Spending Review 2025

Andrew Lewin Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The investment we are putting into Derby and Nottinghamshire is significant, with small modular reactors, investment in defence and investment in fusion, creating good jobs and paying decent wages right across the east midlands. I do not think that taxpayers’ money should be used to pay for asylum hotels, which is why we are reducing the cost of asylum accommodation by around £1 billion during the course of this Parliament and ending the use of asylum hotels.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

It is a source of pride to see a Labour Chancellor announce such a transformative programme for social housing. My hope is that the boost to the affordable homes programme can be used to unlock stalled projects like those in Welwyn Garden City, in my constituency, where the Metropolitan Thames Valley development adjacent to the station needs to get motoring. I thank the Chancellor for her investment today. Does she agree that our message to councils and housing associations is, “We back you—now it is time for you to build”?

[Rachel Reeves]

The changes we have made to the planning system and the changes we are making through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill provide the opportunity to build. Today, we have backed those opportunities with money through the affordable homes grant to ensure that a good proportion of social and affordable housing is included in that, for all the reasons that hon. Members have mentioned. On the particular issue of housing around stations, there is huge potential there. The infrastructure is there—we want to have the housing there, too.

Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

Andrew Lewin Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing such an important debate.

Next week, the Lloyds and Halifax branches in Welwyn Garden City will close their doors to customers for the last time. In Hatfield, we have already lost every bank branch from White Lion Square in the centre of town. As we have heard today, this is a wearily familiar story in communities across the country.

Regrettably, I must start by sharing my experience with Lloyds Banking Group. On its website, it talks of a

“commitment to putting customers first”.

I am afraid my experience, on behalf of residents in Welwyn Garden City, left me feeling that we were just another cog in the corporate wheel. Earlier this year, my office was informed of the closure of Lloyds and Halifax in Welwyn Garden City barely an hour before they hit send on the press release. The management did respond to my firmly worded letter demanding a meeting, and, in person, I made it clear that if the closure could not be overturned, I wanted to work together on a bespoke option for a community banking service. I suggested Welwyn Garden City library as an appropriate community venue, and said if that option was pursued, there should be no barriers to running a regular service, given the extremely low cost to Lloyds of hiring a room. Lloyds needed frequent chasing to respond afterwards, and eventually came back with its standardised offer: a community banking service in the library, but open just once every fortnight. That is its national policy, so Welwyn Garden City is in no worse or better a position than any of our neighbours, but I am left with the impression that Lloyds was never serious about a bespoke solution for our town. If Lloyds Banking Group is listening or watching today and wants to think again, I will happily take a call as soon as I leave this Chamber.

As other banks and building societies close, it is the role of Government to accelerate the roll-out of banking hubs. In Hatfield, we have a temporary banking hub at the post office in White Lion Square, and I know that Cash Access and Welwyn Hatfield borough council are working towards a permanent home. Some people will always want to have face-to-face conversations about their finances. The hub model is here to stay—a service underpinned by the state, via the Post Office, which we need in communities across the country.

I am equally convinced that the way banks and building societies navigate this period of change might lead to customers being increasingly open to switching. I commend Nationwide for its national commitment to keeping branches open, and note with interest that the Current Account Switch Service found last year that nearly 1.2 million Brits switched their current account, with Nationwide the beneficiary of the most net switches.

The challenge for the retail banking industry is to show they take seriously the need to engage with customers who want and need in-person support, and those who succeed might find that doing good is good business. However, where business has a choice to make, Government have an obligation. Let us fast-track our plan for banking hubs and redouble our efforts to ensure that no community is without one.

Family Businesses

Andrew Lewin Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we see that in the surveys to which I referred; business confidence is at virtually an all-time low.

Before this whirlwind of disaster visited us, we had a calmer time during the general election. It was a Labour party on best behaviour with business, a Labour party with a manifesto that sought to reassure business—indeed, it explicitly ruled out the possibility of an increase in national insurance—and a Labour party on the prawn cocktail circuit, countenancing canapés and calm, with the breathy seduction of the former shadow Chancellor and the now Business Secretary hopping about in the background dispensing free legal advice to whoever cared to listen. With Labour, everything seemed possible; business would be safe in its tender hands—but it was not. Trust was destroyed, and the wrong decisions were taken. Why? Because those on the Government Front Bench have not a jot of real-world business experience. In fact, fewer than half of those around the Cabinet table have any experience in the private sector whatsoever. Far from being the natural party of business, this is the most anti-business Government in modern political history.

