Spring Statement

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

This Labour Government were elected to bring change to our country, to provide security for working people and to deliver a decade of national renewal. That work began in July, and I am proud of what we have delivered in just nine months: restoring stability to our public finances, giving the Bank of England the foundation to cut interest rates three times since the general election, rebuilding our public services, with record investment in our NHS bringing waiting lists down for five months in a row, and increasing the national living wage to give 3 million people a pay rise from next week.

Now our task is to secure Britain’s future in a world that is changing before our eyes. The threat facing our continent was transformed when Putin invaded Ukraine. It has since escalated further and continues to evolve rapidly. At the same time, the global economy has become more uncertain, bringing insecurity at home as trading patterns become more unstable and borrowing costs rise for many major economies. The job of a responsible Government is not simply to watch this change. This moment demands an active Government—a Government not stepping back but stepping up, a Government on the side of working people helping Britain reach its potential. We have the strengths to do just that as one of the world’s largest economies, an ally to trading partners across the globe, and a hub for global innovation. These strengths and the progress we have made so far mean that we can act quickly and decisively in a more uncertain world to secure Britain’s future and to deliver prosperity for working people.

As I set out at the Budget last year, I am today returning to the House to provide an update on our public finances, supported by a new forecast from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, ahead of a full spending review in June. I will then return to the House in the autumn to deliver a Budget in line with our commitment to deliver just one major fiscal event a year.

Let me now turn to the OBR’s forecasts; I want to thank Richard Hughes and his team for their dedicated work. The increased global uncertainty has had two consequences: first on our public finances and secondly on our economy. I will take each in turn.

In the autumn, I set out our new fiscal rules that would guide this Government. These fiscal rules are non-negotiable. They are the embodiment of this Government’s unwavering commitment to bring stability to our economy and to ensure security for working people, because the British people have seen what happens when a Government borrow beyond their means. The mini-Budget delivered by the Conservatives resulted in higher bills, higher rents and higher mortgages, and it was not the wealthy who suffered most when they crashed the economy; it was ordinary working people. They continue to feel the effects two and a half years later of the damage that the Conservatives did.

Let me be clear: there is nothing progressive, there is nothing Labour, about working people paying the price for economic irresponsibility. The British people put their trust in this Labour Government because they knew that we—they knew that I—would never take risks with the public finances and would never do anything to put household finances in danger. We must earn that trust every single day.

I set out two rules at the Budget. The first was our stability rule, which ensures that public spending is under control, balancing the current budget by 2029-30 so that day-to-day spending is met by tax receipts. The second was our investment rule to drive growth in the economy, ensuring that net financial debt falls by the end of the forecast period, while enabling us to invest alongside business.

Turning first to the stability rule, the OBR’s forecast shows that before the steps that I will take in this statement, the current budget would have been in deficit by £4.1 billion in 2029-30, having been projected to be in surplus by £9.9 billion in the autumn, as the UK, alongside our international peers like France and Germany, has seen the cost of borrowing rise during this period of heightened uncertainty in global markets. As a result of the steps that I am taking today, I can confirm that I have restored in full our headroom against the stability rule, moving from a deficit of £36.1 billion in 2025-26 and £13.4 billion in 2026-27 to a surplus of £6 billion in 2027-28, £7.1 billion in 2028-29 and £9.9 billion in 2029-30. That compares with the headroom left by the previous Government of just £6.5 billion. That means that we are continuing to meet the stability rule two years early, building resilience to shocks in this, a more uncertain world.

The OBR forecast that the investment rule would also be met two years early, with net financial debt of 82.9% of GDP in ’25-26 and 83.5% in ’26-27, before falling to 83.4% in ’27-28, to 83.2% in 2028-29 and then to 82.7% in 2029-30, providing headroom of £15.1 billion in the final year of the forecast, broadly unchanged from the autumn forecast.

After the last Government doubled the national debt—[Interruption.] After they doubled the national debt, debt interest payments now stand at £105.2 billion this year. That is more than we allocate to defence, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice combined. That is the legacy of the Conservative party. The responsible choice is to reduce our levels of debt and borrowing in the years ahead, so that we can spend more on the priorities of working people, and that is exactly what this Government will do. I said that our fiscal rules were non-negotiable and I meant it. I will always deliver economic stability and I will always put working people first. I said it at the election; I said it at the Budget; and I say it again today.

Let me now set out the steps that the Government have taken. At the Budget we protected working people by keeping our promise not to raise their rates of national insurance, income tax or VAT. At the same time, we began to rebuild our public services after the Conservatives left a £22 billion black hole in our public finances. Ours were the right choices: the right choices for stability and the right choices for renewal, funded by the decisions that we took on tax.

As I promised in the autumn, this statement does not contain any further tax increases, but when working people are paying their taxes while still struggling with the cost of living, it cannot be right that others are still evading what they rightly owe in tax. In the Budget, I delivered the most ambitious package of measures we have ever seen to cut down on tax evasion, raising £6.5 billion per year by the end of the forecast. Today I go further, continuing our investment in cutting-edge technology, investing in HMRC’s capacity to crack down on tax avoidance, and setting out plans to increase the number of tax fraudsters charged every year by 20%. These changes raise a further £1 billion, taking the total revenue raised from reducing tax evasion, under this Labour Government, to £7.5 billion. These figures are verified by the Office for Budget Responsibility and I to thank my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary for his continued work in this area.

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out this Government’s plans to reform the welfare system. The Labour party is the party of work: we believe that if you can work, you should work, but if you cannot work, you should be properly supported. This Government inherited a broken system: more than 1,000 people every day are qualifying for personal independence payments; one in eight young people are not in employment, education or training. If we do nothing, we are writing off an entire generation. That cannot be right and we will not stand for it. It is a waste of their potential and it is a waste of their futures, and we will change it.

As my right hon. Friend said in her statement last week, the final costings will be subject to the OBR’s assessment. Today, the OBR has said that it estimates that the package will save £4.8 billion in the welfare budget, reflecting its judgments on behavioural effects and wider factors. This also reflects final adjustments to the overall package, consistent with the Secretary of State’s statement last week and the Government’s “Pathways to Work” Green Paper. The universal credit standard allowance will increase from £92 per week in 2025-26 to £106 per week by 2029-30, while the universal credit health element will be cut for new claimants by around 50% and then frozen.

On top of that, we are investing £1 billion to provide guaranteed, personalised employment support to help people back into work, and £400 million to support the Department for Work and Pensions and our jobcentres to deliver these changes effectively and fairly, taking total savings from the package to £3.4 billion. While spending on disability and sickness benefits will continue to rise, these plans mean that welfare spending as a share of GDP will fall between 2026 and the end of the forecast period, which is very different from what we inherited from the Conservative party. We are reforming our welfare system, making it more sustainable, protecting the most vulnerable and, most importantly, supporting more people back into secure work and lifting them out of poverty.

At the Budget, I fixed the foundations of our economy to deliver on the promise of change. That work has already begun. There are some 2 million extra appointments in our NHS; waiting lists are down; new breakfast clubs are opening across England; there have been the largest settlements in real terms for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the history of devolution; and asylum costs are falling—promises made, and promises kept, and every single one of them was opposed by Opposition parties.

At the Budget, alongside providing an increase in funding for this year and next, I set the envelope for the spending review, which we will deliver in June, led by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That will set departmental budgets until 2028-29 for day-to-day spending, and until 2029-30 for capital spending.

Today’s statement reflects two steps that we have taken on our spending plans. First, because we are living in an uncertain world, as the Prime Minister has set out, we will increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and reduce overseas aid to 0.3% of gross national income. That means that we save £2.6 billion in day-to-day spending in 2029-30 to fund our more capital-intensive defence commitments. Secondly, in recent months, we have begun to fundamentally reform the British state, driving efficiency and productivity across Government to deliver tangible savings and improve services across our country.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister set out our plans to abolish the arm’s length body NHS England, and to ensure that money goes directly to improving the service for patients. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is driving forward vital reforms to increase NHS productivity, and is bearing down on costly agency spend to save money so that we can improve patient care.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is taking forward work to reduce the cost of running Government significantly—by 15%. That will be worth £2 billion by the end of the decade. This work shows that we can make our state leaner and more agile, and deliver more resources to the frontline, while ensuring that we control day-to-day spending to meet our fiscal rules.

Today, I build on that work by bringing forward £3.25 billion of investment to deliver the reforms that our public services need through a new transformation fund. That is money brought forward now to bring down the cost of running Government by the end of the forecast period by making public services more efficient, more productive and more focused on the user. I can confirm today the first allocations from this fund, including funding for voluntary exit schemes to reduce the size of the civil service, and for pioneering artificial intelligence tools to modernise the state; investment in technology for the Ministry of Justice to deliver probation services more effectively; and up-front investment so that we can support more children in foster care, to give them the best possible start in life and reduce cost pressures in the future.

Our work to make Government leaner, more productive and more efficient will help deliver a further £3.5 billion of day-to-day savings by 2029-30. Overall, day-to-day spending will be reduced by £6.1 billion by 2029-30, and it will now grow by an average of 1.2% a year above inflation; for comparison, in the autumn, that figure was 1.3%. I can confirm to the House that day-to-day spending will increase in real terms above inflation in every single year of the forecast. In the spending review, apart from the reductions in overseas aid, day-to-day spending across Government has been fully protected.

I can also confirm our approach to capital investment. In the autumn Budget, I announced £100 billion of additional capital spending to crowd in investment from the private sector, in order to fix our crumbling infrastructure and create jobs in every corner of our country. Today, I am not cutting capital spending, as the Conservative party did time and again, because that choked off growth and left our school roofs literally crumbling. That was the wrong choice. It was the irresponsible choice. It was the Tory choice. Today, I am instead increasing capital spending by an average of £2 billion per year, compared with in the autumn, to drive growth in our economy and to deliver in full our vital commitments on defence. This Government will ensure that every pound we spend will deliver for the British people by increasing productivity, driving growth in our economy and improving our frontline public services.

Let me turn to the impact of increased uncertainty on our economy. To deliver economic stability, we must work closely with the Bank of England, supporting the independent Monetary Policy Committee to meet the 2% inflation target. There have been three interest rate cuts since the general election, and today’s data shows that inflation fell in February, having peaked at 11% under the previous Government. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that consumer prices index inflation will average 3.2% this year, before falling rapidly to 2.1% in 2026 and meeting the 2% target from 2027 onwards, giving families and businesses the security that they need, and providing our economy with the stable platform that it needs to grow.

Earlier this month, the OECD downgraded this year’s growth forecast for every G7 economy, including the UK, and the OBR has today revised down our growth forecast for 2025 from 2% in the autumn to 1% today. I am not satisfied with these numbers. We Labour Members are serious about taking the action needed to grow our economy; we are backing the builders, not the blockers, with a third runway at Heathrow airport and through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We are increasing investment with reforms to our pension system and a new national wealth fund, and tearing down regulatory barriers in every sector of our economy. That is a serious plan for growth. That is a serious plan to improve living standards. That is a serious plan to renew our country.

A changing world presents challenges, but also opportunities for new jobs and new contracts in our world-class defence industrial centres from Belfast to Deeside, and from Plymouth to Rosyth. In February, the Prime Minister set out our Government’s commitment to increasing spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027—the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—and an ambition to spend 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament. That was the right decision in a more insecure world—we are putting an extra £6.4 billion into defence spending by 2027—but we have to move quickly in this changing world, and that starts with investment. Today, I can confirm that I will provide an additional £2.2 billion for the Ministry of Defence in the next financial year—a further down payment on our plan to deliver 2.5% of GDP by 2027. This additional investment is about increasing not just our national security, but our economic security.

As defence spending rises, I want the whole country to feel its benefits, so I will now set out the immediate steps that we are taking to boost Britain’s defence industry, and to make the UK a defence industrial superpower. We will spend a minimum of 10% of the Ministry of Defence’s equipment budget on new, novel technologies, including drones and artificial intelligence-enabled technology, driving forward advanced manufacturing production in places like Glasgow, Derby and Newport, creating demand for highly skilled engineers and scientists, and delivering new business opportunities for UK tech firms and start-ups. We will establish a protected budget of £400 million in the Ministry of Defence—a budget that will rise over time—for UK defence innovation, and a clear mandate to bring innovative technology to the frontline at speed.

We will reform our broken defence procurement system, making it quicker, more agile and more streamlined, and giving small businesses across the UK better access to Ministry of Defence contracts—something welcomed by the Federation of Small Businesses. We will take forward our plan for Barrow, a town at the heart of our nuclear security, working with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham). We are providing £200 million to support the creation of thousands of jobs there. We will regenerate Portsmouth naval base, securing its future, as called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan). We will secure better homes for thousands of military families—the homes that they deserve, which were denied to them by the previous Government—in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for York Outer (Mr Charters) and in Aldershot. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making.

Finally, we will provide £2 billion of increased capacity for UK Export Finance to provide loans for overseas buyers of UK defence goods and services. I want to do more with our defence budget, so that we can buy, make and sell things here in Britain. I want to give our world-leading defence companies and those who work in them further opportunities to grow, and to create jobs in Britain, as military spending rightly increases all across Europe. To oversee all this vital work, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and I will establish a new defence growth board to maximise the benefits from every pound of taxpayers’ money that we spend, and we will put defence at the heart of our modern industrial strategy to drive innovation, which can deliver huge benefits for the British economy. That is how we make our country a defence industrial superpower, so that the skills, jobs and opportunities of the future can be found right here in the United Kingdom.

As the previous Government learned to their detriment, there are no shortcuts to economic growth. It will take long-term decisions. It will take our putting in the hard yards. It will take time for the effect of the reforms that we are introducing to be felt in the everyday economy. It is right that the Office for Budget Responsibility should consider the evidence and look carefully at measures before recognising a growth impact in its forecast, but I can announce to the House that the OBR has considered and has scored one of the central planks of our plan for growth.

In my first week as Chancellor, I announced that we were pursuing the most ambitious set of planning reforms in decades to get Britain building again, and in December we published changes to the national planning policy framework, driven forward tirelessly by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. We are reintroducing mandatory housing targets, and bringing grey-belt land into scope. The OBR has today concluded that these reforms will permanently increase the level of real GDP by 0.2% in ’29-30—an additional £6.8 billion for our economy—and by 0.4% of GDP within 10 years, which is an additional £15.1 billion in the British economy. That is the biggest positive growth impact that the OBR has ever reflected in its forecast, for a policy with no fiscal cost. Taken together with our plans to increase capital spending, which we set out in the Budget last year, this Government’s policies will increase the level of real GDP by 0.6% in the next 10 years. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making. Those are policies to grow our economy promised by a Labour Government, delivered by a Labour Government and opposed by the parties opposite.

The planning system that we inherited was far too slow. The OBR has concluded that our reforms will lead to house building reaching a 40-year high, with 305,000 homes a year by the end of the forecast period. Changes to the national planning policy framework alone will help build over 1.3 million homes in the UK over the next five years, taking us within touching distance of delivering our manifesto promise to build 1.5 million homes in England in this Parliament. Those are homes promised by this Labour Government, homes built by this Labour Government and homes opposed by the parties opposite.

The impact on our economy goes further still. I said at the election that we could not simply tax and spend our way to prosperity. We need economic growth, so I can today confirm that the effect of our growth policies, including our planning reforms, means an additional £3.4 billion to support our public finances and our public services by 2029-30. Those are the proceeds of growth, promised by this Labour Government, delivered by this Labour Government and opposed by the parties opposite.

Earlier this week, we provided an additional £2 billion of investment in social and affordable homes next year, delivering up to 18,000 new homes, and allowing local areas to bid for new development across our country, including sites in Thanet, Sunderland and Swindon. That is more security for families across the country, promised by this Labour Government, delivered by this Labour Government and opposed by the parties opposite.

To build these new homes, we need people with the right skills. Earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary announced more than £600 million to train up 60,000 more construction workers, including through 10 new technical excellence colleges across every region of the country, giving working people the chance to fulfil their potential. Those are new opportunities for our young people, promised by this Labour Government, delivered by this Labour Government and opposed by the parties opposite.

All this is just the start. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill passed its Second Reading on Monday. That was no thanks to the parties opposite. Once that Bill completes its passage, it will help deliver the homes and infrastructure our country badly needs. I say to the parties opposite: the British people will be watching. If the parties opposite do not support these reforms, let us be clear about what that would mean: they are opposing economic growth, they are opposing more homes for families and they are opposing good jobs across our country. We on the Government Benches are clear about whose side we are on; the parties opposite must decide, too.

This Labour Government are taking the right decisions now to secure Britain’s future. Today, I can confirm to the House that the OBR has upgraded its growth forecast next year and every single year thereafter, with GDP growth of 1.9% in 2026, 1.8% in 2027, 1.7% in 2028, and 1.8% in 2029. By the end of the forecast, our economy will be larger compared with the OBR’s forecast at the time of the Budget. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making.

This is not just about lines on a graph; it is about improving people’s lives. Working people are still feeling the pinch after a cost of living crisis caused by the Conservatives that caused interest rates and inflation to go through the roof, so I am pleased that the OBR confirms today that real household disposable income will now grow this year at almost twice the rate expected in the autumn. Compared with the forecast in the final Budget delivered by the Conservatives, and after taking inflation into account, the OBR says today that households will be on average more than £500 a year better off under this Labour Government. That will mean more money in the pockets of working people and higher living standards—promised by this Labour Government, delivered by this Labour Government and opposed by the parties opposite.

The world is changing. We can see that, and we can feel it. A changing world demands a Government who are on the side of working people, acting in their interest, acting in the national interest, not retreating from challenges, and not stepping back. It demands a Government with the courage to step up to secure Britain’s future and to seize the opportunities that are out there and before us. I am impatient for change. The British people are impatient for change after 14 years of failure, and we are beginning to see change happen. Our plan for change is working. Defence spending is rising. Waiting lists are falling. Wages are up and interest rates are cut. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making.

Today, the OBR confirms that our plan to get Britain building will drive growth in our economy and put more money in people’s pockets. There are no quick fixes, but we have taken the right choices: returning stability to our economy after years of mismanagement by the party opposite, and delivering security for our country and security for working people. That is what drives this Government; that is what drives me as Chancellor; and, that is what drives the choices I have set out today. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

May I just point out that all the Chancellor’s fiscal headroom disappeared, not just some of it? In fact, she went underwater to the tune of £4.1 billion. Reeling from one fiscal event to the next is not a way to run the public finances, and breaking your fiscal rules to the extent that the right hon. Lady has in just six months is a public humiliation.

May I now focus briefly on defence spending? We on this side of the House welcome the fact that the Government will reach 2.5% of GDP by 2027, as we pressed them to do, and we note the stepping stone along the way that the right hon. Lady has just announced, but we should go further than that. The 3% target should be brought forward to this Parliament. So may I ask the right hon. Lady: given the geopolitical tensions that she has raised, what provision she has made in her headroom, in her fiscal plans, for increasing defence spending more quickly in this Parliament, if that proves necessary? May I also ask her this: would she scrap the absurd Chagos deal, and put that money behind our armed forces?

The economy is in a perilous state, but there was a different way. There were different choices on taxing and spending and borrowing, and on productivity, and on welfare. Let me just say a few words about welfare. It was the privilege of my life to serve as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and when it came to welfare reform, with that privilege came a deep responsibility: the responsibility for welfare reform to be properly thought through, with a very clear plan—[Interruption]—I know that Labour Members do not like it, because it is an alien idea to their party—so that we could be fair to the taxpayer, but equally fair to the many people up and down the country, some of whom are highly vulnerable. That was an approach, on our watch, that led to £5 million of savings across the forecast period, and 450,000 fewer people going on to long-term sickness and disability benefits as a direct consequence.

We would have gone further—much further—and we set out a clear plan in our manifesto to do exactly that, but those in the party opposite rushed their changes. They had no plan. There was not a single mention of the personal independence payment in the Labour party manifesto, and when they got into office, the Labour Government pussyfooted around and dithered. Why? Because it is deeply divisive within their rank and file. Then suddenly, when the Chancellor decided that she had run out of money, out went the word to find some savings in welfare, to scrabble around, to yank every lever possible.

Then there was the spectacle, frankly, of what the OBR has said about the simply shambolic changes that were announced only last week by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have gone from incompetence to chaos. There have been more changes to this policy than there were at the last minute to the right hon. Lady’s LinkedIn profile. The result is the worst of all worlds: a wholly inadequate level of savings on welfare, with welfare costs spiralling ever higher, and changes that are likely to harm many vulnerable people. May I ask the right hon. Lady: when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions came to the House last week with these changes, she did not provide an impact assessment, but was this because the OBR had not signed off the numbers, was it because the Department did not have enough time to produce one, or was it only provided today, as many of us suspect, because this was thought to be a good time to bury bad news?

