Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

15. What steps he is taking to help ensure that the UK remains the fastest growing economy in the G7.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)]

May I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves)? I am proud to have been a member of a Government with the first female Chancellor in 700 years. She did hard yards on the task of rebuilding Britain’s fiscal credibility, public services and levels of growth after 14 years of Conservative Governments’ failure. I now build on her work.

Yesterday, I set out the Government’s determination to see the next chapter of Britain’s growth story written in more places. That means more devolution and the combined force of the Government to get things done, back businesses and get more investment, innovation and jobs across the UK.

[Elaine Stewart]

Last week, the UK Government announced a financial boost of £11.8 million to support the regional economy across Ayrshire. The money will fund projects across Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, supporting employability and business start-ups. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the SNP is obsessed with centralising in Holyrood and taking away local powers, the route to regional economic growth lies in empowering local communities and local councils?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend does a great job of standing up for the people of Ayrshire. The £11.8 million will fund jobs, training and business start-ups right across Ayrshire. In England, this is a Government who are backing local areas to generate growth in more areas, and I would love to see the Scottish nationalist Government do the same.

[Tristan Osborne]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—and happy Star Trek Day.

Last week, the Opposition chose to Klingon to the Truss legacy, and what a damaging legacy that was. How can we engage in warp speed, so that our economy continues to grow the fastest in the G7?

[Mr Speaker]

Captain Kirk!

[John Healey]

Mr Spock, I think some would say, Mr Speaker! My hon. Friend is right. Despite global conflicts, trade tensions and rising threats in the world, which are pushing up inflation, bearing down on growth and pushing up borrowing costs, the UK economy is demonstrating huge resilience. He is right that in the first six months of this year, the UK economy grew the fastest in the G7. I set out yesterday some early steps to back stronger growth in more places: backing innovation with more investment in fast-growth firms across the north; changing the Government’s Green Book discount rate so that projects across the country with long-term potential will get a fairer hearing; and taking an axe to the thicket of administration that too often slows down decisions, holds back growth and prevents the private investment that we need.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

This week, Arthur Laffer, economic adviser to three former US Presidents, said Britain is being taxed to death under this Labour Government, so will the Chancellor rule out tax rises in the Budget?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman could have asked that question to any Chancellor at any time in the past few decades, and no Chancellor ahead of a Budget would have commented on speculation or ruled out measures. I will set out the decisions I take before the House on 28 October, and I look forward to him being there on that day.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The former Chancellor invested a significant amount of political capital into driving forward the white elephant project of building a third runway at Heathrow on the basis that it would deliver economic growth, but the Government’s appraisal report states that the net present value of expansion is between minus £23.4 billion and minus £62.5 billion. Will this Chancellor put an end to this absurd proposal?

[John Healey]

After years of delay, indecision and often vexatious challenge, we have given the go-ahead to this project quite simply because the economic case stacks up and will help to bring growth.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Chancellor’s clampdown on speculation and leaks ahead of the Budget; it is certainly an important step he has taken. On the issue of certainty, the National Wealth Fund is a critical investor in crowding in private investment around the UK. I noted that he has changed the remit. How will he balance his desire to see change with ensuring that it is strong and stable and that there is certainty for businesses seeking to invest with the support of the National Wealth Fund?

[John Healey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, for the work she does in chairing the Treasury Committee and for her previous work on the Public Accounts Committee. She is right about the damage of speculation ahead of Budget. It led last year, for instance, to a large number of people cashing in pension pots, but the speculation was entirely unfounded.

On my hon. Friend’s question about the National Wealth Fund, we have capitalised it by over £200 billion, and the challenge is to ensure that we get good value-for-money decisions, but decisions made quicker, so that we can get investment into local areas to see private investment bring the growth that we need.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position. I have known him for a long time—I wish him well. He has a huge task ahead of him. Earlier in the summer, the Prime Minister said that walking the streets of Makerfield lodged in his mind that so many working people want to see the personal allowance raised. In Reform, we want to do that as well; in fact, we want to raise it to £15,000 a year and to make work pay. Is it still the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s ambition to raise the personal allowance?

[John Healey]

At the Budget last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) continued the freeze in the personal allowance, which was first brought in by the Conservatives, in order to help fund the improvements in health and schools that this country needs that the people voted for at the election just two years ago. We will keep all of this under review, as we always do. Reform is making promises that it simply cannot keep. The right hon. Gentleman is right that I have known him a long time; I say to him and to the country that he is also a man whose own party leader described as

“a man that believed in nothing”.

[Mr Speaker]

The Chancellor does not need to worry; he has no responsibility for Reform.

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the Chancellor to his new role. I paid close attention yesterday to the long speech he made to reset the narrative and drive growth Britain. In paying tribute to his predecessor, will he recognise that she left the highest tax burden on record? Instead of postponing the words he could utter to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), could he make a short speech today from the Dispatch Box to say that he does not plan to increase the tax burden further?

[John Healey]

I could have spoken a lot longer yesterday. I am grateful to the hon. Member for watching or reading it. In the two years of this Labour Government, we have started to see this country beginning to turn a corner. That is a corner after 14 years in which the previous Tory Governments had a record of low growth and high debt, and a mini-Budget that crashed the British economy and collapsed confidence in Britain’s fiscal strength. This country has huge strengths in its people, its businesses and its communities, who want to seize the future. This is a country in which interest rates have been cut six times since the election; in which borrowing, which is still too high, is down to a six-year low; in which growth—still fragile and under pressure—was fastest in the first half of this year in the G7; and in which productivity and investment are finally, after long Conservative years, beginning to tick up. That is the basis on which we now build.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I welcome the Chancellor to his place. After two anti-growth Budgets, I genuinely wish him well and urge him to deliver a growth Budget this autumn, so that we can avoid more punishing tax rises or painful spending cuts.

