debates/debates2025-01-29c conversation_23
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-29)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-29c conversation_23

Jim Allister:Given the strategic commitment to Irish unity in the programme for government of the new Government in Dublin, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he and his Government have a strategic and economic interest in retaining Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom? If they do, why then is he continuing with the system whereby, in over 300 areas of law in the economic sphere, Northern Ireland is subject not to UK law, but to the same laws that apply in the Irish Republic—laws that we do not make and cannot change? \p Keir Starmer: We are proud of, and totally committed to, the Good Friday agreement. Northern Ireland matters to this Government, and it matters to me. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I worked there for five years with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I want to see Northern Ireland secure and safe for all communities and thriving in the future. I believe that it can be, and we will do everything to make sure that it is. \p Calvin Bailey: Tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary of the loss of RAF aircraft XV179 and the 10 UK service personnel who were killed onboard. Those service personnel were known to their friends as Steady, Smudge, Gary Nic, Pards, Gibbo, Ritchie, Bob, Dave, Jonesy and Paddy. They were killed on a routine flight between Baghdad and Balad as the result of a poorly protected aircraft. This was the largest single loss of life in the Iraq war. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking and recognising our service personnel for their service and their sacrifice, and their families for their stoicism, as we gather to commemorate such a tragic moment? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House of this case. I know that the condolences of the whole House remain with the families of these brave soldiers. We will never forget the vital role they played in supporting the coalition operation in Iraq. I also thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his service. We are immensely proud of our armed forces and their courage and dedication as they keep our country safe. \p Jeremy Wright: The Prime Minister may know that, this time last week, representatives of those who have been injured seriously  by covid vaccines were giving evidence to the covid inquiry, including my constituent, Kate Scott. I hope he also knows that the compensation available to those people is not adequate and is not adequately accessible. I am grateful to the Health and Social Care Secretary for the thought that I know he is giving to how that position may be remedied, but may I ask the Prime Minister to give his personal support to that objective, not just because it is the right thing to do for the people affected, but because it will support the objective that we should all share, which is to maintain public confidence in vaccination? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that. As he says, the Health Secretary is looking at it. I assure him that I will also look at it with the Health Secretary, and we will get back to him as we do so. \p Rachel Taylor: This week, I heard a story from an elderly resident in Bedworth. Kolin Basra phoned the GP surgery to make an appointment for his elderly wife and was told that no appointments would be available for three months. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is utterly shocking and horrifying, and a direct result of 14 years of neglect by the Conservative party? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. She is absolutely right: the damage that the Conservatives did to the NHS was absolutely unforgiveable. We are taking steps to ensure that more GP appointments will be available, we are getting the waiting lists down, and we are putting investment into the NHS. As with everything else, we are clearing up the mess that they left behind. \p Andrew Rosindell: The Prime Minister should know that my Romford constituents are shocked, angry and dismayed by the suggestion by the Office for National Statistics that the population of this country will rise to 72.5 million by 2032—that is 500,000 people a year, which is unsustainable. Who voted for that, and will the Government do something to ensure that the population of this country is sustainable going forward? There is no mandate for such a colossal increase in immigration to this country. \p Keir Starmer: I think the hon. Gentleman should talk to his party leader. Net migration went through the roof under the previous Government—by nearly 1 million; it quadrupled—and who was cheering it on? The Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents are right to be concerned about the loss of control by the previous Government. We are taking control; we will bring those numbers down. But the record is absolutely clear, and it sits right there on the Opposition Benches. \p Darren Jones: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the Government’s work to unlock investment and secure economic growth. That is the No. 1 mission of this Government. Without growth, we cannot deliver on the priorities of the British people, cut NHS waiting lists, rebuild our schools or put more police on our streets. That is why the pursuit of growth is our first mission, putting our country on a new path towards a brighter future after 14 years of failure from the Conservatives. By helping businesses to invest and create wealth, we ensure they can provide jobs and opportunities that change lives, putting more pounds in people’s pockets and rejuvenating communities across the country.

We have seen progress on that already, with huge private sector investments into our country since this Government came into service, but now we must go faster and further. We must help businesses and places to achieve their potential. We do that by being an active and strategic state—one that works in true partnership with businesses, investors and local leaders to deliver for the British people in every corner of the country. That principle was at the heart of the Chancellor’s speech earlier today in Oxfordshire, where she announced the latest steps that the Government are taking to drive growth across the country. I am pleased to update the House on those announcements now.

The economic growth we are pursuing must reach into every town, city and community across the United Kingdom—inclusive growth for everyone, not just those at the top—because there is untapped talent and unrealised opportunity throughout the country and we cannot let that go to waste any longer. If we can raise the productivity of major cities like Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds just to the national average, we will deliver an extra £33 billion in economic output. So I can confirm that our plans for regional growth will be hardwired into the spending review, the infrastructure strategy, the industrial strategy and our approach to trade and investment.

We are already providing £200 million of funding to support the development of a new mass transit system in West Yorkshire, and at the autumn Budget we secured improved connections between towns and cities from Manchester through to York. We are also developing our plans to further improve connectivity in the north and across the country through our 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will set out our long-term vision for social and economic infrastructure across the country.

Today we are progressing with the Wrexham and Flintshire investment zone, focusing on the area’s incredible strength in advanced manufacturing to leverage in £1 billion of private investment and create up to 6,000 new jobs. As the Chancellor announced at Davos last week, the Office for Investment will work hand in hand with local areas to develop opportunities for international inward investment, starting with the Liverpool city region and the North East combined authority, while the national wealth fund will build on its strength and combined authority engagement to build a pipeline of investable propositions with mayors, starting with strategic partnerships in the Glasgow city region, West Yorkshire,  the west midlands and Greater Manchester. Sticking with Manchester, we are giving our support to the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s plan for the redevelopment of Old Trafford, creating new housing, new commercial developments and a new stadium—but, I am advised to inform the House, not necessarily Government-wide support for the team that play there.

I am pleased to update the House on our new approach to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, a hugely exciting opportunity for the UK and the British economy. For centuries these two cities have been synonymous with inspiration, invention and innovation. Economic analysis suggests that with the right support the region could bring a GDP boost of £78 billion by 2035, yet time and again Governments have failed to capitalise on this remarkable area, most recently in 2021 when the last Government dropped their commitment to what they called the Ox-Cam arc project.

Through under-investment, poor transport connections and a lack of affordable housing, the incredible growth potential of the area has been squandered as people and businesses have been forced to move and invest elsewhere. No longer: Lord Vallance will act as our champion for the growth corridor, utilising his impressive experience in life sciences, academia and Government to unlock growth opportunities across the region and promote its potential to investors across the world. We will establish a new growth commission for Oxford, to recognise and capitalise on the growth potential of this historic city.

We already know, of course, that transportation is a huge factor in the success of the country. Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport and our largest air freight hub by volume, connecting us to emerging markets around the world, opening up new opportunities for trade and investment. But its growth has been constrained for decades. Today we are announcing that the Government support and are inviting proposals for a third runway at Heathrow airport, to be brought forward by the summer. This is an important infrastructure project expected to have positive growth impacts across the United Kingdom, and it has the backing of businesses and business groups including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and British Chambers of Commerce as well as trade unions such as the GMB and Unite.

According to a recent study from Frontier Economics, a third runway could increase GDP by 0.43% over the next 25 years, with over half—60%—of that boost going to areas outside London and the south-east. It could create over 100,000 jobs in the local area and maintain Heathrow’s status both as a global passenger hub and as the UK’s largest air freight hub by volume.