The forecast for growth is down, the forecasts for borrowing costs and inflation are up, and business confidence has been smashed into a million pieces. This Chancellor is constantly trying to blame forces beyond her control. The right response is not to duck responsibility, but to build a resilient economy. The right hon. Lady would have us believe that that is what she is doing, but how can we believe this Chancellor? How can we trust this Chancellor? She is the Chancellor who said she would not increase borrowing, but she did. She said she would not change her fiscal rules, but she did. She said she would not put up national insurance, but she did. She said she would not cut the winter fuel payment, but she did. She said she would not tax farmers, but she did, and she said she would not move to more than one fiscal event a year, and she just has. Now we are all paying the price of her broken promises. Today’s numbers confirm it. We are poorer and we are weaker. To govern is to choose, and this Chancellor has made all the wrong choices.

[Rachel Reeves]

I know that the shadow Chancellor has not been in his role for very long, but at least he is not misquoting Shakespeare today. If this was a Budget, it would be the Leader of the Opposition responding. I am glad that she is still in her place, but I know she will want to get back to her office for a lunchtime steak soon.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about Budgets. Let me remind the Conservative party that the only emergency Budget we have seen in recent years was in response to their party’s disastrous mini-Budget—a mini-Budget that crashed the economy, sent mortgage bills spiralling and left a £22 billion black hole in our nation’s finances. Conservative Members may have forgotten about the damage that they did to our country, but the British people never will.

As always, the shadow Chancellor talked a lot, but he did not offer a single alternative. He says he opposes our tax rises, but he cannot tell us whether he would cut the NHS to reverse them. He says he wants economic growth, but Conservative Members abstained on the very planning reforms that the OBR has said will kick-start growth. Mr Speaker, you do not change the country by abstaining or by sitting on the fence; you change the country by leading and by taking action, and that is what this Government are doing. The shadow Chancellor says he wants businesses to trade, but he does not want us to talk to the second largest economy in the world or, indeed, our biggest trading partners in the European Union. He simply is not serious. Four months into the job, and he has got no clue.

The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about growth, but he does not say anything about the fact that the OBR has upgraded growth next year and every single year after. He talks about pensioners, but he forgets that it is his party’s policy to scrap the triple lock, which we are protecting and which will mean the state pension rising next month by over £400. He talks about wages, but he forgets the fact that we are boosting wages by boosting the national living wage from next month. The shadow Chancellor says nothing about living standards or this morning’s fall in inflation, because the last Parliament was the worst on record, and the OBR has today revised up its forecast for family finances. Working people are always better off with Labour.

The right hon. Gentleman is learning something, because at least this time he has asked a couple of questions, so let me respond to them. He asked what the markets should make of this. What the markets should see is that, when I have been tested with a deterioration in the headroom, we have restored that headroom in full. That is one of the choices that I made. He says that it is a sliver of a headroom. Well, it is 50% more headroom than I inherited from the Conservative party. When I was left with a sliver of headroom, I rebuilt it after the last Government eroded it. That is the difference that we have made. While they left the public finances and the public services in a mess, we wiped the slate clean, which means that we have the flexibility now to increase defence spending, as the leader of the Labour party has done. The Conservatives had 14 years to increase defence spending, and now they lately come to the party.

The shadow Chancellor mentions welfare reform and his time at the Department for Work and Pensions. What a legacy: one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, and 1,000 people a day going on to personal independence payments. The OBR says today that welfare spending as a share of GDP will now start falling—a far cry from what we had under the Conservative party. The shadow Chancellor speaks about employment. The OBR says that employment will increase, that wages will increase and that living standards will increase. What a change, after 14 years of the Conservative party.

The world is changing, and no one can be in any doubt about it, but the Conservative party is stuck in the past—divided, out of touch and carping from the sidelines. Conservative Members have no plan: no plan to kick-start growth, no plan to fix our public services and no plan to keep our country safe. The only plan for change they are working on is a plan to change their party leader, and we cannot blame them for that.

If the Opposition have no plan, let me remind them about ours. The minimum wage up, real wages up, house building up, NHS investment up, investment in our schools up, investment in our roads up, defence spending up—and every single one of those policies is opposed by the party opposite. They are opposed by the Conservatives, opposed by Reform, opposed by the SNP, opposed by the Liberal Democrats and opposed by the Greens. It is the anti-growth coalition in action. They are the blockers. We are the builders—securing Britain’s future, protecting working people and delivering change.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

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

My right hon. Friend inherited a very difficult challenge when she became Chancellor of the Exchequer last July, and she is absolutely right that the books need to balance. This is not other people’s money we are spending, but taxpayers’ money—our constituents’ hard-earned money—and she is right to be tough as Chancellor. We look forward to quizzing her at the Treasury Committee next week, and I am sure she is looking forward to it just as much.

The Chancellor announced an extra £2 billion a year in capital spending, and she talked about extra defence spending. Could she give some more detail about where she hopes that extra £2 billion a year will go?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I do indeed look forward to attending the Treasury Committee next week. I was pleased to serve on the Treasury Committee in the past, and it is a pleasure to give evidence to it.

We will set out in the spending review—my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will set out in the spending review—the allocation of the additional capital money. However, I was able to announce today the £2.2 billion for defence from next year, as well as the £2 billion as a downpayment to build the affordable and social housing that we need. Those are two examples of the priorities of this Government to get Britain building and to secure our national security.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The people of this country are crying out for change, but they feel they are just getting more of the same. Of course, it was the Conservative party that wrecked the public finances, but we are eight months into the new Government and people are left wondering, “Where is the change that was promised?” The Chancellor says that the world is changing, so why will she not change course with it? The Chancellor said she wanted a dash for growth, but with her national insurance jobs tax she shot herself in the foot before she even crossed the start line.

After the Government’s disastrous Budget, the Government had the chance today to change direction, fix our finances, kick-start growth and deliver a small business Budget. The Government could have scrapped the jobs tax, which will hammer our high streets, and instead ask the big banks, social media giants and online gambling companies to pay their fair share instead. The Government could have changed their approach to trade, launching talks to boost growth through a new trading deal with our European neighbours. Instead, the Government have made the wrong decisions to cut public services, hit disabled people and inflict more pain on our small businesses and high streets. In doing so, they have delivered no change and almost no growth at all.

After years of Conservative mismanagement, people can see just how broken our public services are. They cannot see a GP, they cannot see a dentist, they are fighting for an education plan and, they are picking up the pieces of a broken social care system. Everything is broken. Nothing works. That is why people are impatient for the change they were promised.

We have to bring the welfare bill down and support more people into work. That is right for people and our economy, but cutting support for someone who needs help getting dressed and washed in the morning is not just wrong; it does absolutely nothing to support that person into work. If anything, it does the exact opposite. It will also have knock-on impacts for the entitlements of their family carers, too. Will the Chancellor come clean about this? If the Government are serious about cutting welfare spending, they must get serious about fixing health and social care. Will the Chancellor speed up the social care review and ensure that it concludes no later than the end of this year?

In the Chancellor’s quest to slim down the civil service, I wonder why she has not looked at the mountain of red tape created by the previous Government’s terrible trade deal with Europe. A whopping 2 billion extra pieces of paper have had to be completed by businesses since Brexit, enough to wrap around the world 15 times. If we manage to cut the red tape, we can give British businesses a tailwind, deliver far more growth than is currently predicted, increase the fiscal headroom to deal with global headwinds, and free up precious time and money in our civil service. That would be real change.

Business was promised change too. Today’s statement should have been a small business Budget. We Liberal Democrats have repeatedly raised the alarm about the impending damage of the national insurance jobs tax, bigger business rates bills and changes to reliefs for family farms and family businesses. Those changes will be a hammer blow to small and family businesses, leaving communities facing the prospect of an epidemic of boarded-up shopfronts. They will be a hammer blow to community health and care providers who stop our NHS from falling over. This is not the change that was promised. Instead, I say again that the Chancellor should look again at much fairer ways to raise the tax revenue our public services desperately need by reforming capital gains tax more fairly and asking the big banks, the social media giants and the online gambling companies to pay their fair share.

I know the Chancellor must contend with President Trump’s trade war, which is causing global economic turmoil, but our response to Trump’s bullying cannot be to cower in the corner and just hope that he is nice to us. We cannot sit on our hands while British steel is hit with Trump’s tariffs. We Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Chancellor’s move to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, but instead of cutting the aid budget, which abandons the world’s poor and damages our soft power, she should be covering the cost by raising the digital services tax, handing the tab to Elon Musk and Trump’s other billionaire backers. At the very least, can the Chancellor categorically rule out any reduction in the tech tax in an attempt to appease the White House, especially when disabled people in Britain face eye-watering cuts?

To conclude, I have a series of questions. Will the Chancellor recognise that cutting public services that are already stretched is a false economy? Will she accept that trying to bring down the welfare bill without fixing health and social care is a road to nowhere? Will she listen to the warnings of small and family businesses that her jobs tax will do more harm than good? Will she look at the fairer ways of raising revenue that we Liberal Democrats have put forward? And will she take the bold action we need to grow our economy by rebuilding our broken trading relationship with Europe? The public were promised change. Where on earth is it?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Lady says, “Where is the change?” Let me tell her: more money into our NHS, with 2 million additional appointments and waiting lists falling five months in a row; rolling out breakfast clubs in primary schools from April this year; increasing defence spending to protect us in a more uncertain world; additional support for carers, the living wage up, the Employment Rights Bill and so much more. That is the difference we have made in nine months, and we have only just got started.

The hon. Lady talks about trade. We believe in free trade. We are an open trading economy and we benefit from trade links around the world, including with our single biggest trading partner, the United States of America. It is right that we work with our allies in the United States to ensure that that free and open trade continues. That is in our national interest and this Government will always act in our national interest. At the same time, there will, as the hon. Lady knows, be a summit between the UK and the EU in May, where we will look to re-set our relationship, so we can see more free trade and the better flow of trade, especially for our smaller businesses to be able to export around Europe.

The hon. Lady talks about welfare. She has not admitted that there is a single problem in the welfare system as it exists today. I am not willing, and this party is not willing, to write off one in eight young people who are not in education, employment or training. It is why, for example, we announced this week, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, an additional 60,000 training places to train people up in the construction industries of the future, and a £1 billion package of personalised targeted support because there are many disabled people—the hon. Lady knows this—who are desperate to work but are not getting the support and were denied support by the previous Government. That is why we have said there will be additional support for the most sick and disabled, and that personal support for getting people back into work. That is the right approach, so that we have protections for those who need it, work for those who can, and a sustainable system that is here for generations into the future.

I want to take on the hon. Lady’s main point. She wants all the money for public services, but she does not want to raise the taxes to pay for them. At the moment, we spend £105 billion a year in interest on Government debt. It seems that she would just like more of that debt. She says that people cannot see a GP or a dentist. How does she and the Opposition parties think that we pay for those things? They cannot object to the tax increases and support the money we have invested in our public services. To say otherwise, I am afraid, is fairytales and the magic money tree—it just does not add up. The difference on the Labour Benches is that we will put money into our public services, explain where it comes from, and ensure that the public finances are on a firm footing. That is the difference between our party and the Opposition parties.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Young people in my constituency, and indeed across the country, have had an incredibly difficult time growing up: austerity saw their further education budgets cut by 14%, then there was a pandemic and now war in Europe. Will the Chancellor please set out how her plans to get Britain building again will help my young constituents get the good, non-graduate jobs they need in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents in Loughborough. The 1.5 million additional homes the Government are building will ensure that families in Loughborough have a chance of getting on the housing ladder and that young people in Loughborough will have the opportunities to help build those homes. That is the difference we are making: more jobs, paying decent wages, and more homes for our families.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I hope the Chancellor, next Wednesday in front of the Treasury Committee, will reiterate her commitment not to come back with more tax increases. On page five of the OBR report, paragraph 1.2 states:

“While the Government’s planning reforms deliver a modest boost to the level of potential output of 0.2 per cent in 2029, its cumulative growth between 2023 and 2029 is still ½ a percentage point lower than we projected in October, and the level of productivity is over 1 per cent lower.”

I would like to know what the Chancellor thinks about that, and can she confirm that the Employment Rights Bill has not been evaluated by the OBR?

[Rachel Reeves]

The key point in what the right hon. Gentleman says is that cumulative growth is lower from 2023 to the end of the forecast. Of course, this Government did not come into power in 2023; we came into power in July 2024. The OBR numbers show that the economy is bigger because of the changes we have made—it is just a difference in the dates. I look forward to coming to the Treasury Committee next week, and I am sure I will take more questions from the right hon. Gentleman then.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has rightly championed economic stability, in stark contrast to the previous Government—indeed, in stark contrast to the previous five Chancellors. Yet, as she has said, the world is becoming more unstable, and that global instability feeds through to rapid changes in official projections, which can constrain our room for action. Can the Chancellor reaffirm to us that she will keep her focus on fiscal stability, despite these challenges, to meet the long-term missions of this Government: to defend our country, improve living standards and protect the most vulnerable in our society?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that her constituents—all our constituents—depend on economic stability. It ensures that they know how much they will pay on their rent and mortgages; it ensures that they are not caught out, when they go to the shops, by prices constantly rising. That is why, as a Government, we have said that the No. 1 thing we need to achieve in order to grow our economy is economic stability, which is why I am so pleased that the Bank of England has been able to cut interest rates three times since the general election and the OBR has forecast that inflation will fall rapidly to 2.1% next year, and then 2% in the years after that.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Schools face a huge rise in costs imminently due to the rise in national insurance contributions. Headteachers had been reassured by the Government that schools would be recompensed with money to cover these costs, yet Sir Robert Pattinson academy in my constituency—a great school—finds itself £33,000 short. Will the Chancellor commit to ensuring that Sir Robert Pattinson, and indeed all the schools in my constituency, is given enough money to cover her jobs tax?

[Rachel Reeves]

Public services, including schools, have been compensated for the increase in national insurance, but I am happy for the hon. Lady to get in touch with me or the Education Secretary to set out the case of that school.

The only reason we have been able to put record investment into our schools is because of the stability we have returned to the economy, including the tax increases that we had to bring forward last year in order to provide that extra money for our public services, including the schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I recognise the difficulties that my right hon. Friend is facing, with the fiscal challenges and so on that she inherited. I also support the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary has set out. However, all the evidence points to the fact that the cuts to health and disability benefits will lead to increased poverty, including severe poverty, and worsened health conditions. How will making people sicker and poorer help to drive our economy up and get people into jobs?

[Rachel Reeves]

As my hon. Friend knows, we set out in the Green Paper that we are consulting on a premium payment for the most severely sick and disabled, because, as a Government, we believe that those who need support should get it. Like my hon. Friend, I recognise that there are many people who are sick and disabled. However, there are also many young people who could be working, but were written off by the previous Government, and that is why we are putting record investment into helping those people to get back into work with guaranteed personalised, targeted support. Someone is half as likely to be in poverty if they move from welfare into work. We are determined to lift people out of poverty by ensuring that there are good jobs that pay decent wages and with security guaranteed through the Employment Rights Bill.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The OBR said that the information it received on the package of welfare cuts was late, contained insufficient detail and that the estimates are highly uncertain, and it will now have to certify them in the next forecast. Can the Chancellor confirm whether that means the Government will have to go further, with even deeper cuts to welfare than they have so far announced?

[Rachel Reeves]

The OBR has not taken into account any of the package of measures to get people back into work or looked at any behavioural effects of people making that switch into work. It said in that document that it will spend the summer looking at the entirety of the package, including the efforts we are making with a huge package to get people back into work. I am confident that that personalised, targeted support will get more people into work and lift them out of poverty, so that they can support their families and so that the economy can benefit from their contribution.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Fiscal responsibility under this Government, unlike the previous Administration, ensures that people are paying less and keeps the cost of living down. However, as the Labour party, we have an additional social responsibility, so can we look at those DWP changes again? Of course we have to protect the most vulnerable, but we are really worried about the people just above that band who are set to lose out.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I share the deep concern felt by everyone on the Government Benches—in fact, everyone in this Chamber—about the most sick and disabled, who need support. That is why we have set out in the Green Paper that we are consulting on an additional premium payment to the most severely disabled. It is also why, instead of writing people off and not providing the support that they need to do a job that matches their abilities and needs, we are providing that personalised, targeted support. I was at a jobcentre last week in Pudsey, in my constituency, where I heard amazing stories of work coaches helping people into work who are far from the labour market. We want to see more of that. We want to lift people out of poverty and help them to achieve their potential.

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

At the general election, the Chancellor promised growth and no increase in taxes, but as Chancellor, she has delivered no growth and a record increase in taxes. Now, the Office for Budget Responsibility is halving her growth forecast this year, with cumulatively half a percent less over the forecast period. More worryingly, it is forecasting a more than 1% reduction in productivity growth. Why does she think that is?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have huge respect for the hon. Lady, but that question does not do her justice. As I said to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) earlier, with the starting point of 2023, cumulative growth is lower. However, the general election did not take place in 2023—it took place in 2024. The economy is bigger at the end of this Parliament than the OBR forecast previously. Those are the numbers and the facts, and that is the difference that this Labour Government are making.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I also congratulate the Chancellor on her excellent statement, which addresses the challenge the previous Government left her with. In order to drive growth across the UK, new heavy and light rail infrastructure is badly needed. What work is the Chancellor doing to develop new models of funding to deliver those important projects?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. One of the reasons we have put an additional £13 billion into capital spending over the forecast period is to invest in the infrastructure that our country needs, including transport infrastructure, which I know my hon. Friend, as Chair of the Transport Committee, has a keen interest in. She is absolutely right: we do need to look more at how we can leverage in private sector funding for a whole range of projects, including the lower Thames crossing.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

I declare an interest as an alumnus of London Business School. The Chancellor will recall that in November, when she came to the Treasury Committee, I asked her to look at a London Business School paper on using specific public R&D on defence spending to boost economic growth. I was delighted to hear that the Treasury did evaluate that paper by Professor Paolo Surico as part of the spring statement, and has listened to me and the Liberal Democrats. Does the Chancellor agree that using defence spending focused on public R&D is one way to not only keep us safe, but raise productivity and boost economic growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and look forward to taking more questions from him at the Treasury Committee next week. When I visit defence companies or meet our armed forces, they tell me about the amazing abilities of new technology and innovation to help them to better do their jobs and keep our country safe. As we invest more in defence and get to 2.5% of GDP, it is absolutely right, as I have set out today, that more of that money is used for innovation, R&D and new technologies.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on grasping the challenges and opportunities that this new world presents us with. Those opportunities will mean that, in my constituency of Glasgow South West, there will be more investment in the defence sector, which is timely, because after 18 years of SNP Government, one in six people in my constituency is economically inactive. Does she agree that this investment will finally raise their ambitions and their pay packets?

[Rachel Reeves]

Unlike the SNP, Labour supports investment and jobs in the defence sector in Scotland, which, in turn, supports people in Glasgow South West and across Scotland. There will be more good jobs for young people—more jobs paying decent wages— that will keep our country safe. That is what this party believes in. It is a shame that the SNP believes in something entirely different.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

A cloud hangs over the economy in northern Lincolnshire at the moment with potentially significant job losses at the Scunthorpe steelworks. In view of that, can the Chancellor assure us that funding will be available not only to look after any redundant workers, but to attract new business and provide retraining for existing workers?

[Rachel Reeves]

At the general election, we set out our plan for a steel fund as part of the National Wealth Fund. I understand the concern of hon. Members across the House about the future of the steel industry in this country. We were able to improve the deal for Tata, to protect more jobs in south Wales. We want a thriving steel sector right across the UK, and we will continue to work with the company and the trade unions to achieve just that.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Making cuts instead of taxing wealth is a political choice, and taking away the personal independence payments from so many disabled people is an especially cruel choice. A disabled person who cannot cut up their own food without assistance, cannot go to the toilet without assistance and cannot wash themselves without assistance will lose their personal independence payment. Have not the Government taken the easy option of cutting support for disabled people rather than the braver option, which would be to tax the wealthiest through a wealth tax?