Last week, the Prime Minister acknowledged that Brexit had ushered in a “decade of low growth” but did not outline what he thinks is needed to tackle it. On Monday, the Chancellor made what was briefed as a major economic speech on growth, the product of deep thinking, and yet there was barely a mention of the impact of Brexit. Recent studies suggest that deeper alignment with Europe could boost GDP by at least 2.5% to 3.6%, so should the Chancellor’s plan for growth not include the growth and defence partnership with the EU that we have called for?

[John Healey]

The hon. Lady is talking to the person who led the work to establish a defence and security partnership with the European Union and bilateral agreements with other countries, on which we now build both our economic strength and our national security strength.

On the question of the Budget, I ask the hon. Lady to look at what we have done in the seven weeks of this Government. We know that we cannot relieve the cost of living and the cost of business pressures, but we will take steps where we can to do that. I will take that principle into the Budget, and we will back business and do what we can to see growth in more places across the country, because for too long this country has relied on too few of our major cities to drive national growth.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking with local leaders to attract private investment into areas that have historically received lower levels of investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

4. What fiscal steps he is taking to support the renewal of high streets.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)]

This is a Government who are determined to help good councils and businesses to breathe new life into our high streets and town centres. In April we introduced a permanent reduced tax rate worth almost £1 billion for high street businesses, and in July, in the new Prime Minister’s first week, he and I announced a further 20% cut for pubs, social clubs and music venues. This is a Government who will do what they can to help bring a bit of breathing space from the cost of living and the costs of business.

[Mr Rand]

In Altrincham and Sale West, we know how much our pubs and bars contribute to the local high streets of which we are so proud. That contribution goes beyond their economic impact; they create the sense of community that is so important to local people. The Government’s 20% cut in business rates was indeed welcome to them, but I know from events that I have held locally with the Altrincham business improvement district that they still face challenges and need more support. Will the Chancellor update the House on what more he will do to support all hospitality businesses in constituencies such as mine?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend speaks up very strongly for his local area. He is right about the importance of pubs, social clubs and live venues, and about the importance of the 20% cut that we announced in July. These are the things that make the places where we live the places that we also love. Later this year the Government will produce our high street strategy, and I encourage my hon. Friend to contribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in that regard. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said a few moments ago: he should see the move that we made in July as a down payment on further reform.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Conservatives will save our high streets, and may I explain to the Chancellor why that is important? Donna, who ran the Beverly Card Company, saw this Labour Government increase her business rates from £135 a month to £840 a month. That is why in February, after 30 years of her running it and having won national awards, the business closed. She will have to make payments for the next four years for those business rates. Will the Chancellor stop trimming, support the Conservative plan and abolish business rates altogether for the 250,000 high street businesses? He needs to stop talking and sounding sympathetic, and actually do something that makes a difference to our high streets.

[John Healey]

What an extraordinary claim! It is hard to take seriously the idea that somehow the Conservatives will save our high streets. We are, of course, concerned about the impact of business taxation. As a Government, we have put in £4.3 billion to help cushion the changes, including in the right hon. Gentleman’s area. We are in the process of taking further steps to review and reform the business rates system, and I will be able to set out more details at the Budget.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

The Chancellor is going around lauding an apparent cut to business rates, but it was his Government who reduced business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure from 75% to 40%. If he goes out there and speaks to the owner of any average pub, they will tell him that their business rates have almost doubled. Why will he not answer the question as to why he cannot and will not follow the Conservative plan to cut Labour’s spiralling welfare bill to fund the abolishment of business rates for hundreds of thousands of high street businesses across our country?

[John Healey]

The Prime Minister and I have been clear that we must cut the costs of welfare. On levels of taxation, we had a period of Conservative Government, with low growth and high debt. They crashed the economy with the mini-Budget, and we had levels of taxation that were putting pressure on business, adding to the cost of living. What people have seen under this Government is a willingness to recognise those pressures and to do what we can—not to remove them, but to provide relief where we can. It is about giving people and families a bit of breathing space from the cost of living, and giving businesses a bit of breathing space from the costs of business. That is why the move that the Prime Minister and I made in July for pubs, social clubs and live venues was so welcomed.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to regional funding arrangements on the economies of local communities which either are not part of a combined authority or do not have a metro mayor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)]

Since day one in the job, the Prime Minister and I have been in lockstep in our determination to meet Britain’s fiscal rules. This is the bedrock on which we build good growth and help give a bit of breathing space to families and businesses. We acted in the first week to cap bus fares, cut business rates for pubs, social clubs and live venues, and cut VAT on electricity bills. We have also announced further sanctions on Russia. We have changed procurement rules to back British jobs. We launched a new plan for growth from places right across the UK and £100 million to back British sovereign AI firms. This is a Labour Government who are determined to deliver good growth in every postcode and sound fiscal discipline.

[Steff Aquarone]

If the Treasury wants a quick trick to increase tax receipts from new employment, may I suggest that the Chancellor takes steps to boost rural bus connectivity? North Norfolk has independent operators such as Central Connect which, in spite of challenges facing the sector, has managed to double its bus frequency in Stalham and Hoveton. It wants to go further. Can he tell us how he will work with the Department for Transport to ensure barriers are lifted and support is provided to bring more buses to my constituents?

