Spring Statement

12:33:00

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.

I call the shadow Chancellor.

13:06:00

At the last Budget, the right hon. Lady said that she would bring stability to the public finances, but this statement, more appropriately referred to as an emergency Budget, has brought her to a cold—[Interruption.]

Order. Rightly, I wanted to hear the Chancellor, and I now want to hear the shadow Chancellor. [Interruption.] I do not need any help.

This emergency Budget has brought the right hon. Lady to a cold hard reckoning. She has become fond recently of talking about the world having changed, and indeed it has. This country was growing at the fastest rate in the G7 only about a year ago. Just as the OECD, the Bank of England and other forecasters—including, we learn today, the OBR—have stated, growth has been halved for this year. It has been cut in two as a consequence of the decisions and the choices that the right hon. Lady has made on her watch. Inflation was down to 2%—bang on target—under a Conservative Government on the very day of the last general election. We are now told that this year we will be running at twice the level as was forecast under us in 2024. That will mean prices bearing down on households and on businesses right across the country, because of her choices. The OBR also says that unemployment will be rising this year, next year and the year after. In fact, across the forecast period it will not decline at all. So much for the right hon. Lady’s back to work plans. We have already seen what it means when it comes to controlling borrowing under this Chancellor. She has come forward now with a plan to squeeze spending later on in the forecast period, and she has of course told the OBR that these are the elements of spending restraint to which she will stick, but what do the markets think? Given her track record, and the fact that she has failed to control spending and borrowing to date, what does the right hon. Lady think the markets will make of her latest promises? Of course, the right hon. Lady says that none of this is her fault. It is the war in Ukraine, it is President Trump; it is tariffs; it is President Putin; it is the Conservatives; it is her legacy; it is anyone but her. What the British people know, however, is that this is a consequence of her choices. She is the architect of her own misfortune. It was the right hon. Lady who talked down the economy so that business surveys and confidence crashed through the floor. It was the right hon. Lady who confected the £22 billion black hole, a smokescreen that was only ever there to cover up for the fact that she and the Prime Minister reneged on their promises to the British people during the last general election, and a black hole that the Office for Budget Responsibility itself—ironically, at the Government’s behest—has said it will not legitimise. She chose to be reckless with a sliver of headroom against her fiddled targets. She borrowed and spent and taxed as if it were the 1970s. Little wonder that the Chancellor has tanked the economy, little wonder that we have an emergency Budget, all because of her choices. The Chancellor likes to tour the television studios and tell everyone that they should be thankful that she will not be ramping up taxes in this emergency Budget as she did before, but that will be cold comfort to the millions up and down the country who are waiting in fear and trepidation for the start of the new tax year, buckling under the burden of tax that will rise to the highest tax burden—on her watch—in the history of our country. May I ask the right hon. Lady whether, when she replies, she will give that much-needed reassurance, particularly to businesses, that she will not be ramping up taxes still further in the autumn? Even a basic economist knows that if you tax something, you get less of it. You do not need to have worked at the Bank of England for 10 years to know that. So what did the Chancellor tax? She taxed jobs and wealth creation. She has destroyed livelihoods. Businesses have been clobbered, big and small—small companies, the backbone of our economy—and enterprise has been crushed on the altar of her ineptitude. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has told us that a third of the businesses affected will shed labour, with Morrisons losing 200 jobs, Tesco 400, and Sainsbury’s 3,000. No wonder the Federation of Small Businesses has said that outside the pandemic, business confidence has been left at its lowest level on record. However, it is not just businesses. It is charities, it is GPs, it is pharmacies, it is those who transport children with special educational needs, and it is hospices caring for the sick and the dying. In this House, the Labour party had the opportunity, yesterday and last week, to stop that, but they voted our amendments down, and we will never let their constituents forget it. If you ramp up taxes, Mr Speaker, and if you ramp up borrowing and spending without any commensurate improvement in productivity, it leads to growing inflation, and inflation has been increasing on this Government’s watch. It means that interest rates stay higher for longer. The Chancellor has just trumpeted the fact that there have been three interest rate cuts since the Labour party came to office. She knows full well that there would have been more than that had she managed—[Interruption.] She knows full well that interest rates are higher for longer because of the choices that she made. This has led to servicing costs for our national debt running at twice the defence budget, and today we have learnt from the OBR that debt interest is to increase still further—and none of this money will be spent on public services. It will be going down the drain. The real black hole is not the one that the Chancellor invented; it is the one that the Chancellor created. Is not the central problem that this Chancellor is a gambler? Even with her fiddled fiscal targets, she left way too little headroom. Is not the truth that while the right hon. Lady said of the last Budget that it was a “once-in-a-parliament reset”, she rolled the dice on a wafer-thin margin, and she lost? Reckless, with her fingers crossed, she fiddled the targets and she missed them. [Interruption.]

Order. I am not sure about the language being used. I think there are better and more constructive words that the shadow Chancellor would prefer to use in future.

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.

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.

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

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?

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.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Order. We have another 45 minutes on the statement. If questions are short, more Members will get in.

It is absolutely right that the Opposition devastated our communities and left us with billions of pounds’ worth of debt, but it is not right that disabled people and the most vulnerable in our society should pay for it. Thousands of my constituents continue to be fearful about the announced welfare cuts, and disability organisations have warned that hundreds of thousands of people will be pushed into poverty. So I say to the Chancellor: we must make the right political choice. We must protect the most vulnerable in society and introduce a wealth tax so that multimillionaires and billionaires can pay their fair share.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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”?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.]

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

For the final question, I call Jim Allister.

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?

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.