[Rachel Reeves]

There is nothing progressive, nothing Labour, about not supporting people who are disabled or sick or who are young to do jobs that are commensurate with what they are able to do. One in eight young people has been effectively written off by the Conservative party, and we are not willing to leave them in that position. We are consulting in the Green Paper on an additional premium to pay to the most sick and disabled people, because we recognise that they need support from the state, but too many people are not given the opportunities to fulfil their potential, and we are not willing to carry on like that. In the Budget last year, we got rid of the non-dom tax status, increased capital gains tax, introduced VAT on private schools and changed the rules on inheritance tax, so I do not recognise what my hon. Friend says.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Chancellor tells us that the world has changed. If that is true and it allows her to stick the boot into disabled people, it must also be true to allow her to review her income tax rates, perhaps making them commensurate with those in Scotland, which saw the Scottish economy grow in January by 0.3%, while the UK economy contracted by 0.1%. She could also choose to revise the Government’s position on re-accessing the European Union single market, which would allow a £30 billion recurring return with no compensation required. She could impose a 1% tax on assets over £10 million— a wealth tax, as the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) has just highlighted—which would allow a £40 billion recurring return every year with no need for compensation. If she has the disabled, the WASPI women, pensioners and hospices in her cross hairs, why can she not tap up multi-millionaires for a few quid?

[Rachel Reeves]

The world has changed, and we can see that all around us, which is why our defence is more important than other things. That is why it is so astonishing that the SNP continues to oppose the nuclear deterrent.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the Chancellor for her statement. Does she agree that the Conservative party does not understand the link between its total failure to build houses and infrastructure, which our constituents desperately want, and the economic constraints that we face today?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of her constituents in Birmingham. We need to build the homes that all our constituents are crying out for. The level of home ownership declined under the previous Government and we are determined to turn that around, as well as to build the affordable and social houses that our country needs. As we build those homes, there will be more good jobs for young people who take pride in their work. Those good jobs, which will pay decent wages, will be backed by the increase in the national living wage and by our Employment Rights Bill.

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The Transport Secretary failed to stand up to the transport unions, the Health and Social Care Secretary failed to stand up to the health unions, and the Work and Pensions Secretary failed to stand up to the Back Benchers of her own party. The Chancellor’s savings are predicated on getting rid of a whole tranche of civil servants. How can we have any confidence that she or the Prime Minister will stand up to the civil service unions?

[Rachel Reeves]

Today, as part of the transformation fund, we have set aside £150 million next year for redundancy costs for a voluntary exit settlement, which shows how serious we are about reducing the size of the civil service, after it increased to record levels under the Conservative party.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Communities such as mine in Barrow and Furness feel very acutely the failures of the previous Government, as they left us in a dreadful state. Does the Chancellor agree that it is through this Government’s commitment to, and funding in, Barrow and Furness and our defence sector that we can transform things on the ground, which will mean that Barrow can be a blueprint for how the defence pound can be better spent across our constituencies?

[Rachel Reeves]

I know that my hon. Friend is incredibly proud to represent Barrow and Furness and that her constituents are incredibly proud to work on our nuclear deterrent. This Government will always stand with them, putting in place our new plan for Barrow for new jobs and new investment in the town, so that we get value for money for taxpayers and, critically, ensure our country’s national security.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The Chancellor was right to highlight productivity as an issue, and right, too, to focus on skills shortages, although she did not explicitly note the implicit link between them. She failed, however, to say that her productivity ambitions have been scaled back and that the number of young people not in education, employment or training is growing. Will she set out—perhaps in a note in the Library of the House or in a statement—by how much she expects apprenticeships to grow year on year? When I was a Minister, we reached the highest level in modern times, and the numbers are much lower now. We need to grow apprenticeships to build our skills and to grow productivity. If she does not do that, we will feel that hope exceeds expectation.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He speaks powerfully about something that he knows a huge amount about. Let me answer three parts of that question. First, the OBR has revised up our productivity in its forecast. Secondly, we have a massive problem with young people not in education, employment or training—it involves one in eight young people. However, as I said in answer to a previous question, the OBR has not taken into account the impact of our back to work programme. It will work on that over the summer with the DWP and the Treasury, because we want to make sure that we design that in a way that gets as many young people back into work, contributing to the economy and contributing to our society.

We were able to announce, just a couple of weeks ago in National Apprenticeship Week, an expansion of the apprenticeship programme, particularly through foundation apprenticeships and by relaxing some of the maths and English requirements. If we want to build the homes that our country needs, we need to get people into construction jobs and not say, “I’m sorry, you didn’t get a grade C in maths and English, so you’re not welcome on the construction site.” That makes no sense at all, which is why we are reforming how apprenticeship works, to get more people with the skills they need so that they can contribute to their families and the economy. We want those numbers going up.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Our fiscal rules were designed to ensure that we did not repeat the damaging austerity of the Conservative party, which harmed my constituents so much. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only because of those fiscal rules that the OBR has today confirmed that people in Paisley and Renfrewshire South will be, on average, £500 a year better off with this Labour Government?

[Rachel Reeves]

To ensure that people are better off, we need to control inflation, which is why stability is so important; bring interest rates down, and the Bank of England has had the confidence to cut interest rates three times since the election; and boost wages, which we are beginning to see, with real wages growing at twice the rate of inflation. That benefits my hon. Friend’s constituents and people up and down the country. That is why we welcome the fact that, today, the OBR has revised up real household disposable income per person by £500.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Today and last week the Chancellor rushed through severe cuts to the benefits system that will hit some of the most vulnerable in our society. Although we should have considered benefit reform, this is ill conceived. Can the Chancellor explain to the Chamber why she is choosing to balance the books of the nation on the backs of some of the most vulnerable in our society?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman, but everybody in this House and across the country can see that the welfare system is just not working. One in eight young people are not in education, employment or training and 1,000 people are going on to personal independence payments every single day, and we cannot carry on like that. The basic principles of this Government are that people who need support should be protected; that those who can work should work and will be supported with personalised, targeted support; and that we need a system that is sustainable. That is what the reforms set out by my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary last week deliver. Alongside that, there will be further consultation on the Green Paper to make sure that those with the most severe need get the additional support that they are rightly entitled to.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend represents the constituency that neighbours mine. He knows as I do that there are far too many people in both our constituencies in Leeds and Bradford who are written off. There are people who are not working who are quite capable of working if they are given support. People may be disabled, but it does not mean that they cannot work and contribute if they are given the proper support. That is what the Conservative party failed to do, and that is what our Government are determined to deliver. We will work with disabled groups and jobcentres, including the one in Pudsey, where I was last week, to make sure that we support people to fulfil their potential and do not just write them off like the Conservatives did.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I welcome the Chancellor’s emphasis on defence expenditure and her support for the nuclear deterrent, but does she agree that, by his actions in Ukraine, Putin has restarted the cold war? Will she bear in mind that during the 1980s, up to the end of the cold war, we were regularly spending between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence? That is the sort of scale that is required.

[Rachel Reeves]

The right hon. Gentleman has long been an advocate of spending properly on defence. We have set out a fully funded and costed plan to get to 2.5% of GDP in the next two years and to 3% in the next Parliament. The world has changed. We can see that all around us. This Government will always put our national security and defence first, and as the situation evolves, of course so will we.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement. She is absolutely right to highlight the stimulus that the Employment Rights Bill will bring to our economy, but I respectfully say that the impact of the cuts to welfare payments will be reduced incomes for some of my poorest constituents. That contrasts with the easy ride that the very wealthy get from lower margins of tax on their assets and gains than my constituents face through income tax. The world indeed has changed since the Chancellor set her fiscal rules, so will she consider putting capital gains tax on an equal footing with income tax or implementing a wealth tax of 2% on assets worth over £10 million in order to improve the country’s finances?

[Rachel Reeves]

At the Budget last autumn, we increased taxes by £40 billion without asking working people to pay more. We did that by abolishing the non-dom tax status, increasing the rates of capital gains tax, tightening the rules around inheritance tax and, yes, by asking businesses to pay more as well. We have already raised taxes to put more money into our health service, reduce NHS waiting lists and provide free breakfast clubs at primary schools. Today’s spring statement shows that we can grow the size of our economy through planning reforms and therefore ensure more money for our public services. The Government’s No. 1 priority is growth, so I am so pleased that the OBR has said that by the end of this Parliament the economy will be bigger than that we inherited it from the Conservatives.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Chancellor has claimed today that she is building foundations for the economy, but sadly those foundations are built on sand—increased borrowing, higher inflation, lower growth, jobs taxes and so on. How will such structures stand against the economic forces that will be affecting the United Kingdom, as she has described today? Specifically, what proportion of the transformation fund will be available to the Northern Ireland Executive for the important transformation of public services in Northern Ireland?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The OBR is clear that the economy at the end of this Parliament will be bigger than it previously envisaged—bigger than the plans we inherited from the previous Government—and the average person with real household disposable income will see their income rise by £500. We are already beginning to deliver the change that we promised. At the Budget last year I was able to announce the biggest ever settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That continues to be the case after today’s spring statement.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Reckless management of public finances leads to higher costs of Government borrowing. As any economist will say, that increases the cost of capital across the British economy, putting at risk and increasing the cost of the essential investments in housing and infrastructure that my constituents desperately need. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a very important reason why it is essential to manage public finances carefully, unlike the last Conservative Government, and unlike the Government in Scotland, who are overfamiliar with emergency Budgets?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of robust fiscal rules which, even in difficult economic circumstances, we will continue to meet through the decisions that I have set out today. The reason that economic stability is so important can be seen in what happened in the last Parliament, where a Government borrowed beyond their means. The people who lost out were not the wealthy but ordinary working people, who paid more in the shops and more on their mortgages and rents. This Government will never repeat the mistakes of Liz Truss and the Conservatives.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Chancellor has created a storm and is now complaining about the rain. She increased spending to £70 billion, she increased borrowing by £30 billion, and she increased tax by £40 billion, yet the economy shrank in January. She talked about change and the abolition of NHS England. In a written question I asked the Department how much that would cost, and it said that there would be some up-front costs but could not specify what they would be. Could she tell me the estimated cost of this top-down change to abolish NHS England?

[Rachel Reeves]

It is really difficult to understand what the Conservative party want. Do they want to reduce the cost of admin and bureaucracy, or do they want to carry on with everything the way it was? We want to change things. That is why the transformation fund that I set out today includes £150 million for a voluntary exit scheme. We want more money on the frontline, not in the back office in a bloated bureaucracy that was left by the Conservatives.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

There is so much to welcome in today’s statement, but the Chancellor will be aware of serious concerns regarding welfare reform. A constituent told me last week:

“I’m terrified of what will happen to me if I can’t work. I’m already having thoughts of suicide at the prospect of these changes and what they will mean for disabled people.”

Today’s impact assessment shows a 250,000 increase in the number of people living in relative poverty and a 50,000 increase in children living in relative poverty. What will the Chancellor do to stop this from happening?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks about a constituent who is in work. I am sure that she and others will welcome the work that Charlie Mayfield has done on ensuring that people with sickness and disability can stay in work. We know that the best place for people is in work—for both their physical and mental health—and that too often when people drop out of the labour market they really struggle to get back into it. Alongside the targeted support to get people back into work, we are determined to work with businesses and ensure that more people with sickness and disability can stay in work, contributing to their family finances and to the wider economy.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

Does the Chancellor agree that GDP as a measure of growth and relative wealth is not the most relevant number to our constituents? As we are living in an age of mass immigration and a rising population, surely, what matters to our constituents is GDP per capita, which has fallen consistently for the past two years and is falling still. Should we not tell people that, actually, they are getting poorer?

[Rachel Reeves]

The OBR forecast that GDP per capita will increase by 5.6% during this Parliament, having fallen under the previous Government. If the hon. Gentleman ever gets to Clacton, he can tell his constituents that.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Chancellor’s £3 billion investment into a transformation fund to sort out how government is run. Does the Chancellor agree that the Tories ducked that reform—they should have done it but did not—and their failure to address it put pressure on frontline services and stretched the public finances?

[Rachel Reeves]

The transformation fund, worth £3.25 billion, is about trying to reduce further the costs of failure. We are putting more money into recruiting foster carers, because we want to ensure that more children get the best possible start in life. We also know that children ending up in poor-quality children’s homes has consequences not just at the start of their life but later on. We are also putting more money into technology in the Probation Service so that probation works better to rehabilitate offenders and ensure that people pay for the crimes that they commit.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

The Chancellor rightly reminded the House that the British public are watching. Among them are tens of thousands of the most vulnerable pensioners in our society. Will she please explain what is Labour about removing the winter fuel payment from those on £13,500 a year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

As a result of the triple lock, which we have been able to protect, next month the basic state pension will increase by more than £400. By the end of this Parliament, the triple lock, which the shadow Chancellor opposes, will cost an additional £31 billion. That is the protection that we are giving to pensioners, as well as record investment in our NHS, which older people use with greater frequency than anyone else.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

The UK is the 6th richest country in the world, yet more than one in three children and 25% of adults live in poverty. Since Labour came into power, 25,000 more children have been pushed into poverty due to the two-child benefit cap. Now, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, more than 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of these cuts, including 50,000 children. I ask the Chancellor, who earns over £150,000 annually, who has accepted £7,500-worth of free clothing and who recently took freebie tickets to see Sabrina Carpenter, does she think that austerity 2.0 is the change that people really voted for?

[Rachel Reeves]

There is nothing progressive and nothing Labour about pouring more money into a broken system. The changes that we are making will help young people who are not in education, employment or training, through targeted support. As I set out, the OBR has not scored any of our back to work programme—the biggest programme for many years—and it will do so in the autumn. The best way to lift people out of poverty is to get them into good, secure work that pays a decent wage. From next month we are increasing the national living wage by £1,400 for someone working full time. The Employment Rights Bill will ensure that people have security at work. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The Chancellor knows that our economy has been driven to the edge over the past 15 years, with ordinary people forced to bear the burden while a small minority have amassed extreme wealth. She could change that. Her own Back Benchers are lining up to argue for a wealth tax. Why will she not do the fair and right thing and introduce a tax on the very wealthiest, rather than launching austerity 2.0 and removing vital support from disabled and ill people?

[Rachel Reeves]

The best thing that we can do for our constituents is build the homes that they desperately need. I have no understanding of why Green party Members voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill this week. What do they have against families getting homes and young people getting jobs?

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Today’s defence announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is fantastic news for my city. It delivers security for working people across the country and cements Portsmouth’s reputation as not just the historic home but the future home of the Royal Navy. After 14 years in which the Conservative party decimated all areas of our armed services, imposed three Portsmouth Ministers on my city and axed shipbuilding, it has fallen to this Government to once again fix the mess inherited from you—the people over there. Sorry, I almost said “you lot”. Does she agree that the announcement will secure the future of the naval base and those serving our country?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is a proud advocate for her city, and this Government are a proud advocate for the people of Portsmouth. That is why we have put investment in the Portsmouth naval base in today’s statement. As we grow our defence spending to keep our country safe and secure, we want to ensure more good jobs that pay decent wages, to make Britain a defence industrial superpower, and to support those who serve on the frontline.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Today, the Chancellor could have taken action to reverse the damage that she has done to people and businesses in my constituency and beyond, but she failed; she chose not to. What does she say to all the pensioners, farmers, businesses, charities, hospices and hard-working people who face her huge tax rises?

[Rachel Reeves]

When I became Chancellor, I inherited from the Conservative party a £22 billion black hole, which we have taken action to address. I would say to the right hon. Lady’s constituents that they will now see a doctor or nurse more quickly than under the last Government, because NHS waiting lists have fallen for five months in a row.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main contrast between this Government and the last one is strength versus weakness? They were too weak to crack down on wasteful spending, to address the tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthy, and to take on the blockers in the planning system. Does she further agree that while the Conservatives—the party of vested interests—seek to conserve what has failed, this Labour Government have the strength to take the tough, long-term decisions to build a better and much fairer Britain?

[Rachel Reeves]

Today, the OBR has scored some of our planning measures, which will make the economy £6.8 billion bigger by the end of the Parliament, contributing £3.4 billion to our public finances and services. That is possible only because we are taking on the vested interests, and are getting Britain building by backing the builders, not the blockers. We are the Government increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The Tories had 14 years to do that, but they failed. This Labour Government have done that in our first year.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Heartbreakingly, last week St Wilfrid’s Hospice in Eastbourne announced many redundancies, citing the national insurance increase as a reason. I have just received a message from Mrs Robinson at Motcombe school, which faces increased costs due to a catering supplier passing on the cost of the NIC hike. If the Chancellor will not increase the digital services tax to fund a reversal of that hike, how will these organisations be supported to keep doing their great work?

[Rachel Reeves]

At the Budget, we set out tax increases on the wealthiest and on businesses to properly fund our public services. Constituents in Eastbourne will get to see a doctor or nurse a little more quickly, and will benefit from the breakfast clubs that we are rolling out because we had the money to. Hon. Members cannot back increased investment in our public services, including the settlement for hospices, if they oppose raising the money to pay for it.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I understand that this Government inherited from the Conservative party a huge financial mess, caused by over a decade of austerity. However, what is the justification for cutting disability benefits—a third of disabled people are already in poverty—instead of taxing the growing wealth of the super-rich? A 2% tax on assets over £10 million could raise £24 billion a year.

[Rachel Reeves]

At the Budget, we set out £40 billion-worth of tax increases; we got rid of the non-dom tax status, increased capital gains tax, put VAT on private schools and tightened the rules around inheritance tax. We made those decisions so that we could invest more in our public services, including in our schools and our hospitals. Indeed, we have now committed to lifting defence spending within the next two years to 2.5% of GDP. On welfare spending, there is nothing progressive about writing off a generation of young people, so our targeted, personalised support will help people get back into work, lift them out of poverty, and help them to contribute both to their family finances and to our nation’s finances.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady talks of financial responsibility, but will she please tell us when Government bond yields hit their highest levels since the global financial crisis, and who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer then? If she needs a clue, we can bring her a mirror.

[Rachel Reeves]

If we look at financial markets and follow them closely, we can see that the increases in bond yields in the UK, France and Germany have closely tracked each other. Global financial instability has affected countries around the world, and that is why it is so important that we continue to meet our fiscal rules, as I have set out today.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

A moment ago, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) mentioned GDP per capita; I see that he asked his question and ran away. The truth is that GDP per capita increased by only 4.3% in the past 16 years, compared with 46% in the years prior. What matters to my constituents in the left-behind towns and villages of Bishop Auckland is not just growth, but growth that they can feel, and which has an impact for their pockets. What will the Chancellor do to ensure that working people feel the growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government want people in Bishop Auckland and constituents in all parts of our country to feel the benefits of growth through good jobs paying decent wages. That is why we are increasing the national living wage; making work pay; and backing the builders—not the blockers—who are creating new jobs, new homes for families, new transport infrastructure and new energy infrastructure. The OBR has said today that, compared with the plans we inherited, real household disposable income per person is set to rise by £500 by the end of this Parliament. That shows the difference that the Government are making.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Wales has a higher percentage of disabled people and a larger public sector workforce than the UK, so we will be hit hardest by these cruel cuts. All that damage for self-imposed fiscal rules. There have been five major changes to fiscal rules since 1997. Will the Chancellor change the fiscal rules now, so that she does not impose further austerity?

[Rachel Reeves]

Last year in the Budget, we provided the biggest ever settlement for the Welsh Government, yet Plaid voted against that. I do not understand why the hon. Member does not want money to go to Wales and to her constituents.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and in particular her recognition of the excellent work of Labour-run Thanet district council, which is building more social homes with local firms and employing local people, including local apprentices. The Government’s recent planning changes mean not only council homes for local people, but growth. Will she confirm that the Office for Budget Responsibility has scored only the effect of the national planning policy framework changes, and not the effect of the upcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill?

[Rachel Reeves]

I was pleased to note in my statement that Thanet has already come forward with plans to build affordable housing under the affordable housing plan, for which I set out more money. Opposition parties that abstain or vote against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill are voting against homes for our constituents and jobs for our young people. On the Government side of the House, we back the builders, not the blockers. We back opportunities for young people and housing for our constituents. It is a shame that those parties do not do the same.

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

The Chancellor claimed that growth was her top priority, yet she has taken the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and brought it to a shuddering halt. She promised that there would be no tax rises, but next week’s jobs tax will put tax rises on ordinary working people. Today, she has cut the housing numbers by 200,000 and put up borrowing by £18 billion in the next two years. Is it not time that the Prime Minister invited the Chancellor next door and said, “Rachel, you’re fired”?

[Rachel Reeves]

The plans that we inherited from the previous Government saw the OECD forecast that the UK would have the slowest growth in the G7 this year. It is now forecasting us to have the second-highest growth. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making, moving us up the league tables.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor and her team for the prudent work that they are doing to restore stability to our economy. Figures show that wages are already increasing in my constituency under this Labour Government, and inflation is falling. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that, alongside the new living wage, worth £1,400 a year, will make work pay and start to lift more people out of poverty?