[John Healey]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise that capping bus fares must be a benefit to his constituency in Norfolk and a benefit to passengers. Beyond that, let me take his contribution as an early Budget representation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, let me pay tribute to my own predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), and let me welcome the Chancellor to his role. He is already responsible for the highest borrowing costs for 28 years. One in six of our young people are unemployed and yesterday we had the news that one of Britain’s top taxpayers is leaving our country. Every time a billionaire leaves, our country becomes poorer. Chris Rokos is reported to have paid over £300 million in taxes last year. Could the Chancellor tell us how many average taxpayers it will take to replace him?

[John Healey]

I welcome the new shadow Chancellor to his place and thank him for his words. I welcome him back to the Treasury brief—perhaps Members on the Government Benches will have more to say about that later. I echo his comments about the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who has played an important role in this House, including his cross-party work during the pandemic as Chair of the Treasury Committee. We thank him for that as he steps down from the Front Bench.

The shadow Chancellor takes reports in the paper and tries to make serious points in this House. We will set out our plans at the Budget to give families and businesses a bit of breathing space, to back good growth in more places throughout this country, and to rebuild confidence in strong British fiscal discipline—something that was lost under the shadow Chancellor’s Government.

[Andrew Griffith]

The Chancellor does not know the answer. On the Treasury’s own statistics, it would take 38,000 average income tax payers to make up for the loss of Chris Rokos. That is a lot of breathing space paid for. It means higher taxes for everyone else, or lower public spending. We know what Labour will choose. The last Chancellor raised taxes on farmers, family businesses and jobs. Conservatives will reform welfare to cut taxes; Labour always puts them up. Which, if any, of his predecessor’s damaging decisions will the Chancellor reverse?

[John Healey]

The future of this country will be written in our growth rates, after 14 years in which we had low growth, high debt and a Budget that crashed confidence in the British economy. Under this Government, we have already seen a new way of generating growth in more places across the country. Members have seen the way that we will reform the centre of Whitehall, so that we cut through slow decision making, with public leadership and control made accountable to the people. I made announcements yesterday on the ways that we will go further to axe the thicket of administration, to back fast-growth firms, and to change the way that we generate investment across the country.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

T4. In areas such as mine in the east midlands, growth has been too low because spending has been too low. As life has become unaffordable, growth has fallen even further. We are seeing that with growth in my local area, as well as nationally, with a rising output gap. Will the Minister set out how making life affordable will make growth rise in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

T10. The Chancellor will no doubt be aware that this month marks the fourth anniversary of the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget, which risked my constituents’ pensions and locked thousands out of home ownership. Last week we saw Liz Truss’s Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), made shadow Chancellor. Does my right hon. Friend have any advice for the shadow Chancellor on how he might learn from his mistakes?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right that the Truss mini-Budget means that families with a new mortgage are now paying £600 a year more and the Government are paying more for our borrowing—money that we could be spending on schools and hospitals. The shadow Chancellor is the same man who at the weekend said that there were “lots of good things” in the Truss mini-Budget. With Labour, Britain is starting to turn the corner; it is clear that with a new shadow Chancellor, the Tories are turning back to Liz Truss.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

T7. This week, Professor Susan Ayers launches her report, “The Cost of Birth Trauma”, in Parliament. It is a first, as it goes beyond the more obvious health and social care implications, and follows the 2024 inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on birth trauma. Lifelong care, litigation and the impact on the workplace come at a high price, as, of course, do many other women’s health scandals, such as the sodium valproate issue. Will the relevant Minister or the Chancellor read Susan Ayers’ report and meet me and the professor to discuss it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I was pleased to see that the Chancellor was in the west midlands yesterday meeting manufacturing apprentices alongside Mayor Richard Parker. What conversations has he had with the mayor about using new devolution powers to invest in local skills and employment, and what will he do to make sure that young people in Wolverhampton North East get more local opportunities to benefit from?

[John Healey]

Indeed, the West Midlands Mayor, Richard Parker, is using the powers that he has, including recently by stepping in and taking action to improve bus services across the west midlands. Yesterday he stepped in to provide support for the Jaguar Land Rover workers who may face redundancy and will certainly be well placed to get further jobs.

[Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

May I welcome the Chancellor to his position and thank him for his kind remarks earlier? May I also wish him every success, because I am afraid that under this Government we need some? He will know that if we are to fix the economy, we have to fix the welfare bill. Will he give a commitment today that at the Budget next month, he will come to the House with a comprehensive plan for how he will arrest the burgeoning welfare bill? He and I know that failure to do so will lead to millions of hard-working people and hundreds of thousands of businesses up and down the country facing unnecessary and unacceptable tax increases.

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman sets out the challenge facing the country in the long term. That is exactly why we have commissioned Alan Milburn and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) to do the reviews they are currently doing. When they produce them in the autumn, we will look at them and act on the recommendations.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

What conversations has the Chancellor had with the Department of Health and Social Care on providing compensation to those harmed by valporate and vaginal mesh, as per the Hughes report, which was published over two years ago?

Economic Growth

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)]

The Government are committed to delivering good growth in every postcode of the United Kingdom.

Today I am setting out more detail on how we will deliver on this promise—in order that people and places see the benefits of this growth as soon as possible.

The UK has significant strengths and economic potential: life sciences, defence, technology, creative industries and financial services.

However, global instability continues to present challenges. Conflicts and trade tensions have driven up inflation and interest rates, while borrowing and debt costs have increased.