Reforms this Government have introduced to speed up the planning system will ensure the delivery of the project and set it up for success. Once proposals have been received the Government will take forward a full assessment through the airport national policy statement to ensure that any scheme is delivered in line with our legal, environmental and climate obligations. We want the scheme to be value for money, and our clear expectation is that any surface transport costs associated with the project will be financed by private capital and should be sustainable and low-carbon. The Secretary of State for Transport will also set out planning decisions for further airport expansion at Gatwick and Luton shortly.

Crucially, I am pleased to announce that we are taking further steps in our transition to greener, cleaner aviation. At the start of the month, the sustainable aviation fuel mandate became law. Sustainable aviation fuel reduces carbon dioxide emissions compared with fossil jet fuel by around 70%. Today we are announcing an additional £63 million for the advanced fuels fund over the next year, and we have set out the details of how we will deliver a revenue certainty mechanism. Those measures will support investment and high-skill green jobs in plants across the United Kingdom, delivering sustainable aviation fuel here in the UK for UK consumption.

Transportation is equally important on a local level, and that is as true for the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor as it is for anywhere else. This Government have confirmed that they will provide crucial funding for transport links, including upgrades to the A428 to reduce journey times between Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge, as well as for East West Rail with new services between Oxford and Milton Keynes starting this year. We have already received submissions to the new towns taskforce to build new developments along the new railway. At Tempsford, we will accelerate delivery of a mainline station on the east coast main line so that travellers can get to London in under an hour and to Cambridge in under 30 minutes once East West Rail has been delivered.

We will ensure that the pioneering work that has long been a hallmark of the area will continue. We are today committing to a new AI growth zone in Culham. We welcome the University of Cambridge’s plan for a new flagship innovation hub in the centre of Cambridge, and a new Cambridge cancer research hospital will be delivered as part of wave one of the new hospital programme. Just yesterday, Moderna completed the build for its new vaccine production and research and development site in Harwell, while committing to invest £1 billion in the United Kingdom—proof that when we create the conditions for success, businesses can lead the way.

I am pleased to confirm for the House that the Environment Agency is lifting its objections to specific developments in Cambridge, so we will press on with plans to develop 4,500 additional homes, new schools and office, retail and lab spaces in and around Cambridge. In a further boost to the area, we have now agreed water resource management plans with water companies, unlocking £7.9 billion of investment in water resources over the next five years, including the new Fens reservoir serving Cambridge and the south-east strategic reservoir near Oxford.

This Government have come in with a purpose: to bring growth, and with it opportunity, to the country. In just six months, we have taken the tough decisions to make that possible. We are taking on the responsibility of a Government who deliver real change for people—no longer the hollow promises of the Conservative party, but change delivered under this Labour Government, working with business and local leaders to drive the growth that will lift up this country. Now we must go further and faster so that the next generation and the generation after will have the opportunities they deserve, to ensure that Britain is strong and successful once  again in a fast-changing world and so that everybody in this country can have the chance to succeed. Today’s announcements will help make that a reality and show how our plan for change will build a better Britain. I commend the statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. \p Mel Stride: The Chief Secretary told us that growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government and added, “Now we must go faster”, which I have to tell him suggests a certain lack of ambition. What we do not need is some hasty mañana moment of unquantified, vague promises of a better tomorrow; we need action now to reverse the grievous damage that this Chancellor has wrought in just her first six months in office. Why did the Government deliver a Budget that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility said would lead to lower growth, higher inflation and higher interest rates and would cost jobs? I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that “going for growth” in the 2030s means nothing to the businesses that have already stopped hiring, shed workers and put up prices thanks to Labour’s ruinous policies.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that these announcements have been hastily cobbled together by a Government who are under increasing pressure to change course but are seemingly incapable of doing so. Why have these announcements come only now? The Labour party had years in opposition and months in government leading up to its first Budget. If the Government really wanted to unleash investment, innovation and the private sector, they should not have decided in the autumn to increase substantially the tax burden and the size of the state. By doing so, far from encouraging private investment, they are actively squeezing it out. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reassure businesses right now that there will be no further growth-destroying fiscal measures in the spring statement, including tax rises?

Is the truth not that the damage is already being done? Even before Labour’s tax rises bite in April, the economy is flatlining right now, so will any of the announcements have an impact within this Parliament, and what—if any—impact are they likely to have on the OBR’s forecasts in March?

Incredibly, the Chancellor said in her speech that businesses are what drive growth and that the Government should support them, yet this is a Government who have driven business confidence off a cliff. They have taxed businesses to the hilt and, through their upcoming employment legislation, will be hitting them still further with ever more job-destroying red tape. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out what the overall impact of Government policy decisions since July has been on regulatory costs for businesses? Does he agree with the Business Secretary’s extraordinary utterance on the media this morning that the Government have not hammered businesses?

The Chancellor claimed this morning that she has seen no alternative suggestions from the Opposition, so let me give her one now. Last year, the Conservative manifesto included £12 billion in welfare savings. At the time, the Labour party said that the money simply was not there. Now we are told that the Government will shortly be coming forward with plans for welfare reform—  another damascene conversion. If they had grasped this issue when they came into office, they could have tackled the rising welfare bill, rather than taxing jobs and killing growth. The Government’s failure to act means that businesses and millions of people are paying the price, so can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury commit today to matching that £12 billion, or can he at least tell us the scale of savings that we can expect from his promised reforms?

Some of the announcements made today are of course welcome. The role of the Opposition is not to oppose for opposition’s sake, not least because many of the measures announced are reheated from the previous Conservative Government. The plans on pension investment, for example, seem oddly familiar to us, probably because they are simply to continue the reforms that I was bringing in when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Even in this area, though, we must wait and see before passing judgment, because this Government have shown that we simply cannot trust their word. They promised not to raise taxes, but they did. They promised not to cut winter fuel payments, but they did. They promised not to borrow more, but they did. We need to see action, not just words.

The Chancellor talks about removing barriers to growth—oh yes, she talks about it—but that talk comes from the same person whose Budget killed the economy and growth stone-dead. If we are looking to remove the greatest barriers to growth in this country, perhaps we should start with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. \p Darren Jones: The House is indebted to the shadow Chancellor—Mr Melmentum himself—for his lecture on the need for speed from this Government. Let me tell him that we have done more in the last six or seven months than that lot did in the last 14 years.

The shadow Chancellor asked me about our plans to work with business. The comments today from business leaders and investors speak for themselves: our plans are welcomed by businesses, and we will be working in partnership with them to deliver for this country. He also asked me about work. Those of us in the Labour party make no secret of the fact that we like to support people into work—strong, secure work with workplace rights and secure incomes to help make people’s family finances add up. That is why our party was created in the first place. The real truth from the data is that under the last Government, too many people were waiting at home sick, unable to get NHS appointments or access to mental health services so that they could be helped back into work. Too many people were waiting at home, waiting for training and unable to seize the opportunities advertised in front of them. This Labour Government will not treat those things as a luxury, but will work at speed to give people the work they deserve.

At the heart of the shadow Chancellor’s statement was a truth for the country to consider. Under the last Administration, it was promises cancelled; under this Administration, it is promises being delivered. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee. \p Meg Hillier: I welcome this Government’s commitment to infrastructure investment and to telling the world that Britain is open for business, but to achieve all of this, we will need a really skilled workforce to deliver on  those major construction projects. May I ask my right hon. Friend to set out how the Government will ensure that we have the skills to deliver what he has promised? \p Darren Jones: I thank the Chair of the Treasury Committee for her question. This is an important test of turning policy into real-world delivery. Through our infrastructure and industrial strategies, we are engaging right now with businesses and investors across the country so that as we bring forward our plans, we have a skills and training system that creates opportunities for people to take up the jobs that we need them to do in order to help get Britain building. That will be a crucial part of our approach to infrastructure, so that every person across the country can seize the benefits of this Government’s plans. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: The Government are absolutely right to focus on economic growth, but their blinkered approach on Europe is holding back British businesses and stifling the very growth that we need to fund our public services. By ruling out negotiations with the EU on a bespoke customs union and a youth mobility scheme, the Chancellor’s dash for growth will be more like a slow crawl in a car with the handbrake on. In order to turbocharge economic growth, will the Government start negotiating those initiatives now?