[Rachel Reeves]

I was pleased to be able to announce in the Budget last year a 6.7% increase in the national living wage, as well as a record increase in the youth rate of the minimum wage. That will help lift working people—working families—out of poverty. That comes alongside our Employment Rights Bill, which will ensure greater security for those who go out to work.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Growth is not the word on the lips of farmers, whose confidence in the Government is at a low ebb following the family farm tax, the abrupt closure of the sustainable farming incentive, and now possible departmental cuts, which could reduce the farming budget further. Charlie from Upton Bridge farm in Long Sutton told me that he is contemplating leaving his ground fallow due to the risk of a failed crop putting his farm further into debt. Will the Chancellor assure farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton, and across the country, that following the spending review, the Government are still committed to championing British farming while protecting the environment?

[Rachel Reeves]

At the Budget, we put record investment into our farming sector, after being left plans by the previous Government that did not even involve their using all their farming budget. We are determined to give farmers the support that they need.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I represent Barking, which she will know has some of the highest deprivation figures in the country, and where 20% of working adults have no qualifications whatsoever. Does she agree that it is only by our creating jobs and those people getting the qualifications that they need that those people can ever improve their life chances?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks passionately about expanding opportunities for her constituents in Barking. The changes to the apprenticeship levy and the growth and skills levy are about ensuring that more people, including her constituents, can access apprenticeship courses and foundation courses. Just this weekend, we were able to announce an additional 60,000 places on construction courses to help people get jobs that pay a decent wage and offer security. That is what the Government are all about.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Given that the Chancellor chose not to mention Chagos in her statement, and that she chose not to answer the shadow Chancellor’s question on Chagos, can the House assume that this disastrous deal will not be going ahead, and that, more importantly, the UK taxpayer will not be footing the bill?

[Rachel Reeves]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, our Prime Minister and President Trump discussed these issues when our Prime Minister was at the White House recently. We continue to work on those plans. The most important thing is that we protect our national security and can continue to operate out of that important base.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

Paragraph 1.14 of the OBR report outlines that the planned cuts to disability benefits will reduce personal independence payments for 800,000 claimants, and cut health-related universal credit for 3 million families. Is it not time that we asked those with the broadest shoulders to carry the heaviest burden, rather than the poorest in our society?

[Rachel Reeves]

As I have set out, the Office for Budget Responsibility does not assume in its numbers any changes in people going back to work. That is what we are going to work on, between the OBR, the DWP and the Treasury, over the summer, so that we develop those plans to ensure that people are not worse off but better off because they can progress into jobs that suit their abilities and needs. We want more people to have the fulfilment of a good job, with security, that pays a decent wage.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

In a statement with significant problems, I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to better military homes, which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Will she clarify how much and by when, and will that commitment include RAF Odiham in my constituency—or is it just for the constituencies that she listed, which happen to have Labour MPs?

[Rachel Reeves]

We support military families wherever they are based in the United Kingdom. We will set out more detail in the spending review in June. In the past few months, we have already taken back into the public sector homes that were previously contracted out to the private sector so that we can make improvements to military accommodation, which I know will be welcomed in the hon. Lady’s constituency and by military families across our country.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

My West Brom constituents work hard and pay their taxes, and they want to know that the Government treat that money with respect. I am glad that we finally have a Chancellor who is being careful with every pound of taxpayers’ money so that we can invest in the NHS, which has seen a 10% cut to the waiting list in my area. How is she drawing a line under the waste and chaos of the previous Government and finally putting our public finances back on a stable footing?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of her constituents, ensuring that the people of West Bromwich get a good deal from their public services and value for money when they pay their taxes. There was too much waste under the previous Government. That was exemplified during the pandemic, when so many contracts went to friends and donors. We have appointed a covid corruption commissioner because we want that money back in our public services, not in the hands of Tory friends and donors.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

There are 4.3 million children living in poverty in our society, and 1.2 million people in receipt of PIP are about to lose it following the statement last week. The Chancellor has put a huge amount of money into defence. Could she not think for a moment of reversing the decision last week to take £5 billion out of the welfare budget, and of ending the two-child benefit cap, which has driven so many children and families into really desperate poverty?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will not make any apologies for putting more money in defence. This Labour Government take the defence of our country seriously, and so we should. We are the party that created NATO, and the leadership of the Labour party today will always defend our country.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and on her action to end austerity by investing £26 billion in the NHS and £3 billion in education, raising defence budgets, and unleashing over £100 billion of additional capital investment to build the foundations of our economy. On the day after this Government voted through a pay rise for 3 million working people by raising the minimum wage, does she agree that it is only by making the tough decisions to restore stability and push ahead with our bold plans for reform that the Government can repair the terrible damage done by the Conservative party, deliver strong public services and get more money in people’s pockets?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for all his work to back growth and improve living standards for working people. I was pleased to announce in the spring statement £13 billion extra for capital spending during the course of this Parliament. We know that the previous Government always made the easy choice to cut capital spending, and the deterioration of infrastructure is why we are in the mess that we are today. We will not make those short-term decisions; we will invest to grow our economy, working with business to do so.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Chancellor’s trouble is that although her manifesto promised to limit spending increases to £9.5 billion a year, her Budget increased spending by £76 billion a year—eight times as much. She has previously said that she will not come back asking for more tax rises or more borrowing. Will she rule out both in the Budget later this year?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Budget in autumn last year wiped the slate clean after 14 years of economic mismanagement by the Conservative party. We will not have to repeat a Budget like that because we are not going to inherit anything like that ever again. We have changed the rules so that the OBR always gets information now, rather than the information being hidden as it was by the previous Government.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) gave examples of alternative taxes to Labour’s national insurance increases, asking that big banks, social media giants and online gambling companies pay their fair share of tax. Can the Chancellor confirm that she has heard those Liberal Democrat alternatives, and will she explain why she is not listening to those fair and sensible proposals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

One thing that is scored in the OBR document today is the gambling levy that the Government have introduced. That money will be used to ensure that we regulate gambling properly in our country, and rightly so.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

For defence companies in Scotland, UK Export Finance plays a crucial role in financing sales to our allies around the world, including Ukraine. Will the Chancellor outline how the increase in capacity for UK Export Finance will help defence companies in Scotland to create jobs in my Livingston constituency and strengthen our national defence?

[Rachel Reeves]

Just two week ago, I was able to announce £2 billion extra for UK Export Finance specifically to help defence companies in the UK to export. As countries around the world, particularly in Europe, increase defence spending, I want to ensure that we get those contracts here in Britain to support our proud defence industry, including in places such as Livingston and Rosyth, where I met Babcock just a couple of weeks ago.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Chancellor’s statement referred to people who were listening. The president of the Ulster Farmers Union was in the Public Gallery to hear her statement, which did not reference agriculture or farming at all. It talked about the country’s security and safety, but there was nothing on food safety. It spoke of not writing off a generation of young people, but her family farm tax will write off a generation of young farmers. What confidence can she give our agricultural sector?

[Rachel Reeves]

With specific reference to agricultural property relief, people will not pay extra tax unless they have a farm worth around £3 million. More than two thirds of farms are not affected at all by the changes in that relief. For those who do pay the tax, it is at half the rate that anybody else pays, and they can pay it, interest-free, over a period of 10 years. That is very different from the inheritance tax bills that anybody else pays.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Chancellor’s reference to the £13 billion of additional capital expenditure announced today. Will she put today’s statement into the context of the significant investments that have already been made and those that are forthcoming, and contrast that with the previous Government, who did not have a plan for long-term growth and abandoned communities like mine?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents in Gateshead, who rely on the infrastructure that our country needs, be it energy, digital or transport infrastructure, or the houses that all our constituents need. In the Budget last year I put £100 billion extra into capital spending during the course of this Parliament, and I have been able to announce an additional £13 billion today. Unlike the Conservative party, I am not willing to cut capital investment, because it is absolutely crucial to grow the economy and leverage the private sector investment that we need.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Chancellor has made much of the Government’s investment in defence and desire to make the country a defence industrial superpower. I am keen to pitch for a slice of the protected £400 million for UK defence innovation. Huntingdon is the home of our defence intelligence capability, the US air force’s joint intelligence operations centre Europe, and the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre. There is huge investment in sites such as the Alconbury Weald enterprise campus and Brampton Cross, and the potential redevelopment of Ministry of Defence land around RAF Wyton. It is the perfect location for defence start-ups, and with the arrival of several already in flight, the US Government are investing north of £500 million in Huntingdon alone. Will she make a similar commitment to Huntingdon and include it in her list of defence sites?

[Rachel Reeves]

What a great pitch! I am sure that one of the Ministers from the Ministry of Defence will be pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those opportunities. As we move to 2.5% of GDP spent on defence and 3% in the next Parliament, I am determined that that money benefits our troops in the UK but also supports us becoming a defence industrial superpower. I am sure that we can work with the hon. Gentleman to realise those ambitions for Huntingdon.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

The Conservatives left a £22 billion hole in our public finances and they continue to oppose every decision made by the Chancellor to clean up their mess. Can the Chancellor tell us how things would look now if the Conservatives had their way?

[Rachel Reeves]

What it would mean for people in Kettering and around the country if we had continued under the plans of the previous Government is that interest rates would have remained high, inflation would have remained high and growth would continue to flatline, whereas the OBR today has forecast that real household disposable incomes will rise, growth will be higher and living standards will be higher because we have returned stability to the economy and we are backing the builders, not the blockers. [Interruption.]

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I do not wish to interrupt the discussion on the Front Benches. I have another opportunity for the Chancellor. In Cheltenham, we have a scheme that can produce jobs and growth and will support the defence industry: the Golden Valley development next to GCHQ, which will be a key part of this country’s defence investment over the coming years. Will the Chancellor take it upon herself to work with Ministers in other Departments who already know about that to ensure that we get the investment that we deserve and that GCHQ workers deserve too?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am proud of what GCHQ does to keep our country safe. Part of what we are doing around the defence budget, above the lift to 2.5%, is including some of the work of the Security Service that, increasingly, is crucial for our national security and defence. That is on top of the 2.5%. As we protect defence spending, it is right that we take into account GCHQ and other security agencies as well. I am very happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that we maximise the benefits for so many constituencies, including Cheltenham.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

May I thank the Chancellor for her statement and welcome the increase in defence spending, which represents a huge opportunity for Scottish workers? I was delighted to have her visit Rosyth in my constituency recently. Will she work to ensure a continuous shipbuilding programme in this country to maximise the opportunities for Scottish workers? Does she agree that it is utterly shameful that those workers have been ignored by the SNP for the past 18 years? Also, will she confirm that this Labour Government will always value the role of shipbuilding for our economy and our national defence?

[Rachel Reeves]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is just a shame that there are no SNP members in the Chamber—although there are so few of them—to hear what he said. Perhaps my hon. Friend would write to the SNP and ask them why they refuse to back the defence sector in the United Kingdom and specifically in Scotland.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

It is estimated that in under five years there will be more than 3 million families in receipt of disability benefits who will lose financially as a result of today’s announcement, with an average loss of £1,720 per year compared to inflation. Is the Chancellor comfortable knowing that she has brought despair and horror to disabled people and their families across the country?

[Rachel Reeves]

We have a very basic principle that people who deserve to be protected should be, that those who can work should and that we need a system that is sustainable. We do not have any of those three things today. That is why we are reforming our welfare system to give additional support for those with the highest needs, to give personalised, targeted and guaranteed support to help people back into work and to ensure that we have a system that is sustainable so that it is there for generations to come.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As the Chancellor will know, the east midlands is often at the bottom of investment league tables and we suffer through a lack of transport planning. Will the Chancellor outline how the extra public investment and the national wealth fund will change that and deliver for people in North East Derbyshire?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. People in North East Derbyshire will benefit from the additional homes, whether they are able to buy those homes, rent those homes or, indeed, build those homes, as we expand the number of construction apprenticeships and construct 10 new technical excellence colleges. They will also benefit from the increases in real household disposable income. When the economy grows, we want to have more money in people’s pockets and that is what the OBR today confirms will happen.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Pharmacies such as Green End pharmacy in Whitchurch in my constituency are struggling with the impending hike in employer national insurance and business rates. In fact, they do not know what they are being paid for NHS services this financial year, let alone next. Will the Chancellor confirm whether Pharmacy First will continue beyond the end of next week?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sure that the relevant Health Minister will be willing to meet with the hon. Lady to talk about that. Because of the investment that we put into our national health service at the Budget last year—more than £20 billion of additional funding—we are able to start to rebuild our NHS and reduce waiting lists. Indeed, we have done that now for five months in a row.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

As we secure Britain’s role in a changing world, I welcome the Chancellor’s focus on defence innovation and I thank her for referencing my community, Aldershot and Farnborough. We are ready to serve.

When it comes to defence innovation, too many small and medium defence businesses in my community struggle to get access to the banking and finance facilities they need, often on the basis of self-imposed environmental, social and governance criteria. Will the Chancellor join me in welcoming the investors and financial institutions that have responded to the campaign that I am leading with my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), calling on our banks and our fund managers to broaden their approach so that we can defend our country, support Ukraine and fire up our industrial base?

[Rachel Reeves]

I was pleased to mention my hon. Friend’s constituency in my statement. As the home of the British Army, on behalf of this Government, we thank the people of Aldershot and Farnborough for the service that they give our country every single day.

My hon. Friend is right to mention the importance of companies in the defence sector, whether big or small, being able to access finance. That has never been more important than it is today, when the threats posed by Putin continue to grow. I therefore urge everyone in financial services to do their part to make sure that our fantastic defence start-ups have the money that they need to grow and help defend our country and our values.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final question, I call Jim Allister.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Chancellor better explain how the civil service cuts will translate into the devolved regions and the impact on future block grant allocations? Are there lessons to be learnt from the fact that in 2015, the Northern Ireland Executive had a voluntary exit scheme, upon which it spent £700 million, and then proceeded to re-engage hundreds of civil servants as agency workers?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. That is why we have not set a number for the reduction in the size of the civil service and instead have made it an admin target. We do not want the number of civil servants to fall and then the number of agency workers and consultancies to increase. Absolutely, this Government will learn from failed efforts, both of the UK Government under the Conservatives and other Administrations in the past.

New Approach to Ensure Regulations and Regulators Support Growth

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

The Government are today publishing an action plan, setting out a new approach to ensure regulations and regulators support growth.

Improving regulation in the UK, ensuring that it enables growth and does not unduly hold back investment, is an essential part of this Government’s growth mission and delivering on the plan for change.

When used effectively, regulation provides a mechanism to address economic, societal, and environmental risks and deliver positive outcomes in our communities, for example it safeguards employees from harm at work and it can uphold vital standards in building safety.

However, under our current system, businesses tell us that regulation can be too complex and duplicative, stifling progress and innovation. Businesses endure slow processes and a lack of predictability, and our regulatory approach has become too risk averse.

These challenges manifest themselves in costs on business, which means that they have less time and money to invest and create jobs. Over the last 20 years, billions of pounds of regulatory costs have contributed to our economy being less attractive for new investment. Previous studies suggested that the impact of red tape costs could be as high as 3% to 4% of GDP.

The Government will reform the regulatory system to ensure the UK’s position of global competitive leadership and go further and faster to secure and sustain growth, supporting the objectives of our new industrial strategy and the wider growth mission.

This action plan builds on the Prime Minister’s (Keir Starmer) commitment last week to cut bureaucracy for business, reducing administrative costs of regulation for business by a quarter by the end of the Parliament. It sets out a vision to overhaul our regulatory system so that it:

Supports growth. We want a regulatory system that not only protects consumers and supports competition, but also encourages new investment, innovation, and growth. When regulation is designed well, and when it is implemented well by regulators, it can protect consumers while supporting investment and growth.

Is targeted and proportionate. We should regulate only where necessary and allow space for discretion and good behaviour, in most cases, businesses operate in a responsible and sensible manner. The current system too often focuses on regulations and regulatory practices designed to prevent a few bad actors, or very low probability events, rather than trusting and helping most businesses that want to comply.

Is transparent and predictable. To foster the certainty essential for investment, it is vital that our regulatory regime is stable, predictable, and consistent. Regulation will need to change where it is not fit for purpose; but we must be clear about where that is the case and give business the necessary time to adapt to new rules.

Adapts to keep pace with innovation. Our approach to regulation must allow the UK to take advantage of new technologies and innovations, including artificial intelligence, digitalisation, decarbonisation, and increased automation. Effective regulation can create the environment and clarity for innovation to take place. Regulators attuned to the challenges facing business should also be able to adapt to new industries and to the challenges posed by new technologies and avoid disproportionate risk averse behaviour.

To reset the UK’s regulatory landscape and achieve this vision, the Government will implement a package of reforms over the Parliament that focus on:

Tackling complexity and reducing the burden of regulation, including that the Government will commit to reducing the administrative costs of regulation for businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament; that the Payment Systems Regulator will be consolidated primarily within the Financial Conduct Authority; that the Government will work with regulators to improve areas where regulation is most complex starting with environmental and planning regulation.

Reducing uncertainty across our regulatory system, including that the Government will simplify the duties of key regulators including through the reviews of Ofgem and Ofwat; that it will work with regulators to strengthen transparency, so that business and the public can see how regulators are performing; and that the Government will bring forward packages of reform, including, if necessary, legislation to improve the effectiveness of environmental regulation.

Challenging and shifting excessive risk aversion in the system, including that the Government will overhaul accountability, formalising and strengthening performance reviews which will be conducted by all sponsoring Government Departments, and setting out the next stage of commitments secured by the Regulatory Innovation Office, working alongside Departments and regulators.

The reforms in the action plan are relevant to regulators across sectors such as business, finance, energy, and the environment. Though there is not currently a legal definition of a regulator, the reforms will apply to all bodies exercising regulatory powers and functions.

The Government have worked with a set of key regulators over the past few months to develop measures which will have a tangible effect on driving growth and investment and are implementable within the next 12 months, listed in the action plan. Some of them, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, have already taken substantial action such as taking forward applying the “4Ps” across its digital markets work.

The Government will continue working with industry, regulators, and Parliament to ensure that the regulatory system protects consumers and supports competition, but also encourages new investment, innovation, and growth.

The full action plan is available on gov.uk:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-new-approach-to-ensure-regulators-and-regulation-support-growth/new-approach-to-ensure-regulators-and-regulation-support-growth-html



A copy will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS528]

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

Economic growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government. Putting more money in people’s pockets and ensuring growth is felt in all regions of the UK is a core part of our mission. The Government have a clear focus on investing in the infrastructure needed to support cities and regions to grow and thrive. In January, the Government announced a partnership between East Midlands airport and Prologis to build a new advanced manufacturing and logistics park, unlocking up to £1 billion of private investment and 2,000 jobs at the airport site.

[Louise Jones]

The town of Staveley in my constituency of North East Derbyshire hosts one of the three sites for the east midlands investment zone, which is a fantastic opportunity for us. The Chesterfield-Staveley regeneration route is, however, vital to making the most of the site and it has been long campaigned for by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). It is a huge priority for my constituents. Will the Treasury work with us and our excellent Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, to bring this hugely beneficial project to fruition?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield in campaigning for developments that will boost growth in both North East Derbyshire and Chesterfield. The Department for Transport is considering the scheme for the Chesterfield Staveley regeneration route, and I will suggest to the Roads Minister that he meet the relevant Members as well as the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward.

[Jen Craft]

The Government’s decision to increase defence spending is not only an ironclad commitment to national security in the face of generational challenges but an investment in British industry, able to unlock new jobs and opportunities across the country. Industry in the east of England has a significant defence sector, which received £1.5 billion of Government investment last year. Can the Chancellor explain how the additional defence funding has the potential to benefit my constituents in Thurrock as well as those in the wider region?

[Rachel Reeves]

As my hon. Friend says, defence has an important role to play in the growth mission as well as keeping our country safe and secure, and on Friday the Defence Secretary and I hosted a roundtable at RAF Waddington in Lincoln to announce a new defence innovation hub to harness that potential. Defence has a strong presence in many of our constituencies—indeed, according to the most recent data, Ministry of Defence spending in the east of England accounted for £1.5 billion—and down the road from my hon. Friend’s constituency is the historic MOD Shoeburyness range, which, along with other sites, is operated by the MOD and QinetiQ as part of a long-term partnership worth more than £5 billion. In the years to come, there will be more investment in defence from both the public and the private sector.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

As part of their pursuit of the ever-elusive goal of economic growth, the Government have rebranded the UK Infrastructure Bank as the National Wealth Fund. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility has cast doubt on the effectiveness of that as a driver of economic growth. Can the Chancellor tell the House how much the rebrand has cost?

[Rachel Reeves]

The National Wealth Fund is doing important work in enabling us to leverage in private sector investment. The most recent of those investments include mining in Cornwall and energy charging points in our roads. At the end of last week, I announced that the fund would play a more important role in funding and supporting investments in the defence sector, which will become even more important in the years ahead.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

I recently visited a business in Kirkby-in-Ashfield in the east midlands—funnily enough, I did not see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) there—where I was told that the increase in national insurance contributions would cost the business £240 a year, which will prevent it from recruiting people and giving its employees a pay rise next year. Does the Chancellor agree that it is time to reverse this ridiculous decision and help to drive growth in the east midlands?