We have shown resilience in the face of these challenges: borrowing is falling; growth, although still fragile, was the fastest in the G7 in the first half of this year; and productivity is increasing.

In the context of continued global uncertainty, we must not become complacent. Fiscal credibility is indivisible from growth, and is my first priority.

The Prime Minister set out last week a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong: political power was centralised, economic enablers have been privatised or outsourced, and the country deindustrialised.

The Government will change this through a fundamental shift that starts with restoring power and resources to local leaders to build infrastructure, boost private investment and develop local industrial strategies. This will unlock the potential of their region to do the things they do best in a way that Whitehall simply cannot. Greater public control through a more effective and strategic state at all levels will enhance oversight of the essentials. This will create the conditions for a new civic partnership between Government, business and academia. Alongside this, national policy on investment, innovation and jobs will create the right conditions for the private sector.

The UK has had the lowest investment rate among G7 countries for most of the last 20 years, and the regional disparities between current levels of public investment per head are too great. We have made progress recently but need to do more. This includes sharpening the focus of our public financial institutions to align with this Government’s priorities, reducing unnecessary consultation, litigation and administration, and changing the Green Book to support projects with more long-term potential in places across the country.

The UK has a strong record on innovation: world leaders in frontier technologies, including quantum, nuclear fusion and space technology; as well as AI—a general-purpose technology that requires oversight but also brings great opportunity. The Government will earmark dedicated funds to back British innovation through public investment, procurement and closer co-operation between local leaders, universities, investors and businesses. It will strengthen support for high-growth businesses and emerging technologies, with the ambition of doubling the number of unicorn firms in this country.

We need to take advantage of our human potential and recognise that skills and labour markets vary across the country. The Prime Minister has set out his plan on technical education. We are moving funding and power for the skills system to local areas to improve work experience and employment opportunities for young people, tailored to the needs and strengths of places. This autumn, Alan Milburn will set out his full recommendations to the Government on how to address the blight of youth unemployment.

These measures will increase investment, accelerate innovation and support more people into work, ultimately raising productivity and growth.

[HCWS312]

Community Debt Advice Services

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Emma Hardy]

As I mentioned at the start, my right hon. Friend has been with me from the beginning, looking at this issue and campaigning on it. She is absolutely right. I accept that some people might want to access more virtual appointments and information on a website, but it cannot come at the expense of the face-to-face component. We cannot lose that face-to-face part.

MaPS is changing the way funding is provided. Although, it is increasing the money for debt advice—I want to acknowledge that, and it is set to increase to £77 million in April 2022—the bulk of that funding is moving to call centres and online services. At a meeting on 17 November, the MaPS chief executive and commissioning team told We Are Debt Advisers, which is a group representing debt advisers, that 20% of the £77 million had been allocated to face-to-face appointments. That amounts to £15.4 million. They also said that regional providers currently spend 56% of their existing £33 million on delivering this way, which is £18.5 million. By their own admission, this is a cut of just over £3 million to face-to-face services. That is made worse by the replacement of the grant system with contracting, which in its current form will exclude many smaller providers active in the sector from being able to bid for contracts at all.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all her work on this issue. She makes a powerful point about the shift in priority, and therefore funding, from face-to-face debt advice to online and telephone advice. In South Yorkshire, there are currently 28 funded face-to-face debt advisers, but that will go down to seven. Pre pandemic, in Rotherham alone, the number of new face-to-face debt inquiries each year was 2,200. In the context that she has set out of rising prices, bills and taxes, she might question Ministers whether, if the Treasury or MaPS have evidence to suggest that the demand for face-to-face debt advice will go down, not up, and to justify these cuts, they will publish that, and then we will all be better informed and more confident about the future.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who has been campaigning on this issue from the very beginning. He is absolutely right: all the forecasts—all of them—show that demand for debt advice will only increase. We know that. We also know that cases can be complex and that it can sometimes be the first time that people have got into debt. So the idea that we would cut face-to-face advice at this time seems incomprehensible.

Under the new tender, MaPS will instead have three national contracts. Its staff met me—I credit them for that—and said that these will be a mix of face-to-face, digital and phone services, with one each for the north, the midlands and the south of England, and a separate arrangement for a national call centre. However, three regional contracts, instead of nine smaller ones, as it was before, means that small, local providers that currently rely on MaPS funding for the bulk of their income face having to drop face-to-face services or close entirely. Many already know that they are not included in tender bids because they do not have the size or resources to compete individually for these tenders. Sylvia Simpson, chair of the Leeds Debt Advice Network, described the impact as “catastrophic”, with three out of four local MaPS-funded debt agencies no longer able to provide debt advice after 31 March. There are serious doubts about the rationale for the decision to restructure funding. Where is the evidence to support it and its timing? Does MaPS have confidence in the outcome itself?

Debt advisers tell me that there has been no proper consultation. In the face of the national outcry from debt advice organisations, charities and trade unions, MaPS issued a two-week call for evidence concerning the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on access to debt advice. That concluded on 29 October, but the procurement exercise for the new contracts had already taken place. The consultation will not influence a procurement process that has already gone on, so what was its purpose? It is clear that the procurement exercise expected bidders to focus on digital and telephone-based services rather than face-to-face services, despite MaPS’ own evidence showing that demand for face-to-face services was almost double supply.

