Spring Statement

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 26 March.

“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 such as 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 2025-26 and 83.5% in 2026-27, before falling to 83.4% in 2027-28, 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, 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 thank my honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary for his continued work in this area.

Last week, my right honourable 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 honourable 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 front line, 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 upfront 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 front-line 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 such as 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 front line 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 honourable 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 honourable 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 honourable 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 honourable 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 honourable 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 2029-30—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 housebuilding 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 honourable 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”.

11:49:00

Let us start by standing back and considering this Statement—which is really an emergency budget—and the Government’s actions more generally against their stated economic objectives. The main one, emphasised by Ministers many times, is growth. Fine—we all want growth. One would expect, therefore, that the Government’s policies and actions would be consistent with that objective, but they are not. First, the Chancellor and other Ministers talked down the economy, ruining morale. Then she chose to put taxes up by £40 billion, depressing animal spirits further and taking tax in the UK to its highest level in the last 50 years. The most egregious announcements were the wholly unexpected jobs tax of £25 billion—devastating businesses and social enterprises such as hospices—and, out of the blue, the farms tax, which imposes IHT on family businesses and undermines confidence across the country. The Government also gave large pay rises to their friends in the unions, without any productivity strings. Even today, they are proceeding with the Employment Rights Bill, which will undoubtedly have negative effects on the supply side and hence on growth. Interestingly, the OBR has said—ominously, for the Government—that it has yet to take a view on the Bill’s effect on growth, should it pass. If growth is the main objective, the Government’s economic policies are, quite simply, incoherent. The Government are also in a mess about the position of the OBR. The OBR is given a status by the Government above anything warranted. UK fiscal policy now appears determined by the need to meet detailed targets derived from the Government’s rules and the OBR’s estimates. Instead, the Government need to take informed common-sense choices that promote growth and, crucially, confidence in our economy, using best estimates as a guide to sensible behaviour. In short, the Chancellor appears, wrongly, to believe that openly fiddling with the numbers to please the OBR leads to positive economic outcomes. It does not. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, concluded yesterday by saying that “the Chancellor has all but guaranteed … another six months of damaging speculation and uncertainty over tax policy”. It does not take an economist to see that these conditions are damaging for growth, business and people across the country. Our economy needs certainty and stability. The Chancellor’s Statement leaves our country vulnerable, and it will be British business and the British taxpayer who pick up the pieces when her plans come into contact with reality. My first area of questioning is: how would the Treasury react to adverse events—if, for instance, the UK were to become the victim of tariffs, which seems all the more likely this morning? It has no reserve for a rainy day. The OBR’s model suggests that the introduction of tariffs could “entirely eliminate the headroom against the fiscal mandate”. Can the Minister say which taxes the Government would hike, or which services he would cut, to keep in line with the Chancellor’s recklessly tight limits? We are not in a good place, as can be seen from the numbers published yesterday. Public spending is far too high as a share of GDP. It is forecast to rise to 45% in 2025-26 and will still be at 43.9% in 2029-30, according to the OBR. Moreover, debt interest is at an appalling £101.3 billion, rising to £105.9 billion in 2029-30. The prospects for improving the position are modest. The OBR has halved its forecast for growth from 2% to 1% this year, and growth thereafter remains relatively anaemic, despite some welcome policy changes that I will come on to. As we have discussed on previous occasions, growth and productivity are intimately linked, and we desperately need productivity to grow, especially in the public sector. The measures announced so far will not go very far to improve it. If we want growth, we need a step change in the public sector and a bigger share of the economy in the more productive private sector. Defence spending was a key element of the Statement, and we on these Benches support an increase in funding for our Armed Forces. However, the Chancellor has not been clear about how and where the money from overseas development aid is going. Can the Minister kindly clear this up? We support reform of planning and more housebuilding, on which the growth forecasts depend. However, can this be realised quickly? The plan is to invest £2 billion in social and affordable housing in 2026-27, which is, I understand, lower than the average under the previous Government. I welcome the £625 million to train up to 60,000 more construction workers. However, with my experience of the sector, I have doubts as to whether the proposed changes will speed up planning sufficiently or provide the skills needed in the building and planning trades quickly enough to fill current gaps and fire up major expansion. We also believe that welfare reform is necessary, but it must be done in the right way and the process in the run-up to this Statement was, frankly, shambolic. For a very complicated subject, this is no way to proceed. Before I sum up, perhaps the Minister can clear up one puzzle. I cannot understand how the OBR can legitimately assume—see the table on page 10 of the Green Book—that employment is going to rise by 400,000 people this year when everything seems to be going in the opposite direction. The Chancellor’s decision to leave herself with such little headroom means that the Government’s fiscal policy is not about making the right decisions to support our economy in the long run. It is now about fiscal fine-tuning, which leaves us inflexible, vulnerable to external events and liable to future tax rises—which the Chancellor failed to rule out. Since the Budget, our economy has been wallowing in the doldrums of stagflation. Unemployment is up, the gilt rate has remained sky-high, businesses are staring down the barrel of crippling national insurance hikes, and we face the punitive Employment Rights Bill. When we discuss all these technical terms and percentages, we need to be clear that what the Chancellor announced yesterday will hit taxpayers in this country hard. They will notice the effects of this Statement in their everyday lives. That includes those who are affected by her welfare changes, those who will be made redundant as a result of her national insurance hikes, and those who may find themselves paying more tax come the Budget later this year. It is these factors which affect living standards. We need to build an economy that supports investment, rather than encourages some of our most talented entrepreneurs to move overseas; to see high levels of employment; to allocate money sensibly to efficient public services; and to show flexibility in the light of external events—thus directly improving the lives of people across our wonderful country. I am afraid that the Statement delivered by the Chancellor yesterday did not meet these standards. We need a Treasury, and a Chancellor, willing to make the decisions needed to support business, promote growth and confidence, and make Britain productive again.