[Rachel Reeves]

In the Budget in October I had to fill the £22 billion black hole left by the previous Government, but there are huge opportunities to grow the economy in the east midlands. We recently agreed the £9 billion Unity deal with Rolls-Royce to support the Royal Navy submarine fleet, which will provide a major boost for economic growth in the east midlands, creating and maintaining 5,000 long-term jobs. That is good for our country’s security, and good for the people of the east midlands.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the planned increase in employer national insurance contributions on economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

10. What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the most recent figures for Government borrowing.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

In the autumn I took the decisions to put our public finances back on a firm footing. The most recent GDP data showed that the economy grew by 0.4% in the final month of last year. As I have said on many occasions, our fiscal rules are non-negotiable. The Conservative party sent mortgage rates and business borrowing costs spiralling; we have returned stability to the public finances to give families and businesses the stability that they need.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

The servicing cost is now twice what we are spending on defence, which the Chancellor is right to be increasing. What is her ambition for finding savings in the welfare budget?

[Rachel Reeves]

I agree that we need to get a grip of the welfare budget, which got out of control under the previous Conservative Government. Frankly, I am not going to take lectures from the Conservative party, which crashed the economy. Let me remind the House what the right hon. Gentleman said about the disastrous mini-Budget:

“I share entirely the free-market ideology that underpins the Chancellor’s statement…The Chancellor was right to be radical.”

He added:

“I rejoice at the two fingers the Chancellor has raised to socialist dogma and envy.”

I think that the financial markets and the British public have united in their view on the previous Government.

[Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

11. What steps she has taken to help increase economic growth in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

Economic stability and growth are vital to help businesses across the UK to grow. The Lloyds business barometer published last week showed business confidence up 12 points, building on recent surveys by EY and PwC that show that business and investor confidence is rising. The Government are partnering with business to unlock investment and to drive growth.

[John Cooper]

The Chancellor, with her unimpeachable record in the sector, will know that economics is known as the dismal science. As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, rather than using second-hand statistics, I have spoken directly with businesses one to one and found that the mood is indeed dismal. After her dud Budget, can she think again and go back on this desperate jobs tax? She is in danger of becoming tough on growth and tough on the causes of growth.

[Rachel Reeves]

Conservative Members welcome the additional money for the NHS, but they never welcome the means to pay for it, which is why we are in the mess that we are with the £22 billion black hole we inherited from the previous Government. The hon. Member says that these are backward-looking surveys. The EY survey of UK CEOs found that 82% felt optimistic. PwC’s latest global CEO survey ranked the UK as the second-most attractive global destination for international investment, and last week the Lloyds survey showed a boost in business confidence. Those are the facts. People are choosing Britain as a place to invest and to locate their businesses. On the Government side of the House, we welcome that.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

It is clear that the world is changing, which is why we must bring about a new era of security and renewal to keep our country safe. Last week, I convened European Finance Ministers at the G20 to discuss our shared challenges. I set out that national security will always be the first responsibility of this Government as well as national security being the bedrock for economic prosperity.

I was also proud to welcome President Zelensky to Downing Street alongside the Prime Minister at the weekend, where we signed a loan agreement that will deliver £2.26 billion in funding to Ukraine above our other commitments to bolster its military capacity, repaid by the profits from frozen Russian sovereign assets. We will use the additional investment in defence to create more good jobs paying decent wages in all parts of the UK. That is why we are giving the National Wealth Fund a new strategic steer to invest in technologies that better support our security and defence. Britain is a strong country with strong defences, and I know that we can weather this changing world.

[Josh Newbury]

As the father of five-year-old, I know at first hand how important indoor play facilities are. Providers in Cannock Chase, such as the Beach Hut in Norton Canes and the Kids Rule Play Cafe in Cannock, have written to me asking for consideration for a sector-specific VAT reduction and the opportunity to shape the reform of business rates. Is Treasury Minister willing to meet me, local providers and the Association of Indoor Play to discuss the sector’s priorities?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Government have no plans to consider zero rating indoor play facilities for VAT. All tax breaks must provide value for money and evidence suggests that such savings are only partially passed on. I would, however, welcome my hon. Friend engaging with us as we look to inform our “Transforming Business Rates” paper ahead of the Budget later this year.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

How many jobs will the right hon. Lady destroy as a result of her jobs tax?

[Rachel Reeves]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman will have looked at the OBR forecast from the Budget last year, which forecasted that employment will rise in this Parliament, unemployment will fall and real household disposable income will increase. That is a far cry from the last Parliament, which was the worst on record for living standards.

[Mel Stride]

I am surprised that the right hon. Lady did not reference the fact that the OBR also said that there would be 50,000 fewer jobs as a result of the NICs increase; indeed, Bloomberg put that figure at 130,000 jobs. It does not need to be that way. On 26 March, the right hon. Lady should come to this House with a spring statement containing a clear plan around welfare savings, which we had when we were in Government. Will she now confirm that she is prepared to do that with our support and put an end to the pernicious tax increase?

[Rachel Reeves]

The right hon. Gentleman and his party had 14 years to reform the welfare system. They failed to do so, but this Government will. We are turning the British economy round after the disaster left to us by the previous Government: three cuts in interest rates since the general election, real wages rising at their fastest rate for three years, fuel duty frozen, the payslips of working people protected, and millions getting a pay rise through an increase in the national living wage. That is the change that this Government are delivering; that is the change that the Opposition are blocking.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Jacob Collier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

T4. Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Under this Labour Government, Cornish tin mining is back. Following the recent National Wealth Fund investment in South Crofty tin mine at the centre of my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, does the Chancellor agree that, in doubling the National Wealth Fund investment, that is a perfect example of how public funding should be used to unlock private investment in a strategically vital industry?

[Rachel Reeves]

Unlike the Conservatives, we believe that investing alongside private industry is good for jobs and good for economic growth. I visited the National Wealth Fund’s offices last month where I heard at first hand about its equity investment in Cornish Metals. This will help to finance the reopening of Cornwall’s South Crofty tin mine, creating more than 300 local jobs, and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Look, enough is enough. I have to get Members in from both sides. I am sorry that the Front Bench does not want to get these Members in, but I am determined to. These are called topical questions, which means I want quick questions and certainly short answers. I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T5. I hope that I will not damage the Chancellor if I commend the fiscally conservative way in which she is increasing defence spending. Given that if every European country matched our 2.5% commitment, we could release over £150 billion of defence spending, does she agree that we can crack this, because war and peace are always won, ultimately, by the size the economy?

[Rachel Reeves]

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is why I met my fellow European Finance Ministers in Cape Town at the G20 last week. All of Europe needs to step up. The British Government are doing so and we need to see that from other countries, too.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

T6. Acknowledging that official development assistance will go down to 0.3% of GNI in 2027, can the Minister confirm whether it will remain at 0.5% for the calendar year of 2026, which will help ensure that UK aid keeps the maximum number of people alive for the longest possible time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Government on announcing the greatest level of financial sanctions last week. Does the Chancellor agree that keeping dirty money out of the City of London and homes and communities across our country is vital for our national security, as well as our economic stability?

[Rachel Reeves]

It is absolutely right that we increased and stepped up the sanctions last week. Also, under the loan agreement we made with Ukraine last week, the loan will be repaid with the profits on foreign sovereign Russian assets. Russia should pay for the damage it has done.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

My constituent is one of hundreds of people who suffered from the collapse of Collateral. While the Financial Conduct Authority has apologised to investors for failing to act faster to stop Collateral’s fraudulent activities, I am concerned that, without internal changes, the FCA will make similar mistakes again. Should there not be an investigation into the FCA’s handling of the case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

I commend the Government for their international leadership at this challenging time. Events overnight make it even clearer that Europe must find considerably more resources for Ukraine. The Chancellor has rightly continued our policy of using the interest on frozen Russian state assets to benefit Ukraine, but I believe that now is the moment to go further by actually seizing those assets. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates the principle of sovereign equality, providing a basis in international law for such a policy, and by acting in concert with our allies, we can ensure that there are no risks to financial stability. May I urge the Chancellor to push for co-ordinated action to seize those frozen Russian state assets and give that money to the Ukrainians so that they can defend and rebuild their country?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words about this Government stepping up the funding for defence. Last week, we expanded sanctions on Russia, including by looking at financial services. This week, we have signed off a UK Export Finance package to provide more military support, above and beyond our defence spending and as well as the loan repaid using the profit on those assets. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we would look at going further but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is incredibly complicated to do that in line with international law. However, we keep all options on the table, because, as he is absolutely right to say, Russia should pay for the damage that Russia has caused.

Ukraine

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

Three years on from the onset of the war in Ukraine, the Government remain steadfast in their support for Ukraine. The UK’s total military, budgetary and humanitarian support now stands at £12.8 billion, and the Government have committed to contributing £3 billion in guaranteed military support each year for as long as it takes.

The Government have on Saturday 1 March 2025 signed a loan agreement with Ukraine, setting out the terms by which the UK will provide our contribution of £2.26 billion under the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme. The loan will be limited recourse. The UK’s contribution is additional to all previous commitments to Ukraine. This agreement enables the Government to begin disbursing ERA funding to Ukraine shortly.

The G7 ERA initiative is set to collectively provide approximately $50 billion in loans to Ukraine. This crucial funding will be repaid using future flows of extraordinary profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets.

On 16 January 2025, The Financial Assistance to Ukraine Act 2025 achieved Royal Assent. This Act provides HM Treasury with the authority to allocate funding towards the UK’s contribution to the ERA. The Government intend to disburse this contribution in three equal tranches over the next three fiscal years, starting in the current fiscal year 2024-25.

Given the urgent needs of Ukraine and the significant public interest in Ukraine’s defence of its territory and our shared aim of peace through strength, as well as the broader security of Europe and the UK, it is imperative that the first tranche of UK support under this scheme is distributed to Ukraine as soon as possible.

Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £752,667,000 for this new expenditure has been sought in a supplementary estimate for HM Treasury. Urgent expenditure estimated at £752,667,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

The second and third tranches, payable in future financial years, will be funded in the usual way through the estimates process.

[HCWS485]

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

Today I have laid before Parliament the charter for budget responsibility. The charter sets out the new fiscal framework announced at autumn Budget 2024.

The new fiscal rules will put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. The charter also strengthens fiscal stability and transparency via a series of reforms including enhancing the role of the OBR in scrutinising the Government’s fiscal policy.

In accordance with the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, the charter was first published in draft alongside the Budget on 30 October as it includes modified guidance to the Office for Budget Responsibility. No further changes have been made to the charter since it was published in draft.

A debate and votes in the House of Commons on the charter and the level of the welfare cap, will be scheduled in due course.

[HCWS381]

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

19. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2024 on levels of debt interest spending.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

When we entered office, debt was at highs not seen since the 1960s. My commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable, and we will drive debt down to a sustainable level. There have been movements in global financial markets, and the UK is not immune. The Office for Budget Responsibility will produce a forecast in the usual way, and I will respond with a statement to Parliament on 26 March. I will not be giving a running commentary on that forecast.

[Mr Holden]

Labour came to office promising to kick-start growth. Instead, it has kicked growth into the gutter. Over the last few months we have seen some of the slowest growth in the G7—in the actual figures rather than the projections. Where will the money for the public sector and public services come from with zero economic growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

Yesterday’s PwC report shows that the UK is the second most attractive place in the world to invest for global CEOs—it is the first time in 28 years that we have been in that position in the league table. And the International Monetary Fund forecast on Friday that the UK will be the fastest-growing major economy in Europe next year.

[Dr Evans]

Last time I raised the markets’ concerns about debt with the Chancellor, she told me to “get real.” What is real is that the cost of debt interest is over £10 billion. What is real are the three choices she has: to increase taxes on people and businesses in Earl Shilton, Burbage and across the country; to cut services for people in Hinckley, Donisthorpe and across the country; or to borrow on the country’s credit card. Will she now be real with the public and tell them which of the three it is going to be?

[Rachel Reeves]

We inherited a high amount of debt from the previous Government, and we have to pay interest costs on that debt. The forecast I set out in the Budget in October showed that debt falling to a sustainable level. As I said, the OBR forecast will be published on 26 March, and I will make a statement at that time.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

The Chancellor’s increased demand for Government borrowing drives up its price and crowds out investment by productive private enterprises, doesn’t it? [Hon. Members: “No.”]

[Rachel Reeves]

Let me have a go. There have undoubtedly been moves in global financial markets this year, and the UK is not immune to those movements. The OBR has not yet started its forecast. It will update that in due course, and I will make a statement on 26 March.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Since coming to office, the Chancellor has increased taxes by £40 billion and borrowing by £30 billion and her Employment Rights Bill has increased the costs of employers by a further £5 billion. Does she accept that her decisions have led to a loss of confidence in the British economy and an increase in our borrowing costs?

[Rachel Reeves]

I do not think the borrowing costs in every major country in the world can be explained by the decisions made by this Government. As I said to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) last week, the hon. Gentleman has to get real. There have been global movements in financial markets that have affected the United Kingdom, but if he looks at the PWC report from yesterday, the most recent report on market confidence, global CEOs see the UK as the second best place in the world to invest, after the US.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the UK is set to be the fastest-growing major economy in Europe, which one would have thought Conservative Members would welcome. I know my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will not be satisfied until residents in Bracknell, and across the country, feel the benefits of economic improvement in their pay packets and their day-to-day lives, so will she set out what more she can do to ensure we tackle the cost of living and fix the economic mess we have inherited from the Conservatives?

[Rachel Reeves]

After 14 years of stagnant growth and the decline in living standards during the last Parliament, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must turn around that performance. That is what this Government are determined to do. The planning and infrastructure Bill will come to Parliament shortly, followed by the pensions Bill, which will unlock long-term pension capital and make it easier for businesses to get things done in this country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The Chancellor makes reference to the PWC report, but half of the survey in that report was done before the Budget. The Chancellor and I spent a very happy three years sitting next to each other at the Treasury Committee, and she was incredibly good at demanding straight answers from the witnesses that came in front of the Committee. She has already been asked questions about the fact that the fiscal headroom is only £10 billion and the increase in the cost of borrowing is now going to go through the roof so, at some point, she will have to raise taxes, cut investment or increase debt. Which will it be?

[Rachel Reeves]

The headroom in our Budget was larger than the headroom that we inherited from the previous Government, so we have put aside more money for changes in economic prospects. The OBR has not yet done its forecast, which will take a whole variety of factors into account, and we will make decisions based on that. I have been really clear that our fiscal rules are non-negotiable because, unlike the Conservatives, we are determined to meet the fiscal rules, not break them time and again.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The rising cost of borrowing will bring more misery to mortgage holders, with reports suggesting that some mortgage holders could pay an extra £500 a year. Given that potential global trade tensions could further affect the UK’s financial stability, what assurances will the Government provide that UK lenders remain in a strong position to support households and small businesses?

[Rachel Reeves]

Labour and Liberal Democrat Members are mindful of the last Government’s impact on mortgage borrowing costs for many of our constituents, and we are determined to tackle the cost of living crisis. As the hon. Member knows, I have written to financial regulators, including the Financial Conduct Authority, about regulating for growth, not just for risk, so that we can help more people get on the housing ladder and help grow our economy.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

2. What the fiscal circumstances are that would allow official development assistance to return to 0.7% of gross national income.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

23. What steps she has taken to help increase economic growth in North Yorkshire.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

The Government are better targeting these reliefs to make them fairer. The latest figures for 2021-22 show that the top 7% of claims are counted for 40% of the total value of agricultural property relief.

[Helen Morgan]

The Chancellor will know that one of the biggest factors holding back the rural economy is poor public transport. When I visited the jobcentre in Oswestry last year, I was told that one of the biggest impediments to people finding a job is that they cannot get away from where they live because of poor public transport. Can she update me on the discussions that she has had with her colleagues in the Department for Transport over reinstating projects such as the Oswestry to Gobowen railway line and step-free access at Whitchurch railway station?

[Rachel Reeves]

At the Budget, we introduced sustainable transport settlements, with £650 million of funding for local transport, and confirmed an extension of the UK shared prosperity fund, providing £900 million to local authorities to invest in local growth. We also announced money in the Budget for some trailblazer projects to help those furthest from the labour market back into work. On the specific issues around transport in her constituency, I am very happy to set up a meeting for her with the relevant Minister.

[Dr Gardner]

The A50/500 growth corridor, a significant transport corridor in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South, enjoys an extraordinary concentration of advanced manufacturing, including anchor companies such as JCB and Michelin. With modest targeted investment in transport, energy and digital infrastructure, this vital corridor could generate £12 billion in gross value added and create 18,000 jobs. Will the Chancellor meet me to discuss the targeted investment needed to develop a detailed growth plan for this vital industrial artery and help deliver it on this Government’s mission for growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has put into this proposal and for her commitment to delivering growth in her constituency of Stoke. On a recent visit, I had the opportunity to meet JCB in the region and see its important work, particularly on the use of hydrogen. I encourage my hon. Friend to meet the Minister for Services, Small Businesses and Exports—I am happy to set up that meeting—whose portfolio includes local growth. The Government are committed to driving growth in the midlands, which is why I confirmed funding for the west midlands investment zone at the autumn Budget and also confirmed an extension of the UK shared prosperity fund.

[David Williams]

I warmly welcome the recent investment of an extra £20 million for our buses and an extra £11 million to fix our broken roads across Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire. Does the Chancellor agree that continuing to invest in our roads and public transport is an excellent way to keep our communities connected and to increase job opportunities to boost our local economy?

[Rachel Reeves]

It is great to see two strong advocates for Stoke in the Chamber today. A number of local authorities and, indeed, Labour mayors have raised with me bus procurement and the importance of buses for the local economy. I look forward to working with them, particularly David Skaith in York and North Yorkshire and Steve Rotheram in Liverpool, to boost bus services in communities, and particularly rural communities, to support jobs in the UK. At the Budget, I allocated more than £1 billion for local bus services, and that includes £712 million for local authorities to support and improve bus services in the next financial year.

[Jonathan Davies]

Museums make an important contribution to our cultural life, but also to our economy. The Arts Council and the Museums Association found that net expenditure on museums and galleries has decreased by almost 40% in real terms since 2009. I welcome the Chancellor’s recognition that the creative industries are key to delivering growth and that national museums were given support in the recent Budget, but what steps can the Government take to support regional civic museums, such as Derby museum, which did not benefit from that funding?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Culture Secretary was pleased that the creative industries were one of the sectors included in our industrial strategy. She hosted an event with members of the creative industries taskforce in Newcastle just last week to emphasise the importance of having good cultural offers and art and museums in local communities. I am happy to sort out a meeting for my hon. Friend with the relevant Minister to discuss access to the arts and culture in Mid Derbyshire.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

As my right hon. Friend knows, South Shields is a gorgeous coastal tourist town. We pride ourselves on our small businesses and our strong hospitality industry, but she will also know they are struggling after years of neglect by the Conservatives. To help those businesses, will she outline what consideration she has given to reducing VAT on our hospitality, leisure and tourism sectors?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I remember a very nice dinner of fish and chips with her in her constituency just a few years ago, and she is a strong advocate for local businesses in South Shields. In the Budget, we were able to extend business rates relief to the retail, hospitality and leisure sector of 40% for the next financial year and then to move it on to a fairer footing, so that high street businesses and smaller businesses pay fairer rates of business tax compared with, for example, the online giants.

[Alison Hume]

The bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis builds innovative electric buses, employing 800 people in Scarborough. The Chancellor has spoken about the need for public procurement to take better account of employment and environmental standards. As bus services are brought back into the control of mayors and local authorities, will the Government use public procurement to back British companies such as Alexander Dennis to boost economic growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is a good advocate for businesses, including Alexander Dennis in Scarborough. The Government will soon publish a new national procurement policy statement, which will set out our priorities for public procurement in support of our mission to grow the economy. In addition to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), we recognise the importance of buses in growing our economy by getting people to work, but also the opportunities to use public procurement to buy more buses made in this country, supporting good jobs here in Britain.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

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

Former Chair, Mr Speaker, but thank you very much for calling me.

