounts of tax or do a tax return. The updated forecast now says that 600,000 pensioners will be drawn into paying tax this year, and that figure will rise to 1 million by the end of this Parliament. Could the Chancellor set out what the definition of “small amounts of tax” is, and what mechanism she will use to ensure that those pensioners do not have to do a tax return?
Rachel Reeves
As I said after last year’s Budget, if a person just gets the basic state pension, they will not be paying tax. We will set out more details in the coming months.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
In Portsmouth North, we inherited a new reality from the previous Government. People felt that new reality in the form of a closed shipyard, stretched households and Tory food banks that kept popping up everywhere. People were struggling with higher mortgages, high street shops and pubs were closing, and there were cuts to education, SEND and apprenticeships. I know that many are desperate for rapid change, but I hope they can see from our statement today that we are on the right track, with retail sales and wages rising, six interest rate cuts, defence investment backing jobs in my city, and a renewed focus on SEND, education and apprenticeships. Does the Chancellor agree that in coastal communities like Portsmouth, stability and long-term investment, not cuts, are how we build household confidence, put more money in people’s pockets and secure a future for my residents?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To support me in getting more Members in, can questions please be short?
Rachel Reeves
I know that my hon. Friend’s Portsmouth constituency will benefit from Pride in Place funding to invest in those places that were forgotten by the previous Government. It will also benefit directly from the uplift in defence spending, which will ensure not only our country’s security, but good jobs that pay decent wages in Portsmouth. Our reforms to the Green Book mean that coastal communities will get their fair share, and will get an opportunity to bid for funding to help grow their economy through the £120 billion that we are putting in for capital investment.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
If lifting the two-child benefit cap is such a moral imperative for this Labour Government, could the Chancellor advise the House why only 20 months ago, a commitment to do so was entirely absent from the Labour party manifesto and why, 19 days after that election, Labour withdrew the Whip from seven of its MPs for the apparent crime of voting for that moral imperative?
Rachel Reeves
I have always been clear that any policies that this Government announce will always be fully costed and fully funded. It was not until last year’s Budget that I was able to guarantee that. We have set out how that policy will be funded—through the gambling tax and by cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could advise the House why he wants 500,000 children to return straight into poverty.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
We have heard a lot about young people today, but in my constituency, the thing that young people really want is the chance to own their own home. For years, they have been locked out of that because of sky-high mortgage rates thanks to the policies of the Conservative party. I welcome the six interest rate cuts that this Government have overseen. Will the Chancellor elaborate on what more we are doing to help young people in West Brom get on the housing ladder and to bring down the cost of borrowing?
Rachel Reeves
I know that families and young people in West Bromwich and across the country want to get on the housing ladder. That is why we have committed to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament and why we have returned stability to the economy, allowing the Bank of England to cut interest rates six times. It is also why, in my Mansion House speeches, I have announced regulatory reforms to make it easier for banks and, crucially, building societies to lend more to first-time buyers, and they are doing just that.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Chancellor must be concerned that none of the good news she has shared with us today is being felt by people in the real world. Inflation is down, but she will know that that does not suddenly make things more affordable, and interest rates are down, but she will know that millions will lock into higher-rate deals this year when their fixed-rate terms expire. Combine that good news with higher taxes, higher unemployment and a slowdown in growth, and it is no wonder that people still feel as squeezed this year as they did last year. If the Chancellor’s plan is working, when will people actually feel the benefit?
Rachel Reeves
In every month since I became Chancellor of the Exchequer wages have risen faster than inflation. We have increased the national minimum wage and the national living wage to put more money in the pockets of the poorest people, and the interest rate cuts mean that a typical family getting a fixed-rate mortgage will be paying £1,300 less a year than when I became Chancellor. The OBR confirmed today that GDP per capita will rise by 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. I recognise that the legacy of the previous Conservative Government still runs deep and that it will take a while for people to feel the impact of these policies, but I am confident that this will be the year that things start to turn around.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that restoring confidence and hope for families in Wolverhampton and Willenhall is achieved through a stable economy, with borrowing, debt interest and inflation falling faster than expected, moving away from the chaos of spiralling mortgage rates and towards the stability of falling rates?
Rachel Reeves
I was very pleased recently to spend some time in my hon. Friend’s constituency, where we met a family who are now able to get on the housing ladder because of the reduction in interest rates. Instead of living with mum and dad, that couple and their young child are now able to get a home of their own. That is only possible because of the stability that we have returned to the economy, giving the Bank of England space to cut interest rates six times since I became Chancellor.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Chancellor claimed to be cutting debt, but she will know that paragraph 5.9 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” says that
“Public sector net borrowing is forecast to increase”
public sector net debt
“in each year, by an average of £92 billion”.
To avoid misleading the House, will she correct the record?
Rachel Reeves
The OBR has revised down the level of debt in every year of the forecast.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, and for the decisions she has taken to ensure the stability of our public finances so that we can improve our public services. As she will know, the number of individuals in the probation system is at an all-time high, with violent reoffending perpetuating the cycle of crime and leaving the public at risk. What steps will the Treasury take to drive down the number of staffing vacancies in the Probation Service, so that those in the service can work relentlessly to reduce reoffending and ensure the safety of the communities we represent?
Rachel Reeves
As Chancellor, it was my responsibility to make sure that we had fair settlements in the spending review for every Department. That included a big uplift in the settlement for the Ministry of Justice so that we can invest in probation staff, in prison officers, and indeed in prisons, which were full to bursting point when we came into government because of the legacy of the previous Government.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is not just an uncertain period for North sea workers; it is a crisis, and it has been a crisis for years. Investment has completely disappeared, jobs are being haemorrhaged and events make it even more clear why we need a home-grown energy supply and why we cannot rely on importing from overseas. Will the Chancellor, as she meets North sea leaders tomorrow, listen to their calls on the energy profits levy, give confidence on the future of the industry and ensure that my constituency and those across the UK do not continue to haemorrhage these jobs?
Rachel Reeves
I am meeting representatives of the North sea oil and gas sector tomorrow because of the huge volatility we are seeing in oil and gas prices. Since the Budget, the OBR forecasts show a sharp fall in oil and gas prices, but we have seen some of that reverse in the past few days. If that continues, it will put pressure on the bills that all our constituents pay. It is important that we get the right balance between taxing profits and making sure that our constituents can fill up their car and pay their gas and electricity bills.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I warmly welcome that the UK will now, thanks to these Labour choices, spend £3 billion less per year on debt interest up to 2030. My constituents need to feel that in their daily lives, so will the Chancellor further outline how we will unlock the ability to tackle living standards by spending less to service debt? How might that support local infrastructure?
Rachel Reeves
We are spending £100 billion a year on interest payments on Government debt. That is spending not on reducing Government debt, but just on the interest on Government debt, which is £1 in every £10 of what the Government spend. I think there are better ways to spend that money, and that is why I am determined to start bringing down the debt and, crucially, to reduce the interest payments on that debt. The OBR confirmed today that next year we will spend £4 billion less on interest on Government debt, because of the decisions we have made to return stability and give confidence to investors.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The spring statement began well by outlining the desperate international situation and by praising our armed forces, but does the Chancellor agree that her remarks would have been all the more credible had she announced that the dither and delay that has plagued defence spending over the past 18 months would be brought to an end, and had she set a date for the publication of the much-delayed defence investment plan?
Rachel Reeves
It is a little rich for the Conservatives to talk about dither and delay when it comes to defence spending. They had 14 years and defence spending fell as a share of GDP. We are providing the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and that is the right decision in light of the challenges we face. Frankly, if the Conservative Government had made those choices sooner, we might not be in such a position today.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to reducing Government debt, the 95,000 children in Scotland being lifted out of poverty and the revival of Glasgow’s military shipyards, where we will build Labour boats, which, unlike SNP boats, will work and have real windows. Does the Chancellor agree that it is a disgrace that, despite more than £11 billion extra for the Scottish Government, NHS waiting lists in Scotland are at a record level and standards in schools are falling?
Rachel Reeves
Some 95,000 children in Scotland will be lifted out of poverty, and today we have been able to announce a further uplift in the budget available for the Scottish Government. We can only hope that it is a Labour Government, not an SNP Government, who have the chance to spend that money. Otherwise, I fear more increases in NHS waiting lists and worse results for kids at schools, because that is the SNP’s legacy.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Chancellor calls this the right plan, but for whom? Is it the right plan for farmers being taxed to death, WASPI women still waiting for justice, small businesses and hospitality firms barely surviving or hard-working childminders set to lose their 10% tax allowance? The price of energy is rising excessively because of the escalating conflict involving Iran. Families and businesses are already worrying about heating their home or filling their cars, and they have been given no hope—nothing—today. What they see is soaring public spend on housing and support for asylum seekers, and unachievable and expensive net zero spend while their own bills are rising. When will this Government put hard-working British families first?