My Lords, when I listened to the Chancellor yesterday, the only thought that kept chasing through my head was that this is someone who is completely out of touch with the real experience of people today. The whole Statement glossed over a halving of the growth forecast for this year to 1%, and the reality of benefit cuts. These and ongoing high inflation—an average of 3.2% forecast for this year—are pains that people will experience in their daily lives. The average loss for an individual on PIP is £4,500 a year. According to the Resolution Foundation, a couple on universal credit, where one is disabled and the other is a full-time carer, could lose £10,300 a year. We all agree that people need to work if they can, but this is not primarily a back-to-work programme; it is a cutting programme. It does not just hit vulnerable individuals; it hits their communities and will have a knock-on effect particularly in disadvantaged areas of the country. It looks to me as though the cuts are very much front-loaded and back-to-work support is back-loaded. Can the Minister tell me if that is correct? As a result of the cuts, a quarter of a million people of working age will now fall into poverty, and worse, 50,000 children—I am using the Government’s own numbers. Was this really Labour’s goal? Should this not have been the time to revive the bank levy, raise tax on online gambling, close capital gains loopholes and increase the digital services tax? I will say more on that tax in a moment. Even at the end of the forecast period, despite all the pain, borrowing is expected to be £3.5 billion higher than forecast in October, and the Chancellor will be faced with very little headroom—only £9.9 billion. Can the Minister tell us how much of that headroom disappeared just last night with Trump’s tariff announcements? The headroom also relies on very uncertain expectations of a major increase in productivity. In other words, uncertainty about tax rises and spending cuts will continue; they were not ended by this Statement. That uncertainty will further undermine any possible growth scenario. Since the focus of this Statement was supposed to be growth, why was there nothing in it for small businesses, which face a crunch in just a few days as the rise in employer NICs kicks in? It is no wonder that the Federation of Small Businesses reports the lowest levels of confidence post-Covid. When the Chancellor spoke of cutting red tape, she could at the very least have focused on the endless Brexit red tape. If she had announced negotiations on rejoining the customs union and removing the current trade barriers, small businesses would be quickly planning a return to exporting and recovery of their roles in European supply chains. And there was nothing in the Statement to shore up social care, GPs, dentists, hospices and all the services which are crucial to the NHS and to the return-to-work project, but which are making cuts now as higher employer NICs hit home. I conclude by pressing the Government on the digital services tax. This exists not as some kind of windfall tax or as a special punishment for tech companies; it is a modest attempt to claw back a portion—some £800 million this year—of aggressive tax avoidance by the mega US tech companies. We have just voted into law with the Finance Act an undertaxed profits rule, which would let us claw back much more of that money lost to tax avoidance by this group, in the range of £2 billion to £3 billion a year. However, the Government are now hinting that the digital services tax will be cancelled and the undertaxed profits rule mothballed if they offend the Americans—I refer the Minister to a Treasury press release on 17 January. The Chancellor spoke, as she should, of reducing tax avoidance by British people and companies, but why should American firms be exempted? Will the Minister give me an answer? Are the Government going to turn a deliberate blind eye to aggressive tax avoidance by the US mega tech companies in the faint hope of winning favour with President Trump, while at the same time they slash benefits to disabled people, burden social care and small businesses, eviscerate overseas aid and need to increase spending on defence?