It is clear that we all want to see economic growth in rural areas and across the UK, but I am concerned that some of the measures in the Chancellor’s Budget are having the opposite effect. Which statistic worries her most: the fact that we are at a 20-year high for business closures, or the 100% increase in millionaires leaving the UK?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have already outlined some of the positive numbers, including the upgrade in the IMF forecast, the PwC report and the fact that the economy had returned to growth in the most recent data and inflation is falling. Instead of talking our country down, I will be banging the drum to bring in investment and jobs to our country.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

A new hospital in Eastbourne would help to drive economic growth in my town and across rural Sussex, but years of Tory tumbleweed and, I am afraid, yesterday’s announcement mean that it will not be delivered and built until 2041. Will the Chancellor accelerate the release of funds to the Department of Health and Social Care to bring forward the building of our new hospital, to support patients in Eastbourne and beyond, and of course to support wider economic growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

I recognise the strength of feeling about this issue. We were left a terrible situation by the previous Government, with a £22 billion black hole in the public finances and the promise of things for which absolutely no money had been put aside. We have now done the responsible thing by reviewing the programmes that we inherited from the previous Government. That means that the timetable for some projects has had to be pushed back, but it is because the previous Government made promises knowing that the cheque would bounce.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Businesses in my constituency and across the country are still reeling from the Chancellor’s damaging Budget. She made a commitment at the Confederation of British Industry conference that she would not come back for more taxes. Does she stand by that commitment?

[Rachel Reeves]

I had to do a once-in-a-generation Budget in October to fix the mess in the public finances left by the previous Government. I will never have to do a Budget like that again because we have now fixed that terrible inheritance.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Devastating changes to inheritance tax, increased environmental costs because of net zero policies, and diversion of farming support to foreign countries—with those kinds of policies, how does the Chancellor ever expect to generate economic growth in rural areas?

[Rachel Reeves]

Bringing stability back to our economy by fixing the public finances is the No. 1 thing we can do to help businesses to grow, alongside our planning reforms to make it easier to build things in Britain and our reforms to the pension system to help businesses access long-term patient capital. As for agricultural property relief, the latest figures show that the top 7% of claims—117 claims—accounted for 40% of the total value of the relief, costing the taxpayer £219 million. We cannot afford to carry on like that, which is why we made those progressive and fair reforms in the Budget.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Farming’s vital role in growing our rural economy, growing our food and protecting the countryside is threatened by Labour’s family farm tax. The self-proclaimed “iron Chancellor” is proving herself to be the tin-eared Chancellor, ignoring evidence from the National Farmers Union and others showing that the tax is based on flawed assumptions. Ahead of Saturday’s farming day of unity, rather than threatening family farms, will she speak to farmers, think again and withdraw those damaging proposals?

[Rachel Reeves]

The problem with the Conservatives is that they support increased spending in vital areas but they have not supported any of the tax increases necessary to pay for them, which, frankly, is why we are in the situation we are in today, having inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the Budget we announced £5 billion for the farming budget over two years— including the largest funding directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery in this country’s history—and £60 million to support farmers affected by flooding.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

When I became Chancellor, there was a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We simply could not carry on like that, which is why I have taken control of our public finances and made growth the No. 1 priority of the Government to improve living standards.

In December, I launched the second phase of our spending review, where for the first time in 17 years every single pound of taxpayer money will be investigated line by line to ensure that it is being spent well. The spending review will set resource or day-to-day departmental budgets until 2028-29 and capital departmental budgets until 2029-30. On 11 June, when we conclude the review, I will present departmental budgets to the House.

[Frank McNally]

The recent drop in the rate of inflation is welcome news for those facing financial pressures across Coatbridge and Bellshill, as is the expectation that the UK will become the fastest growing economy in Europe. What further action is my right hon. Friend taking, working in partnership with Cabinet colleagues, to ensure that working families continue to see prices fall and living standards rise?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that the cost of living has a deep impact on all our constituents, including in Coatbridge and Bellshill. Like my hon. Friend, I was pleased to see the reduction in inflation last week. The Bank of England’s independence is sacrosanct to carry on those efforts. In addition, we increased the minimum wage in the Budget, we have reformed universal credit to reduce deductions and we have extended the household support fund, all to help ensure that working families have more money in their pockets.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

A moment ago, the right hon. Lady spoke about the importance of spending money wisely, so in the light of the Treasury Committee’s conclusion that her new Office for Value for Money is a waste of money, does she agree that one of its early actions should be to abolish itself in order to save money?

[Rachel Reeves]

I was pleased to appoint Tom Hayhoe to run the Office for Value for Money—somebody who has a track record of delivering value for money for taxpayers. What the Government want to scrap is giving contracts to friends and donors, because that was a colossal waste of money instigated by the Conservative party.

[Mel Stride]

The Chancellor’s answer was an answer, but I do not think that it connected in any way with my question. Could I perhaps ask her about national insurance hikes? A full two thirds of the revenues raised through Labour’s job tax is simply going on servicing the additional debt being run up by this profligate Government. Given that, does she really believe that the catastrophic effects of that tax on businesses right up and down the country are a price worth paying?

[Rachel Reeves]

We inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, and we set out the detail of that at the time of the Budget. It was essential to close that gap to bring stability back to the public finances. That required difficult decisions, but they were the right decisions to ensure that our country has the stability that it lacked for so many years and under so many different Prime Ministers and Chancellors under the Conservative party.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

T3.   My constituency of Mansfield has more members of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme than any other constituency in the country. Will the Chief Secretary outline the process and questions that need to be satisfied to release the investment reserve fund to the surviving beneficiaries of the scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

T4. The previous Conservative Government decided to back an INEOS project in Antwerp, with a £600 million loan guarantee. I have spoken with the current the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) about that, and I have been told that the Government have no plans to stop that money, even though INEOS plans to close the Grangemouth refinery, with the loss of thousands of jobs. Why is there £600 million for Antwerp and not Grangemouth, and why would the Government allow that to happen and not use the £600 million as leverage with INEOS, to avoid Scottish job losses?

[Rachel Reeves]

This Government cannot account for the decisions made by the Conservative party, but we have created the Office for Value for Money, to ensure value for money when we use taxpayer’s money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

When I visited St Barnabas hospice in Lincoln recently, the chief executive told me that it was having to pay £350,000 extra every year to cover the national insurance increase. I do not expect an answer now, but as we all agree that palliative care is so important and we want to encourage it, and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill started its Committee stage today, will the Government keep that increase for hospices under review?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Health Secretary set out the settlement for hospices just before Christmas to ensure that they have the money they need, including to compensate for the national insurance increase, but I am happy to arrange a meeting for the right hon. Gentleman with the relevant Health Minister.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

T7. On new year’s day, hundreds of my constituents woke up not to hangovers and warm homes, but to floodwater rushing into their houses. I watched as families with young children were pulled from their homes in Platt Bridge, and there was flooding in Ashton and Bickershaw. I welcome the £2.4 billion that the Government have committed to flood defence schemes, but will the Minister commit to protecting funding for flood victims and flood defence schemes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

T9. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Intasite, a technology business in Stockton that is celebrating its 10th anniversary with 40% growth? Does she agree that our industrial strategy will help businesses to invest and grow in Teesside?

[Rachel Reeves]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Intasite on its 10th anniversary as a business, and on the rapid growth it is enjoying. The announcement we were able to make last year on the carbon capture and storage work in Teesside will be a big driver of jobs and growth there, and I look forward to working with him and local businesses in Stockton to make that a reality.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose funding the reported £9 billion bill to the Mauritians for the continued use of Diego Garcia through higher taxes, more borrowing or spending cuts?

[Rachel Reeves]

We are in discussions with the new Administration in the United States around the future of Diego Garcia. We will set out details in the spending review, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

It is estimated that 148,000 people had their lives cut short between 2010 and 2020 as a result of austerity measures; on top of that, poor health led to more than £13 billion in lost productivity under the previous Government. What are my right hon. Friend’s estimates of the different choices, and the impact that they will have on the health of the nation and economic growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know she studies closely the work of Professor Michael Marmot on life expectancy and the impact of health inequalities on our country. At the Budget, we increased the minimum wage. In addition, we extended the household support fund and reduced the amount that could be taken in deductions from universal credit, all to try to put more money in the pockets of ordinary working people, to reduce some of those inequalities and tackle the cost of living crisis.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

One of my GP surgeries called me this morning to highlight the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions, which will cost it £40,000. It can only respond by freezing cost of living pay increases for all its support staff. Does the Chancellor finally accept that working people up and down the country are paying the price for her tax rises?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

My constituency has a proud industrial heritage, with manufacturing still worth £1 billion a year to the local economy from sectors that account for nearly 10% of the UK’s total economic output. What steps have the Government taken to promote the growth of the manufacturing sector and ensure that towns like Dudley continue to build on their industrial traditions?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and for the work she does to support and promote businesses in Dudley. Through our modern industrial strategy, and the targeting of eight sectors in which there is huge potential for growth, we will work with businesses right across the country on, for example, reform of the planning system to make it easier for them to build, and reform of the pension system to get funding for businesses, including those in Dudley, that are looking to grow and expand.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Neither the US Federal Reserve nor the EU Central Bank are engaged in active quantitative tightening, but the Bank of England is. The Bank of England is costing the public finances in the region of £13 billion a year as a result of a fire sale of UK Government bonds. Last time I spoke to the Chancellor about that, she said that that was because of the Bank of England’s operational independence, which we all value, but that is not a licence for impunity. What discussions will she have with the Bank of England about releasing UK Government debt in a way that benefits everybody in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Residents in my constituency will have been extremely concerned to read the news this morning that the Chancellor plans to announce next week the expansion of Heathrow. I invite her to tell us, on the Floor of the House this morning, yes or no: will the Government back expansion at Heathrow?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am not going to comment on leaks. I will say that the Government are absolutely committed to growing our economy, and making this a great place for businesses to invest in and trade.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

Growth is the No. 1 mission of this Labour Government. To grow the economy, we need to help Great British businesses to export around the world, including to China, the second biggest economy in the world and our fourth-largest trading partner. Not engaging is simply not an option. That is why I led a delegation, including the Governor of the Bank of England, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority and representatives of some of Britain’s largest financial service firms, including HSBC, Standard Chartered and Schroders, to the 2025 UK-China economic and financial dialogue—the first of its kind since 2019.

This dialogue has delivered a set of tangible benefits to ensure that British firms have greater access to the Chinese market, while safeguarding our national security—the first duty of any Government. In China, I met outstanding British companies, such as Brompton, Jaguar Land Rover and AstraZeneca, that will benefit from the steps that we have agreed. We have worked to lift market access barriers across a range of goods and services, particularly in the agrifood sector. On financial services, we have successfully secured new licences and quota allocations for UK firms to improve operating access in China. We agreed to co-operate further, including by renewing our shared commitment to the UK-China stock connect scheme, first launched in 2019, by deepening our co-operation on wealth management through a UK-China wealth connect scheme, and by progressing initiatives on pensions and sustainable finance, delivering significant benefits for UK firms and the City of London. I am pleased that China agreed to issue its first ever overseas sovereign green bond in London in 2025, underlining the UK’s position as a global capital for high-quality sustainable finance.

The UK is a global leader in financial services. There are significant opportunities to expand our presence in new markets, and the tangible outcomes we have delivered this week will help to deliver that. These steps are part of a wider programme to make substantive progress on improving arrangements for UK exporters and investors, as reflected in new agreements on vaccine approvals, fertiliser, whisky labelling, legal services, automotives and accountancy, which have set us on course for this dialogue to unlock £1 billion of value for the UK economy.

These outcomes, agreed with my counterpart Vice-Premier He Lifeng, represent pragmatic co-operation in action, and support secure and resilient economic growth, because security and economic growth go hand in hand. That means finding the right way to build a stable and balanced relationship with China that is in our national interest—one that recognises the importance of co-operation in addressing the global issues that we face, of competing where our interests differ, and of challenging robustly whenever that is required. In Beijing and Shanghai, I was clear that while we must co-operate on areas of mutual interest, we will confidently challenge on areas where we disagree. I expressed our country’s real economic and trade concerns to the Chinese, including about trade imbalances and economic security, and I raised concerns about Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, human rights, and restrictions on rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, including the case of Jimmy Lai and the completely unjustified sanctions against British parliamentarians.

A key outcome of this dialogue is that we have secured China’s commitment to improving existing channels, so that we can openly discuss sensitive issues and the ways in which they impact our economy, because if we do not engage with China, we cannot raise our real concerns. This dialogue is just one part of our engagement with trading partners across the world. Since becoming Chancellor, I have been to New York, Washington, Toronto and Brussels to build our global economic relationships, while my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has travelled to the Gulf to boost trade and investment, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is engaging with partners all over the world to deliver growth that benefits people across the United Kingdom.

We must continue to go further, faster, in driving economic growth to make working people better off. That is why the Prime Minister launched our artificial intelligence opportunities action plan yesterday. It throws the full weight of Government behind AI in the UK to revolutionise our public services and make our economy more productive. It is why next week I will talk to business leaders, investors and entrepreneurs at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos to make the case that the UK is one of the best places in the world in which to invest. In the coming weeks, I will set out further details of our plans to kick-start growth in the economy after 14 years of failure from the Conservative party.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

It is good to see the Chancellor in her place, and I thank her for advance sight of her statement. I know that she has been away, so let me update her on the mess that she left behind. The pound has hit a 14-month low; Government borrowing costs are at a 27-year high; growth has been killed stone dead; inflation is rising, impacting millions; interest rates are staying higher for longer; and business confidence has fallen through the floor. The Labour party talked down the economy and crippled businesses with colossal taxes, breaking all their promises. This is a crisis made in Downing Street.

It should hardly surprise the Chancellor that international markets are uneasy. The UK’s long-term borrowing costs have risen to their highest in almost 30 years. But while the Government were losing control of the economy, where was the Chancellor? Her trip to China had not even begun when my urgent question was taken in the House last week. She was still in the country, but she sent the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rather than facing up to her failures. May I ask her why she chose not to respond herself?

The Chancellor, of course, ducked the difficult questions by jetting off to Beijing. I believe that in Labour circles they are calling it the Peking duck, but whatever was on the menu in China, was it really worth the unedifying sight of an increasingly desperate politician scampering halfway around the world with a begging bowl? The Chancellor’s deal pales in comparison to Labour’s black hole, which opened up in the public finances while the right hon. Lady was absent from her station.

Let me give the House a sense of scale. The deal that the Chancellor has announced amounts to £120 million a year. The rise in our borrowing costs, due to her disastrous Budget, has added about £12 billion to our annual spending on debt interest alone: literally 100 times what she says she has brought back from Beijing. That is money that cannot now be spent on the public’s priorities. That £12 billion is enough to pay for 300,000 nurses or to cover Labour’s pernicious winter fuel payments cut for eight and a half years—and, of course, even before this latest market reaction, the Budget meant spending tens of billions more on servicing our debt. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast, two thirds of the money raised from the Chancellor’s jobs tax will be swallowed up by additional debt interest. Forget those billions going towards better public services; they are going on paying the price of Labour’s mismanagement.

We on this side of the House know how this sorry story goes. We have seen it all before: socialist Governments who think that they can tax and spend their way to prosperity; Labour Governments who simply do not understand that if you tax the living daylights out of business, you will get stagnation. They do not understand because there is barely a shred of business experience on the Government Front Bench. May I ask the right hon. Lady which of her promises she will break if the OBR judges in March that she is now in breach of her own fiscal rules? Will she cancel promised spending, will she ramp up borrowing, or will she raise taxes yet again?

This whole sorry tale is nothing short of a Shakespearean tragedy being played out before our eyes. This is the Hamlet of our time. Labour promised the electorate much, while pouring the poison into their ear. And the end—you can feel the end; the Chancellor flailing, estranged, it seems, from those closest to her; those about her falling; the drums beating ever closer. To go, or not to go, that is now a question. The Prime Minister will be damned if he does, but he will surely be damned if he does not. The British people deserve better.

[Rachel Reeves]

The shadow Chancellor is simply not serious. I was on the Opposition side of the House for 14 years, and I think that after a statement one usually asks some questions.

We heard a great deal from the right hon. Gentleman about what he would not do, but we heard absolutely nothing about what he would do. Now we can see what happens when the Leader of the Opposition tells the shadow Cabinet that it should not have any policies. As far as I can tell, the Conservative party’s economic strategy is to say that the UK should not engage with the second largest economy in the world, or indeed with our nearest neighbours and our biggest trading partners in the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman’s economic strategy is to support higher spending but none of the right decisions that are required to deliver sound public finances, and his economic strategy is to ignore the mistakes of the past with no apology to the British people for his part in Liz Truss’s mini-Budget that crashed the economy. I appreciate that, having said that, I may now receive a “cease and desist” letter from her later.

One question that the shadow Chancellor did ask was: why did I go to China? I went to secure tangible benefits for British businesses trading overseas. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not worth it; let him say that to the representatives of HSBC, Standard Chartered, Prudential, Schroders and the London Stock Exchange who attended those meetings with me last week, all of whom have spoken of the difference that it will make.

I have been under no illusion about the scale of challenges that we face, after 14 years of stagnant economic growth, higher debt and economic uncertainty, and we have seen global economic uncertainty play out in the last week, but leadership is not about ducking these challenges; it is about rising to them. The economic headwinds we face are a reminder that we should—indeed, we must—go further and faster in our plan to kick-start economic growth, which plunged under the last Government, by bringing stability to the public finances after years of instability under the Conservative party, unlocking investment that plummeted under the previous Government and pushing ahead with essential reforms to our economy and public services. That is my message to the House today, because if we get it right, the prize on offer to us—to the British people—is immense: the opportunity to make working people better off by making Britain better off. That is the mandate this Government have, and that is what we will deliver.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to growth in this country and to encouraging investment in the UK. Listening to the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), we would think the country was going to hell in a handcart. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is no time for panic, that it is perfectly possible to manage any pressures on the Budget through astute management of public spending, and that we are a very long way from the approach taken during the years of austerity under the Conservative party?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. I set out this Government’s fiscal rules at the Budget in October: we will pay for day-to-day spending through tax receipts, and we will get debt down as a share of the economy. We remain committed to those fiscal rules and will meet them at all times.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement.

Let us be blunt: the Budget has not worked. The Chancellor says that the Government’s No. 1 mission is growth, but to date there are no signs that the Government are going to deliver it. The national insurance contributions rise is self-defeating. It undermines growth—it does not unleash it—and it piles pressure on to struggling small businesses and high streets. Nor does it raise anything like the sums of money for the NHS that the Government initially suggested it would. Now we have this much-lauded visit to China, which the Government themselves say is only worth £600 million to the UK over the next five years. That is equivalent to just five and a half hours of NHS spending a year—27.5 hours over the five-year period. All growth is welcome, but this really is small beer.

What are we to make of the Chancellor’s pledge to improve existing channels with China? It is nothing short of warm words and mixed messages. The Chancellor should not have gone to China unless there was a commitment that Jimmy Lai was going to be released.

Does the Chancellor now accept that the national insurance increase will damage growth? Does she accept that there were and still are much fairer ways to raise the necessary revenue without holding back our economy and our high streets? The international market jitters we have seen in the last few days are largely caused by the threat of tariffs by the new Trump Administration, so will the Chancellor guard against the risks of a Trump presidency by rebuilding our trading relationship with our European neighbours?

After the economic vandalism of the previous Conservative Government and their mini-Budget, our NHS and care services are still on their knees. Does the Chancellor accept that wealth and health are two sides of the same coin and that scaling back any investment in the NHS will be not only devastating for local communities but damaging for economic growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am slightly confused by the hon. Lady’s response. The Liberal Democrats opposed every decision we made to get the public finances under control at the Budget, and now they say that we need to spend more on public services. Well, I am afraid they cannot have it both ways. The only way there is more money for our public services is by raising it, as we did in the Budget—decisions that the Liberal Democrats apparently oppose.

The hon. Lady says that £600 million is not worth it. That is £600 million of tangible benefits for British businesses trading overseas. I would have thought she would welcome enhanced trade and investment as a way to create more good jobs paying decent wages in St Albans and, indeed, in all our constituencies.

The hon. Lady says that we should not go to China because we need to raise difficult issues. I am not sure how she thinks we are going to raise difficult issues unless we engage with the second biggest economy in the world. Because I went to China, I was able to raise issues around human rights, forced labour, Hong Kong and Jimmy Lai and the sanctioning of parliamentarians. We cannot raise those issues unless we are in the room. I was in the room and therefore able to do just that.