Rachel Reeves
The Northern Ireland Executive came to us asking for additional money this year to fund their priorities, which we have provided. Today’s settlement includes an extra £380 million in day-to-day spending and £10 million in capital spending for the Northern Ireland Government to invest. If the hon. Lady does not want that money, I am sure other parts of the country would like it.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Derby will be the home of Great British Railways, which, with rail continuing its journey back into public ownership, will be focused on serving passengers rather than profit. Under the previous Government, rail fares rose by 60% between 2010 and 2024. Under Labour, they are frozen. Does the Chancellor agree that bold measures such as that to tackle travel costs will help bring down the cost of living?
Rachel Reeves
I was pleased in the Budget last year to announce the plan for Derby, alongside my hon. Friend and her neighbour the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the Mayor of the East Midlands. Derby will benefit from hosting Great British Railways, and we will all benefit from better train services under Great British Railways. Rolls-Royce will benefit from higher defence spending and higher energy spending, including on small modular reactors, bringing more good jobs paying decent wages to Derby.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Blairite policies told 50% of my generation to go to university. Looking back at those conversations, we see that rarely did anyone ever talk about who would pay for those students to go to university, or how the jobs market would then take on that amount of graduates. It is clear that the student finance system does not work, and the goalposts keep shifting with Government policies. I think there is a cross-party view that something needs to be done. Does the Chancellor view it as a serious issue, and what does she plan to do about it?
Rachel Reeves
The view of the electorate just 18 months ago was that it was time to get rid of the Conservatives, because of the broken system that they had left, whether that was student finances, the NHS, our prisons or our crumbling schools. As a result, the hon. Member is sitting on the Opposition Benches, where I expect he will be for many years to come.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we saw with the shadow Chancellor’s performance that the number of times a politician points their finger is often inversely proportionate to the number of valid points they make? The valid points that really matter to my constituents in Rugby and the surrounding villages are that there have been six interest rate cuts under my right hon. Friend’s chancellorship, inflation is coming down, we have the highest growth of European nations in the G7 and far too much more to mention.
Rachel Reeves
It was a real pleasure after the Budget last year to join my hon. Friend at a community centre in Rugby, where I was able to talk to his constituents about the benefits of the £150 cut in energy bills. The conversation I remember most from my hon. Friend’s constituency was with a woman who had lost her husband just six months before. She had four children and will benefit from the changes we made by getting rid of the two-child limit. That is a conversation I will not forget, and it is the difference we are making in government.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Monkton Elm garden centre, with its 400-cover restaurant employing 120 staff, has been hit by a £70,000 increase in its business rates this year as part of £178,000 in costs put on by the last Budget. If the Government will not accept the 5% cut in VAT that the Liberal Democrats propose—we would fund that by a tax on banks, by the way, not from cutting services—those at the garden centre would like to know whether the Chancellor will none the less extend the 15% discount to pubs on their business rates to restaurants? That would give our local businesses the support they need and give everyone the boost they want to see in our economy.
Rachel Reeves
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are conducting a review of how the Valuation Office Agency calculates business rates, including for our hospitality sector. The last time that the Liberal Democrats were in office and they had a choice over VAT policy, they increased it from 17.5% to 20%. I am not sure why the public should believe that this time it would somehow be different.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for acknowledging the incredible contribution of the workforce at Rosyth to the roll-out of the Type 31 frigate last week. I also thank her for the ongoing investment in energy infrastructure, particularly as we see increasing challenges in the middle east coming towards energy bills. May I ask her to ensure, as she has up to now, that we keep an eye on that situation involving energy bills and, whenever possible, that we invest both for our future energy security and to help people in the short term when that is necessary?
Rachel Reeves
It was a real honour for me to be able to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see the Type 31 frigates being built there. This Government are investing in defence, and in the skills of our young people so that they can get the jobs in these expanding sectors—unlike the SNP Government in Scotland, who are not investing in our young people. Too many defence companies are having to bring in labour from abroad because of the SNP’s dislike of defence spending.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
For all the Chancellor’s words about forecasts, reality bites when the real unemployment figures are examined. The figure today is 5.2%, the highest since the pandemic, and youth unemployment is at a considerable high. Instead of relying on forecasts that are never, ever right, should we not be asking how many more people need to lose their jobs, and how many more young people need to go without one, before the Chancellor accepts that it is her policies that are not working?
Rachel Reeves
The previous Government presided over a 113,000 increase in the number of young people not in education, employment or training, and the number of youth apprenticeships was cut by 40%. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that unemployment among young people is a challenge? It is because of the decisions that the previous Government made. That is why we are putting more than £800 million into a youth guarantee, it is why we are putting more money into further education—which his Government failed to do—and it is why we are expanding the number of youth apprenticeships. We recognise there is a challenge. The difference between our Government and the hon. Gentleman’s is that we are doing something about it, and they never did.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, and welcome the OBR forecast that unemployment will fall to 4.1% by the end of the current Parliament. No doubt that will have been driven by excellent policies such as the youth guarantee and the apprenticeship reforms. The NEET rate remains stubbornly high, though, so may I urge the Chancellor to target any additional headroom that may be available at helping more young people into work and training? Investing in young people is good for them, good for society and good for the UK’s finances, and it is also the best way in which to reduce our welfare bill in the long term.
Rachel Reeves
This Government are investing in young people, by ending the two-child limit, investing in further education—which was neglected by the last Government—and increasing the number of young people who can go on to study or take apprenticeships, and, indeed, through the youth guarantee, which is worth more than £800 million. As I said in my statement, though, we want to do more to tackle the legacy that we inherited from the Conservative Government to ensure that more young people have the opportunity of work, training or a college place.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Given what is happening in the middle east at the moment, there is a concern that petrol and diesel prices will spiral upwards. If that happens, taxation revenue on fuel will do the same. Can the Chancellor commit today to keeping taxation revenue at its current level, thereby reducing tax on fuel to help ease any future cost pressure?
Rachel Reeves
I think it can be seen from the policies that we have introduced over the past year that we are determined to address the cost of living challenges that we inherited from the Conservative party, whether by freezing rail fares, freezing prescription charges, extending the 5p cut in fuel duty until September this year or, indeed, introducing Fuel Finder to improve competition between forecourts and bring down petrol and diesel prices—but of course, as I said in my statement, we are carefully monitoring the impact of what is happening in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that working people do not pay the price for that conflict.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
We know that the volatility of oil and gas prices has driven the high cost of living over the last decade. We also know that renewables cut the wholesale costs of electricity because they reduce the amount of time for which electricity prices are driven by gas. Does the Chancellor agree that, given the inevitable impact of the events in the middle east, our drive for clean energy is the right thing to do both for bills and for economic stability, and that those who are advocating continual reliance on oil and gas, and not investing in clean energy, are actually committed to higher bills and to our continued reliance on foreign instability?
Rachel Reeves
Oil and gas will play an important part in our energy system for many years to come, including oil and gas from the North sea, but we do need to improve our energy security. That is the lesson from Ukraine that this Government are addressing by investing in small modular reactors at Sizewell C, but also investing in wind farms and solar farms, because we have got to wean ourselves off foreign oil and gas and prices that are dictated by international markets. That is why we are investing in clean energy, and what we are seeing unfolding in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east shows how necessary those policies are.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
A large part of my constituency’s economy depends on hospitality, tourism and our independent high streets. Those who run pubs, cafés, arts venues, restaurants and hotels are telling me that they are being squeezed from every direction, by higher employer national insurance, rising energy bills, and uncertainty over business rates relief. Does the Chancellor understand the damage that this is doing to communities like mine, and will she commit today to proper business rates reform and targeted support for hospitality and leisure?
Rachel Reeves
The best thing we can do to support our high streets and small businesses is ensure that more people have more of their money in their pockets to spend not on the essentials but on the things that they want to do—for instance, in local shops in the hon. Lady’s constituency. That is why we are taking £150 off people’s energy bills, have frozen prescription charges, and are freezing rail fares.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Whether by delivering a record-breaking fair funding settlement for our council or backing Team Derby, this Government are definitely turning the page on years of brutal Tory austerity. However, many in our city still feel left out and left behind because of the depth of those austerity cuts. Will the Chancellor work to give every neighbourhood the tools that it needs, so that every place is decent to live in?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of the issue. We have done an awful lot in the last year and a half to bring down interest rates and ensure that people have more of their own money in their pockets—and there is more of that to come, with the two-child limit going from April, the £150 off energy bills from April, and last weekend’s changes in rail fares. But all that is against a backdrop of 14 years of people being made worse off by the choices of the Conservative party. I do not expect people to feel all the benefits of the changes we have made straightaway, but I believe that the changes that will come in the next few months will start to be felt in the pockets of people in Derby and across the country.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Government want growth—we all want growth—but surely the Chancellor can see that the carbon tax that will result from extending the marine greenhouse gas emission regulations to the ferries, which are the economic lifeline to Northern Ireland, in circumstances in which there are no zero-emission alternatives, will add hugely to the consumer costs of my constituents and will disincentivise growth. Will she look again at that imposition, especially in view of the fact that the Scottish islands, which depend equally on the ferries, have been given an exemption?