A 2019 MaPS assessment of the need for debt advice said:

“Face-to-face is the channel with the smallest gap between demand and supply at the national level. Nevertheless, the levels of unmet demand are high, with demand being over two times higher than supply. It is also the channel with the biggest variation in unmet demand between countries and regions. Face-to-face unmet demand is particularly high in London, where existing supply of face-to-face debt advice could meet only just over a fifth of current demand.”

MaPS does not seem to have evidence that the need for face-to-face services will fall. On 29 November, in reply to a letter sent on 16 November from the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), MaPS provided figures showing that, for the last pre-pandemic year, 2019-20, face-to-face services accounted for 34% of its consultations. That fell by only 3 percentage points, to 31%, in 2020-21, despite the fact, let us not forget, that this was during a global pandemic that involved lockdowns, compulsory mask wearing, the adoption of social distancing and people being afraid to leave their homes. Despite all that, the demand for face-to-face debt advice fell by only three percentage points. In its letter to the Treasury Committee, MaPS notes that its most recent modelling of future demand is from autumn 2020 which, as we will remember all too well, was just before another national lockdown and before the pandemic’s third wave brutally hit, killing thousands of people in our country. That is when the modelling was done. MaPS does not say whether the modelling includes the impact of the pandemic, but I think we can assume it probably did not.

On the importance of face-to-face appointments, MaPS said that the forecast

“did not make distinctions between case complexity or channel of provision.”

If someone has a simple debt inquiry, they would probably google it and look on a website, or they might phone someone up and check. If their case is extremely complex—I refer to my earlier points on domestic abuse, mental health and such concerns—accessing a website is not going to be suitable. MaPS needs to be looking at complex cases and how it provides support.

In other words, the modelling does not tell MaPS how much demand for face-to-face appointments to expect, and the contract does not give it control over how much can be provided. MaPS claims that changes will increase accessibility to advice in those difficult-to-reach places, but those changes could mean the opportunity for face-to-face advice would no longer exist in some areas of the country. I accept—I was discussing this point with the Minister earlier—that some areas could end up with more access to advice, but that is at the expense of other areas.

In the letter, MaPS mentions an equalities and vulnerability impact assessment. That has not been made available and I hope the Minister is able to use his influence to say to MaPS that it should be published. At the moment, MaPS is saying to me, “We do not know, because we are still commissioning. We are not sure how much will be face to face; we are not sure how much will be on the phone or remote. We haven’t made any decisions.” If that is true and it does not know where it is going to end up, how can it have done an equalities and vulnerability impact assessment? When MaPS has made up its mind about what it wants, I assume another impact assessment will be needed. I hope that one is made public.

I hope I have explained clearly why face-to-face advice is the only way of supporting a significant proportion of people in debt, and why a reduction in capacity and coverage will fail some of the most vulnerable in our society. I hope that MaPS does more to reach out more effectively to practitioners with a lifetime of experience and knowledge in the field. Debt advice groups such as AdviceUK believe that MaPS’ vision for debt advice is deeply flawed, does not meet the needs of the diverse communities across England and does not enable the provision of flexible, in-depth and sustainable debt advice services.

MaPS cannot explain why it has made the funding allocations it has done or what impact they will have on people with complex needs. Of course, the pandemic has been a huge disrupter. Its effects are still being played out and the future remains hard to predict, but we do know that there will be an increase in the number of families in debt. We know that we are only beginning to see the devastating impact of the cost of living crisis. I hope the Minister is able to use all the influence he has—accepting, of course, that MaPS is a separate organisation and that this is a commercial contract—to call on MaPS to place an immediate hold on the procurement of new debt advice contracts, pending a thorough and effective consultation into the likely demand for face-to-face services in the near future; and to insist that there should be no loss of debt adviser jobs and an increase in funding for community-based face-to-face services. Consultation with frontline advisers through their trade union should also be essential for all future decisions affecting jobs and service delivery.

I finish by reminding the Minister of my earlier comment: more than 100,000 people attempt suicide each year because of debt. The services these organisations provide can literally be life-saving. Having the right debt advice is too important to get wrong.

Small Breweries Relief

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). With a name like “Morris”, I should really be able to speak Welsh, and I am fifth generation Welsh. We are discussing a really important subject and I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few brief points in this debate which, unexpectedly, is a little longer than originally planned.

It is tempting to lapse into puns and humour, but this is a serious business. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I love beer, me—I love Indian pale ale, I love the ruby reds, I love a craft lager. I love all beers. Tonight we are talking not about the mass production of the big six brewers; we are talking about small breweries of which there are 90 in Wales, and 2,500 across the country, including Castle Eden Brewery—I must mention my one brewery, or they would never forgive me, and it produces what is probably among the finest beer in the world.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

What’s it called?

[Grahame Morris]

Castle Eden ale. I highly recommend it.

As the right hon. Lady indicated, we are talking about the important issue of whether the Government, intentionally or unintentionally, are introducing anti-competitive practices. It has been suggested, perhaps not without foundation, that the large breweries have the ear of Ministers. Let us be in no doubt: the abolition of small breweries relief will be the death knell for many small brewers across the country, including in Wales and the whole United Kingdom.

As has rightly been pointed out, the introduction of small breweries relief led to a renaissance in British brewing. Those reforms should go towards strengthening the small, independent and craft brewers that we are so proud of, and that tourists and indigenous people on these islands love in equal measure. I hope that the Government will not make any changes to breweries that produce below 5,000 hectolitres, as to do so would threaten our craft beer industry, and local jobs in constituencies such as mine. Even worse, consumers such as me would ultimately lose out, with less variety and choice of beer. We should celebrate the diversity of brewers and different beers and tastes, and we should not do anything that will jeopardise that.