Labour is the party that put £20 billion into the national health service at the Budget in October. We were able to do that because of the difficult decisions we took, including on taxation. The hon. Lady seems to want the additional money for public services but without finding any way to pay for them. That is the way the Conservative party got into its troubles. I am afraid the Liberal Democrats are going down exactly the same path.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I thank the Chancellor for raising the case of my constituent, Jimmy Lai? I know it will mean a lot to him and his family. Does she agree that it is because of the profound differences that it is vital we maintain this strategic engagement?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for what she has just said. On behalf of the whole House, I want to send our best wishes to the family of Jimmy Lai at this difficult time. I had the opportunity to raise this as well as other issues during my time in China, and it is incredibly important that at every opportunity we have, we raise some of the difficult issues and challenge the Chinese authorities in a way that is appropriate and consistent with our British values.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The economic and financial dialogue was stayed because of the brutal imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. When the Chancellor and the Government go back to engage and reopen that dialogue, they do so on the back of things getting worse, not better. The reality I put to her is that while she was away, Shein refused point blank at a Select Committee hearing to answer the question of whether it has slave labour in its supply chain, but the Government want it to list here in London. We have solar arrays being imported by the Government into the UK that demonstrably involve slave labour. Can the Chancellor be clear with the House about the Government’s position on slave labour? Can she explain whether this Government will allow any products or services, or allow companies to align themselves here or import goods here, that contain any slave labour, no matter how important that import is?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question; I know how seriously he takes this issue, like so many other Members on both sides of the House. Listing of companies in the UK is a decision for the Financial Conduct Authority, but any company listing on the London stock exchange has to live up to the responsibilities set out by the United Nations and the OECD on forced labour.

This Government are committed to working with international partners and businesses to ensure that global supply chains are free from human and labour rights abuses. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, commercial businesses that operate in the UK and have a turnover of more than £36 million are required to report annually on the steps they have taken, and rightly so, because modern slavery is abhorrent, and this Government continue to take steps to deal with it.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

First, may I remind Conservative Members that UK bond yields are rising for the same reason that German and French bond yields are—because they are tracking the US rate? They never were very good at numbers.

The Chancellor has set out her economic philosophy that our prosperity is built upon secure foundations in a more uncertain world. Will she set out how she is building that economic security here, particularly with reference to having domestic energy, rather than being dependent on foreign fossil fuel dictators?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that economic growth has to be built on strong foundations, which is the approach of this Government. Our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower is consistent with that. If we can ween ourselves off fossil fuels and the oil of dictators, we will be more secure in our economy, because we will not have to import so much from overseas.

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

It is good to see the Chancellor back from China and to hear her reiterate that growth is her No. 1 mission, because we have not had any growth since her Budget. Given that accepting responsibility is the first step in solving a problem, will she accept that last October’s Budget has caused business confidence and growth prospects in this country’s economy to plunge?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thought for a moment that the hon. Lady was going to apologise for Liz Truss’s mini-Budget. Maybe she will do so on another occasion.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor for raising the case of Jimmy Lai. I hope that the Government will in future press the case of pensions owed to British national overseas constituents in Earley and Woodley, and across the UK, who have moved here from Hong Kong.

I was surprised to hear the shadow Chancellor advocate knee-jerk responses to inter-day movements in market prices. I would argue that such short-termism led to the Conservative party having five Chancellors in only four years. Will the Chancellor reassure us that she will not be misled by short-termism, and that she will instead keep her focus on our Government’s long-term ambition to raise living standards and growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There have been movements in international markets in the past week or so, and they have been global in nature. In the UK, we must do what we can, which is why I have reiterated today my commitment to the fiscal rules that I set out in the Budget in October. I reiterate that growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government: growth built on stability, which will come through securing the public finances; through investment, including through the national wealth fund and GB Energy; and through reform—of our planning system to make it easier to build in Britain, getting people back to work, and of our pension system. This Government are cracking on after 14 years of failure from the Conservative party.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Did the Communist party of China tell the Chancellor that she was doing a good job or a bad job of running the UK economy when she was there?

[Rachel Reeves]

I was not seeking assurance from any foreign Government on the performance of this Government. What I was seeking—I achieved this in China—were tangible outputs for British businesses trading overseas, helping to create more good jobs that pay decent wages here in Britain. The Conservative party absolutely failed to do that in 14 years.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I particularly welcome the fact that she raised the issues of Jimmy Lai and human rights in Beijing, which is really important. After 14 years of the Conservative party’s inconsistency on China, does she agree that we need a cross-Whitehall strategy and a pragmatic approach?

[Rachel Reeves]

What is really important is that we take decisions in Britain’s national interest. Taking decisions in the national interest means engaging with our trading partners all around the world, which is why, since being appointed as Chancellor, I have been to Brussels to reset our relations with the European Union, as well as to Washington and New York to welcome investment from overseas. I have secured £600 million-worth of benefits for UK businesses doing business in China.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer do what the Prime Minister refused to do yesterday and rule out future spending cuts?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am not going to write five years’ worth of Budgets in the first six months of a Labour Government, but I am absolutely committed to meeting the fiscal rules that I set out in the Budget in October. We know what happens when Governments lose control of the public finances: they crash the economy and end up on the Opposition Benches.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

The Chancellor may be able to learn a bit about emergency spending cuts from the Scottish Government in Holyrood, who have had three years of emergency spending cuts. Does the Chancellor agree that it is essential to engage with large economies like China so that we can export our brilliant financial services sector and whisky from Scotland? In the real world, we have to trade with large economies like China.

[Rachel Reeves]

Many of the benefits that we secured last week were for the financial services sector, and both Edinburgh and Glasgow are important hubs of financial services in the UK. Businesses such as Abrdn and Standard Chartered, which were on the delegation with me, have welcomed the tangible benefits, which will result in more jobs and more economic prosperity in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

It has been reported that the Chancellor was going to meet the owners of British Steel in China. Many of my constituents work at the Scunthorpe steelworks. While I appreciate that Ministers may not have reached a final decision on the steelworks, is she able to give reassurance to my constituents that she has had constructive engagement?

[Rachel Reeves]

My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has met Mr Li, from Jingye, on a number of occasions. Talks are ongoing, but I am not able to provide an update on that today.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor has only my admiration and support for the tough decisions that she is taking to fix the fundamentals. While Conservative Members were carping about the Chancellor’s whereabouts this week, she was having serious discussions with the world’s second largest economy and securing access for UK firms. Is it not clear that only Labour Members are serious about growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will always stand up for Britain’s national and economic interest, which is why I am helping some of our best businesses to export around the world. That is what I did in China at the weekend, and it is what I will continue to do. I will always stand up for our economic interest.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoken to the Governor of the Bank of England about what action needs to be taken to bring about stability in our bond markets?

[Rachel Reeves]

I regularly speak to the Governor of the Bank of England; indeed, he was with me on the delegation to China this weekend. We work closely together to ensure that the British economy remains competitive in global markets.

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

I am quite surprised at the audaciousness of those on the Opposition Benches. The Conservatives oversaw a rise in debt levels over the last 14 years, and it is a shame that they did not turn their minds to the issue earlier. Does the Chancellor agree that serious discussions, such as the one with China, can deliver not just on our economic aims, but on our wider climate and international objectives?

[Rachel Reeves]

Unless we engage and work with our partners around the world, we will miss out on the opportunities that other countries secure for their businesses and economies. If we miss out on those investment and trade opportunities, we can be sure that other countries will take advantage of them. That is why I was in China, and it is why I will work with counterparts around the world to secure good outcomes for British businesses and jobs here in the United Kingdom.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Chancellor raised the issue of human rights abuses in China, but did she get the opportunity to raise with her interlocutors the extrajudicial work of the United Front Work Department, particularly in relation to UK institutions, especially universities?

[Rachel Reeves]

I raised a number of issues around human rights abuses, labour and, indeed, rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, including the case of Jimmy Lai. I raised that with all the Ministers I met in China, and I will always stand up for our values and interests.

[Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)]

Unlike the bickering in the Conservative party, we are cutting deals in the national interest and putting Britain at the frontier—£600 million just over the weekend, and an AI opportunities plan just this week. Does the Chancellor agree that we are the party of action and the Conservatives are the party of rhetoric?

[Rachel Reeves]

We on the Government Benches are not going to apologise for getting a good deal for British businesses and the people working for them. I am determined to leave no stone unturned in ensuring that British businesses have the rights and freedoms to export and trade around the world, helping to create good jobs here in Britain.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

UK exports to China currently represent less than 10% of the UK’s total exports, whereas our exports to the EU represent over 40%, demonstrating the greater opportunities that trading with the EU makes available to our small and medium enterprises. Will the Chancellor commit to talking four times as much to our European partners about our trading opportunities than she has to China?

[Rachel Reeves]

This is not either/or; we cannot write off one country and say that we are going to put all our eggs in a different basket. China is our fourth biggest trading partner and we cannot miss out on opportunities in a country that is growing quickly, with an expanding middle class, where there are huge export opportunities. As the hon. Lady knows, I was in Brussels in December to reset our relations—the first British Chancellor to go to a Eurogroup meeting since we left the European Union. I am leaving no stone unturned in exploiting export opportunities for British businesses.

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement. Can she set out in more detail how the Government intend to help reinvigorate the UK-China stock connect, so that UK companies and investors can access Chinese capital markets and vice versa?

[Rachel Reeves]

The stock connect is an initiative first set up by the former Conservative Chancellor Philip Hammond to improve links between the Shanghai and London stock exchanges and to help Chinese businesses to access capital on UK financial markets. That is good for financial services firms operating in London, and the enhancement of that stock connect scheme at the weekend offers new opportunities for British businesses in financial services in the UK.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

As the Chancellor flew east, the pound plummeted south and Government debt rocketed north. Why? The markets do not believe her plan for growth; that is the fundamental issue. To pick up the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), what is she going to say to the markets to make them believe she really does understand how to deliver growth in the UK?

[Rachel Reeves]

There has been global volatility in markets. It is not reasonable to suggest that bond yields in the United States, Germany and France have risen because of decisions made by this Government. I think the hon. Member should just get real.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement. In regard to raising money for public services, an annual wealth tax on the multimillionaire and billionaire class would certainly achieve that. However, that is a conversation for another day—on to China. My right hon. Friend and I have had discussions regarding the closure of the Grangemouth refinery, in which PetroChina—part of the Chinese state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation—is heavily involved. If the refinery closes, thousands of jobs will be lost. This is not just a constituency issue for me. It will impact all of Scotland, as our fuel and national security will be severely weakened. Did the Chancellor speak about the issue with her Chinese counterparts, and if not, will she do so?

[Rachel Reeves]

We are working closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a bright future for the people of Grangemouth, because deindustrialisation should not be the future for communities, including in Scotland.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The data in September and October shows that the economy is falling. It is going down and the currency markets and bond markets are selling off and expressing their clear concern that there is no growth and that the economy continues to fall. If the Chancellor is so confident, will she confirm to the House when the economy will start growing again?

[Rachel Reeves]

Growth is the No. 1 mission of this Labour Government, but the truth is that it is not possible to turn things around quickly after 14 years of lacklustre growth and declining living standards under the Conservatives. We are leaving no stone unturned, which is why last week in China we secured £600 million-worth of tangible benefits for the UK economy, helping great British businesses exporting overseas.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Does the Chancellor agree that developing our economic and trading relationships with other nations is one of many important levers; and that, alongside that approach, public investment, planning reforms and an industrial strategy—whose absence under the Conservative Government was problematic—will be returned under this Government so that we can see economic growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

The best way to grow an economy is to boost investment in an economy. The truth is that, under the Conservatives, we were the only G7 economy where investment stood at less than 20% of GDP. That is the inheritance that our party was bequeathed by the Conservatives, but we are beginning to turn that around through the creation of a national wealth fund to leverage in private sector investment, through planning reform to get Britain building again, and through pensions reform to unlock £80 billion of investment to help small and start-up businesses to grow. We are turning things around after 14 years of failure from the Conservative party.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

While the Chancellor was in China securing her measly £600 million, borrowing rates reached the highest they have been since 2008. In 2024 she said that her Budget would be

“a Budget with real ambition, a Budget to fix the foundations…a Budget to rebuild Britain.”

How is that going, given that her mess has caused borrowing to be the highest it has been since 2008, making real working people in this country suffer?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman follows global financial markets, but borrowing costs have increased for countries around the world. What we saw under Liz Truss’s mini-Budget was unique to the United Kingdom, because it was only UK markets that were affected by the decisions of the Conservatives.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is great to see our Chancellor of the Exchequer working with international business and winning investment for the UK. Does she agree that while the Conservatives were happy to sell out our heavy industry to China, leading to the end of steelmaking in Teesside after 150 years, our industrial strategy is delivering investment in steel, chemicals and life sciences in Stockton North, in Teesside and across the UK?

[Rachel Reeves]

The national wealth fund created by this Government will get investment into industries such as carbon capture and storage, green hydrogen, ports and, indeed, steel. We were really pleased at the end of last year to be able to announce investment in carbon capture and storage in Merseyside and Teesside, securing billions of pounds of investment into those economies and securing many thousands of jobs.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I think it is worth reminding the House that under the previous Government business investment fell to 28th out of 31 OECD countries, which was lower than Latvia, Slovenia and Hungary. Could the Chancellor set out how our industrial strategy will overcome that terrible legacy on business investment left by the Conservatives?

[Rachel Reeves]

One of the reasons for such poor investment—the lowest of all the G7 economies—is that our planning system makes it so hard to get anything done in this country. That is why the planning and infrastructure Bill, which is being brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, will turn that around, making it easier to invest in transport, in digital, in housing and in so much more. That is the way to get our economy growing after 14 years of failure.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement. She goes to China, New York, Washington, Toronto and Brussels to build economic relationships, yet she will not take the time to speak with the Ulster Farmers Union, the NFU, the Farmers Union of Wales or NFU Scotland to hear at first hand about the devastating impact that her death tax will have on family farms and small businesses. When will she realise that no matter what deals she does around the world—and I welcome them—Rome is burning around her? Agriculture is the backbone of our economy, so will she commit to meet me as a representative of the thousands of farmers whose farms are going to be decimated by her death tax?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to meet the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), would be happy to meet colleagues from Northern Ireland. The truth is that we inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances from the Conservatives, and in order to stabilise our public finances we had to make difficult decisions on taxes. At the moment we hear from the Opposition that they do not like the increases in taxes but they want increases in public spending. Well, they cannot have it both ways.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Could she elaborate further on how this visit and the discussions she has started are not only consistent with the Government’s approach to China, but a vital part of it—co-operate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must?

[Rachel Reeves]

This is the first economic and financial dialogue between our two countries since 2019. Since then, other countries around the world have continued to engage with China, securing tangible benefits for their economies. I do not want UK businesses and the people working in our country to miss out, which is why this weekend we secured £600 million-worth of tangible benefits for businesses that export to China, thereby helping to create more good jobs paying decent wages in our country.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I am slightly worried that investors will be watching this statement and wondering what planet the Chancellor is on. She just said that she is investing in transport infrastructure, but she is actually cutting transport capital budgets. She has previously said that she wants only one Budget a year, and the March statement is billed only as a fiscal forecast. Can she rule out any new tax rises or departmental spending cuts in the March statement, or will the fiscal forecast become an emergency Budget?

[Rachel Reeves]

We have committed to having just one Budget a year to provide businesses with the certainty they need to invest, so we will have an update from the Office for Budget Responsibility in March. I also give the commitment that, as I have already said, the fiscal rules mean we will balance day-to-day spending with tax receipts, and we will get debt down as a share of GDP within the forecast period. We will continue at all times to meet those fiscal rules.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Chancellor on unlocking £1 billion of value for the UK economy that would not have been unlocked if she had not gone to China. However, does she agree that the Government’s much-needed decision to thaw UK-China relations is now reaping dividends while also allowing us to press China on difficult issues, including human rights and labour standards?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. We managed to secure tangible benefits for the UK economy and British exporters. At the same time, we were able to raise difficult issues that we would not have been able to raise if we were not engaged. That is the benefit of engagement: we get the economic gains and we can raise those tricky issues.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

It is beyond parody that His Majesty’s Chancellor would throw herself at the mercy of the Chinese Government and come back with £600 million in revenue over five years. Is she aware that £600 million in revenue is less than one ninetieth of HSBC’s annual profit? This is what she is holding up as a major achievement of the Treasury’s trade mission. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) very reasonably asked what the Chancellor will do when, not if, her fiscal rules are breached. Will she increase borrowing, raise taxes or cut spending, not over five years but this year?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is an expert in HSBC, but I would rather take the word of the chairman of HSBC, who welcomed the tangible investments and, indeed, led the financial forum that we held in China last week. I have been really clear that we will meet the fiscal rules that I set out in the Budget, and we will do that at all times. That is the commitment I made, and it is the commitment I continue to make.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor confirm that, for her, growth must always go hand in hand with economic security? That is a lesson that the previous Conservative Government refused to learn when they left 85% of us dependent on expensive foreign gas to heat our homes this winter.

[Rachel Reeves]

This Government’s clean energy mission will mean that we are less reliant on foreign dictators for our basic energy needs. That is why we are investing in carbon capture and storage and floating offshore wind, and it is why we are getting rid of the previous Government’s absurd ban on onshore wind.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

The Chancellor referred in her statement to safeguarding national security, which I welcome, but this must include energy security. Yet her changes to the energy profits levy, removing investment allowances and not permitting new licences at a time when we are still reliant on oil and gas, not only undermines our energy security but dwarfs the £600 million that she has brought back from China with the £12 billion of tax revenues that will be lost from the sector. Why, rather than supporting our energy security, is the Chancellor turning her back on the sector, turning her back on these tax revenues and risking selling our energy security to China?

[Rachel Reeves]

If the hon. Lady has a brief look at the documents from the Office for Budget Responsibility, she will see that the changes to the energy profits levy—taking the tax rate up from 75% to 78%, the same rate as in Norway—raises money; it does not lose money.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I commend the Chancellor for her visit to advocate for our country’s best interests, but does she agree that Chinese companies must not provide any support to Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine?

[Rachel Reeves]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I raised such issues with my counterparts in China at the weekend. It is really important that, whenever we engage with foreign Governments, we also raise issues consistent with our values, including Chinese companies supplying the Russian Government with materials used in Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Did the Chancellor raise any concerns, or indeed does she have any concerns, about the Confucius Institute, the Chinese Government-backed operation we see across the United Kingdom? And what answer did she get with respect to Jimmy Lai?

[Rachel Reeves]

When our Prime Minister met President Xi Jinping in Rio last year, they agreed that one of the points of re-engagement is that we were able to make clear our concerns on a range of issues in a private way. I am not going to go into the details of that conversation, but I raised these issues with all the Chinese officials I met at the weekend. [Interruption.] The problem is that Conservative Members, for all their chuntering, did not raise these issues because they did not even engage.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

My constituents, many of whom work in financial services, will have been amazed, just as I was, when the shadow Chancellor, in a fit of pique, demanded that the Chancellor should come home from China to talk to him in this House, rather than staying to promote growth, increase access to the world’s second largest market and win new licences and quota allocations for financial services businesses. As anybody who has taken the trouble to listen carefully to the Chancellor would recognise, there is more on the way. What does she think the City, and the banks that accompanied her, would have preferred in the long-term interests of this country: stay in China to win for this country, or come home to satisfy the shadow Chancellor’s fit of pique?

[Rachel Reeves]

We just have to look at what the businesses have already said about the deal we managed to secure last week. There are tangible benefits for British businesses exporting to China, helping to create more good jobs paying decent wages here in Britain. It has been welcomed by businesses. It is a shame that the Conservative party no longer stands up for British businesses.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

We have an embargo on Russian oil and gas. China continues to import it, and apparently Russia will be China’s No. 1 supplier this year. Did the Chancellor raise this with her counterparts on her trip to China, and what assessment has she made so that her deal does not inadvertently support the Russian war effort?

[Rachel Reeves]

As I have already said in the House today, I raised the issue of Chinese companies supplying the Russian Government. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will know that last week, alongside the United States, we increased sanctions on Russian oil and gas to make it harder for Putin to continue to conduct his illegal war.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Chancellor outline how the visit is an example of ongoing dialogue with the international community, which will benefit businesses and residents in my constituency of Harlow? Also, while we are quoting Shakespeare, does she agree that there is something rotten in the state of the Conservative party—or perhaps that the Conservative party is in a rotten state?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has used the 50 minutes of the statement to come up with such a good line. He is right that many people working in Harlow work in the financial services sector and will very much welcome the enhanced licences and quotas, which, incidentally, many other countries and their banks already have because their Governments have engaged with China. Those are opportunities that we have missed out on in Britain for far too long because of the six years during which we failed to be involved in an economic and financial dialogue, while other Governments cracked on and made sure they supported and stood up for their national interest.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Notwithstanding the importance of China as a trading partner, will the Chancellor please explain what steps the Government are taking to address the issues of forced labour links with Uyghur workers in supply chains at fast fashion companies such as Shein? Will the Minister provide data on the extent of forced labour in UK supply chains, especially in the garment sector? Will she also outline any actions to strengthen due diligence requirements for companies sourcing from areas with known human rights abuses, such as Xinjiang?