Rachel Reeves
It is important that we wean ourselves off oil and gas prices that are set on international markets, but I absolutely accept the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, and I am happy to suggest that the relevant Minister meet him.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The Liz Truss Budget in September 2022 affected many homeowners, with mortgage rates shooting up and the average two-year fixed rate exceeding 6%. When I was working in the mortgage industry, I saw the impact of that on working people’s finances. That is still being felt, but does the Chancellor agree that it is because of the actions of this Labour Government in restoring economic stability that we have seen six interest rate cuts since the general election—a welcome relief for many? The Opposition parties, by contrast, have no credible plan, and would return this country to the devastating days of Liz Truss.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend speaks with authority about mortgage costs, given the jobs that he did before he became a Member of Parliament. It is true that, since the general election, somebody getting a fixed-rate mortgage will be paying £1,300 less a year than they were when we came into office. That means they have more money to spend on their high streets, on their families and on the things that matter, rather than just paying for the essentials, the price of which went up under the Conservatives.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Economic policies introduced by the previous Government piled more and more pressure on my generation, adding to intergenerational unfairness, and nowhere is that more clear than with plan 2 student loans; to declare my interest, I still owe more than £40,000. The policy proposed by the Conservative party will not do anything to alleviate the cost of living pressures on young people. Given the better economic outlook that we have seen today, will the Chancellor meet me and other MPs who are concerned about the plan 2 student loan system to talk about how we can make the system fairer and more sustainable?
Rachel Reeves
To help the generation that my hon. Friend speaks about, we have introduced the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and we are also bringing down interest rates and inflation. That makes it easier to get on the housing ladder but also, crucially, reduces the interest rates on both plan 2 student loans and other students loans, the threshold for which was frozen for 10 years under the previous Government.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
On days like this, I am particularly grateful that NHS waiting lists are falling. Although it seems a long time ago that we heard from the shadow Chancellor, I was very concerned about his blood pressure; he is no longer in his place, so I hope he has gone to get that checked.
It is important that we take a breath and look at what the economy is actually doing. Borrowing is down, inflation is down and headroom is up. I particularly welcome today’s news from the OBR that investment in housing, as part of the economy, is up. Does the Chancellor agree that we need to continue to invest in housing to make sure that people’s aspirations to buy their own home are supported by this Government?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right about the shadow Chancellor’s blood pressure—but, frankly, I am worried about his future employment prospects.
NHS waiting lists are falling because of the money that we have put in, but my hon. Friend makes a point about overall investment in the economy. After lagging behind pretty much every other advanced country in the world, since the general election we have had the fastest investment growth in the G7.
Madam Deputy Speaker
For the final question—the one we have been waiting for—I call Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement about two hours ago. Fortunately, my Shakespeare quote for the day is “brevity is the soul of wit”, so I will be very quick. We know that the national debt soared under the last Government, and that £1 in every £10 is spent on servicing that debt. What difference can we make to public services in Harlow if we can spend less on debt repayment and more on those services?
Rachel Reeves
It is not Shakespeare, but I always say, “Save the best till last.” If we can spend less money on paying the interest on debt, we will have more money to spend on our NHS, on our defence and on keeping taxes down. That is only possible if we return stability to the economy, and the OBR forecast shows that we have the right plan. Inflation and interest rates are coming down, while Government borrowing costs, Government borrowing and Government debt are on a downward path. That compares with the situation under the previous Government, who lost control of the public finances and, as a result, lost control of family finances. In 18 months, we have begun to turn that around. Is there more to do? Absolutely—but we have started on that course. If we stick to the plan, the prize at the end is huge.
Bill Presented
Geotechnical Data
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the collection of, setting of standards relating to, and secure sharing of geotechnical data derived from ground and site investigations; to require the integration of such data into the National Underground Asset Register; to confer duties on statutory undertakers and public authorities in connection with certain such data; and for connected purposes.
Nearly 200 years ago, in 1835, three of Britain’s leading geologists—William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and Charles Lyell—wrote to the Board of Ordnance to argue for something quite simple: that this country should properly understand what lies beneath its feet. They said that proper geological maps would stop money being wasted in the search for coal and materials. Such maps would improve road construction, guide the construction of canals, help drainage, identify building materials and strengthen agriculture. Out of that thinking came what we know today as the British geological survey. Those geologists’ big idea still stands strong today: that when we understand the ground properly, we can build better, build cheaper and build faster.
We talk a lot in this House about growth and opportunities. As someone who joined the House after working for the best part of 20 years in construction and infrastructure, I am pretty happy about that, because I come from a sector that is the economy made physical. It creates the homes that people live in, the energy networks that power industry, the transport systems that connect people to work, and the water infrastructure that makes development possible. When infrastructure policy is done properly, it reduces poverty. It reduces living costs, unlocks employment and widens access to opportunities, tackling poverty at its roots.
However, growth rests—quite literally—on the ground beneath our feet. Geology underpins everything that we do. It influences groundwater and resilience to flooding, and determines whether a project succeeds or runs into delay and redesign, yet whereas our engineering capability in the UK has advanced enormously over the years, the way we treat data has not kept pace with the digital age. Ground investigation data is collected in vast quantities every year in every corner of the UK, at great public expense. Borehole records, soil classifications, and rock core and groundwater data all get collected from ground investigations, but too often, that data is siloed, commercially locked away, lost between projects, or simply duplicated because it cannot be accessed. That means that we are paying twice to drill the same holes for the same data, facing avoidable surprises, and seeing delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects and planning applications. At the end of the day, that is increasing cost and programme risk. It is a profound waste of money and time that this country cannot afford to leave unresolved. If we are serious about speeding up delivery in this country and getting Britain building again, we cannot ignore the knowledge that we have already paid to collect.
The Government have recognised this problem in part, and are rightly investing in the national underground asset register to map 4 million km of pipes and cables beneath British streets, but the register focuses on the assets that we put into the ground, not the factual data about the ground itself. Although we are modernising how we map buried services, we are not yet systematically ensuring that factual ground investigation data, where it exists, can be securely shared and reused through the same national platform. That is what this Bill seeks to address.
The Bill is not a radical rewrite but a focused, proportionate extension of existing plans. It would bring factual ground investigation data and underground asset data into one place, and build on UK industry’s initiatives on format to allow data to be readily inputted and accessed digitally. It proposes that we initially limit this information to borehole records, site investigation reports, and soil, rock and groundwater data. It does not mandate the extensive, retrospective and expensive upload of data, but it does mirror the regulations created under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 to determine what data is shared, where and in which format. The Bill builds on the successes of other nations, such as the Netherlands, which has successfully implemented such a scheme and is already seeing great results. In short, it complements the current framework and what the Government intend to do; it does not change it.
The economic case for the Bill is very strong. The Government believe that the national underground asset register, even in its current state, will generate over £400 million of savings per year. However, the reuse of ground investigation data has been estimated to be worth an additional £1.2 billion per year to the UK economy, and will massively reduce the carbon footprint of construction. We have some proof for those lofty figures, because the British Geological Survey’s national geological repository, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), has already returned up to £36 for every £1 invested, saving £1.5 billion through data reuse.
Those numbers echo the 1835 argument that good geological information prevents waste and improves the use of capital. Early access to ground investigation data sets up projects for success, reducing uncertainty and the chance of delay or cost increases. To give a real example that Members may know about, the cost of ground investigations for High Speed 2 phase 1 is over £300 million. That is £300 million of public money spent on data that will be locked away for decades and lost, but that could be used to help better deliver the growth that we need.
Before bringing forward this Bill, I wanted to make sure that what I am proposing is deliverable, not just a great theoretical idea that will never get off the ground. I am truly grateful for the fact that, through thorough engagement with professionals from AtkinsRéalis, Arup, Mott MacDonald, Arcadis, the British Geological Survey, the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists, the British Drilling Association and academic experts, it is clear that there is public sector, industry and expert support for my proposals. All were clear that the current system leads to duplication and inefficiency. They want clarity, standards and proportionate regulation that enables the provision and reuse of data, and levels the playing field.
Above all, I pay personal tribute to Holger Kessler—he joins us in the Gallery—the geologist and geoscientist who sparked my idea of including ground data in the national underground asset register. I also pay personal tribute to Theo Shaw, my head of office—also sitting in the Gallery—who now knows more about geology and geotechnical engineering than any parliamentary staffer would probably ever want to.
Ultimately, this Bill is about delivery. It updates nearly 200 years of legislative thinking for the digital age. For too long in this country, we have announced ambition and failed to modernise the systems around that ambition to ensure that it is realised. If we are serious about building 1.5 million homes, reinforcing our grid, strengthening our water infrastructure and delivering clean energy, we must modernise the way we handle the knowledge that underpins all that. This Bill closes a structural gap, strengthens an existing reform and supports growth.
Nearly 200 years ago, Parliament supported the creation of a national geological capability because it understood that better ground data leads to better outcomes. This Bill leads on from that legacy. The United Kingdom, which led the world in establishing the British Geological Survey, should not fall behind. If we understand the ground properly, we can build better and build more, and when we do that right, we will expand opportunity and tackle poverty. That is Labour policy in action, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mike Reader, Alistair Strathern, Mr Luke Charters, Noah Law, Kirsteen Sullivan, Rachel Taylor, Perran Moon, Ms Polly Billington, James Naish, Lizzi Collinge,Amanda Hack and Cat Eccles present the Bill.