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their questions and comments. Let me start with economic growth, this Government’s number one mission. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about the global context in the Spring Statement, and the Chancellor yesterday quite rightly pointed both to the rapidly evolving global threat and to a global economy which is becoming much more uncertain. The OECD recently downgraded its forecast for every G7 economy this year, and yesterday, the OBR revised down its growth forecast for 2025 from 2% to 1%. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, blamed this on the decisions taken in the October Budget, which wiped the slate clean and repaired the public finances from the mess that we inherited. They were not easy decisions, but the truth is that they were the right decisions. Imagine if we were now facing this global economic uncertainty with a £22 billion black hole still in the public finances. What confidence would that have given to the Bank of England to cut interest rates? What signal would that have sent to investors about the stability and the resilience of our economy? What flexibility would that have provided for the Government now to increase defence spending in the face of this changing world? The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that we need stability, but she opposes any action to get it. I am afraid that it simply is not credible to say that we should not have repaired our public finances nor rebuilt the foundations of our economy. Are we satisfied with the growth forecast? No, of course, we are not, which is why we are taking the serious action needed to grow our economy in the future and to go further and faster to invest in infrastructure with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—which the party opposite opposes—and a third runway at Heathrow, increasing investment with pensions reform and a new national wealth fund, and dismantling red tape and burdensome regulation in every sector of our economy. This is a serious plan for economic growth with the right long-term decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, focused on future growth, but she did not mention the pleasing fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility yesterday considered and scored one of the central planks of our plan for growth, concluding that our planning reforms will permanently increase the level of GDP by 0.2% by 2029 and by 0.4% of GDP within the next 10 years. That is the biggest positive growth impact that the OBR has ever reflected in its forecast for a policy with no fiscal cost. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, did not mention that the Chancellor was able to confirm yesterday that the OBR has upgraded its growth forecast next year and every single year of the forecast thereafter, so that by the end of the forecast, our economy is larger now compared to the OBR’s forecast at the time of the Budget. The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, asked about tariffs. As they will know, we are pursuing an economic agreement with the US, and we are discussing what this means for the UK. That is our focus. We will continue to stand up for free and open global trade, because tariffs would damage both our economies. Those conversations continue. I am not going to give a running commentary, but we should see where we get to in the next few weeks. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked me about the digital services tax. The Chancellor said very clearly yesterday that it is up to the UK Government to set tax policy for the UK economy. The digital services tax was intended to be temporary until there was a global agreement as part of pillar 1 and 2 of the OECD agreement, but we believe that companies should pay tax in the countries in which they operate. This is why we introduced the digital services tax in the first place, and our views on that have not changed. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about living standards, but she did not mention that living standards will now grow this year at double the rate expected at the time of the Budget and will rise twice as fast in this Parliament compared to the last. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about inflation. Having peaked at over 11% under the previous Government, the OBR forecasts that CPI inflation will average 3.2% this year, falling quickly to 2.1% next year and meeting the inflation target of 2% from 2027 onwards. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about employment. The OBR expects employment to increase by 1.2 million over this forecast period and unemployment to fall to 4.1% by 2029. Yesterday, the Chancellor also set out the consequences that increased global uncertainty has had on our public finances, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about the fiscal rules. I was disappointed to hear her follow the Liz Truss path of criticising the Office for Budget Responsibility. The fiscal rules are the embodiment of this Government’s unwavering commitment to ensuring economic stability, because we saw in the Liz Truss mini-Budget what happens when a Government lose control of the public finances. Mortgage rates soared, for which working people are still paying the price. That is why our fiscal rules are non-negotiable and why we will always deliver economic stability. The Chancellor yesterday restored in full the headroom against the stability rule, moving to a surplus of £9.9 billion in 2029-30. The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, said that this was insufficient, but it is considerably higher headroom than the £6.5 billion headroom left by the previous Government, and we are of course not now carrying a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We believe that we have got the balance right, and nobody should be in any doubt about how seriously we take the fiscal rules. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the savings from our reforms to welfare. When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out the Government’s plans, she rightly said that the final costings will be subject to the OBR’s assessment. The OBR has said that it anticipates the package will save £4.8 billion in the welfare budget. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in her assessment ignored the fact that we are investing £1 billion to help people back into work. She also knows that the impact assessment that she referred to does not take into account in any way the consequences of that £1 billion investment; it does not take into account the consequences of anyone getting back into work. She will rightly know that the OBR will do that assessment and come back in the autumn with updated figures. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about our spending plans. She said spending was too high, so I would be fascinated to know now where she intends to cut that spending from. The Spring Statement confirms that day-to-day spending is growing in real terms in every single year of the forecast period—by an average of 1.2% a year, in real terms, from 2025 to 2029. The spending review envelope is fully protected. That means we are spending £50 billion more on day-to-day spending in 2028-29 than the previous Government’s plans. I would be interested to know what, of that £50 billion, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, would like to cut. In the Budget last October, we increased capital investment by £100 billion over the course of the Parliament, including investing in transport, beginning the delivery of 1.5 million homes, supporting new industries and protecting record R&D funding. The OBR has looked at the growth impact across a decade; it is clear that particularly our capital investments—which the party opposite opposed—will lead to a significant 0.4% increase in growth. We are not cutting capital spending, as the party opposite did time and time again, because that choked off growth. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about tax. I know she would not expect me, even if I could, to write the next Budget now. The Government are delivering on the fiscal strategy set out at the Budget last October, and we are going further and faster on growth because our planning reforms show that changes to tax and spend policy are not the only way to strengthen the public finances. Over the past nine months, this Government have restored stability to our economy, giving the Bank of England the confidence to cut interest rates three times since the general election. We have begun to rebuild our public services with record investment in our NHS, bringing waiting lists down for five months in a row. We have increased the national living wage to give 3 million people a pay rise from next week. The backdrop to this Spring Statement was a world changing before our eyes. The responsible decisions we have taken mean that we can now act quickly and decisively in this more uncertain world to secure Britain’s future and deliver prosperity for working people.

My Lords, I have doubled the time available for Back-Bench questions to 40 minutes. The House wants short, sharp, succinct, to-the-point questions, not speeches. We will go around the Chamber, seeking to get as many noble Lords in as possible. Please note that, when a noble Lord asks a question, it is unlikely that the next question will come from the same Benches.