I worry that the decision to convert small breweries relief from a percentage to a cash basis threatens the long-term value of that rate, if it does not keep pace with the main rate. We get lost in numbers. What does 5,000 hectolitres mean? That is 3,000 old brewers barrels. My brewery, Castle Eden Brewery, produces just over 3,000 barrels, or 5,000 hectolitres. Compare that not with one of the big six or big four that produce millions of hectolitres, but with Camerons Brewery in Hartlepool, which is a producer of fine beer and produces 1 million hectolitres. It is impossible for a small brewery to compete with the economies of scale that a large brewery can bring to bear. Unless careful thought is given to it, the taper above 5,000 hectolitres will effectively bring an end to this prized and valued sector.

I promised to be brief, so I have just a couple of questions for the Minister, having listened to several debates and questions on the issue. Does she accept that cutting the threshold will lead to small breweries paying more duty? Does she understand that that will result in some small breweries closing? We must remember that the premise of the relief was that it would be revenue-neutral. How will she judge the success of the policy: by the number of UK small breweries, by the number of people employed by the industry, or by the reduction in market share of the big four that dominate? I would very much like to know what the Treasury’s objections are and how it will measure success.

Budget Resolutions

John Healey Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

The Chancellor said today in the media that the economy is fundamentally strong, but he said in the Budget statement yesterday that the economy is weakening and getting worse. That is the hard truth that confronts and challenges all of us.

This has been a serious debate, with 31 speakers, after a Budget that confirmed that these are serious times for the country. We have had growth downgraded to below 2% each year for the next five years, for the first time in recent history; productivity downgraded by 0.6% a year for the next four years, which the Office for Budget Responsibility rightly calls a “remarkable period of weakness”; business investment downgraded and subdued for the next four years; and earnings downgraded, with the Resolution Foundation showing that pay is now not set to recover to pre-global financial crisis levels until 2025—17 wasted years.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) was right: the big story yesterday was the OBR’s damning judgment on the economy and the Budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), one of Labour’s strongest, clearest voices on the economy, said the same.

I wish to pick up on some of the points made today about the implications and impact of the Budget. A number of colleagues on both sides of the House spoke about the fact that the Government had raised expectations of lifting the public sector pay cap but then, after seven years of falling income for public servants, dashed those expectations. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) made that point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Ms Lee) spoke powerfully about the reality of work on the wards in Lincoln hospital. I enjoyed the comment of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) about the Chancellor having a matt finish and a Budget that was more of the same. He also spoke about the need for a pay rise for public service workers, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who said that the current situation does a grave disservice to public servants such as Mrs Davies who give their life to working for others. The hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who are no longer in their places, made the same point.

The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) made a series of important points about the longer-term structural changes that are needed beyond the Budget to encourage savings, to spread the benefits of quantitative easing more widely and to reform business rates, which, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said, too often still bear down too heavily on small and medium-sized firms.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) talked about the problems that steelworkers in the British Steel pension fund face, with a lack of clear information or a clear guarantee for the future. I hope the Government will respond to that.

Good luck to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) in her bid to get traditional cider makers recognised by the Chancellor. Having been the Minister responsible for excise duties at one point, I am right behind her on that. Actually, cider duty was frozen for the first time when I was the Exchequer Secretary, and it made a big difference to cider makers in the south-west, as they will confirm.

A number of hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is not in his place—made important points about how there was so little for the north of England, and how the greatest gaps are between the regions of this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) spoke about the problems and pressures faced by Bradford Council. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) quite rightly said that national housing and other policies are too often skewed towards the concerns of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) was right to ask why the far south-west was ignored in this Budget when it came to investment, the NHS and the armed forces.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) claimed that the Budget was good for Scotland, but in the end it will be the Scottish people who decide that. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was quite right to argue that people in Northern Ireland need a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly to make the best of what he sees in the Budget, and to push for what is not in it. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) made a powerful speech to back a powerful campaign against the use of mesh, and I really hope that the Government were listening carefully.

Much of the debate was about what is in the Budget and what is happening to the economy. The real question for us all, though, is: why? Why are Britain’s real wage growth, productivity levels and economic growth prospects so much worse than those of other major countries? The OBR is clear that by far the biggest contribution to the major downgrade of growth prospects is the huge reduction in productivity, equivalent to 3% of our national economic output over the next five years. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield said that that is a long-run problem, and, to be fair, all Governments have grappled with it.

During the period that I spent in the Treasury, we tried to support the five drivers of productivity by encouraging enterprise, raising skills, improving competition, funding R&D, science and innovation, and boosting investment. The Government have been in power for seven years, and it is clear that many of the problems have got a great deal worse during that time.

It is also clear that George Osborne got it wrong. What he thought was clever politics trumped sound economics. He cut too far, he choked off the recovery and he undermined our economic foundations. On enterprise, he scrapped the regional development agencies, which supported competitiveness, business and skills in all parts of the country. On skills, he cut training and education budgets by 14% in real terms, according to the IFS; that was an unprecedented cut. On competition, he did nothing to deal with the industries—including house building, energy and water—that are dominated by a few big providers.

On funding for R&D and science, spending on R&D has simply flatlined; it has been well below the OECD average in the last seven years. Finally, on investment, the Government—they were supported by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when he was in the Treasury—halved public sector investment as a percentage of GDP in the first years of the Parliament after 2010; it fell from 3.4% of GDP in 2009-10 to 1.7% in 2015. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) talked, in a rather gushing speech, about how the Government were investing for the future. But the Budget pushes up the level of public sector investment by only 0.1% over the whole Parliament.