Mike Reader accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 395).
Sustainable Aviation Fuel BilL (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 11 June 2025 (Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 1
Direction to offer revenue certainty contract
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 6.
Keir Mather
I am pleased that the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill has returned to this House with only a small number of Government amendments. I am grateful to Members of both Houses for their engagement and constructive approach throughout the Bill’s passage. I wish to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for his skilful steering of this Bill through its initial stages. I also thank Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for his valuable support, and for leading the Bill so effectively through the other place. The Government brought forward six amendments, which were agreed to, and we are considering them today.
Lords amendments 1 to 3 ensure that the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only when the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the United Kingdom. Throughout the passage of the Bill in the Lords, peers provided thoughtful and collaborative suggestions on this topic, and I am grateful to them. The amendments to clause 1 provide that sustainable aviation fuel is to be regarded as “UK-produced” where any part of the process for converting feedstocks into fuel occurs within the UK. These amendments give the industry a clear and confident signal of support, and align with our intended objective for this Bill: the objective of supporting the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel industry.
Lords amendments 4 to 6 require the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Governments before making regulations under the powers in clauses 1, 3, 10 or 11. This ensures that devolved Governments are fully engaged on matters in their areas of competence.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I very much welcome the leadership that the Government are taking on this important industry. How much sustainable aviation fuel does my hon. Friend anticipate that the UK will be able to provide, and after his amendments have gone through, is it still likely that we will depend on imports of sustainable aviation fuel, alongside the stocks we have in the UK?
Keir Mather
To meet the provisions of the SAF mandate, we believe it will be necessary to have a mixture of sustainable aviation fuel produced in the United Kingdom and SAF imported from overseas. However, the Bill creates a revenue certainty mechanism—the first of its kind—to drive this nascent market to increase SAF production. We believe that the mechanism will demonstrably increase the amount of UK-produced SAF in the system, and will have an impact on the production of the good, skilled jobs in our energy industry that we all care about so much. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that we believe that the Bill is the right process to go through to stimulate this industry, and to give investors the certainty that they need that the UK Government stand four-square behind the creation of sustainable aviation fuel in this country.
Clause 1(8) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations extending the period in which they can direct the counterparty to enter into contracts by up to five years at a time. Clause 3(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the counterparty to maintain a register of information on revenue certainty contracts, and to publish details about the contracts. Clause 10(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require the counterparty to pay a surplus to levy payers, and require levy payers to pass on the benefits of that surplus to their customers. Clause 11(4) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations amending financial penalties to reflect inflation, and to specify the basis on which a company’s turnover is to be determined for the purpose of those penalties. The amendments do not affect the delivery of the Bill or its underlying policy intent, and final decisions in relation to the regulation-making powers in the Bill will continue to rest with the Secretary of State for Transport.
The Government’s objective is to implement the revenue certainty mechanism for the SAF industry effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom and to work collaboratively with the devolved Governments to do so. I am grateful for the engagement on the Bill from across the devolved Governments and pleased to confirm that we have obtained legislative consent from all three devolved Governments. I therefore commend all six amendments to the House and urge Members to support them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the shadow Minister, Greg Smith. I believe it is your birthday. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] Happy birthday!
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not have asked for a better birthday treat than to debate this issue with the Minister and with everyone else who has shown such a huge interest in the Bill this afternoon.
When the Bill first came before the House, the Conservatives were clear that we support the innovation that underpins sustainable aviation fuel. Aviation matters enormously to this country: for families, for trade, for connectivity and for our standing as a global hub. The challenge has never been whether to decarbonise aviation, but how we do so without damaging competitiveness or pricing ordinary passengers out of flying.
From the very beginning, we set a clear test. If the British public are underwriting a revenue certainty mechanism, whether directly or through levies that will inevitably feed into ticket prices, the economic benefit must remain here in the United Kingdom. That was not an afterthought. It was not something we discovered halfway through the Bill’s passage; it was one of the central arguments we advanced from day one. Throughout Committee and on Report, I pressed Ministers on how the contracts would work in practice. How would domestic production be prioritised? How would we prevent a scenario where fuel was largely produced overseas, given minimal processing here and then rebadged as British simply to qualify for support? Without clarity, that risk was real.
My noble Friend Lord Grayling brought that concern into sharp focus in the other place. His amendment made the principle explicit: if sustainable aviation fuel is to receive support under a revenue certainty contract, it must genuinely be British. He made the point clearly: we cannot design a system that can be gamed. We cannot allow mostly complete fuel to be shipped here, polished up a bit, and then presented as a domestic product. That would not be an industrial strategy; it would be box-ticking with a Union Jack on it.
What has happened since? The Government tabled Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4, restricting revenue certainty contracts to UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel. That principle was not explicit in the Bill, as introduced. It is explicit now and I genuinely welcome that. That change, however, did not appear out of thin air. It followed sustained pressure from those of us on the Conservative Benches here and in the other place. It was Conservatives who identified the gap, made the case and tabled the original amendments. I am grateful that the Government have now listened and moved.
Of course, the detail matters. The definition of “UK-produced” refers to any part of the process of converting feedstock into fuel taking place in the United Kingdom. That must not become a loophole wide enough to taxi an A380 through. The intention is clear: real production, real value added and real jobs here. We will ensure that the practical application reflects that intention.
There is also a broader point to the amendments, which speaks to capability. The United Kingdom has genuine strengths in synthetic fuel and e-SAF. We have companies demonstrating 100% synthetic flight, developed right here in the United Kingdom. We have world-class engineers and researchers. We have the technical expertise to lead. What we should not have are British passengers ultimately bearing the costs while overseas producers capture the opportunity.
Now is not the time to relitigate the plus or minus £1.50 on fares argument we had in previous stages, but for the record I say that the Opposition are watching closely. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are assured that the non-HEFA—non-hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—requirements contained in the mandate will be met by industry at no more than the same cost to the passenger?
Mr Perkins
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I wish him a happy birthday. I am interested in what he has to say. I think the Government have to be given some credit for bringing forward this signal that pushes the industry, in terms of both support for it to produce here in the UK and the mandate. Will he clarify whether he supports the SAF mandate as currently legislated for, or is he saying that he supports only it if it will not lead to any additional cost?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind birthday wishes. We do support the SAF mandate. We do support the decarbonisation of air travel, as well as other means of travel, but it has to be done in a way that is economically viable not just to the industry but to all of us who ultimately pay to fly—or to go on a train or a ship, or whatever it might be—through the fares we pay. That is why the Opposition have been so laser-focused on the direct impacts on fare payers, as well as on the wider industry.
The wider point, to return to the Lords amendments we are debating, is to ensure that the economic value of decarbonisation, which the British state is mandating through the legislation we pass in this Parliament, actually benefits British producers, British researchers, British engineers, and the incredible array of innovators and talent we have here in this country.
With these amendments, the Bill is closer to meeting the test we established at the beginning of the first debate: that the sustainable aviation fuel policy the Government are pushing should reduce emissions while reinforcing the UK’s industrial base, safeguarding competitiveness and supporting high-skilled employment across the country. Indeed, our position remains clear: environmental responsibility, along with economic realism. That will be what protects competitiveness. We will continue to scrutinise the framework carefully as it develops, but on the fundamental point that British passengers’ money should back British production, the Government have adopted the Conservative position. Perhaps if they listen to us a little more often, they might find the turbulence a great deal lighter.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) a very happy birthday. I am sure the rest of the Conservative Members are waiting for him at the party—I know they like those. How was that, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Current events in the middle east have once again demonstrated the volatility and vulnerability of global fuel supplies. A cleaner aviation sector should also be a more resilient one. Producing sustainable aviation fuel at home reduces exposure to geopolitical shocks, while giving airlines and passengers greater long-term certainty. It is for that reason that I believe the Lords amendments are vital. This is about our home and our circular economy.
Before Parliament, I worked in the water industry for 30 years. One of the projects I led was working with farmers on practical measures to prevent flooding, including planting winter cover crops in between pea harvests to protect soil and reduce run-off. Those same winter cover crops, or similar ones, can also play a role as a feedstock for sustainable aviation fuel. That is why I see a real opportunity here to line up environmental improvement and the economic benefits that come from SAF. Better soil structure and less erosion mean better outcomes for our local waterways and a healthier local environment, while farmers and rural communities can gain an additional income stream from doing the right thing for their land.
Since coming to Parliament, one of my biggest goals has been the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield airport, which is essential to local jobs, growth and prosperity. But I want to go further still: I want Doncaster Sheffield airport to become a beacon of cleaner, greener aviation, and sustainable aviation fuel is a huge part of that transition.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the reopening of Doncaster airport is not only critical so that we are part of the sustainable aviation future, but to create the high-skill, high-wage jobs in the green economy that young people in Doncaster deserve?
Lee Pitcher
I certainly do agree. In the business case for Doncaster Sheffield airport, the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority says that around 5,000 jobs will be created directly, with the creation of many more jobs indirectly. When I visit schools, as my hon. Friend does, I see our future pilots, engineers, manufacturers and aircrew. You know what, Madam Deputy Speaker? I want people to live in Doncaster, work in Doncaster, have their careers in Doncaster, spend their leisure time in Doncaster and basically have the passion for the place that I do. I know that my hon. Friend does, too.