[Rachel Reeves]

As I have already set out, one of the issues I was able to raise with my counterparts in China was forced labour, particularly in Xinjiang. As I said in answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I have also been really clear that any company seeking to list in London has to meet stringent requirements, as set out by the United Nations and the OECD, on labour supply and the treatment of workers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

While I welcome the UK-China economic and financial dialogue, as the Chancellor will know, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I have repeatedly highlighted in this House human rights abuses in China, with regard to Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and Christians in Hong Kong and China. How will the Government and the Chancellor make sure that safeguards for British money and goods are put in place to ensure that economic engagements do not directly support those violations? Human rights concerns, forced labour, denial of religious freedom and ongoing suppression in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan must be remembered at all costs and in all deals with China.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful question. It is important that when we engage with China, we co-operate where we can, we compete where necessary, but we challenge whenever our values do not align. Like the hon. Gentleman, I care deeply about issues of religious freedom and forced labour, but that is the whole point of engaging. We have to engage in the world as it is, not in the world as we would like it to be. It is through those engagements that we are able to raise even some of the most difficult issues and be very clear about the values of our great country.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue: 2025

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

I visited China 10-13 January to deliver the 2025 UK-China economic and financial dialogue.

Growing the economy is the No.1 mission of this Government. But that growth must be secure and resilient, built on the stable foundations that we have prioritised as we deliver on our Plan for Change and embark on a decade of national renewal.

National security and growth are not opposed. They are mutually reinforcing. We must and will continue to engage with international partners on trade and investment to grow our economy, while ensuring that our security and values are not compromised.

This means finding the right way to build a stable and balanced relationship with China. One that recognises the importance of co-operation in addressing the global issues we face, competing where our interests differ, and challenging robustly where we must.

It is for this reason that I visited Beijing and Shanghai for an economic and financial dialogue with China. I was accompanied by the Governor of the Bank of England, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, and representatives from Britain’s financial services firms. This dialogue unlocked market access for UK exporters in financial services and agri-products, providing greater certainty for business and an expected boost to the UK economy of £600 million over five years.

However, this is not a return to the “golden era” of UK-China relations. Throughout the visit, I was clear that while we must co-operate on areas of mutual interest, we will also confidently express our economic and trade concerns to the Chinese, including on market access and wider market distorting practices. A key outcome of this dialogue is that we have secured China’s commitment to improve existing channels so that we can openly discuss sensitive issues and the ways in which they impact our economy. Our engagement also advanced wider UK interests. I raised a range of UK concerns in meetings with Chinese Government counterparts, including Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, developments in constraints on rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, and human rights. Our approach ensures we can confidently challenge China on areas where we disagree and uphold the UK’s national security—the first duty of our Government.

This visit builds a platform for a long-term relationship with China that works squarely in our national interest, ensuring our economy has the broad base and resilient foundations for the growth that makes working people in every corner of Britain better off.

[HCWS361]

Office for Budget Responsibility: Economic and Fiscal Forecast

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

Today I can inform the House that I have asked the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to prepare an economic and fiscal forecast for publication on 26 March 2025.

This forecast, in addition to the forecast that was published in October 2024, will fulfil the obligation required by the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 for the OBR to produce at least two forecasts in a financial year.

I intend to respond to the March forecast with a parliamentary statement. This is in line with my commitment to deliver one major fiscal event a year, to give families and businesses the stability and certainty they need and, in turn, to support the Government’s growth mission.

[HCWS315]

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

2. What fiscal steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to increase the supply of affordable housing.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

At the Budget, the Government announced major steps towards delivering a once-in-a-generation increase in social housing, including a £500 million boost to the affordable homes programme, increasing annual spend to £3.1 billion. The Government will set out future grant investment beyond the current affordable homes programme at phase 2 of the spending review.

[David Williams]

In Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove there are many historic buildings that are lying dormant, and they have done so for a very long time. What steps will the Chancellor take to help to bring these beautiful buildings back into use as affordable homes for local people?

[Rachel Reeves]

Stoke-on-Trent has a proud industrial history and some beautiful buildings. My hon. Friend makes an important point—I will raise it with colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The £500 million boost to the affordable homes programme also allows up to 10% of that delivery to come from acquiring existing homes. Social landlords, including some local authorities, can bid for funding to bring empty homes back into use for social housing.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Many of my constituents have benefited over many years from the right to buy their council homes and social housing, which has given them an important step on to the ladder to home ownership. The discounts in Staffordshire are going to be cut to £16,000. I do not doubt that the Chancellor, like me, wants to help as many people as possible on to the path to home ownership. Will she pledge to review that decision with regard to the impact it will have on so many people, and look at restoring that discount in future?

[Rachel Reeves]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, home ownership fell under the previous Government. We are determined to turn that around and ensure that more people, particularly families, get on to the housing ladder. As he has confirmed, the right to buy discounts will continue, but in future every penny of that money will go back into building new social housing, so that more people can have a home of their own and a roof over their head.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

4. If she will make an assessment of the potential implications for her policies of the APPG for investment fraud and fairer financial services’ publication entitled “Report on the Call for Evidence about The Financial Conduct Authority”, published on 26 November 2024.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking to increase long-term investment in the economy.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

We have brought stability back to the economy, which is the foundation for attracting investment and is vital to our growth mission. We have already launched the national wealth fund, which will mobilise over £70 billion of private investment with an expanded remit for the Office for Investment overseen by the Minister for investment. In October, we welcomed global investors from around the world to London for the international investment summit, where we were able to announce a record-breaking £63 billion of private sector investment into our economy.

[Darren Paffey]

I have been meeting a number of maritime companies in and around the port of Southampton, and they tell me that the single biggest key to unlocking further investment would be the expansion of the national grid to our city. What steps is the Chancellor taking to secure that vital investment, and will she meet me and local industry leaders to discuss how this would boost our local and national economy?

[Rachel Reeves]

It was a pleasure to go to my hon. Friend’s constituency in June to see the port and the wealth creation and jobs that it is bringing to Southampton. As I set out in the autumn Budget, as well as focusing on the national wealth fund’s capital investment in ports, we are committed to accelerating grid connections and ensuring that new network infrastructure is built at pace to unlock investment and growth opportunities. We are particularly focused on driving network build, including by completing the strategic planning of the energy system needed for 2030, to ensure that projects such as those my hon. Friend has mentioned in Southampton make the progress that they need to.

[Alan Gemmell]

New green businesses such as XLCC in Ayrshire, a sub-sea cable manufacturer, are seeking long-term investment to create jobs. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and I visited its training academy in Irvine. What more will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor do to help Scottish businesses such as XLCC to secure long-term investment, and might she visit Ayrshire to see it in action?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the invitation. In October, the Government launched the national wealth fund to mobilise billions of pounds of investment into world-leading clean energy and growth industries. I am pleased that the national wealth fund already announced a £20 million investment in XLCC to support it in moving towards a construction phase. This will support 900 jobs, as well as making a contribution to the UK being a clean energy superpower by strengthening the home-grown energy suppliers that are fundamental to achieving our energy independence.

[Mr Sewards]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire, I am always on the lookout for opportunities to encourage investment and growth in our region. That is why I am backing the campaign to put the national infrastructure and service transformation authority in Leeds, and I was delighted that the national wealth fund was put in Leeds. Given these facts, will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor meet me to discuss the opportunities we have to maximise the benefits from the national wealth fund?

[Rachel Reeves]

I welcome the work that my hon. Friend does on the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire. As I announced in October, the UK Infrastructure Bank has now become the national wealth fund and it will expand its team and be headquartered in the brilliant city of Leeds, to realise our ambition on the national wealth fund. The national wealth fund will also have a strong regional focus, working with the mayors, including Tracy Brabin in West Yorkshire, so that we can realise the potential of all our regions, including Yorkshire. Further details on the national infrastructure and service transformation authority’s governance and location will be confirmed in due course.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

One of the economic investments that we do not want to see in Angus and Perthshire Glens, or anywhere else in Scotland, is foreign multinationals buying up farms because farmers have given up under the weight of the taxes introduced by this Government. This would destroy local supply chains and make larger farms that are less responsive to consumer demand. What has the Chancellor seen in her impact assessment of the agricultural property relief changes to allay those fears?

[Rachel Reeves]

One of the current challenges, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is that agricultural property relief is often used for tax avoidance. People are buying farmland not because they are family farmers but because they do not want to pay any inheritance tax. That is why we are reforming the system to bring in much-needed money to fund our public services, and to have a fair system with a 50% discount to inheritance tax paid on agricultural property and a 10-year period to pay that inheritance tax, interest free.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Last week, I joined a biotech boot camp in South Cambridgeshire. Although the investors and entrepreneurs recognise and welcome the research and development budget announced in the Budget, they said it is a reduction from 2021. Does the Chancellor recognise that we need to increase investment in R&D to encourage long-term investment in our leading services?

[Rachel Reeves]

We were really pleased to announce an R&D budget of more than £20 billion at the autumn Budget. This is important to funding and accelerating R&D not just in the hon. Lady’s constituency but across the country. Combined with the corporate tax road map, as well as the commitment to continuing funding for Horizon, our universities and great innovators can look to the future with confidence.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Local leisure and sports facilities, such as the Sovereign centre where I learned to swim, deserve more long-term investment. I want Eastbourne to be able to invest its £20 million from the towns fund in such facilities, but it will not be unlocked by the Treasury until 2026. Will the Chancellor commit to accelerating the unlocking of that funding, so that we can invest in facilities for local families and people in Eastbourne much sooner?

[Rachel Reeves]

I agree it is important that all children learn to swim, especially in our coastal communities. We had to make difficult decisions at the Budget, but I am happy to try to arrange a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and the relevant Minister to make sure the investment can go ahead at pace.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking to introduce permanent reductions to business rates for high street retailers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

14. What steps she is taking to help ensure the sound management of public finances.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

Sound management of the public finances means spending wisely and not sending money to fraudsters. Today, I have appointed the health expert Tom Hayhoe as our new covid counter-fraud commissioner. As chair of an NHS trust during the pandemic, he saw the urgency of getting personal protective equipment to NHS staff when they needed it. Now he is at his desk in my Department starting the work to investigate the billions of pounds lost to fraud and underperforming contracts, and instead ensuring that that money is where it belongs—in our public services.

[Jen Craft]

My constituents expect the Government to treat taxpayer money with the utmost respect. However, during the pandemic the Conservatives handed out contracts to their friends and donors and failed to prevent fraud, using the crisis as a cover for their greed. Does the Chancellor agree with me that that money belongs to the taxpayer?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend’s constituents in Thurrock are right to be angry about the waste and corruption that happened under the previous Government. That money belongs to the British people and in our public services, not in the pockets of fraudsters taking advantage of a national emergency. Tom Hayhoe will leave no stone unturned in investigating the carnival of fraud that the previous Government presided over, including in PPE contracts, where they recommended any attempts to reclaim that money be abandoned. Letting huge sums of taxpayers’ money be wasted would be egregious and I will not tolerate that.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

The Treasury consistently insists that only 500 farms a year will be impacted by the family farm tax. However, the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers calculates that the real number will be five times higher and will include many farms in my Gordon and Buchan constituency. Who is right: the Treasury or the experts?

[Rachel Reeves]

We have published the detail of how that money is raised, but the numbers from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are very clear: only a quarter of estates will pay any additional tax. At the moment, the vast majority of agricultural property relief is enjoyed by a very small number of very large and very expensive estates. That is not affordable, and it will not continue.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I declare an interest: I am a member of Unite the Union. The Grangemouth refinery costs £100 million a year to run, and its economic contribution to Scotland exceeds £400 million per annum. Unite has a credible plan to save the refinery and prevent thousands of job losses. Will the Treasury consider the plan, and meet me, Unite and the refinery owners to discuss its viability and Government intervention for the public good?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am happy to arrange a meeting between my hon. Friend and the relevant Minister.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Last week, the Chancellor told the CBI conference that she would not come back

“with more borrowing or more taxes”.

Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister hung her out to dry and refused to repeat those words. Will she repeat them today and rule out any more borrowing or any more taxes—yes or no?

[Rachel Reeves]

At the Budget in October, we had to fill a £22 billion black hole left by the previous Government. We will never have to repeat a Budget like this one, because we will not have to clear up the mess of the previous Government ever again.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman talks about uncertainty, but he was a Minister in the Treasury under Liz Truss, when huge damage was done to families’ and businesses’ finances. Frankly, I will take no lessons from Conservative Members on how to run the economy. We have already done phase 1 of the spending review; phase 2 will begin shortly and be concluded next year, when we will make multi-year settlements on resource departmental expenditure limits and capital budgets for the next few years.

[Richard Fuller]

The Chancellor may find that in her job, she needs to listen and learn lessons. One of the many criticisms of the last Budget was that the Government fiddled the figures to borrow more money, and still left little headroom for if their forecast went wrong. Since the Budget, business confidence has collapsed, putting further pressure on that headroom. Does the Chancellor have a problem with balancing her books, and will she, like Oliver Twist, be coming back for more?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is more headroom in our Budget in October than was left by the previous Government. The lesson I have learned is that I will never play fast and loose with the public finances, as the Conservative party did, because when it did, interest rates went through the roof and inflation topped 11%, and families and businesses in our country are still paying the price for its disastrous economic management.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

T1.   If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

At the Budget, I wiped the slate clean after 14 years of chaos and mismanagement of our public finances, and I have brought stability back to our economy, so that we can get on with fulfilling our promise of delivering change. That means investing to fix the NHS and rebuild Britain, while ensuring that working people do not face higher taxes in their payslips.

Only through economic growth can we deliver on the promise of change. That is why we have wasted no time in delivering on the Government’s No. 1 mission. We have established the national wealth fund, have kick-started planning reforms to boost long-term growth, are developing an industrial strategy, and are announcing reforms for our world-leading financial services sector, including in pensions. I am under no illusion about the size and scale of the challenge that we face, and the struggles of working people. That is why we choose stability and investment. The Conservatives, however, choose chaos, austerity and decline.

[Clive Efford]

According to the Local Government Association, local government spending on public services is down 42% on what it would have been had it kept pace with demand and costs since 2010. My local authority, Greenwich, faces a £3 million to £5 million gap in commissioned social care costs, and after 14 years of Tory austerity, there is very little headroom to bridge that gap. Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities need more assistance to bridge such gaps in the December local government finance statement?

[Rachel Reeves]

As my hon. Friend will know, in the autumn Budget and phase 1 of the spending review, more than £1 billion was made available to local government, including £600 million for social care. The allocation of that money will be set out in the normal way over the next few weeks, so that local government is funded properly and can deliver the services that it needs to deliver.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to appear opposite the right hon. Lady for the first time. I was tempted to ask her how things were going, but I did not want to start out by being unkind. I will instead ask this: when she recently pledged to the CBI that she would not raise taxes again, did she mean it?

[Rachel Reeves]

I welcome the right hon. Member to his place, and look forward to many exchanges with him across the Dispatch Box. At the Budget in October, as he knows, we had to fix a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Some of that black hole comes from the fact that we are the only G7 economy in which employment is lower than it was before the pandemic, when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, so we had to raise taxes to fund our public services; but never again will we have to repeat a Budget like that one, because we have now wiped the slate clean and drawn a line under the mess created by the previous Government.

[Mel Stride]

I did not actually discern any answer to my question, so may I put it this way? No. 10 has stated that it is not prepared to stand by the Chancellor’s commitment on tax. Is that because No. 10 changed its mind, or because the right hon. Lady spoke without thinking?

[Rachel Reeves]

No Chancellor of the Exchequer would write five years’ worth of Budget in their first five months in post, but I can say that we will never have to deliver a Budget like that again. We took decisions in this Budget in order to wipe the slate clean after the mismanagement, decline and chaos of the previous Government. That required us to make difficult decisions, but we were right to make them, so that we can get going with our plans to achieve growth and reform public services, and deliver the NHS and schools that our country desperately needs.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

T4. The A50/A500 and Branston bridge in my constituency are just two examples of infrastructure projects that need investment. What investment is the Department making to improve our roads and infrastructure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T2. Air ambulance charities deliver life-saving treatment to people every single day, yet they are under threat from the Chancellor’s rise in national insurance and taxes. The Lincolnshire & Nottinghamshire Air Ambulance alone will need to find another £70,000 just to pay the national insurance rises. Two weeks ago, local right hon. and hon. Members and I wrote to the Chancellor on this matter, but we have not yet had a reply. I ask her now: will she exempt these vital charities, so that they can continue their vital, life-saving work?

[Rachel Reeves]

The tax rises in the Budget were used to provide a £22.6 billion uplift in the Department of Health and Social Care budget to ensure that our NHS is properly funded. The NHS will ensure that important services are properly funded, and those allocations will be set out in the normal way.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

T5. I understand that the Chancellor will attend the Great Northern conference today in Yorkshire and the Humber. In the light of that, will she tell us how she will make the most of growth opportunities for our region?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will head to the Great Northern conference in Hull later this afternoon to speak about the impact of this Government’s policies on Yorkshire and the wider north of England. We are supporting local leaders and communities through integrated settlements, are investing in the trans-Pennine route upgrade, East West Rail and High Speed 2, and are reshaping public services.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

T3. The owner of Horton pharmacy in Epsom has raised concerns about the financial burden that increased employer national insurance contributions will place on community pharmacies. Pharmacies provide frontline care, and without support, their viability and the accessible healthcare that they offer could be at risk. That will add pressure to an already strained national health service. Will the Chancellor reconsider and exempt community pharmacies from the increase?

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

T6. Crawley’s public services, not least its schools and the NHS, are set to benefit significantly from the measures set out in the Budget. Does the Minister agree that Opposition parties cannot have it both ways, claiming to support the investment in our local public services while rejecting every one of the measures necessary to fund them?

[Rachel Reeves]

In the past four weeks since the Leader of the Opposition was elected, the Conservatives have made £7 billion of commitments to cut taxes, but with no idea of how they would cut public services to afford them. I do not know how they will vote on national insurance, but we can see pretty quickly how they ended up leaving us a £22 billion black hole.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

The single most important factor in raising living standards, driving income equality and improving children’s life chances is having a job. Why is the Chancellor disregarding that fundamental truth, with tax policies that will actively harm employment, particularly youth employment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

T9.   What measures are the Government taking to support small independent retail businesses in town centres such as mine in Mansfield, and will the Chancellor join me in congratulating Mansfield business improvement district on its successful renewal ballot, which was announced last Friday?

[Rachel Reeves]

I happily join my hon. Friend in welcoming Mansfield’s success. We have launched a revamped fair payment code, under which signatories commit to paying their suppliers on time, and the disability finance code for entrepreneurship. That comes on top of reforms announced at the Budget to protect small businesses, such as doubling the employment allowance to £10,500, and our commitment to maintaining the small profits rate and marginal relief at their current rates and thresholds, as well as to freezing the small business multiplier for 2025-26—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Greg Smith.

[Rachel Reeves]

And like my hon. Friend, I look forward to small business Saturday this week—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] No, we are going to have a little talk now, because this is not fair; I have to get all these other Members in. I understand that these are set questions, but questions and answers should be short—it works both ways—otherwise I cannot get Members in and it makes my job impossible. Please work with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)]

I cannot help but think that this morning has made for rather depressing listening. We hear this repetition about a £22 billion black hole, but we are dealing with very serious matters such as people’s employment. Ultimately I hear the Chancellor talking about a central planning agenda, but it is public services that are the problem; they are wasting money, and we must seriously consider that. Will the Chancellor accept, if the economy turns down next year, which it surely will, that she has made a mess of it?

[Rachel Reeves]

We mention the £22 billion because that is the inheritance that the Government now have to address. We have published a line-by-line account of the £22 billion black hole that the previous Government left. We are now growing the economy through our national wealth fund, our planning reform and our pensions reform, and we are reforming our public services, so that we can deliver for the people we came here to represent.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

As the Treasury team may be aware, there is a growing body of evidence that the growth of the financial sector beyond a certain size has an impact on the economy, particularly the productive economy. Over a 10-year period, it has cost the rest of the economy £4.5 trillion, so how will the Chancellor ensure that a growing financial sector will not harm the Government’s wider missions and the productive economy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities. With a disability employment gap of nearly 30% and a disability pay gap of nearly 14%, how is the Chancellor helping to address those inequalities?

[Rachel Reeves]

Just today, the Government launched the disability finance code for entrepreneurship—something championed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade—to ensure that people from all types of backgrounds, including those with disabilities, can start and grow their own businesses.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When the Windsor framework was introduced, it was accompanied by the boast that access to the EU single market would result in a huge increase in investment in Northern Ireland. Is the Chancellor aware that Invest NI has reported that there has been no upturn, and is that not because of the barrier presented by the Irish sea border to the bringing of raw materials into Northern Ireland from Great Britain?