We are seeing the legacy of the decisions made in 2010, with the country paying the price and the current Chancellor playing catch-up. What is needed is a deep and big change—a proper national living wage, rising to £10 an hour; a national investment bank that will back businesses right across the country; and a long-term investment plan, especially for housing.

Let me finish with some comments on housing. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), and to the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones). I am sorry that I have not been able to deal with the other points on housing.

The serious problem underpinning everything in the Government’s strategy was made very clear by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely). We have never built the homes this country needs because we have slashed Government capital investment in homes and outsourced responsibility for building the new homes we need to the big developers. That is the fundamental flaw in the Government’s strategy. It has been the fundamental flaw for seven years, and it is the fundamental flaw of this Budget.

If we are to build not just the number of new homes we need to fix this country’s housing crisis, but the range of new homes we need to deal with seven years of housing failure on all fronts, we must do more to bring public sector investment, effort and action alongside the private sector. The Budget confirmed that this is a Government without a plan to fix the housing crisis.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

This is one of those rare occasions when the Chief Secretary can be like the man from Del Monte and say yes.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

The northern powerhouse plans in south Yorkshire are at risk. In the 1980s, our economic regeneration was kick-started by funding from Europe and it still supports small businesses, training and apprenticeships, so may I give the Chief Secretary another chance? Will he guarantee that the £174 million that has been pledged to south Yorkshire under the current programme will be paid in full?

[Mr Gauke]

The right hon. Gentleman will understand, as a former Treasury Minister, that there is a need for consistency. My answer remains that we will make an announcement soon. We recognise the point that he is making and the desire to remove uncertainty, but I am not in a position to make an announcement this morning.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Indefensible, deeply unfair, distinctly political—my words for the Budget but also the words of the recently departed Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It is Labour’s judgment of the Budget, but it is also the judgment of many fair-minded Government MPs and, most importantly, of the British people, the large majority of whom, when polled over the weekend, said the Government had got their priorities wrong.

If this is a political crisis, it is one of the Chancellor’s own making. It was the same failure of political judgment that led him to slash working tax credits, before being forced to backtrack, and the same failure of political judgment that led the ex-Secretary of State to say:

“It…looks like…it doesn’t matter because they don’t vote for us”.

The IFS and the Resolution Foundation both say that this is a starkly regressive Budget, with the rich getting the most and the poor getting the least. We saw a tycoon tax cut of over £3 billion benefiting the very richest; an income tax cut of £2 billion benefiting the better-off; and alongside that, a cut in disability benefits worth over £4 billion. Well, that was Wednesday; and today, five days later, we have heard from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that there will be no more welfare cuts. The Chancellor’s long-term economic plan—his long-term fiscal plan—therefore lasted just five days, and if we take the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions at face value, the Chancellor of the Exchequer still has a £4.4 billion shortfall to meet his deficit plans.

While we are on policy confusion and fiscal chaos, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who opened this debate, told the House that none of the costs of the business rates cuts would come out of local government funding. All will be compensated for in full by section 31 grants. He tried to tell the House that line 15 on page 84 of the Red Book explained that, but it details the cuts to business rates, not the source of the compensation, and there is no other reference in the Red Book. That leaves the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a further, fresh fiscal shortfall of £6.7 billion over five years, or it means that the Secretary of State will have to find that money from savings in his own budget.

The Chancellor may have caused a political crisis for the Conservative party, but much more serious are the fiscal and economic problems he is causing for the country. These were laid bare in the Budget—downgraded growth, downgraded pay, downgraded productivity, and the Chancellor’s new fiscal mandate broken already, as the OBR confirmed that the debt-to-GDP ratio is rising, saying that there is only a 50:50 chance that he will hit his deficit target. Never mind omnishambles: this is the ultra-shambles Budget. It really comes to something when No. 10 Downing Street briefs over the weekend to play up the Conservative party’s splits on Europe because its splits on fiscal and social policy are even more damaging.

I do feel for the 27 hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who have spoken, being limited first to five minutes, then to four and finally three minutes. To be quite honest, the loyalists were out in force on the Government Benches, although I would like to have heard more from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) about his belief that local education authorities have an important role and how they have not been, as he said, all bad. I would like to have heard more from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) about the National Infrastructure Commission, a good idea—a Labour idea—that I am glad to see the Government are putting into practice.

I would like to have heard more from the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who said, quite rightly, that we have to be ultra-careful not to write off those who cannot work. As he said, there is no hierarchy of human value. I would also like to have heard more from the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) about his deep opposition to mayors, imposed by the Chancellor as a condition of all devolution deals.

On our side of the Chamber, the House should have heard more from my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn). The Budget has fallen apart like the Chancellor’s reputation, he told us—quite right. I would like to have heard more from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), who warned the Chancellor about the flawed devolution deal for Greater Manchester, especially when it comes to skills, school improvement, social care and council funding; or from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox). As she said, without the funding commitment to make them work, infrastructure announcements were actually re-announcements—quite right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who is no longer in his place, made an important point about how the Chancellor is unable to make his sums add up in this Budget. He is failing my hon. Friend’s constituents; he is failing the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) reinforced that, saying that this is a Budget that is failing the young generation and this is a Chancellor who is failing Britain’s youngest city, Birmingham.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) was quite right when he talked about the Chancellor’s creative accounting. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) said that the Chancellor is making the challenges facing the public services in this country much more difficult to meet, and he was right. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) described this Budget as continuing the punishment of local government that we have seen over the last five years. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) rightly said that when all schools are being forced to become academies, the House should be deeply concerned about pupils with special educational needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) was dead right about the Chancellor’s failure to meet his own targets, and also about his failure on housing. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who opened the debate, clearly lacks the clout to be able to argue his Department’s case with the Chancellor, for the Budget had nothing to say about housing and did nothing to reverse six years of failure, from rising homelessness to falling home ownership. What a contrast with the Labour Government’s record! We more than halved homelessness. There were 1 million more home owners during our time in office, and 2 million were homes built.