Surveys by the British Chambers of Commerce show that tax is now the No. 1 concern of businesses. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, in the last quarter of last year, business confidence hit the lowest level ever recorded in its surveys, save for the pandemic. It is almost as if the only way that small businesses are created today is through the shrinkage of larger ones.

Firms are being crushed by the wrong policies. Take the national insurance measure, which, despite having not yet commenced—it comes in in April—is already driving down employment and driving up prices and inflation. It is a ticking tax time bomb waiting to go off in early April. It will affect the lowest paid the hardest, with those in part-time work bearing the brunt of this measure, and it will impact those in labour-intensive sectors. UKHospitality found that three quarters of a million more jobs will be subject to national insurance as a direct effect of this Government’s plans. According to Young’s, the brewer, the policy will add an extra 20p to the price of a pint.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed concern for people on lower wages, and I hope he will therefore welcome the decision announced at the Dispatch Box by this Labour Government to increase the living wage by 6.7% from April.

[Mel Stride]

As the party that increased the personal allowance, doubling it between 2010 and the present day, taking millions of people out of tax altogether, and that brought in the national living wage, we have done a great deal to support the lowest paid in our society in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewin]

My hon. Friend is talking about the importance of sustainable funding, and I completely agree. It is fascinating that the last Government had a business rate relief system, which was a good one, but had nothing in the Budget for it at all, so they planned to cancel it entirely. That is why we are now in this situation.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that, under the previous Government, there was a series of cliff edges and one-year extensions that provided no stability whatsoever to businesses trying to plan investment, hiring or expansion decisions. That is why we have decided to extend the relief that the previous Government were due to end in April 2025 for one further year, before introducing permanently lower rates from April 2026.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend makes a sensible point, and the issues that he raises are reflected in my constituency. That is one of the major barriers to getting jobs and spending into our high streets.

If the Budget last year had failed to raise money for investment in public services, it would have been like changing the colour of the shovel before continuing to dig a hole in the same old ditch. We could not prolong the failed approach of the past 14 years. We can add to that the disgraceful situation that awaited the incoming Labour Government. For all the sound and fury that we have heard from the Conservatives, there is little mystery about that now. Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR, told the Treasury Committee:

“When we had a high-trust relationship with the Treasury those things were being well managed, and managed within the total. That system very clearly broke down.”

He said that

“there was about £9.5 billion-worth of net pressure on Departments’ budgets, which they did not disclose to us…which under the law and under the Act they should have done.”

The decisions that awaited the incoming Government on public sector pay, which is the other element of the £22 billion, had been ducked and delayed until after the election. [Interruption.] We need to be clear on that. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) indicates from a sedentary position. He will know about the situation with the School Teachers Review Body. Conservative Ministers already knew about the STRB’s recommendations and that the recommendations of the other review bodies tend to be similar.

Given that the pay year starts not in July or even at the beginning of the election period but in April, why were those recommendations delayed? Because Conservative Ministers and their Departments were late to submit the remit letters and evidence. The Office for Manpower Economics has been clear on that point:

“The work of the PRBs is demand led and essentially non-negotiable—departments set the remits and timetables.”

That is the truth of the matter. The additional costs were always coming, and the only reason they came seven months into an election year is that Conservative Ministers were content for them to be so delayed.

Conservative Members claim that they would not have accepted those recommendations, but they have not said at any point what their offer to public sector workers would have been. I wonder whether any Conservative Member wants to tell us today what their offer would have been, if not 5.5%, had they won the election. It should not be a hard question to answer. What would the difference be in the pay packets of nurses, teachers and members of the armed forces? I would be very happy to take an intervention on that point. [Interruption.] They cannot answer the question.

[Andrew Lewin]

In the absence of an intervention from the Conservatives, I say for the record that this has been a hugely important week for the House with the increase in defence spending, and it was so important that Labour gave a 6% pay rise to members of the armed forces—the biggest in 20 years.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend makes his point as well as it could be made, and I thank him for his intervention.

Let us not forget the costs that the previous Government inflicted upon businesses. Their botched EU withdrawal policies have meant up to £7.5 billion in costs from customs checks alone according to HMRC, £1 billion from higher energy trading costs, and a further £1 billion from the cost of chemical regulations in that sector every single year. One former Conservative Prime Minister said something like, “Screw business.” At least we can say that he lived up to his word on that.