To unleash growth through our small businesses, the Chancellor should scrap her national insurance contributions rise, and instead seek to raise the same amount of money through the measures that we Liberal Democrats have suggested: reversing the tax cuts on the big banks, increasing taxes on the big tech and gaming companies, and reforming capital gains tax in a way that would be fairer and raise more money. Will the Government look again at those alternative revenue raisers and lift the burden that the Government have placed on small business?

On airports, the Chancellor has voiced her support for Heathrow expansion and has suggested that expansion will be forthcoming for other airports. We Liberal Democrats oppose this, because it will deliver minimal growth at a huge cost to the climate. Can the Government confirm whether they intend to abide by the advice of their own climate change advisers that no airport expansion should proceed until a UK-wide capacity management framework is in place? In the midst of a climate emergency, can the Government give a cast-iron guarantee that the so-called refreshed carbon budget that the Chancellor referred to will not water down climate targets, and what do they have to say to those experts who say that sustainable aviation fuel is not realistic or scalable?

Turning to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, we really welcome plans that further boost the UK’s position as a European and global science leader. Can the Government confirm that there will be enough money for the whole of the route to be constructed on the East West Rail route, and that they will work hand in glove with local authorities to minimise the environmental impacts, introduce infrastructure before or alongside housing, and maximise local community benefits? \p Darren Jones: As the hon. Lady knows, this Government committed in their manifesto to not rejoin the single market or the customs union. We will honour that promise, but the trade deal that the previous Government  put together was clearly not good enough. There is room for us to improve our trading, energy and security relationships with our friends in the European Union, and my ministerial colleagues are in active discussions with their counterparts to take that work forward.

The hon. Lady invited me to speculate on any future Budgets. That is above my pay grade, but I am sure the Chancellor heard her suggestions. On airports, as I said in my statement, all our plans will be in line with our legal obligations. Of course, we recognise the need for more sustainable fuel and sustainable transport as part of those expansion plans.

Lastly, the hon. Lady asked me about something that I cannot read— \p Daisy Cooper: East West Rail. \p Darren Jones: Thank you. I thought it was “EU” again—I could not read my own handwriting.

The whole premise of the growth corridor is that we will have a transport spine through that corridor that allows for all the developments—housing, lab space or communities—around it. That is a crucial part of our plans, and we will make sure that it is delivered. \p Chi Onwurah: I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a plan for growth that is both concrete—shovels in the ground now—and forward-looking, building on our scientific and skills base to drive long-term jobs and higher living standards. Heathrow expansion will help businesses in the north-east, but for the sake of those of us who are not Manchester United fans, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury make it clear that much of the investment in the Man U development will be private sector-based? Will he also set out how that will help the rest of the north, particularly Newcastle United fans such as myself? \p Darren Jones: I thank the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee for her question. She and her Committee know the huge advantage we have in the UK with our brilliant universities and research and development ecosystem, which is why we are supporting them and putting rocket boosters underneath their activity to develop world-leading and frontier research and innovation, and stimulate economic growth across the country.

My hon. Friend is right that the development in Manchester is a broad set of privately financed housing and commercial opportunities, as well as the work that Manchester United wants to do with its football stadium. I should inform the House that I cannot give a running commentary on the stadium applications for all football clubs across the country, and she will have to forgive me for not knowing the latest plans for Newcastle. \p Oliver Dowden: I welcome the Government’s conversion on a third runway at Heathrow. The sort of connectivity that that enables, particularly with fast-growing economies in Asia and the Gulf, is essential to growth. However, what assurance can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury give the House that this  project will not subsequently be stymied by an absolutist approach driven by ideology towards carbon emissions, which will drive it into the ground? We have been down this path before. \p Darren Jones: The right hon. Member has been down this path before because it was his Government who went down it and blocked all these developments over the past 14 years. This Government are working on reforms to the planning system, looking at national policy statements, thinking about skills and infrastructure supply chains, and unlocking private capital because we are a Government who want to get Britain building again, and not block the projects that were stalled for years under the previous Administration. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Dr Jeevun Sandher, a member of the Select Committee. \p Jeevun Sandher: Investment is what makes us more prosperous; it produces more work, it gets wages rising and it creates good jobs. I am an East Midlands MP, and we have some of the lowest investment rates in the country, the least transport infrastructure and some of the lowest private investment. That is why I welcome the announcement today of £1 billion going to the manufacturing and logistics hub at East Midlands airport. I especially welcome the 2,000 extra jobs that will benefit my constituents in Loughborough, Shepshed and Hathern. Will the Chief Secretary assure me that this is just the beginning of the investment we can expect in the region and for my constituents? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend, who is a strong advocate for the economy in the East Midlands and for his constituency. He will know that I visited the region last week and met businesses and investors with our Mayor, Claire Ward. The region is doing a brilliant job of securing inward investment, and there is huge untapped potential in the East Midlands. I am pleased that the Chancellor was able to make those announcements today, and we very much look forward to hearing about more business cases and more potential so that we can unlock growth in the East Midlands. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Select Committee member Dame Harriett Baldwin. \p Harriett Baldwin: I am sure the Chief Secretary knows and admires the plan for growth of Conservative-led Worcestershire county council. It has been working through the plan, and it has built a new train station on the North Cotswold line, which connects Worcestershire to Oxford, but a lot of that line is still single track. Will he urge the Oxford growth commission to look at the extensive work done by Oxfordshire county council and Worcestershire county council to find a way to double the frequency of the train services on that stretch of track? \p Darren Jones: I thank the hon. Lady. The growth commission will be looking at all potential options for stimulating growth. We want to find strategic enabling investments across the country to unlock, for example, house building and inward investment, and I am sure it will look at those proposals with interest. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Select Committee member Rachel Blake. \p Rachel Blake: I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement about investment and growth. Does he agree with me about the role that new towns will play in tackling our country’s housing crisis and how important it is that, alongside the homes in the new towns, we see the delivery of new social infrastructure? Can he outline how those plans will work? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend. As I informed the House recently, our infrastructure strategy, which will be published in June, will for the first time align social infrastructure plans for schools, GP surgeries and other public service facilities with those for housing and economic infrastructure. For the first time, we will be making strategic decisions about the places where people live.