12:12:00

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is considerable support on this side of the House for the aims of the Government’s welfare reforms? We agree that the programme is unsustainable and that there are perverse incentives, but if changes are to be made, do they not need to be made on a targeted and very sensitive basis? Will the Minister therefore tell us—this was raised by the Liberals but not really answered by the Minister—why, as a result of these reforms, 250,000 will go into poverty? It has also been reported by many MPs that people unable to wash the lower half of their body will be deprived of all benefits, and that people who cannot go to the toilet without assistance will lose all benefits as well. If, as the Minister says, this is being done on a targeted basis, why are these the results? Can the Minister actually convince us that this is a programme that is being done on a targeted basis and not just the cobbling together of some cuts at the last minute in order to make the books balance?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and for his concern and compassion in the examples he sets out. I will set out our three principles when it comes to welfare. First, the state should always be there to support people when they need it, and I think the reforms set out in the Green Paper deliver on that point. Secondly, the system should better incentivise work, and everyone who can work should work. Thirdly, we need a system that is sustainable, so that we have a welfare state that is there for generations to come. As I said in my answer earlier, the impact assessment that has been published today does not take into account the £1 billion being reinvested into the system from the £4.8 billion of savings. It is very clear that that £1 billion will help people get back into work. As we know, and I am sure he knows, work is the best route out of poverty.

Oh!

The noble Lord’s question is about the impact assessment, and I am answering that. The impact assessment takes no account of the extra £1 billion being invested. The OBR will look at that £1 billion over the summer and will come back with an updated impact assessment at that point.

My Lords, the UK continues to lag behind many EU countries in overall productivity—something that cannot be explained solely by differences in how the French choose to measure theirs. Could the Minister outline which specific measures in yesterday’s Statement are designed to boost productivity both within the Civil Service and across the wider economy?

I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting a very important point. The Governor of the Bank of England, in his speech last week, highlighted the link between productivity growth and living standards, so we know how important it is to increase productivity. Public sector productivity is one of the few issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I agree on: I know that she, too, is focused on increasing public sector productivity. The difficulty is that the previous Government spoke about it but never took any measures to do anything about it. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced a £3.25 billion transformation fund to increase the productivity in our public sector, so that we can spend more money on the front line and get money in public services where it is needed. In terms of the private sector, in answer to my noble friend’s question, the thing I would point to most in yesterday’s Statement, is the importance of capital spending. We know that continual cuts to capital spending, under the previous Government, seriously restricted our productivity growth. The IMF consistently said to us that lack of public sector investment was a serious barrier to growth in our economy, because it is a serious barrier to productivity. Protecting, yesterday, £100 billion of capital spending, that we put in the Budget, is a central point for getting productivity up in our economy. The other thing I would point to is skills investment; we know that we need the higher-skilled workforce in order to do the construction work we are setting out.

My Lords, would the Minister agree that neither the Autumn Budget nor the Spring Statement mentioned trade at all? I have been appointed as the chair of the International Chamber of Commerce—the ICC UK—and we have just unveiled that we could unlock £25 billion in trade growth, £224 billion in efficiency savings and £22 billion in SME working capital by digitising trade and cutting transaction times, from two to three months to one hour, and reducing trade transaction costs by 80%. So why do the Government not run with this, full steam? With the trade and tariff wars emanating from the United States of America in full flow, digitising trade is the way ahead; modernising trade is the way ahead.

The noble Lord is quite right to focus on trade and the importance of trade to growth. I think he is wrong to say that neither the Budget nor the Spring Statement mentioned trade; I think both did, because clearly trade is a big part of our growth strategy. We want to increase our trade flows with our nearest neighbours and biggest trading partner, the European Union, through our reset of our relationship with the EU. The Chancellor has been to visit China, the third largest economy in the world, which I think the previous Government had not engaged with it at all since 2019. We are engaged in trade negotiations with India and the GCC, and we have just acceded to the CPTPP, so trade is absolutely at the heart of it. Of course, many of the conversations already have revolved around our trading relationship with the United States, which again is a very incredibly important trading relationship to us. On digitising and streamlining trade, he is absolutely right. The Government have an agenda in that respect, but it is very expensive and we need to move ahead when fiscal conditions allow.

My Lords, when I was sponsoring the Carer’s Leave Bill through your Lordships’ House, I saw how much unpaid carers benefit our economy, providing free services that would otherwise cost the state. That is why I was disappointed that the spending review will leave many unpaid carers struggling with financial hardship and increased care-giving demands without adequate support. Does the Minister not recognise that this is a false economy? These people give to the community their services. If they do not, and they are not adequately supported, those services will end up costing us.

I agree with much of what the noble Lord says: supporting carers is very important. He talked about the spending review leaving them unsupported. Of course, the spending review has not yet taken place; it will take place in June of this year, and I think perhaps we should wait until the spending review reports to see what it has to say.

Some 250,000 more people will be plunged into poverty, including 50,000 children. The OBR forecasts lower employment as a direct result of Labour’s welfare announcements, with unemployment rising overall and even more applications for PIP with changes to the UC health element. We will face the worst of all worlds, with arbitrary cuts and the Government dismissively discarding the previous Government’s proposals. Over 1 million people will be impacted; they face fear every day. When will the Government communicate to those people individually how they will be impacted, so that we do not see a rise in the genuine distress that people are facing right now?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her concern. She talks about employment, but, according to the OBR, it will rise by 1.2 million people over the course of the forecast, so I am not sure that what she is saying there is correct. As I have said repeatedly during this Question, the impact assessment she refers to takes no account of the £1 billion investment in helping people get back into work, so I am afraid that the impact assessment figures she is using are not correct. The OBR will look at the additional £1 billion over the course of the summer and come back with an updated impact assessment that takes it into account.