The motion is not a serious proposition. I hope that the House rejects it.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Andrew Lewin Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

The Budget delivered in this House a few weeks ago was a Budget for growth, investment and public services. It was a Budget delivered by a Chancellor who was direct about the scale of the challenge that we inherited from the Conservative party, and who was clear and optimistic that we can build a better country, but only with honesty and clarity about how we raise the revenue we need. The increase in employer national insurance contributions will raise £25 billion. That is a choice made by this Labour Government, but it was the only responsible choice available to us on discovering the depth of the damage done over the last 14 years.

[Graham Stuart]

The cost to the economy is over £25 billion, but the net cost, having adjusted for behavioural change and compensating the public sector, is more like £10 billion or £11 billion. Does he regret that this particular vehicle was chosen? It damages the economy, it will take nearly £20 billion out of people’s wages, and it raises only £10 billion or £11 billion. It is about the worst tax imposition we could think of.

[Andrew Lewin]

I do not regret the vehicle we have chosen. I have faith in the figures in the Red Book. Interestingly, I have heard colleagues on the Opposition Benches cite the OBR, and that is from the same party who, just two years ago when it was in government, wanted to get rid of the OBR and not listen to expert voices at all. Indeed, I remember them saying that they had “had enough of experts”.

We have heard lots of supposedly deep concern for business from Conservative Members. Of course that was not so much of an issue for the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, who as Prime Minister told his Government to “eff business”. Or indeed for his successor, the former Member for South West Norfolk. Her one fiscal event as Prime Minister was called a “mini-Budget”, but the lasting damage that it did to our economy was anything but small—markets in turmoil, higher mortgage repayments for thousands of my constituents in Welwyn Hatfield, debt rising, debt interest payments up, and of course not even a hint of an apology.

As for the most recent Administration, I am sorry not to see the shadow Chancellor in his place. During the election campaign I hugely respected how many times he hit the airwaves of TV and radio stations to defend the manifesto that the Conservatives put to the country. For a verdict on that manifesto I defer to Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said:

“What the manifesto did not tell us was where the £10 to £20 billion of cuts to spending on unprotected public services…might come from. This manifesto remains silent on the wider problems facing core public services.”

The Labour party will not stay silent on the problems facing our public services. Opposition parties can choose fantasy economics; we choose a change to national insurance to fund the rescue and reform that our public services need. That change starts with paying our public servants properly. When I go through the Lobby to support this national insurance Bill, I will think of the serving members of the armed forces, who received a 6% pay rise from this Labour Government, the biggest in 22 years. I will think of the extra money in the pockets of the police, who faced down the shocking disorder in our communities across the country this summer. I will think of Daisy and Jake, the two paramedics I joined on a shift in Hertfordshire a few months ago.

[Stuart Anderson]

Has the hon. Member spoken to anyone in his constituency who is not in the public sector?

[Andrew Lewin]

Absolutely. I speak to businesses day in, day out. Those businesses say to me, “Thank goodness we have had a change in government after the past 14 years.” I will return to Daisy and Jake, because I would like to put them on the record. I joined those two paramedics on a shift in Hertfordshire. They are extraordinarily dedicated public servants finally receiving an overdue boost to their incomes.

I also think of our teachers. I have visited a different school in Welwyn Hatfield in almost every week of this job, and it is invariably the highlight of my week to meet such dedicated staff and inspiring pupils. At the same time, it is evident how many schools are stretched to their limit and beyond. This change to national insurance helps to fund a billion in extra revenue for the special education needs and disabilities budget and, further, it makes sure that we can recruit 6,500 additional teachers across the country.

Everyone in this House has a choice today. Members can choose to oppose the Bill and by doing so confirm that they are not serious about the public finances or our public services, or they can support it, and back our nurses, the police, the fire service, teachers and our serving military personnel. I will back this Bill as I backed the Budget. Together, they are the foundation on which this Government will deliver on our manifesto and drive the change our country so badly needs.

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Andrew Lewin Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech in this debate. It is a privilege to follow the first female Chancellor in history, and to follow two inspiring maiden speeches from the Labour Benches by my hon. Friends the Members for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman). It is an honour to sit alongside them on the Government Benches, and their communities are both very lucky to have them.

As hon. Members can imagine, I have given careful thought to my remarks today, but it is safe to say that this is not the most anticipated maiden speech ever associated with Welwyn Hatfield. The reason for that is that, on 20 November 1558, Elizabeth I gave her inaugural address as Queen from Hatfield House in my constituency. Irrespective of how the next few minutes go, I think her place in history is safe.