On the house building target—I met tenants who will be moving into new social homes in Erewash last week—we talk about 1.5 million homes and about economic growth, but in every one of those buildings is someone’s life, their opportunities and the dreams they want to fulfil. This Government are delivering on economic growth, and we are doing so because the people at the heart of all these decisions are the people we need to get the economy moving and Britain doing well in the future. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Select Committee member John Glen. \p John Glen: Among the fundamental enablers of growth in the economy are financial services and opening up markets to invest. I think there was consensus across this House in the last Parliament on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which provided the framework to do that. What concrete proposals have come forward from the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority consideration of changing some of the restrictions that stop the right levels of investment? This week, the Government enabled about £100 billion of surplus funds from defined-benefit pension schemes to be made available. What proportion of that money will be invested and in what timeframe? The concern around these announcements is the delay to tangible, calculable economic impact. \p Darren Jones: I point the right hon. Member to the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, which set out in detail this Government’s approach to financial services. They are an important enabler for the UK and a particular strength globally, as I know he knows very well. On his particular question, I will need to write to him with the answer, but he can see that this Government are taking action to unlock investment in the UK economy. As has been reported, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been meeting regulators to make sure that they are geared for growth as well as for protecting consumers. \p Ruth Cadbury: I also welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement and the Chancellor’s announcement about the many excellent transport schemes that this country so badly needs. The Transport Committee will look at these proposals, starting with the new proposal for runway 3 at Heathrow. He  links that proposal to UK-wide growth, but did the Treasury consider the Department for Transport’s 2020 figures predicting that between 2010 and 2050 there would be a 24% cut in flights between regional airports in the UK and Heathrow because of the way the market for slots at Heathrow operates, regardless of what regional airports might want? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Transport Committee for her question. I think it alludes to the fact that this is the announcement not just of a runway, but of a project which we must make sure is optimised for delivering growth for the whole of the United Kingdom, as I made clear in my statement. That means that we need to work with regional airports and look at how the slots are allocated at Heathrow, to make sure that Heathrow’s business model optimises opportunities for regional airports and the whole of the United Kingdom. That is a commitment that the Government have made very clear today. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Select Committee member Bobby Dean. \p Bobby Dean: The whole House supports a focus on growth, which is good for our prosperity and key to funding our public services. However, growth has not only a rate but a direction, and how we seek to achieve growth is about choices. If we choose to back measures that undermine our net zero targets, we may be going for growth today with severe consequences for tomorrow. How do the Government justify their choice to back Heathrow expansion over more sustainable rail transport projects across the country? \p Darren Jones: I am sure the hon. Member shares my view that we can achieve growth through our net zero plans. These things are not an either/or. For example, the announcement of this Government supporting investment in Heathrow and in the sustainable aviation fuel sector will stimulate investment in net zero technologies and industry in the UK. This can be a win-win for the economy and the environment. \p Connor Naismith: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which I think demonstrates a real commitment by this Government to take the shackles off our economy. I particularly welcome his commitment to a 10-year transport infrastructure plan. As well as the measures already announced to boost connectivity across the Pennines and elsewhere, will he commit to continuing to see what can be done to address connectivity and capacity challenges north of Birmingham arising from the cancellation of HS2? \p Darren Jones: Those are exactly the issues that Departments are now considering as they submit bids to the Treasury in the spending review. As we move into those negotiations in March, we will have to look at the best growth potential and what we can get delivered on what timeframe. We will be able to confirm those plans in the coming months. \p Richard Holden: There is nothing in the statement about the lower Thames crossing, which has already been delayed twice by this Government. The crossing is one of the biggest infrastructure projects and will have a huge impact on  the entire country. For my constituents, the biggest issues around growth have been about the taxes on business—particularly on family companies—and the jobs tax. Why are the Government not addressing those real issues, which were not addressed in the statement? \p Darren Jones: The Chancellor will be disappointed that the right hon. Member did not listen to her speech. She announced today—[Interruption.] We are in negotiations with the project leaders at the lower Thames crossing. We are committed to bringing that forward and will have further announcements to make in due course. \p Andrew Slaughter: May I congratulate the Chief Secretary on his statement but add a word of caution about his plans for Heathrow? Will he ensure that there is a full cost-benefit analysis of any plans for a third runway which looks at the cost to the climate, to public health and to the already saturated transport infrastructure? Almost 40 years of dealing with Heathrow has taught me that what is good for Heathrow’s shareholders is usually bad for its neighbours and for the climate, leaving Government at all levels picking up the costs and cleaning up the mess. \p Darren Jones: I know that my hon. Friend has been working on this issue for many years. As I have said, we want the Heathrow project to be a success for the whole country, and that means in relation to sustainable low-carbon transport and connectivity as well as for local jobs and the local economy. As I said in the statement, as proposals are put forward by Heathrow, the Government will consider them in the normal way, in line with all our legal obligations. \p Sarah Olney: In November 2020, when giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Richard Hughes, stated that further investment in infrastructure such as extending airport capacity would not deliver high economic returns as the UK is already highly connected. Without a proposal on the table for Heathrow, how can the Chancellor be so sure that a third runway will drive high national economic growth? \p Darren Jones: We hear from businesses, investors, businesspeople, travellers and people who want to be able to come through London or the UK that we are losing trade and investment in comparison with other hub airports on mainland Europe. We have every opportunity to secure that here in the UK, and that will, by its very nature, secure investment, jobs and economic growth. \p Rachel Hopkins: The Chancellor highlighted the redevelopment of Old Trafford in her speech, but similar investment is happening in Luton, where Power Court is set to be the new home of Luton Town football club. That mixed-use housing and commercial development will bring new opportunities and support the regeneration of our town. May I invite the Minister to join me on a visit to see how that will be a key driver of economic growth across Bedfordshire and the eastern region? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend knows that I am not let out of the Treasury often, but when I am I will be delighted to visit. These are classic examples of how, by working together with private investors and local businesses to co-ordinate investment on road junctions, rail, housing developments or even football stadiums, we can get to a point where we can unlock economic growth for people and improve their communities. We are absolutely interested in looking at all those opportunities. \p Gavin Williamson: What assessment has the Treasury made of whether the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions will increase or decrease business investment? \p Darren Jones: The right hon. Member is inviting me to speculate on the OBR forecast, which will be presented to the House on 26 March. \p John Martin McDonnell: There is so much to be welcomed in the statement, but sadly it has been tainted by the decision on the third runway at Heathrow. When such a decision is made by the Government, it is important that there is full openness and transparency so that we can explain the Government's thinking to our constituents. Will the Minister ensure that the papers that led to this damascene conversion among some members of the Cabinet are published openly, particularly those on how increased carbon emissions will be tackled; how we will meet our carbon capacity statements; how agriculture in this country will be converted to meet the sustainable aviation fuel requirements; how the noise contours will impact on so many more people—2 million people; how current emissions will be tackled, as air pollution is already above the legal limits; and how the 8,000 to 10,000 of my constituents will be rehoused when 4,000 properties are demolished as a result of this decision? \p Darren Jones: As I have confirmed to the House, we are inviting applications from Heathrow, which will be considered in the normal way. When those applications have been received and due diligence has been undertaken, we will be able to report the details that will answer the right hon. Member’s questions. \p Dave Doogan: It says on the cover that this is about growing the UK economy, but the statement’s substance is much more about growing the English economy. It has a passing reference to Wrexham and a nebulous acknowledgement that the Government will “build a pipeline of investable propositions…starting with strategic partnerships in the Glasgow city region”. Will the Chief Secretary perhaps flesh out what that means and, at the same time, explain why he did not allocate any funding to reimbursing Edinburgh University for the supercomputer, invest in SAF in Grangemouth, or invest in the Acorn project in the north-east? \p Darren Jones: Scotland is an important part of our United Kingdom economy. We will continue to invest in the country, as we did at the recent Budget, with the largest real-terms increase in spending since devolution. I am always ears-open to opportunities for growth, but the hon. Member might want to speak to his SNP colleagues in the Scottish Government and try to stimulate some investment there as well. \p Paul Waugh: I warmly welcome the plan for growth, which stands in stark contrast to the low-growth, low-wage and low-investment economy of the last 14 years, but as welcome as the Old Trafford development is, the House will know that I am a Dale fan. May I therefore urge the Treasury and Chief Secretary to warmly support the Atom Valley mayoral development zone, which is being pushed by Andy Burnham to help advanced manufacturing in Rochdale? \p Darren Jones: That sounds like an excellent initiative that will benefit from the huge untapped potential in the Greater Manchester and regional economy, which we are trying to stimulate with our announcements today. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend in due course to understand more of the detail. \p Martin Vickers: The Chief Secretary said that he wanted economic growth to spread to every town, city and community—something we can all agree with. I have been campaigning for many years to restore the direct train service between Cleethorpes, Grimsby and King’s Cross. That would boost the local economy and is supported by the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce, businesses up and down my constituency and, on the Government Benches, by my MP, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). All that is needed to provide the service at the next timetable change is the go-ahead from the Transport Secretary. Will the Chief Secretary urge her to do just that? \p Darren Jones: I am sure that the Transport Secretary has heard the hon. Member’s request. As he will know from our announcements today and at the Budget, the investment that we seek to unlock in his region is a crucial part of our industrial plans, not least the investment in sustainable aviation fuel that I set out. If the transport project that he mentions will unlock investment, housing and opportunities in the region, I am sure that we will look at it closely. \p Mohammad Yasin: I have consistently called for new investment in the eastern region, and nothing is more exciting than the proposal to build a Universal Studios theme park—the first of its kind in Europe—in Bedford. The project has huge potential to transform the region. Will the Chief Secretary provide an update and reassure me that progress is being made on turning that plan into reality? \p Nusrat Ghani: Hopefully the Minister can meet that enthusiasm. \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend, who has campaigned tirelessly for this investment in the region since he has been the House. As he will know, the Government are in negotiations with partners for the development. Unfortunately, I cannot update the House at this stage, but I look forward to doing so in due course. \p Layla Moran: As the MP for the dreaming spires, may I thank the Government for their vote of confidence in my constituents’ ability to deliver the growth that this country, and arguably the world, needs? I take umbrage with one thing. The Chief Secretary talks about the Oxford plan.  Given that the Chancellor gave her speech not in Oxford city or its environs but in Eynsham, will he name the growth commission not the Oxford commission but the Oxfordshire commission? Will he meet me and my many Liberal Democrat colleagues, so that we can work with him to maximise the potential of the plan? \p Darren Jones: I thank the hon. Lady for her suggestion. It is not for me to get in the middle of boundary disputes, but I will take that back to the Treasury and see what we can do. \p Rebecca Long-Bailey: As a United fan, I hugely welcome the economic and social benefits that the Old Trafford redevelopment could bring to the city of Salford. How will the Chief Secretary require those who are awarded contracts to do all they can to employ, train and retain local people, and to ensure that that ethos is mirrored across supply chains? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. These projects have to benefit local communities, local workers and local businesses, as well as others. There can be no greater advocate of that approach than the Mayor of Greater Manchester. Between his work and good offices and the Government’s approach to social value and procurement, I am sure that will be able to deliver that outcome. \p Greg Smith: Given that construction of the Oxford to Milton Keynes section of East West Rail was completed when Hugh Merriman, the last Conservative rail Minister, pulled the last rail clip into place, it is a bit rich of the Chief Secretary to try to claim credit for it. In one breath he said that he wanted to work in partnership with local leaders, and in the next he reheated the idea of a top-down, Government-knows-best Ox-Cam arc, rebranding it the Oxford to Cambridge growth commission. Local leaders in Buckinghamshire have consistently said no to that top-down spatial strategy, choosing instead to grow jobs locally, including at Westcott space cluster. Does he really want to work with local leaders in Buckinghamshire, or does he just want to tell them what to do? \p Darren Jones: The hon. Member is what we call a blocker. That is not in the nature of this Government. We will get on and deliver. \p Yasmin Qureshi: I welcome the Minister’s statement on growth. Does he agree that alongside upgrading transport infrastructure, we should create more homes and infrastructure around existing commuter lines, such as the Bolton-to-Manchester line in my constituency? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In working on the plan for change’s priority of 1.5 million new homes, the Deputy Prime Minister has already identified that as a great opportunity for the Government. Working with partners in Network Rail and elsewhere, we can unlock the land adjacent to existing infrastructure for new developments. Some of that was referenced in the part of the Chancellor’s speech about the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, but we are actively looking at opportunities across the country as well. \p Andrew Murrison: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury did a good job of name-checking places across the country that might benefit from growth, except not once did he mention anywhere in the south-west. He is the Member for Bristol North West, so why is that? Does he have no confidence in the potential of the south-west? Will he redeem himself by visiting Trowbridge, the county town of Wiltshire, and specifically the Tech Trowbridge initiative, which is trying to create the conditions for growth? The Government might like to be involved in that. \p Darren Jones: The right hon. Member is confused. I am enormously proud of my region of Bristol and the south-west, not least because of our heritage and the potential that we have to offer the country. The aerospace industry in north Bristol will benefit enormously from our announcements, which is great for workers and businesses in our region. He may be interested in an announcement from the national wealth fund today of investment in the Cornish economy to get us mining again, so that we get the rare earth materials that we need to fuel development in the UK and create the jobs and investment in the south-west that he asks for. \p Matthew Patrick: Barriers to growth were in place in this country for so long that I thought they would be permanent, but we have a Government so committed to growth that they are tearing them down daily, and I welcome that. I also welcome the pilot announced by the Office for Investment, which will benefit the Liverpool city region. It brings Government and industry together to unlock private investment. How will that benefit my constituents in Wirral West? \p Darren Jones: Today we have announced that the Office for Investment, which partners with foreign direct investment into the UK, will be given a line of sight to opportunities across the country, and not just to the large project that the Government are interested in on a particular day. Working with mayors in our combined authorities will be a great way to bring together a prospectus of investable propositions for investors across the country. Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the blockers to delivery are not permanent, because we voted them out at the last election. \p Christine Jardine: I am sure that the Chief Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but the only three words about Scotland in his statement are “Glasgow city region”. They are welcome, but does he appreciate that while the Scottish Government may have received its biggest settlement, every UK Government statement that has come out of this place since the general election has undermined support in Scotland for this Government? In my city of Edinburgh, we are concerned that every statement on investment in AI and research leaves us out. Down the line, expansion at Heathrow will mean more air traffic over our city, and there is no emissions management plan in place. Will the Chief Secretary reassure my constituents that there is something in this for Edinburgh? \p Darren Jones: I am not sure I agree with the premise of the question. We do not seek to undermine Scotland, but to enable it, as an important part of the United  Kingdom. That is why we have put significant money into the Scottish Government, why GB Energy will be based in Scotland, and why exciting plans on energy infrastructure have already been announced. I am sure there will be more to come, not least for Edinburgh, given its expertise in the technology space, which we are very aware of. I encourage the hon. Lady not to be so gloomy. We are here to support Scotland as much as England, Wales and Northern Ireland. \p John Slinger: After a decade and a half of dithering by the Conservatives, who claim to be the best yet constrain the vital forces of positive economic change, it falls to a Labour Government to unleash our country’s potential, which requires Government action in partnership with others. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to deliver the growth that our people need, we must block the blockers and vanquish vested interests, and that it is time, to coin a phrase, to build, baby, build? \p Darren Jones: I am pleased to announce to the House today the Government’s commitment to build, baby, build. We will deliver that for this country. My hon. Friend is right to point out the difference that a change in Government can make. This Labour Government are getting on with the job of dealing with planning regulations and blockers, bringing forward investment and delivering for the country, whereas the Conservative party promised the earth and delivered nothing. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Dr Kieran Mullan—I assume you have a lot to say. \p Kieran Mullan: Away from Labour’s rhetoric, I suspect that Members on both sides of this House are hearing the reality from our constituents. On Friday, I visited Saxonwood care home in my constituency, and St Michael’s hospice just across the border, which looks after my constituents. I have also heard from Bexhill chamber of commerce, and they are all clear that Labour’s planned national insurance rise will do enormous damage to their attempts to grow, and to employ people. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the OBR’s forecast that the jobs tax will harm growth, not help it? \p Darren Jones: As has been rehearsed repeatedly on the Floor of the House, the Chancellor had to make difficult decisions to get a grip on the public finances, given the state in which the hon. Member’s party left this country. Today’s announcement makes it very clear that businesses small and large and this Government share the ambition of delivering growth for the economy. That is why we are going further, faster in pursuit of that. \p Nadia Whittome: Making our economy work for people across this country is vital after 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, but the New Economics Foundation has found that expanding the UK’s airports would not deliver serious economic growth. Meanwhile, analysis by Carbon Brief shows that offsetting expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton would require a forest twice the size of London. Our climate goals would be in jeopardy. Is it  realistic to expand Heathrow and other airports and still meet our climate obligations? Is the risk to our future really worth it? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend knows that I have long been an advocate and campaigner for climate justice and our net zero plans, but I am clear that by working with partners and investors to unlock investment in the UK, we will also unlock investment in the net zero transition, and get the industry, the jobs and the capabilities that we need to deliver a net zero future. That will allow people across the country to do other things that they want to do, such as go on holiday. \p Sammy Wilson: As I listened to the Chief Secretary declare that this is all about putting our country on a new path towards a brighter future, I was reminded of a wee song that we used to sing when we were children: “There is a happy land, but it’s far, far away.” Unfortunately, many of these projects are long term. They will not be delivered even in the lifetime of this Parliament, and they will not offset the anti-growth policies that the Government have already announced, which are devastating industry.