My Lords, I appreciate the work that the Government are doing to stimulate the economy and to get people back into work. I understand the dilemma that the Government face with the spiralling costs of welfare. But I am left to wonder: how is it that the DWP’s own impact assessment, which I understand includes the £1 billion investment that the Minister referred to, does also state that 250,000 people will be pushed into relative poverty, including 50,000 children? How can the Government of one of the richest countries in the world justify policies that push people into poverty?

I hate to contradict the right reverend Prelate, but I am afraid that the impact assessment does not take account of the dynamic effects of the £1 billion invested from the £4.8 billion of savings—the OBR has said that very clearly. It will look at that and come back with its assessment of what the impacts will be. He asked me how I can justify reforming the system. I do not know how we can justify a system where one in eight young people is not in employment, education or training. I do not understand how we can justify a system that writes off an entire generation and leaves them consigned to a life on benefits. I do not understand how we can have a system that writes off people and does not give them the support to get them back into work. I think that is the moral thing to do.

My Lords—

My Lords—

We will hear from my noble friend Lady Hayter and then from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

I congratulate the Government on grasping the nettle of the security challenge caused by Putin to the integrity of both Ukraine and the UK, and on repairing the damage that the party opposite did to our Armed Forces and growing it now for new challenges. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that our own national security and economic stability are absolutely linked? Does he also agree that we need a strong, resilient economy independent of global uncertainty and that the welcome increase in defence expenditure will boost jobs and growth across the whole of the UK?

I am grateful to my noble friend for the points that she makes. I of course agree very much with her. As she knows, it was announced yesterday that we are increasing the defence budget by £2.2 billion in 2025, taking additional spending on defence to over £5 billion since the Autumn Budget. She is absolutely right that defence spending is a huge contributor to the future growth of our economy. That is why in the industrial strategy we have set out eight sectors that we believe will fuel the growth of the economy in future, and defence is one of them. Shortly in the spring, we will publish an industrial strategy for defence, which will set out how we can get highly skilled jobs throughout the UK as a result of the increase in spending that we are carrying out.

When the Government came into office, the disability employment gap was 28.6%. With the £1 billion return-to-work funding that the Minister has referred to repeatedly, what is the Government’s target for reducing the disability employment gap by the end of this Parliament?

I am afraid that I do not know what that target is. If there is one, I will find out for the noble Lord and write to him.

I will follow up on a key point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. While the OBR forecast for growth has halved to just 1%, which I think many would argue still looks optimistic, it is forecasting that we will see a net gain of 400,000 people joining the workforce and becoming economically active this year, even though unemployment is forecast to rise. Can the Minister shed any light on this forecast? Specifically, how many jobs will be created in the public sector and how many in the private sector?

I do not know whether the OBR has set that out in it forecast, but I will be happy to go away and look at that for the noble Lord, if that is helpful. Clearly, a central part of our growth strategy is investment, which creates jobs right across the country. We have already seen many jobs being created in this economy, since we came to office, as a result of various investments right across the country. As I have discussed already, the additional investment in defence spending will see very highly skilled jobs created across the country. However, I will happily find out the specific breakdown for the noble Lord.

My Lords, there are clearly a number of lessons to be learned from the Spring Statement, but I will draw two quite serious ones: an omission and a failure of communication. Turning first to the serious omission—noble Lords who know me will expect me to say this—this was an opportunity to attempt to improve our relations with the European Union, given the benefit that it would have for trade and growth, as my noble friend Lady Kramer indicated. I would welcome the Minister giving somewhat more extensive comments on that when he responds. The second is the failure of communication. There is no doubt whatever that the problems around the Welfare Reform Act in this area have become far too high. The Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, on which I have the honour to serve, looked at that several months ago and concluded that the structure and incentives are wrong and that something needs to be done about it. How did the Government manage to implement a potentially very successful reform in such a disastrous manner? They have all the disability charities down their throats and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, complaining about it. How did they manage that?

I am not sure that I liked the last part of the noble Lord’s question there. On our relationship with the EU, I am not sure that the Spring Statement is necessarily the place in which you update every single part of the Government’s policies. The Government are engaged in a reset of our relationship with the European Union. Anyone who has heard me speak in this House will know that I have very clear views on the economic impact of the previous Government’s Brexit deal; it reduced our GDP permanently by 4%. So, when we have a conversation about growth, we have to take that into account. That is exactly why the Government are engaged in resetting our relationship with the European Union. We have set out ambitious proposals for increasing our trade relationships and improving our security co-operation with the European Union. This Chancellor was the first to address European Finance Ministers since Brexit and this Prime Minister was the first to address his European colleagues since Brexit. This is a very serious set of proposals and we are taking it forward at pace. We are ambitious, even though we know that it will take time. The welfare reforms were set out by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the House of Commons last week. She said that the figures were subject to final costings by the OBR. The Chancellor came to the House yesterday and updated those costings.

My Lords—

My Lords—

We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, next and then from my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a Radio Wales interview this morning on yesterday’s Spring Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to be aware that the First Minister of Wales, Eluned Morgan, had written to her two weeks ago about the serious financial issues facing Wales and still had not had a substantive reply? The Chancellor also did not seem to be aware that housing is a devolved matter in Wales or of how many new jobs her announcement about Newport will generate. In these circumstances, will the Government appoint a Welsh MP to a ministerial role in the Treasury explicitly to deal with matters relating to Wales?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I am not in charge of the Chancellor’s correspondence unit, so I cannot say whether that letter has been replied to. I am also not responsible for appointing MPs to ministerial positions, so I cannot answer that point either. What I can tell the noble Lord is that, as a result of the measures announced in the Spring Statement yesterday, £58 million of additional Barnett consequentials will be provided to the devolved Governments in 2025-26, £16 million of which will go to the Welsh Government. The UK Government have already made considerable progress on growth in Wales, including by confirming the Wrexham and Flintshire investment zone and designated tax sites in both the Celtic and Anglesey freeports, and by supporting steel communities through the Port Talbot Tata Steel transition board and providing £25 million of additional funding to the Welsh Government to keep coal tips safe.