I am especially grateful to be called in this debate on the economy. My constituency is anchored by two new towns that flourished under a previous Labour Government. Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City were incorporated as new towns together under a single development corporation on 20 May 1948. The growth of Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City played an important role in the rebuilding and reimagining of life in our part of the country after the horrors of the second world war. I believe that if we are to succeed in growing our economy, we have to rediscover the ambition and the vision that was embodied by those who designed and carefully planned our two great towns.

My predecessor as the MP for Welwyn Hatfield was the right hon. Grant Shapps, who served our community for 19 years and will be well known to all Members of this House. In fact, he will probably be familiar to anyone who was watching a morning television news programme at any point over the last five years. Before I talk about Grant’s legacy, however, I want to start with a message of reassurance to the Labour Whips and my colleagues: I have no desire to hold quite so many Cabinet positions as he did, and certainly not in such a short period of time.

I want to reflect solemnly on the personal and professional commitment that Grant Shapps made to the people of Ukraine. After the Russian invasion in 2022, he opened his family home to provide sanctuary to three generations of a Ukrainian family, innocent people whose lives were turned upside down by Putin’s unprovoked act of aggression. In the last Parliament, more than 200,000 Ukrainians were welcomed to our country under the Ukraine family scheme and the Ukraine sponsorship scheme, an initiative that I believe showed our country at its best, open and welcoming in an hour of grave need.

We serve in this House of Commons at a time when our wider political discourse can often be angry and divisive. Of course we will disagree in the House, and passionately so—our constituents rightly expect us always to stand up for our community and our values, and I will certainly try to do just that—but I think we can too easily forget what unites us. Where we agree, let us have the confidence to say so. My predecessor was right to champion the people of Ukraine, and the cause of freedom and democracy. I commend him for it, and wish him well in whatever comes next.

Welwyn Hatfield is a constituency rich in history. Welwyn Village and Woolmer Green were both Roman settlements, and Welwyn is one of the few places in the country believed to have been occupied continuously for 2,000 years. Nearly 400 years after Hatfield was home to Queen Elizabeth I, local people made an important contribution to the defeat of Nazi tyranny. The Royal Air Force’s Mosquito fighter-bomber was developed at the de Havilland airfield and aircraft factory in Hatfield. Welwyn Garden City also has a unique place in history as the creation of Ebenezer Howard, the father of the garden city movement. His immaculately planned and tree-lined streets, such as Parkway in Welwyn Garden City, are still true to his vision from nearly 100 years ago.

Despite our wonderful history, what has struck me when I have walked around our towns and villages is the impression of too many projects on hold, and potential going unfulfilled. Take the iconic Shredded Wheat silos, designed by Louis de Soissons in 1926 and a defining feature of Welwyn Garden City for decades. The site has lain virtually dormant since the factory closed in 2008. In central Hatfield, it is a similar story. Queensway House consists of 66 units that were once all social housing. In November 2019, after a ballot of residents, a majority decided that it was time to demolish and rebuild, but nearly five years later Queensway House is still standing, and it looms over the centre of Hatfield as a symbol of the inertia that has captured our politics for too long. I am determined that that must change. The centre of Hatfield is one part of our community that most urgently needs investment in good-quality housing and social infrastructure, and I will be a champion for it in this House.

Welwyn Hatfield is a growing and increasingly diverse community. In just the last few months I have attended the world street food festival in Welwyn Garden City, the first ever Diwali celebration in White Lion Square in Hatfield, and the ever popular Welwyn festival on Singlers Marsh. We are home to prominent national businesses, including Tesco and Ocado in Hatfield, and to the thriving University of Hertfordshire. The university will soon be opening its state-of-the-art Spectra building for the study of physics, engineering and computer science—and yes, Mr Vice-Chancellor, as this will appear in Hansard, please consider that to be my formal bid for an invitation to its opening!

I believe that a new Parliament is a time for ambition and optimism. Welwyn Hatfield blossomed when Attlee’s Labour Government put housing and carefully planned communities at the centre of its agenda for change. Nearly 80 years later, we have another majority Labour Government with a mandate for national renewal. This is a moment of opportunity, and each of us on these Benches has a responsibility to play our part in realising it. For as long as I serve in this House of Commons, I will always do my utmost to champion Welwyn Hatfield, to respect our history, and to be an agent for change.

[Several hon. Members rose—]