The Chief Secretary said that he wants to deliver for people in every part of the country, but there was not one mention of a project in Northern Ireland, or any indication of what the Government will do with the anti-growth impacts of the protocol and the Windsor framework. What is there in the statement for the people of Northern Ireland and for growth prospects in Northern Ireland? \p Darren Jones: We always get a bit grumpy as we get older, don’t we, Madam Deputy Speaker? But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: we should go back to our childhoods and sing the song of that bright future that is ahead for all of us. It will cheer our spirits and lift the House as we look forward to the future with positivity.

Look, we have made announcements today that will benefit the Northern Ireland economy, not least in the aerospace, life sciences and pharmaceutical sectors. On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I heard about the businesses innovating and investing in these spaces, and they will benefit from the announcements today. As he knows, the Government are in negotiations with our counterparts in Europe to improve trade barriers, which I am sure, in time, will benefit the Northern Ireland economy as well. \p Jonathan Davies: It has been a joy to have apprentices from Rolls-Royce Submarines, in my constituency, in Parliament this week, especially in the wake of the £9 billion investment the Government made in Rolls-Royce last week. Does the Chief Secretary agree that it is only by working with manufacturing companies like Rolls-Royce that we will deliver the economic growth we badly need? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We need businesses to invest, train and employ, and to sell their goods and services. The Government’s partnership working with Rolls-Royce is a great example of how we have been able to unlock billions in investment not just for the region, but for its exports around the world. \p Robbie Moore: Whether it be the drastic reduction in business property relief and agricultural property relief, which will decimate many family businesses, or the increase in employer national insurance, which will negatively impact all businesses, including the GP surgeries in Keighley that have told me they are now deciding to freeze recruitment, or the increase in the minimum wage or in business rates, or, perhaps, the Employment Rights Bill, which will cost businesses £45 billion a year, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury say, in his statement on growing the economy, which of these measures he thinks will grow the economy most? \p Darren Jones: From the nature of his question, I am not sure the hon. Gentleman enjoyed the statement today. Look, there are lots of examples today, both in this statement and in the Chancellor’s commitment, that have stimulated investment and, as a consequence, will stimulate growth in the economy. The key question here is: are businesses seeing the UK as a place to invest, are they investing in the country, and are they building in Britain? The answer is: yes, yes, and yes. \p Luke Myer: We have today heard a full-throated commitment from the Treasury to the Teesside’s sustainable aviation fuel industry. I thank the Treasury for listening to Teesside MPs on the revenue certainty mechanism, which will unlock millions of pounds of investment in the industry from companies such as Alfanar and Iogen. Will the Chief Secretary deliver a message from the Dispatch Box to SAF investors the world over that Teesside is open for business? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend and all my hon. Friends from the Teesside region, who have campaigned hard for investment in their area. I visited the plant in question when I was Chair of the Business Committee in the former Parliament, and I remember clearly the company saying how frustrating it was that the previous Government would not allow them to invest and grow the development of sustainable aviation fuel, but were instead allowing it to be imported at cost from other countries. This Government are taking a different approach, which is unlocking investment and jobs in Teesside, and across the country, in the interests of working people. \p Olly Glover: I welcome the Chief Secretary’s commitment to investing in my Oxfordshire constituency, and particularly in our science centres of Milton Park, Culham and Harwell campus. However, the commitment to the south east strategic reservoir option—SESRO—will be met with far more questions, given Thames Water’s track record. On 15 January 2025, in New Civil Engineer, a water engineer suggested that the reservoir’s £2.2 billion cost could be much better spent tackling leaks and reducing water demand and waste. Will the Chief Secretary meet me to discuss these unanswered questions about the reservoir? \p Darren Jones: The Environment Secretary, working with the regulator Ofwat, has agreed the largest investment in the water industry on record, with more than £100 billion over the years ahead to tackle issues with sewage and leaks in the Victorian infrastructure, and, crucially, for the first time in decades, to actually build a reservoir,  which this country needs. That is why it is important that we have announced those two plans today. They will, of course, go through the normal processes, and I am sure he will be paying attention to that as they come forward. \p Mark Sewards: I enthusiastically welcome the Government’s commitment to growth and commend them for taking the difficult decisions required to generate it. It is important that all parts of our country benefit from the proceeds of growth. In my capacity as a Leeds MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, I ask the Chief Secretary how the national wealth fund and the strategic partnership in West Yorkshire will benefit my region through growth agreements and, crucially, sharing the proceeds of growth. \p Darren Jones: These partnerships with the national wealth fund are crucial to ensure that local entrepreneurs, businesses and investors have access to the services provided by the Government. Too often, it is only people who know how the system works or who know the people involved who can get deals done, which means that people, especially in the regions, have historically lower levels of investment than companies, in particular in London. That is why we want to ensure the door is open to entrepreneurs and investors in areas of high growth potential, including in Leeds, so they can get their businesses growing and delivering for the UK economy. \p Neil Hudson: It has been interesting listening to the statement on growing the UK economy, when everything the Labour Government have done so far is having the exact reverse effect. In Epping Forest, businesses and vital services are talking about job losses and a freeze in recruitment due to the jobs tax, while across the country, family farms and businesses are worried about their futures, with the Government’s heartless inheritance tax policies, children are having to move school and some independent schools are having to close due to the punitive school fees policy. When will this Government admit they have got things wrong and, for the sake of opportunity and growth, reverse their ill-judged policies? \p Darren Jones: Just to reassure the hon. Gentleman, I will point to three things he may wish to look at: in its long-term forecast, the OBR forecasted growth increasing in this country, unlike what he has said; the International Monetary Fund has just upgraded the growth projections for the UK; and PwC just released a report showing that for the first time ever, the UK is the second most investable country in the world. I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes those things. \p Laurence Turner: Almost a decade ago, I had the interesting experience of working for the Labour party on aviation policy and, on Heathrow, the fundamentals have not changed. The exhaustion of that sovereign hub capacity is offshoring our emissions and is a stopper on growth in every part of the country. Does the Chief Secretary agree that this decision is long overdue? In respect of comments from those on the  Opposition Front Bench, will the Chief Secretary also confirm that in the two months since the Budget, redundancies as notified by employers are down by 20% compared with the same period under the previous Conservative Government? \p Darren Jones: Well, I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the House today to inform us of those interesting statistics—I am sure Opposition Members are listening closely. He is right: behind the support for the plans for Heathrow coming forward is not only that we think that we are losing investment and jobs to other countries, but that we are offshoring the emissions of goods being brought in from around the world via other places before they come the UK by other means. That is why we think this plan is good for the country but can also be in line with our net zero commitments. As I say, those details will be set out further in due course. \p Ben Lake: It was heartening to hear the Chief Secretary talk about the importance of inclusive growth in every nation and region of the United Kingdom, and that regional growth will be hardwired into the comprehensive spending review and the Government’s infrastructure plans. However, he will be aware that such promises have previously been made to areas such as Ceredigion Preseli, but remain unfulfilled. Will the Chief Secretary therefore explain what investment the people of mid and west Wales can expect to see under his Government’s plans? \p Darren Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his campaigning on behalf of his constituents. As I am sure he will have seen, the Government recently announced hundreds of millions of pounds of inward investment for skills in the green economy in his side of Wales, in Pembrokeshire, where there is enormous potential both for onshore and offshore wind development, and training people to be able to build those bits of infrastructure. That was the first of what I am sure will be many announcements to benefit his constituents. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. If Members’ questions are short and if the answers are to the point, I will do my best to get everybody in. To show us how it is done, I invite Kanishka Narayan. \p Kanishka Narayan: Harold Wilson said:

“The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.”

Today, we can add to that the Tory party. Will the Chief Secretary ditch that Tory past, seize the spirit of Wilson and bring the white heat of technology back to Britain’s shores, including an AI growth zone in the Vale of Glamorgan? \p Darren Jones: Pithy, Madam Deputy Speaker! Yes, I completely endorse my hon. Friend’s question. He knows very well that in the technology space there are huge opportunities for investment in the UK. Our AI investment zone announcement will be the first of many such announcements in the years ahead. \p Blake Stephenson: I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for campaigning so tirelessly to  bring Universal Studios to my constituency. Constituents in Mid Bedfordshire and across the country will be surprised not to hear the Government back Universal Studios. Will the Minister confirm when he intends to conclude negotiations with Universal Studios and come back to the House with an update? \p Darren Jones: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date, because negotiations are, as he will know, negotiations. They are ongoing, but I am hopeful that we will be able to come back shortly with updates to show that we are able to deliver deals much faster than his party, when it was last in government. \p Jim Dickson: I thank Ministers, on behalf of Dartford residents, for the announcement from the Chancellor this morning that the lower Thames crossing is getting the green light from the Government. That will unlock growth across the UK economy, the Thames estuary and Kent itself, as well as relieving the misery Dartford residents currently experience at the Dartford crossing. Is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury able to update residents on what work the Treasury is doing to pull the private finance package together to make it a reality? \p Darren Jones: I support my hon. Friend’s encouraging words on the Chancellor’s announcement on the lower Thames crossing. The Treasury is working with the Department for Transport and the project leaders for the lower Thames crossing, and I suspect we will have more to say in the coming months. \p Adnan Hussain: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury articulates a vision whereby the Government are committed to facilitating business investment, generating jobs and opportunities. However, I would welcome his comments on what the Government are doing to support small businesses which form the backbone of our economy, especially in my constituency where we have over 600 small businesses. \p Darren Jones: As the hon. Member will know, at the Budget, in our design of the national insurance contribution scheme for employers, we protected small businesses to ensure that over 50% of businesses will pay either the same as they did before or less than they did before in employer national insurance contributions. That is in addition to a permanent discount on business rates for retail businesses on the high street, many of whom will be small businesses of the nature he refers to in his question. \p Alan Gemmell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s announcement on Heathrow sends a serious signal to international investors, trading partners and Scottish exporters—for example, many tens of thousands of tonnes of Scottish salmon go through Heathrow every year—that the Government will choose growth? Does he agree that, unlike the Conservative party and the gloom and doom from the SNP, we will bring growth to the Scottish economy? \p Darren Jones: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is a Government who are willing to act in the interests of the UK economy. Investors around the world are taking note, as the Chancellor heard at Davos. They know that Britain is back, Britain wants to build and we are here to do business. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his truly encouraging statement. I would be churlish to say anything other than well done. However, as he will know, we have an issue in Northern Ireland. Economic output increased in Northern Ireland by 8.1% above 2019 pre-pandemic levels, but we are not yet close to our potential. An important factor in business growth is confidence. However, there is an obstacle. Will he outline how businesses in Northern Ireland can be confident, when we are still entangled in the protocol-supplied red tape that prevents good deals and hampers small and medium-sized businesses throughout the Province? \p Darren Jones: We share the hon. Member’s ambition for the Northern Ireland economy and the people of Northern Ireland. We continue to work with them to unleash that potential. In respect of our trading relationship with the EU, Ministers are in active discussions right now. \p Bayo Alaba: I had the pleasure of welcoming the Minister to my constituency at the weekend. Will he outline how the national wealth fund will establish partnerships in regions such as Essex, including in my constituency? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend. As he has seen from announcements today, but also from our ambition for the country more generally, we are on the hunt for growth opportunities, wherever they may be. We worked in partnership with business investors to unleash their potential to generate great jobs, businesses and innovations for UK plc in every region of the nation. I look forward to working with him and his friends in the region to ensure that that comes to his constituency too. \p Josh Simons: I was proud to set up the Labour growth group, now ably chaired by colleagues, to demonstrate that we on the Labour Benches are the party of builders, not blockers. I was struck to hear the Leader of the Opposition say it herself today: she said, almost mockingly, that the Conservatives could have taken all the decisions the Chancellor made today, but they did not. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that that about sums it up? In the end, they always put their party management before the national interest. \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his leadership of the Labour growth group, which shows that from the Back Benches all the way through to the Front Bench, this Labour party in government is committed to stimulating growth in the economy in the interests of working people, unlike the Conservative party which just argued with itself for years and failed the people. \p Chris McDonald: Yesterday evening, I had the privilege of meeting some leaders of our ceramics industry, a vital sector that was grossly neglected by the previous Conservative Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our heavy industries, such as metals and chemicals, are where the UK has a competitive advantage, can attract international investment, and can deliver the growth in jobs that people voted for in places from Stoke to Stockton? \p Darren Jones: Those sectors are important not just for UK plc, but for communities such as my hon. Friend’s. It is right that we support those businesses and the workers in those industries to develop opportunities to grow and invest, as well as to work through the transition required to ensure that they are sustainable for the future. That is exactly what the Government will be doing. \p Joe Morris: For 14 years the Conservatives ignored the economic needs of communities across the Hexham constituency, including the Tyne valley. Businesses and young people in my constituency are desperate to grow, invest and remain there. Will my right hon. Friend agree to come to my constituency and meet businesses to see the growth opportunities in the Tyne valley? \p Darren Jones: I have a growing list of invitations, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward, if my diary manager allows me, to going to my hon. Friend’s constituency. He will know that the transport connectivity and the house building targets in our plan for growth are crucial to ensuring that people are able to seize opportunities where they are from, without necessarily having to leave where they are from and find opportunities elsewhere in the country. That is what inclusive growth looks like. \p Lauren Sullivan: Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury please confirm that the development consent order has not yet been granted for the lower Thames crossing, and that it will not necessarily go ahead without mitigations and protections for the residents in Gravesham, such as on local air quality issues, skills and training hubs in Gravesham, free and discounted travel for Gravesham residents, and the impact on the local roads? Will those issues absolutely be considered going forward, and will he meet me to discuss them? \p Darren Jones: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, who is doing a brilliant job, as the local MP, to ensure that these projects are done properly. I can confirm that, of course, all appropriate processes, including on the development consent order, will be undertaken in due course. \p Sarah Coombes: The Minister and the Chancellor are absolutely right that more growth means more pounds in people’s pockets, which is exactly what we were elected to deliver and what the Conservatives failed to do for years and years. The west midlands is a car manufacturing heartland and I was delighted about the big investment today in electric vehicle infrastructure. Will the Minister say more about how it will be great for EVs, great for the green transition and brilliant for the people of the west midlands? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question and for highlighting the important role the west midlands plays in our important automotive sector. As the House knows, we want to transition over time to electric vehicles. That means investing in jobs, skills, industrial capacity and, crucially, bringing down the cost of EVs, including the charging infrastructure that people rely on. That is what our announcement today will help to do. \p Sam Carling: I welcome the Government’s announcements today, in particular on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are an economic powerhouse for our country. What we often find is that spin-out businesses from Cambridge look to move to Peterborough as they grow, because of our expertise in advanced manufacturing and logistics. Does the Chief Secretary agree that, with the benefits the growth corridor will bring, it is also vital that we bring in the expertise from Peterborough and utilise the increased transport connectivity to do that? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. The growth corridor is an important enabler not just for developments along the railway, but for the whole region, as we see from other countries that get such projects right—for example, the Chancellor referred to silicon valley—where the opportunities for the broader region are made available. I am sure they will be available to the people of Peterborough, too. \p Emma Foody: Newcastle International airport, located both in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), is crucial for connecting businesses and people in the north-east to the rest of the world, often by flying via other hub airports. Does the Minister agree that increased capacity at Heathrow will provide vital opportunities for the north-east, boosting economic growth for the entire country? And while he is visiting the Tyne valley, if he wants to pop over and see what was recently awarded the title of the world’s best airport, we would give him a great welcome. \p Darren Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her airport and look forward to seeing it in due course. The premise of her question is entirely right: if businesses are to export, they need to be able to send their goods, and if they cannot get slots at Heathrow to enable those goods to be distributed around the world, they will just not be able to do business. This Government will unlock that opportunity for them, and I look forward to the potential that it will bring to her constituency and the region. \p Tristan Osborne: Is it not the case that this Government have, to coin a phrase, a “build, baby, build” approach—as, indeed, has been confirmed by my right hon. Friend—unlike the blockers on the opposite Benches? Can my right hon. Friend also confirm that there is an active private sector interest in the lower Thames crossing, and will he give us a timetable for its progress as soon as possible for the benefit of those living in Kent and Essex? \p Darren Jones: I have to confess that “build, baby, build” was not included in the “lines to take” this morning, but perhaps it is now.