My noble friend will be aware that the two key figures projected in the OBR report are the future course of income in the form of taxation and expenditure. There is a high degree of uncertainty about both those projections, and yet under our fiscal rules, the Government are using the difference between those two highly uncertain figures as the control variable, causing an incredible degree of uncertainty. That is what the rules require. Does my noble friend share my surprise that using this highly uncertain figure is an appropriate basis on which to take away benefits from hundreds of thousands of people and put them into poverty?

I hope my noble friend is not following the path of Liz Truss and the party opposite by criticising the OBR, because that is not a sustainable basis on which to build economic policy. The Chancellor has been clear that the fiscal rules are non-negotiable, and the OBR has confirmed that the Government are on track to meet them. On the wider policy of welfare reform, as I have said before, the system was unsustainable. It had the wrong incentives, and it is important that we get people back into work, because that is the best route out of poverty.

My Lords, the welfare cuts will push women, children, the disabled and ethnic minorities further into poverty and lower their living standards. Surely, this is discriminatory and in breach of equality and human rights laws. Can the Minister tell us what consideration was given to equality laws? First, it was pensioners, now the disabled—why are this Government targeting the most vulnerable in society?

They are not, and I am sure that the policies are fully in line with all equality laws, because that would have been signed up to before the policies were published. On what we are doing for working people, we saw yesterday that wages are now rising faster than prices, and that in this Parliament living standards will rise at twice the rate they did in the previous Parliament.

During the Minister’s main response, he mentioned small businesses, SMEs, job creation and deregulation a number of times. Can he give the House the names of any SMEs that support the Employment Rights Bill?

No, I do not have a full list of all SMEs in front of me, and I am not sure that that is a sensible question to ask me, if I am honest. Everyone is clear that we have a very clear small business strategy. We are helping small businesses to expand and grow, and to trade with the European Union.

My Lords, the fact is that areas such as South Yorkshire suffered from years of economic mismanagement and underinvestment by the previous Government. This Statement shows that, by stabilising the economy and investing in construction, defence and clean energy industries, the Government, with a hands-on approach, can create highly skilled, well-paid jobs and stimulate growth. But can my noble friend the Minister assure me that there will be a laser-like approach to areas such as South Yorkshire, which have been neglected for too long?

I am grateful to my noble friend for that question and yes, I absolutely can give her that assurance. The Chancellor’s construction skills announcement yesterday—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her opening comments –shows that, over this Parliament, the Government are funding a £625 million package to boost skills in the construction sector. This is expected to provide up to 60,000 more skilled construction workers to support the Government’s plans to deliver 1.5 million homes and progress vital infrastructure projects right across our country. My noble friend talks about the importance of regional growth in areas such as South Yorkshire. As she knows, growth is the central mission of this Government. Through the growth mission the Government are restoring stability, increasing investment and reforming the economy in order to drive up prosperity and living standards across every single region of the UK—in our cities, our towns and our communities. So far, we have done a considerable amount of work to increase growth and living standards throughout the country, but I am very aware there is a lot more to do.

My Lords, do the Government believe that we have a shortage or a surplus of labour? The question arises because the OBR has calculated an output gap of 0.5%, closing by 2027, which suggests that we actually have full employment, yet that flies in the face of common sense. We have 1.5 million people, or 4%, unemployed; 8.4 million, or 20%, working part-time; 2.3 million, or 5%, on disability benefit; 3.3 million, or 8%, on incapacity benefit; and 4.2 million, or 10%, drawing sickness benefit. I am not suggesting that they are all available to work—of course that is not true—but some of them are. Can the Minister ask the OBR to make clearer the basis of its calculations of capacity and output gaps? On those depends the whole success of the Government’s economic strategy.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and his expertise on this matter. He rightly highlights one of the most important challenges facing this country, which is inactivity. We have far too many people who are economically inactive. We are the only country in which inactivity has not reduced to pre-pandemic levels at this point, and that clearly is not a sustainable situation. A lot of our policies are driven towards ensuring that people can re-enter the labour market, exactly as he says. On speaking to the OBR, I am more than happy to make that point to my colleagues.

My Lords, the Minister is a man of integrity whom I hold in great regard and respect. So could he just be straight with the House and acknowledge that further cuts in public expenditure or more tax rises are absolutely inevitable, given the impact of the Budget on growth?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very generous comments; I hold him in equally high regard and have enormous respect for him and his expertise in this matter. I do not think, however, that what he says is in any way inevitable. He talks about the impact of this Budget on growth. As he will know, yesterday the OBR upgraded its growth forecast from 2026 onwards for every single year of the forecast. For the first time, the OBR has recognised one of the major planks of our growth strategy—the planning and infrastructure work we are doing. It says there will be a permanent increase in growth of 0.2% by 2029, and 0.4% over the course of the decade. So the impact on growth of yesterday’s Spring Statement was positive. The noble Lord talks about the risks. Of course there are risks. The OBR set out various scenarios for various risks, but the planning upgrade shows that there are also upside risks, as it were, in terms of growth. It shows that tax and spending is not the only way of meeting our fiscal rules; we can use growth to meet them, as yesterday’s planning announcement shows. It reduced the deficit by £3 billion in 2029 and as a result, there was growth of 0.2%. So I do not take what the noble Lord says as an absolute. Of course there are risks, and we are planning for those. We have rebuilt the headroom and eliminated the black hole in public finances, as he knows. That is an incredibly important way to set us up for the future.