DSA is ideally placed to lead on how we become a cleaner, greener aviation economy locally. It is surrounded by agricultural land and is close to the Humber, the UK’s leading hub for green energy and fuel. A domestic SAF industry means more UK manufacturing, more skilled work and more investment in the kind of modern facilities that can power regional growth. We know how important that is right now.
Taken together, the benefits are absolutely clear: for our countryside, we can improve soil and water outcomes, support more resilient farming and restore nature; for our rural communities, we can open up new opportunities, diversify incomes and improve productivity; for industry, we can build manufacturing capability and secure supply chains here at home; and for aviation, we can reduce dependence on volatile foreign oil and give the sector a credible route by which to decarbonise. Globally, we can reduce the carbon impact of air travel, which is exactly what we need to do if we are to meet our climate goals in a way that supports jobs and prosperity and secures the planet for our children and future generations. This is the right approach for an industrial strategy that is serious about delivery and an environmental strategy that is serious about our future.
If we are asking the public to help to de-risk and scale up a strategic fuel, the jobs, investment, apprenticeships and manufacturing capacity should be created right here, right now in the UK. These amendments keep the value chain onshore, strengthen British supply chains and ensure that decarbonisation supports growth in our communities, not just demand somewhere else.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Even taking into account the Lords amendments, we continue to welcome steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. I repeat the Liberal Democrat point from Second Reading that SAF is just one step in that direction; in the longer term, it needs to complement rather than detract from investment in zero-carbon flight technology.
I thank the Government for their engagement in the other place and for bringing forward these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness Pidgeon for her work and advocacy to strengthen the Bill. To that end, the Liberal Democrats support all the amendments. We support Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which will help to provide revenue certainty that can relate only to UK-produced aviation fuel, and Lords amendments 4 and 5, which will simplify industry consultation requirements, while noting the way in which Lords amendment 6 will bring in an overarching consultation requirement. We support the duty placed on the Secretary of State through Lords amendment 6 to consult before making regulations under the Act, including its focus on consultation and engagement with the devolved Administrations, which, of course, is always important.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I only regret that I lack the skill of the shadow Minister in making aviation puns.
Mr Perkins
I warmly welcome the Bill, which will boost home-grown production of sustainable aviation fuel. I also welcome the work done on the Bill in the other place and believe the amendments strengthen it. My hon. Friend the Minister should be heartened by the fact that the amendments he presents today are not being lambasted from all sides; instead, everyone seeks to claim credit for them, which is a nice place for him to be. The Conservatives, characteristically, have added this matter to the list of things they are now calling for but did not do during their 14 years in power. None the less, I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).
Mr Perkins
I will happily give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene on his birthday.
Greg Smith
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is correct that we did not pass the legislation during our time in government. No Government can do everything during their time in power. As we are having a fair debate here, will he at least accept that an enormous amount of work was done by the previous Government, which led to this Government being able to bring forward this Bill so quickly in the first Session of this Parliament?
Mr Perkins
I can neither confirm nor deny what the hon. Gentleman says. Frankly, I am not certain about that—he may well be right. I was not seeking to create great division on this, although I do think my general point remains. None the less, as I say, I thank him for what he has said and for his support for the Bill. We have plenty of things to argue about; let us not dance on the head of a pin in this area where we are all agreed.
The Government are clearly committed to greater aviation expansion. The recent work of my Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, has demonstrated that it is possible to achieve the Government’s ambitions to have that growth while protecting nature and the environment. However, the Committee has also demonstrated that that is not by any means inevitable, and that sustainable aviation fuel is one aspect that must play a growing role alongside a suite of other measures if the Government are to reduce carbon emissions from aviation while driving that passenger and economic growth. It is absolutely crucial that the Government take action not just on sustainable aviation fuel, but on the many other elements that will be necessary both to keep the Government’s promise and to keep them out of the courts and from being judicially reviewed. It is important that this is one of a number of measures.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the need for a suite of measures to deliver the Bill’s objectives and the overall reduction in fossil fuel usage by the aviation sector. One of the means of doing that is to massively ramp up green hydrogen production, which will have to happen over a number of years. I am sure that the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), whom I have seen bobbing, will no doubt point to that. A quick way to kick-start that marketplace and boost sustainable aviation fuel would be to increase the amount of hydrogen that can be injected into the gas grid to 20%. The evidence is there to say that it would work. It would act as a massive kick-start for the industry. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr Perkins
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point—it is definitely something worth considering.
The Government have given an important commitment to meet their climate change and environmental targets at the same time as expanding airports and growing the economy, and I welcome that commitment. It is a hugely important promise, but it is also a huge challenge. Sustainable aviation fuel can deliver emissions savings compared with traditional kerosene fuel. Increasing its use is a vital piece of the puzzle in decarbonising aviation.
The revenue certainty mechanism introduced in the Bill will provide the minimum price guarantee for producers of SAF in the UK, so whoever was responsible for it, I welcome these amendments. The price certainty will encourage investor confidence in bringing commercial-scale SAF plans to the UK and bringing SAF production and jobs. Alongside that revenue certainty mechanism, the Government have introduced a SAF mandate: a legal obligation on fuel suppliers to the UK to provide an increasing proportion of SAF to airlines. That policy is also essential to driving the uptake of SAF.
What assessment has the Minister made of when these SAF mandates will be achieved? Does he think that they will be achieved in the next year? If not, at what point does he expect those mandates to be met? The Government do not believe that we need to follow the advice of the Climate Change Committee and see demand management alongside a suite of other measures as one of the approaches. Instead, they believe that we can get greater amounts of sustainable aviation fuel. Will my hon. Friend tell me how important it is to see the industry achieving these early mandates if we want to give confidence that they will be achieved in much greater numbers in the future?
Despite these welcome policies, the Environmental Audit Committee heard evidence—I think the Minister confirmed that today—that the UK would not be able to provide sufficient SAF to service the level that the Government expect the industry to use. We know that imported SAF is not currently recognised in UK carbon budgets as being a genuine reduction in emissions. Although I understand the Government have plans to include international aviation emissions within their carbon calculations, the UK has yet to formally legislate to include those emissions within the carbon budgets, despite both this and the previous Government agreeing to do so. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will prioritise parliamentary time to introduce the necessary legislation to formally include international aviation emissions within the UK carbon budgets?
The Environmental Audit Committee also heard evidence from the Whittle Laboratory at Cambridge University that, while moving to 25% of fuel usage to SAF would offer substantial emissions reductions, the reductions become much less certain beyond that point, because moving towards SAF could push up its price when compared with other sectors. That could lead to the potential of reduced availability of feedstocks for other sectors and a move beyond utilising waste products towards having to grow and cut down crops purely to serve the aviation sector. Therefore, if we go beyond 25% and start aiming for 50%, 60% and 70%, the certainty of this being an environmental and carbon reduction becomes much less certain. I wonder what assessment my hon. Friend has made of that research and whether he has visited the Whittle Laboratory. I also had the opportunity to listen to its modelling on this, so I wonder what he made of it.
Finally, will the Minister reassure me that he will not allow SAF production from feedstocks, potentially undermining the environmental sustainability and the emissions savings of SAF? Has he had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy, Security and Net Zero around the likely needs for the very same stock as part of our energy production in the future, particularly given the potential growth of data centres? Does the Government have a collective approach on the need for both sustainable aviation fuel and biofuels servicing our energy sector? With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will bring my comments to a close.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have taken me by surprise by not picking me last.
I thank the Minister for opening this debate. I also thank the shadow Minister for his comments and wish him a very happy birthday. Without wanting to get into any party political back and forth, I would like to say that we had a really productive Bill Committee, in which Members from all parts of the House came together collaboratively because we all wanted this to be a success. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who saw the Bill through Committee, was a huge driving force in ensuring that it will get on the statute book and that we will see the benefit of it.
I am being a little bit naughty, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is rare for me, but I particularly wanted to speak in this debate today because I was a member of the Bill Committee—one of my first in this place—and I saw the legislation through all its stages, from First Reading to Committee, only to miss Third Reading due to being on paternity leave. I think that on this occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will agree that I did get my priorities right.
However, as the Bill returns to this Chamber for the consideration of Lords amendments, I want to say how genuinely excited I have been to be part of this process. I believe that the Bill will make a difference not only to the aviation industry, which is hugely important to my constituency of Harlow, but also to Harlow itself. As I have mentioned previously in this place, my constituency starts at the end of Stansted airport’s runway. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East was in his place today, he would point out that Stansted airport is part of the Manchester Airports Group, so I am doing him a service by mentioning that.
This Bill will make a huge difference to people in my constituency. Hundreds of people are employed at Stansted airport, but Stansted airport college also has huge links with Harlow college. An earlier speaker mentioned how, when he goes into schools, he sees the younger people as the cabin crew, the pilot and the ground staff of the future. I have had the pleasure of visiting Stansted college—I did let the Leader of the Opposition know that I was visiting her constituency—to see the huge difference that that made to young people. We are not just talking about jobs; we are talking about careers and high-level occupations. I am really pleased that we will see 4,100 more jobs at Stansted airport because of its expansion. I am not expecting all of those 4,000 people to come from Harlow—although I have put in a request to the Manchester Airports Group—but that would be nice to see. We also know the difference that this Bill will make to the environment.