When it came to housing, there was a huge hole in this Budget. There was nothing about new affordable homes to rent and buy, nothing about investment, and nothing about tackling the causes of rising homelessness. In particular, there was nothing to ease the housing pressures in London, where housing is the No. 1 issue. The Budget has completely exploded the claim of the wannabe Mayor, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who has said “I can get a good deal from this Conservative Chancellor.” It makes more urgent, and more clear, the case for electing a Labour Mayor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who will be a Mayor for all Londoners.

This was billed as a Budget for the future. There was big talk of big infrastructure schemes, but the small print showed small sums, mostly for design and feasibility studies throughout the rest of the Parliament. I say to Members on both sides of the House, “Do not listen to what the Chancellor says; look at what he does.” In 2009-10, the last year of the last Labour Government, infrastructure investment was 3.2% of our wealth—3.2% of our GDP. In 2010-11, the Chancellor cut that to 2.5%. By the end of that first Parliament, the figure was 1.9%, and now the Chancellor is doing it again: at the end of this Parliament, it will be just 1.5%.

In truth, the Chancellor is too tightly bound by his own misjudged fiscal rules for the good of the country. His plan to achieve a £10 billion total budget surplus by 2019-20 will prevent him from doing what is needed most, and investing for the future: investing in good homes, good jobs, and good infrastructure projects. In the debate that followed the Chancellor’s statement, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, said:

“He has altered his plans of only four months ago, and so long as the rule remains in place, he will have to do so again after the next fiscal event. That is…why the Treasury Committee concluded… that it was ‘not convinced that the surplus rule is credible in its current form.’”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 976-77.]

We have fiscal policy without credibility, and a Chancellor without credibility. What we were given in this Budget was a downgraded economy from a diminished Chancellor who was speaking to a divided party and for a damaged Government. This is a black hole Budget: a Budget which, like the Chancellor, does not deserve support from any party in the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the Government have, and will continue to have, an excellent record on the skills agenda. I look forward to looking at the funding for the further education sector as part of the spending review this autumn.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Among all 20 of the world’s most advanced economies, why have only France, Italy and Japan grown more slowly than the UK in the five years the Chancellor has been in the Treasury? Is not weak growth, not the deficit, the real problem for the UK economy?

[Greg Hands]

The right hon. Gentleman, as a Treasury Minister in the last Labour Government, will know that the size of the deficit we inherited—which, at more than 10%, was one of the highest—made our job difficult in the first couple of years. However, the UK is now growing faster in 2014 and 2015 than any other EU or G7 country.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Investment in the transport infrastructure of the south-west has been a much higher priority for this Government than, I think, for any previous Government. We have committed £7.2 billion-worth of investment in the transport infrastructure of the south-west, including £2 billion in roads—for example, dualling the A303 and the new tunnel at Stonehenge, sorting out the A30 all the way to Camborne and the electrification of the Great Western main line with new inter-city express trains. I have recently asked the south-west peninsula rail task force to bring forward more proposals for investment in strategic rail schemes for the region.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Last month, a couple of hundred senior business figures gave a very warm welcome to the second stage of the review that Sir John Armitt has done on infrastructure for the Labour party, including plans for a new independent national infrastructure commission to identify the country’s long-term needs and monitor Governments’ plans to meet them. Business backs Labour plans; business organisations back Labour’s plans; will the right hon. Gentleman back them?

[Danny Alexander]

Of course, the Labour party’s belated conversion to long-term planning for infrastructure is welcome, although it was not the practice during its 13 years in office. I think that the national infrastructure plan and the architecture around it provides the right framework for delivering that long-term planning. I am not convinced that a new quango is the best way to solve the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I certainly will. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned assiduously for this, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) and many other Members in that part of the country, and the ambition that the taskforce has set out is a good one. It is very much in keeping with the direction of travel in our national infrastructure plan, so I look forward with interest to the proposals from the taskforce and to taking them forward in due course.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I refer the Chief Secretary to the graph on page 6 of his new infrastructure plan, which looks like one of those dodgy “Labour can’t win here” graphics on a Lib Dem “Focus” leaflet. The graph apparently shows, as he has boasted this morning, that annual infrastructure investment is up under the coalition, but in the footnote it says that the Treasury had “challenges” putting the graph together and that the data are “not comparable” with the rest of the document. Will he agree to submit the figures to independent scrutiny by the UK Statistics Authority or the Office for Budget Responsibility?

[Danny Alexander]

After the shadow Chancellor’s performance last week, “Labour can’t win here” is a good description of the Chamber of the House of Commons.

Any Member of this House can submit statistics to the UK Statistics Authority, but I think that those statistics present an accurate picture of the level of overall infrastructure investment in this country. I welcome the strong interest that the right hon. Gentleman has shown in infrastructure and the commitment that he has made to taking these proposals forward. I wish that other members of his party showed a similarly constructive attitude.