My Lords, the OBR forecasts that the Labour Government will meet two of the fiscal rules earlier and will be within touching distance of their new homes pledge. Can the Minister comment of those areas of progress on delivering growth, particularly the new homes pledge?

I am grateful to my noble friend. Yesterday, the OBR said, as I have just outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the Government’s planning reforms will increase our economic growth and, most importantly, will put us within touching distance of meeting our 1.5 million homes pledge. The OBR said that we will get to 1.3 million homes purely on the reforms we have introduced in the first nine months of this Government. Clearly, those additional homes are incredibly important. At the same time, we announced a major programme of construction skills works, so that we have the skilled workers necessary to build the homes we need.

Further to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, regarding American corporations paying tax to the UK, what assessment has the Treasury made of the Republic of Ireland and its ability to attract American corporations? That is due to a combination of things—the corporation tax is half that of the UK’s, and there are lots of other tax incentives that are taken directly out of the UK economy. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer this in full here, but can he write to me if there is an assessment? The Irish economy has been transformed by attracting American inward investment. Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from them.

It is right to focus on inward investment. That is a very important aspect of our growth strategy. On corporation tax, we have set out clearly that we will cap it for the duration of this Parliament. If there is a competitive threat then we will act. That contrasts with the previous Government, under whom corporation tax rose and fell constantly, which did not give businesses the stability that they need. Inward investors tell us that planning is the number one barrier to bringing money into this country—it gets tied up in planning for years, with horror stories of planning applications lasting 13 years or more. Our planning reforms are vitally important, as they will raise skills to create that skilled workforce. The number one thing inward investors are looking for is stability. I genuinely believe that the Budget last October, in wiping the slate clean and repairing the public finances, provided an incredibly important platform of stability to allow such investment to take place.

The Minister believes in compassion and fairness. A couple in a non-disabled house receiving universal credit will be £370 a year better off with the reforms announced yesterday, but a couple on universal credit, where one is disabled and the other is a full-time carer, will lose £10,300 a year due to changes to PIP and the carer element of universal credit. How is this compassionate and fair?

The noble Lord asks me what is compassionate and fair. I do not believe that one in eight young people not in employment, education or training is compassionate or fair. I do not believe that writing off an entire generation is compassionate or fair. I do not believe that 1,000 people coming into PIP every day is compassionate or fair. Is the noble Lord saying that we do not need any reform to our welfare system? I just do not believe that that is the case.

My Lords, as has been highlighted, the core fiscal judgment of the Chancellor is that the policy measures announced yesterday will maintain the fiscal headroom of £9.9 billion. If that is a balanced judgment, the risk of that headroom growing or shrinking in the near future should be broadly equal. However, in the light of the significant downside risks—tariffs, weak growth, policy risk—does the Minister agree that the risks are weighted to the downside? Although spending cuts and tax rises might not be inevitable, the implication is that it is more likely than not that further tax increases or spending cuts will be required to maintain that headroom.

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I was lucky enough to work with him in the Treasury when he was an official there, so I know that he knows what he is talking about. Clearly, there are risks, as I set out to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. The job of the Government is to mitigate those risks and pursue a growth policy to ensure that we have sufficient growth and are resilient to the challenges that we are going to face. We have to get our public finances in order so that we have that resilience. We have to pursue stability, investment and reform. We are doing all those things to ensure that we have resilience. On tariffs, we are engaged in a conversation with the United States Administration, so we are doing what is necessary. We have rebuilt the headroom in full and we have, I think, provided the resilience needed to cope with an ever-changing and uncertain world.

The Minister has repeatedly cited figures on living standards. What impact will yesterday’s Statement have on the living standards of the poorest half of our population?

The impact assessment that has been done so far does not include the £1 billion re-investment, so I am not sure that we can look at those figures right now. On real household disposable income, living standards will now grow this year at double the rate expected at the time of the Budget. The noble Baroness was a Treasury Minister when we saw the worst ever Parliament for living standards in history. Living standards will rise twice as fast in this Parliament compared with the last.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that we all want growth. She will perhaps have seen the comments of the shadow Chancellor. He admitted that the party opposite’s approach to defining its economic policy is a “blank sheet of paper exercise”. There have been reports of Conservative Party researchers scouring their archives for policy inspiration. Is that not why we had no growth under the last Administration and why this Government need to correct the course, through the Autumn Budget and the Spring Statement?

My noble friend very well draws attention to two key problems with the party opposite: the first is its record and the second is its future plans. Its record on growth is an absolute catastrophe. We saw austerity, followed by Brexit, followed by the Liz Trust mini-Budget. Growth was one of the biggest failures among a whole litany of failures of the previous Government. Looking forward, it has absolutely no plan for growth. All it can do is oppose. It has no plan of its own. It has no alternative policies. It opposes our measures to get stability, to get investment into the economy and to reform our economy. All it wants to do is criticise and talk down the economy. If the party opposite is going to criticise, it must come up with an alternative plan.