Naysayers will say that the increase of SAF production is not the answer, and that we need to decrease the number of people who fly, but we must be realistic about that. As I have said before, the expansion of Stansted airport will mean an additional 4,000 jobs for my area of the country. Aviation supports business travel and freight for millions, but SAF will also help to deliver on the green, clean energy and growth that has been so important to this Government. We know that, over its lifetime of usage, the use of SAF will reduce greenhouse gases by 70%, which is something that we can all get behind.
I know that I am expected to speak about the amendments, so I will briefly touch on Lords amendment 6. I am confident that the Secretary of State and the Minister will continue to consult those they consider appropriate ahead of any legislation. I am very reassured to hear the Minister say that he has already engaged with and got support from the devolved nations on this matter, but will he reflect on the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) about how SAF production could be part of the Government’s wider aims and the conversations he has with Energy Ministers about getting to net zero? Decreasing our carbon usage and green energy are so important to that. When I go into schools and meet the pilots, cabin crew and ground staff of the future, the No. 1 thing they bring up are their concerns about climate change.
Finally, it has been a pleasure to be part of this process and see this Bill through Parliament. The Bill is a clear sign that this Labour Government recognise the importance of our aviation sector for the future of young people and for business and international trade. It is also clear that the Government recognise the importance of green energy solutions to ensure that this country and the world have a positive future. Although I missed Third Reading—this is the joke coming—I am glad to be here for the Bill’s final descent towards Royal Assent.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
As a fellow member of the Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I welcome the return of the Bill to this place. Its progress is an example of the common-sense approach of this Labour Government.
With airport expansion and infrastructure expansion—such as, perhaps, the Glasgow airport rail link—necessary to support growth in every corner of the United Kingdom, and given the need to decarbonise the sector without pricing the ordinary Brit out of their holiday, the Government’s approach to aviation and this Bill has been the right one. While some Opposition Members—absent from their Benches—seem keen to condemn aviation and its economic benefits to the dustbin of history, this Bill takes the right approach. It will aid the Government’s growth commitment to the aviation sector alongside the progress being made on airspace modernisation.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I am pleased to support the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill and the Lords amendments. The Bill is about backing a world-class aviation sector and supporting its growth in a way that meets our decarbonisation responsibilities. The fact that SAF could contribute to the 65% reduction in emissions needed by aviation to meet net zero by 2050 is a useful reminder that technological development can ensure a future for higher carbon emitters while improving our environment. That is policy in action, and it will reduce disruption to consumers—something that we also have to bear in mind.
SAF matters not just for its decarbonisation credentials, but for its clear potential to support job creation and economic growth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said, it will bring into existence a circular economy, including flooding alleviation and the development of feedstocks. That would perhaps alleviate some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) about the source of feedstocks.
Increasing home-grown SAF production can position the UK as a leading destination in this new market. Low-carbon fuels can support up to 15,000 jobs and contribute up to £5 billion to the economy by 2050. That is not an abstract prospect for those of us who represent communities built on industry and energy. In northern Lincolnshire, we already see what that can mean. Phillips 66’s Humber refinery in Immingham—in my neighbouring constituency—is the UK’s first and largest commercial scale producer of SAF. I was pleased to discuss the potential for the expansion of SAF operations with P66, especially given its recent acquisition of the Lindsey oil refinery site, which has a uniquely placed direct pipeline to London Heathrow.
It is of the utmost importance that UK refineries such as P66’s Humber refinery play a crucial role in the transition to and upscaling of cleaner fuel sources. That would retain the domestic skills base and supply chains that communities such as mine depend on. That is why I particularly welcome Lords amendments 1 to 3, which will ensure that the Secretary of State can enter revenue certainty contracts only where the supported SAF is produced in the UK. That is a crucial step in protecting domestic industrial growth. Given recent global events that other colleagues have referred to, the amendments present straightforward, sensible safeguards that help the UK to build fuel capability and resilience in an ever volatile global fuel supply chain.
For SAF to be a success, and as we build the market, we must get the wider policy framework right, including carbon pricing and the UK emissions trading scheme. The ETS can support sustainable aviation fuel investment, but it needs to be negotiated with care so that British industry has the clarity and confidence it needs to invest for the long term. It must not face uncertainty or any unintended disadvantages.
I support the Bill and welcome the Lords amendments. I look forward to working with the Government to strengthen the link between ambition and real industrial opportunity here at home, creating jobs and career opportunities in communities such as Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
A few of my colleagues have been offering jokes. I was not able to prepare detailed remarks, so I hope they will forgive me if I just wing it. [Laughter.]
Although we have discussed decarbonisation a number of times in this debate, it has not been said yet that the Bill is about addressing the climate crisis. That incredibly important and urgent piece of work demands the utmost urgency and ambition. For that reason, I naturally support it and what it is trying to achieve. Similar mechanisms have been incredibly successful in developing the thriving renewables industry that we now see in the UK, which provides a lot of our energy.
It is worth while recognising that the Bill is part of a much longer journey to decarbonising aviation. I declare an interest early in my remarks: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen. In a very long timeframe, we can potentially see aviation using cryogenic hydrogen as a fuel source, so we should keep that in view.
Similarly, SAF has various generations of development, with different feedstocks and mechanisms of production. The fuels also have different characteristics and ways of interacting with gas turbine technology. Therefore, the devil will absolutely be in the detail of the mechanisms that the Government are putting forward to build a market for the various generations of SAF. I hope we will see more detail about that strategic approach as this legislation goes forward.
It is important, as the amendments make clear, that the UK benefits from what we are doing in the Bill. I am passionate about seeing the whole UK low-carbon energy supply chain building and scaling rapidly. That includes electrons—the Government already have very ambitious goals around decarbonising electricity—as well as molecules and hydrogen. We are still awaiting the hydrogen strategy. I recently spoke to the Minister about that, and I understand that it is close. It is incredibly important that we have an ambitious and comprehensive strategy for the development of the hydrogen economy in the UK that does not just serve a small number of industrial clusters but underpins our decarbonisation of electricity, provides dispatchable power and provides an opportunity for industrial renewal as we move forward.
Hydrogen is an important feedstock for producing SAF by any route. We need a hydrogen economy, and for that we need a price. For a price, we need storage and transmission. As we fulfil our desires for SAF to be ambitious, bold and effective in decarbonising, we must also do the work as a Government to build a hydrogen economy to establish that anchoring price, as well as demand and production, so that we can see a thriving, decarbonising aviation sector, the renewal and regeneration of the whole UK industrial sector, and an absolute renaissance underpinned by low-carbon energy—both electrons and molecules.
Keir Mather
Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to start by asking for the leave of the House to speak again, and then wish a very happy birthday to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). I was so keen to wish him a happy birthday, I nearly put a foot wrong when it came to parliamentary protocol. I had the pleasure of celebrating my birthday during consideration of the Railways Bill with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). May I say, it was raucous, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) will attest?
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the Lords amendments and for his strong support for the principle of decarbonisation of aviation. I am starting to receive slightly mixed signals from the shadow Transport team as to how passionately they stand behind this prospect across different modes of transport. Perhaps that is one to be hashed out over a beer at his birthday celebrations. I am glad that the shadow Minister agrees with the Government amendments. He is right to point to the economic value of decarbonisation across the United Kingdom and the need to focus on value for money for taxpayers. We are committed to delivering that in the revenue certainty mechanism by controlling the scale and the number of contracts that are entered into, as well as the prices that are negotiated in each contract. I assure him that the cost of the scheme and the impact on passenger ticket prices will be kept under continual review. I do not just acknowledge his commitment to be vigilant on this issue; I actively welcome it, and I thank him for his contributions.
May I also acknowledge the presence of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)? I have already thanked him for his work on the Bill, but he was not in the Chamber, so I would like to take the opportunity to restate my thanks to him for getting this crucial legislation to where it needed to be.
I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). They were right to focus on and say that the benefits of SAF production must be felt in my home of Yorkshire as well as in Lincolnshire and across the United Kingdom. The point about Doncaster Sheffield airport is important, because the consumers who use our airports and seek to use aviation travel to connect themselves to the world also care that they can do so in a form of technology that the Government are doing their utmost to try to decarbonise. I am glad that they feel that that level of ambition is reflected both in these amendments and in the Bill as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) also pointed to that.
The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), was right to say that SAF is only one piece of the puzzle in aviation decarbonisation. Hydrogen flight, greenhouse gas removals and airspace modernisation all require focus. Those points were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Worcester (Tom Collins).
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield asked me about the concerns about crop use in SAF. Currently, crop-based SAF will not be eligible for the SAF mandate, but a call for evidence on the subject is open and will close on 16 March. More broadly, he asked me a range of questions that were quite detailed, some of which lie outside the exact scope of the Lords amendments. I would therefore be grateful if he would write to me and set them out so that I can give him the full response that he requires.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow for his contribution. He is right to point to the skills benefit that the generation of a thriving UK SAF industry can bring to his constituents and to support the work in Stansted airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) also raised the important point of ongoing questions surrounding the Grangemouth refinery. I reiterate, as he asked me to, that we are calling on investors to come forward and join us in the major opportunity to secure the long-term industrial future of Grangemouth as a hub for our clean energy future. With Government backing, we believe that now is the time for private sector partners to step forward and help shape the next chapter for Grangemouth. The National Wealth Fund stands ready to invest £200 million to support those new opportunities. I encourage my hon. Friend to keep working with us, and we are ready to engage with investors on that point.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
A5036 Park Lane footbridge
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The original footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane, Netherton, provided a safe crossing for thousands of children and adults for decades. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the pedestrian footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane West junction is rebuilt, honouring the original promise to restore the bridge and ensuring safe and convenient access for the community.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Bootle, Merseyside,
Declares that the footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane West Junction should be rebuilt because the removal of the bridge in 2022 has caused significant inconvenience and safety concerns; further declares that the original bridge provided a safe crossing for thousands of children and adults for decades; and further declares that the proposed alternative crossing does not meet the needs of local residents and users.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that the pedestrian footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane West Junction is rebuilt, honouring the original promise to restore the bridge and ensuring safe and convenient access for the community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003166]
SEND Provision: Local Authorities
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I welcome many aspects of the special educational needs and disabilities White Paper, especially those on early intervention and increased funding. We know that most local authority SEND staff care deeply, and we are grateful for them for that, but local authority SEND provision is chronically underfunded and too often this has led to corner cutting, a culture of dishonesty and brutalisation. I fear that the Government have seriously underestimated the scale of harm. One mum wrote on my Facebook page:
“My daughter is self-harming and suicidal. EHCP behind by weeks. Discharged by CAMHS as educational setting is the main reason for mental health struggles and has to change before any work can be done. We are just left watching our children suffer. How is breaking the law by all these services allowed and not prosecuted?”
To this point, Mathew Purchase KC has said that the schools White Paper has
“a lot of good intentions, but which, on the face of it, are going to reduce the ability for children and families to enforce what they are legally entitled to.”
Last week I published, with The Times, 20 cases of avoidable SEND child suicide caused by failures by local authorities. All 20 of those children would have had their education, health and care plan rights removed under the Government’s plan, so would potentially have been even more vulnerable. Three of their mums have asked me to speak about their children.
Patricia Alban is here today. Her son Sammy was autistic. His local authority removed his EHCP. Despite 13 referrals by the police to the council, it refused to provide him with any of the support he needed. After a history of suicide attempts, Sammy died, aged 13, after falling from a harbour wall. His inquest concluded that he died from
“inadequate support from the local authority and mental health services.”
My constituent, Jen Bridges-Chalkley, started college in October 2021. She was 17 and had been diagnosed with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Her local authority failed to update the college, through her EHCP, about her risk of suicide. One month later, she was dead. Her 81-page inquest report detailed continuous and prolonged failures by her local authority to provide the support she needed.
Eivie White was 13 when she killed herself, after years of denials and failures by her local authority to provide the support she needed for her autism. Her older sister found her body. She had to continue sleeping in the same bedroom in which Eivie had hanged herself because the local authority would not provide new housing. Six months later, Eivie’s best friend killed herself, aged 13.
Those are just three of over 200 testimonies I have received about avoidable SEND child suicide—it is an epidemic. It is our country’s duty to protect our most vulnerable citizens. How can the Government even consider cutting children’s rights?
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for his powerful and sobering speech, and for securing the debate. He and I have talked before about his research, which is heartbreaking and demonstrates powerfully the need for change. We have arranged a date for me to visit and speak to some of the families he is working with, and I am happy to make time after the debate to talk with the families who are here today. This is just unimaginable loss.
The hon. Member set out that he has gathered 200 stories, but I understand that there are thousands more stories in which children and families have been failed. I have travelled around the country to talk to families, and I have also heard so many stories.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for his truly emotional and very caring speech. While the Minister is travelling around the country, will she spend some time in west Somerset, where 2,500 children are on the crisis list?
Georgia Gould
I thank the hon. Member for inviting me to speak to families in her area.
The conversations that I have had have so often been about parents battling for years to get the support that they know their children need, as the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley said, and about the powerlessness they feel as they watch their children struggle and fall behind.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
At my online advice surgery yesterday, I met constituent Jenny Wilson, who has fought tirelessly for her son Maxwell to receive support from their local authority—he is without a formal diagnosis. Jenny and other parents in my constituency would like to know what more the Government are doing to help children who do not have a formal diagnosis and are still being denied EHCPs or any additional support.
Georgia Gould
I very often hear that exact story: too much support is locked behind a diagnosis that takes years, or behind a bureaucratic process. The reforms that we have set out move investment directly into schools and services that wrap around schools. We are introducing two new layers of support—targeted and targeted-plus—that will be available to children, without that battle for external validation. Teachers will be able to draw on that to support children in their classrooms. That is backed up by two new pieces of investment: £1.6 billion going directly into schools; and £1.8 billion into a new “experts at hand” service, to pay for speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, educational psychologists, specialist teachers and others who will support schools. Their support will be available for young people, including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Chris Coghlan
I agree with what the Minister says, and it is good that all this provision is coming in, but I simply do not understand why, if she is so confident that these reforms will work, it is necessary to reduce children’s rights. I know that she is likely to say that the Government are not doing so, but it is the view of KCs—an authority I trust—that that is happening. In theory, if the reforms succeed, the demand to exercise those legal rights should naturally fall, because families should not need to use them, so whether or not those rights are there should be slightly irrelevant. However, if the reforms do not succeed, those rights gives families whose trust has collapsed the peace of mind that they can, in the worst cases, go to a tribunal and save their children’s lives.
Georgia Gould
It is really important to say to families that we are expanding their support and their rights. There will be new legal duties on schools to develop these new layers of support, which will mean that support is available earlier.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for securing this debate. It is so important that the lived experiences of parents are valued by local authorities and other services, and too often they are not. In 2023, two of my constituents, Jo and Chris, tragically lost their son Leo to suicide. Leo was a bright, intelligent, inquisitive child. He was also neurodivergent and struggled with his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. He is featured in the Times article that the hon. Member mentioned. The coroner’s report into his death found that he had been failed by multiple agencies over a sustained period. The hon. Member kindly reached out to Jo and Chris to learn more about what happened to Leo and the lessons that could be learned, and I am really grateful to him for doing so. Will the Minister agree to meet me, so that we can ensure the voices of parents like Jo and Chris are given the weight that they deserve?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that tragic story. Of course I would be willing to meet him to discuss it further. These are stories of failure, and we need to do better for these families and change things. We need a system in which every school is set up to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. We are making it mandatory for every teacher to be trained to support children with special educational needs and disabilities, investing directly in schools to provide that support and setting out new national standards and new accountability for schools.
The hon. Member for Dorking and Horley made a really important point about families still being able to apply for specialist support. Any individual who feels that their child is not getting the support they need through the targeted or targeted-plus offer will be able to have a needs assessment. If they are unhappy with the needs assessment, they will be able to go to the tribunal to challenge that decision, so there will be individual redress in the system.
But it cannot just be for individual families to hold the system to account, because that is the system we have at the moment, with families having to take on legal battles, and for those who do not have the resource, it is not possible to do that. We in the Department for Education and Ofsted have to hold institutions to account. We are really clear that we will provide more support for councils—we are supporting them with 90% of their deficits—but with that support comes much stronger accountability.
Chris Coghlan
I have repeatedly raised with the DFE over the last year very serious misconduct by Surrey county council, including concealing for over 14 months the fact that it had the highest number of complaints in the country and reclassifying complaints as inquiries to reduce complaint volumes. As far as I am aware, no disciplinary action has been taken. This is not a party political point, because it is a Conservative county council, and I know that, off the record, some Conservative county councillors feel exactly the same way about their own administration.
I worked with the Department of Health and Social Care on reforming the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and I was very impressed by its willingness to acknowledge misconduct and the need for accountability and transparency in that case. To be frank, all I have seen from the Department for Education is a culture of protecting one’s own and of cover-ups. When will serious action be taken against local authorities that commit misconduct on SEND and systematic lawbreaking? The Secretary of State for Education said that local authorities will be held to account, but given what has happened with Surrey county council, how can we have any confidence that they actually will?
Georgia Gould
Following the letters that the hon. Member and others wrote to the Secretary of State, she instructed further intensive activity in Surrey, including a number of deep dives into the issues that were raised, which will report back shortly. There are SEND advisers going in, and there is very close monitoring of what is happening in Surrey and the progress being made, but I take the wider point that families have made to me and Members across the Chamber that there needs to be greater accountability for local authorities. We recognise the challenging circumstances that local authorities have been in, but more investment is going in, and with that investment has to come stronger monitoring, accountability and intervention when there is failure.