My Lords, the Minister has mentioned several times this £1 billion re-investment, which is not included in the OBR forecast. Can he confirm that the impacts of the Employment Rights Bill, which we are soon to discuss, are also not included in the OBR forecast, including the £5 billion cost to business that it will create? The OBR says that: “Employment regulation policies that affect the flexibility of businesses and labour markets or the quantity and quality of work will likely have material, and probably net negative, economic impacts on employment, prices, and productivity”. Does he agree with that?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I hate to correct him, but I did not say that the £1 billion is not included in the OBR’s forecast. I said that it is not included in the OBR’s impact assessment; that is something different. The £1 billion is included in its forecast, and he is right to say that the Employment Rights Bill is not. The OBR gives a commentary on it, which he quotes from, but the Employment Rights Bill is not included in the forecast because it is still working its way through Parliament—it has its Second Reading today. We are confident that the Bill will result in ordinary working people having more money in their pockets and the security to spend that money by not having to worry, from week to week, whether they will be in work or how many hours they will get.

My Lords, last week, the Development Minister told this Chamber that it was government policy to return ODA to the legally required 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allowed—meaning when the Government’s fiscal tests are met. However, yesterday, the Green Book showed a pound-for-pound cut in ODA, linked with another policy expenditure. Can the Treasury Minister be very specific that, if the Government’s fiscal tests are met within this Parliament, we will return ODA to 0.7% in this Parliament?

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The two statements that he makes are perfectly consistent with each other. We are absolutely committed to returning ODA to 0.7% when the fiscal conditions allow and we are currently switching ODA spending into defence spending. Those two things are perfectly consistent.

My Lords, the Government have had difficulty in scoring the £1 billion that has been mentioned and predict that there will be 16,000 fewer jobs as a result of the welfare changes. How have the Government come to this huge sum, where is it going to help and how many people are predicted to be helped? The Government must know this before the OBR revert in September. If they do not, why not?

I am grateful to the noble Viscount; he has far greater expertise in these matters than I do. The Secretary of State, when she presented the package of reforms to Parliament, said that the costings that she was setting out were subject to final costings by the OBR. The OBR has now set out its final assessment of costings and confirmed that this welfare package will reduce welfare spending by £4.8 billion in 2029-30. Following the OBR’s final assessment of the welfare savings from the package, taking account of the £1.4 billion of investment the Government are putting towards the reforms, including the £1 billion of employment support, the net welfare savings of this investment is around £3.4 billion.

Can my noble friend confirm that the Statement’s provision for capital spending is crucial if the UK is to sustain and safeguard its research and development budget and infrastructure, such as data centres, that will be vital for future growth? Does he agree that we will need a combination of our world-class universities, entrepreneurs, emerging AI companies and others not only to start up but to scale up businesses in this country? As your Lordships’ House’s Science and Technology Committee is now investigating, it is the scale-up that is the real challenge.

My noble friend is right. The Autumn Budget increased capital investment by £100 billion over the Parliament, including investment to protect record R&D funding, which, as my noble friend said, is vital for growth. The OBR has looked at the growth impact of that investment across a decade and it has been clear that those capital investments—which, incidentally, the party opposite opposed—will lead to a significant 0.4% increase in growth over the longer term. Not cutting capital spending, which the party opposite did time and again, was one of the most significant growth measures that the Chancellor outlined in her Statement. My noble friend also talked about start-ups and scale-ups. He knows that I agree with him 100% on that. This country is extremely good at start-up; it is much less good at scale-up. Getting the necessary capital to those scale-ups is one of the most important things that we can do.

My Lords, if the Government want to reduce the size of the Civil Service significantly, as I believe they do, will the Minister advise the Chancellor to go a long way back and look at the period 1970-82, when we succeeded in cutting the central Civil Service by a third, from about 800,000 to 500,000 people? Will he remind her that this was done not entirely by administrative efficiency, although there are always gains to be made there, but by removing whole functions, industries and services from the bureaucratic sector and putting them into the regulatory or competitive sector? Will he also remind her that it takes a very long time and very careful planning to do that?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his expertise and experience in this matter. I am more than happy to look back at the period that he mentioned. The world has perhaps moved on a bit since then. Most importantly, he will see in the transformation fund that the Chancellor set out yesterday the importance of AI tools, for example, to modernise the state. Clearly, these types of technology did not exist at the point he spoke about. Using modern technology to help us get productivity savings in the public sector, in the Civil Service and more widely, will be an important part of the modernisation programme.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. In the run-up to the Spring Statement there was a lot of guff, frankly, about a so-called return to austerity. Although there have been some difficult decisions to make, is it not the case that, far from delivering the ideological austerity that we saw under the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, the Government are delivering real-terms increases in day-to-day spending, as well as much needed capital investment?

I am grateful to my noble friend for making that point. The Spring Statement confirms that day-to-day spending is growing in real terms in every single year of the forecast period by an average of 1.2% a year. The spending review envelope is fully protected. This means that we will spend £50 billion more on day-to-day spending in 2028-29. I remind the House that the noble Baroness opposite said in her opening remarks that she thinks spending is too high, so I am looking forward to hearing what she would like to cut from that £50 billion the next time we have a debate.