As is set out in the schools White Paper, we are strengthening what we are able to do in a number of areas. We are very clear that if there is repeated and long-term failure, we will take SEND from local authorities. Working with the Disabled Children’s Partnership, we are setting out new conditions under which local authorities will need to learn from tribunal judgments, publish action plans on the back of them and show much greater transparency and action.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I particularly thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for securing the debate and for the manner in which he introduced it. Since he has been in this place, he has been a strong advocate for SEND families, and I thank him for that.
The Minister has heard me talk about Sara Sharif before, and my hon. Friend has talked about her during the debate. We are clearly very concerned about children’s services in Surrey county council and I hope that we have shown that intervention is needed. The Minister may disagree, but I beg her to take away that we want to ensure that the culture of children’s services at Surrey county council is not transferred to West Surrey council or East Surrey council in the future. If the Government agree with my assessment that intervention is needed now, they need to intervene to ensure that that culture is not transferred, so that we have the fresh start that vulnerable children in our constituencies so desperately need.
Georgia Gould
As I set out, we have appointed a SEND adviser who is offering that challenge to Surrey county council. We will continue to monitor the situation very carefully and I await the outcomes of the deep dives. I will be meeting parents, along with the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, to hear directly from them. I am committed to continuing to work with all the relevant MPs to ensure that children are getting the support that they need in Surrey. More generally, I am committed to ensuring that there is strong accountability and monitoring of performance, as well as putting in new investment and support.
I want to address the concern mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley that some young people who had previously had support will no longer get that support under the new system. I refer colleagues to the draft annexes that set out the specialist provision packages. I hope that those annexes reassure them that, as well as looking at children who have physical disabilities and complex learning difficulties, two of the specialist provision packages focus on social and emotional needs, and the interface with mental health.
Chris Coghlan
I fully believe that the Minister’s heart is in the right place, but for me the test is what lawyers and KCs—not to big them up too much—are saying about the White Paper: specialist educational lawyers are clear that the White Paper is reducing children’s rights. I would love to support the White Paper, but our country desperately needs reforms in this area, as this debate has highlighted. If the Minister wants my support, she will have to satisfy KCs that there is no reduction in rights, and at the moment there is.
Georgia Gould
Attached to the schools White Paper and the SEND consultation document is our own analysis of children’s rights and all the areas where we are strengthening them. I want to be really clear that the intention of the reforms is to bring in more support earlier and to extend the rights that children have access to.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister is being generous with her time and I thank her for giving way. I want to reiterate the point about the families who have already gone through the system and who have fought for EHCPs, many of whom have had to go through tribunals and feel like they are having to do everything on their own. I come from a mental health background, and I am surprised that the system does not have what I would call a care co-ordinator to support families who are going through this difficult process.
Families are genuinely scared that the Government’s proposed reforms will lead to a stripping away of support. In my constituency, where we are served by Surrey and Borders partnership NHS foundation trust, it takes a year and a half to get an autism diagnosis, and even longer if people need medication for ADHD. I have raised that in this place with Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care, but can the Minister reassure me that as part of the approach to SEND, she and her Department are looking at the interface between education and health? I understand what she says about the absence of a diagnosis not meaning that a child should not be supported—we could have another debate about that—but for many children a diagnosis is very important, and it needs to be timely and treatment needs to be quick and effective.
Finally, before I test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I invite the Minister to come to Meath school, a special educational needs school in Ottershaw in my constituency? It is an amazing place and every time I go there I learn so much, so it would be great if she could come along and meet the fantastic kids and teachers there.
Georgia Gould
I confess that I think I have committed to go to every constituency in the country, but I will do my best. [Laughter.] I cannot promise that every single ask will be responded to quickly, but I want to get to every community, and we will also be doing a number of online events as part of the consultation to ensure that everyone has the chance to feed in.
To respond to the hon. Member’s questions, first, it is important to make clear that we are not saying that children do not need a diagnosis. Diagnosis plays an important part in the system for children and young people, but it cannot and should not be a barrier to accessing support in the education system. Schools must have the tools to identify and respond to need, and the resource and well-evidenced interventions to wrap support around children without a diagnosis. However, we are committed to working with Health colleagues on improving the whole system, and the SEND consultation document is clear about that further work on accountability —not just for local authorities, but for integrated care boards. The hon. Member will know about the review of some of the inequalities in access to diagnosis.
The point about care co-ordinators and parental support is well made—that is something I have heard a lot from families. Within the consultation, we have asked a question about how that can be better delivered, and we are committed to doing more in that space. Lots of different ideas have come forward from different disabled children’s organisations and from parents, but I want to use the consultation to hear directly from parents about what is most helpful for them. In some models, parents who have been through the system are paid to support other parents, and the special educational needs and disabilities information advice and support service already exists. We want to look at all the different models, and I would welcome insights from across the House.
I want to provide some important reassurance to those parents who the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) talked about who are concerned about the changes. First, any child at a special school will remain there for as long as they want. We have deliberately taken a careful and staged approach and are putting investment up front, so we are building a new system before we look to transition into it. We are also asking the Children’s Commissioner to take an independent view of system readiness. Secondly, we are clear that any child transitioning from an education, health and care plan must move on to an individual support plan, with the wraparound support I have mentioned.
Chris Coghlan
The Minister is being very generous with her time, and I am being slightly cheeky.
I have a horrendous case involving a child in Dorking who is 12 years old. I saw the mother in September, a week after the child’s second suicide attempt. The child and adolescent mental health services wrote to the GP one week later, saying that their risk of suicide was low, but there have been more self-harm incidents since then. This child has autism, and last week the county council rejected them from getting an EHCP, so I am literally at my wits’ end about what to do on this case. First, if I were to write to the Minister about this particular case, I would be hugely grateful if she could intervene. Secondly, how would she envisage this child’s situation improving after the reforms?
Georgia Gould
That is a truly tragic case. Of course, I cannot comment without knowing the full circumstances, but I encourage the hon. Member to write to me. There are two ways that the reforms could improve the situation. First, rather than having to wait for years, that support will go in a lot earlier. As well as the particular support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, we are working to bring more mental health support into schools to support children and young people. I mentioned the specialist provision packages and the drafts there, because I often hear from parents whose children do not get as much attention in the system because they internalise their social and emotional needs. Children who externalise those needs are sometimes not well supported either, but where they are internalised, those children get missed. We focused on those children and their need for specialist provision. For those children who can be supported in the mainstream, we want to put that support in earlier, but we want to have pathways into specialist support for those who need them.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I declare my usual interest, as my wife is a special needs co-ordinator and one of our children has an EHCP. I thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for bringing forward this debate. My constituents have seen our London borough of Bexley council have a safety valve agreement and an Ofsted inspection of systemic failings, which we are hopefully about to come out of. I have seen those things as a councillor and as a parent. I am the parent of twins, and I can tell the House that despite having an EHCP, the transfer for my daughter with an EHCP was so much more stressful than it was for my other daughter. I welcome the changes, as the Minister knows. There are still a few things we need to iron out in these conversations about transition, support for schools and the role of ICBs. Can the Minister commit that, through the consultation and legislative process, we will continue to hear those voices to get the package right? I know at first hand that the system is broken, and we have to get it right for these families.
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for his long-term advocacy on this critical issue and for how much he has inputted into our work to improve the system. I am glad that he asked that question, because I wanted to finish with the voices of children, young people and families. We are committed to the accountability that has been asked for, and we will shortly be writing to all local authorities asking them to develop SEND improvement plans. We will be monitoring that carefully and will ensure that the voices of families are part of the intelligence that we receive about performance.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I apologise for being late for the debate; business was going more rapidly than I expected.
Many of us strongly believe that it is important that children are educated as close to home as possible. Unfortunately, I have a piece of casework in my constituency where one child is doing a three-hour round trip every single day just to get to school, which is unacceptable. With the new changes, will there be an option to change that? It would be helpful if the Minister could expand on that.
Georgia Gould
That is such a critical point, and we have heard too many stories about long travel times, and how having to be in transport provokes stress for children, which holds them back. We are determined that every community has access to that support, whether that is inclusive schools or a range of specialist places. That is why we have put £3.7 billion into creating those specialist places around the country, and it is also why we are working on specialist provision packages to ensure that each area has that range of provision. We are determined to build up local provision so that children can grow up close to their friends. I have spoken to young people who have been in the position that my hon. Friend describes. They come back to their communities at 18, and they do not have support networks or friends, and it is so hard to build a life. That has to change, and we are determined to do so.
We have set out our plans after more than a year of engagement, but we want to hear from the constituents of all the Members here and beyond. I am personally committed to travelling and speaking to different voices around the country. We have heard from all the different contexts how things work in rural communities and different parts of the country. It is critical that we get it right. This is a generational opportunity to make change for families who have been let down. I am determined that this will be a full and an open consultation. I ask everyone who is here today, and everyone who is listening, to help us to spread the word so that we hear the families’ voices. Having heard these stories, I feel very deeply—as, I am sure, does the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley—the responsibility to change things for those families, and I am committed to working with Members on both sides of the House to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
It be remiss of me not to extend an invitation to the Minister to visit St Edward’s school in my constituency of Romsey and Southampton North.
Question put and agreed to.