My hon. Friend asked about private capital. We know that there is an enormous amount of interest in investing in the UK, so long as we can show that we can deliver and get things done, and we are working actively with partners to do just that. More details will be confirmed in the spending review and the infrastructure strategy early in June. \p Polly Billington: I welcome the statement and congratulate my right hon. Friend on it, but may I ask him for some reassurance? When we are looking at strategies for logistics, will we consider the importance of our ports, adopt a proper national strategy for making the most of them, and ensure that our coastal communities can be part of that growth strategy and that our economy is rebalanced towards those communities? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; our ports play a really important role in the UK economy—I declare an interest in respect of my own constituency. She will, I am sure, have welcomed initial Government investment in our ports, not just for trade and logistics but for our ability to deliver infrastructure—for example, in floating offshore wind. I know that the Government have more plans in this area, and more announcements will be made soon. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I was very pleased to hear about the ambitions for the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, which will create great opportunities for my constituents. I was particularly pleased to note the emphasis on infrastructure, including the East-West Rail link, and I would love to see a rail link from Aylesbury to Milton Keynes and on to East West Rail in due course. Does the Chief Secretary agree that good transport infrastructure of this kind is critical to growing our economy? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; both mass transit within city regions and intercity connectivity link people with jobs and opportunities, which is why it is a crucial part of our growth mission. We will give further details later this year of how we will unlock investment in the sector and provide jobs for people throughout the country. \p Gregor Poynton: For too long we have been held back by the Conservatives’ dither, delay and indecision over Heathrow expansion. A third runway will strengthen Heathrow’s hub status and make it easier for Scots to connect to the world and bring tourists to our shores. Increased connectivity will also make it easier for Scottish exporters of world-class products such as Aberdeen Angus beef, Orkney seafood and Glenmorangie and Ardbeg whisky—bottled in my constituency—to grow their businesses. Does the Chief Secretary agree that what has been announced today will be significant for my Livingston constituents, as well as growing our economy right across the United Kingdom? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend makes an excellent case for the positive impacts that this will have on the Scottish economy and the important role that it plays in our United Kingdom economy in respect of growth across every nation and region. It is a nice contrast,  might I say, with voices opposite that were talking down the potential for Scotland—unlike this Government, who are delivering the potential for Scotland. \p Alison Hume: The manufacturer Alexander Dennis proudly builds innovative British electric buses in Scarborough—I think this might be a case of a “build, baby, build British buses.” Does the Chief Secretary agree that British manufacturing and buying British goods are key to our economic growth? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend is right, and she is a great advocate for businesses in her constituency. She will know that Mayors in the UK, for example, have committed themselves to buying electric buses from British manufacturers, and we will be working with mayoral authorities in the years ahead to ensure that we can do more of that, not less. \p Mark Ferguson: It is good to hear the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor talk about removing barriers to growth, but in Gateshead we have a literal barrier to growth: 400 tonnes of concrete in the Gateshead flyover, which is currently closed because it is unsafe. As yet the money to replace this has not been forthcoming, even though it would unlock housing and the redevelopment of Gateshead’s town centre. Can the Chief Secretary assure me that projects of this kind, in Gateshead and across the country, will be prioritised as a way of unlocking further growth in the economy? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. Let me encourage him to write to the Transport Secretary and copy me into his correspondence, so that we can look at the details and consider it further. \p Luke Charters: Officials told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday that nutrient neutrality rules were blocking the creation of new prison spaces, and the same rules are blocking the building of 150,000 homes. Will the Chief Secretary commit to speeding up the Government’s review of those rules? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on his upcoming paternity leave. He knows that the Government are committed to protecting the environment but also to cutting red tape. We have shown that that can be done in a win-win way, through the nature fund announced by the Environment Secretary recently. We will be doing further work on this issue in the coming months to ensure that we can deliver for Britain and for the natural economy. \p Nusrat Ghani: The Chief Secretary has been on his feet for nearly an hour and a half. He has a long visit list, and obviously he will want to visit Sussex Weald first and foremost. \p Richard Holden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, during Justice questions, the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), raised the subject of the Government’s response to the horrific attacks in Southport. The Government’s response was led by the Prime Minister at the time. May I seek your guidance on the question of PPSs of Prime Ministers and other Ministers raising issues that correspond directly with their Ministers’ areas of competence, and on what I can do to ensure that the Speaker’s Office provides further clarity for PPSs so that they do not inadvertently speak in the House about issues that they should not be raising? In this case in particular, given that the Prime Minister had faced particular criticism, some Members may have felt that his own PPS was trying to talk up his record in response to the situation. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the right hon. Member for giving advance notice to the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett and to the Chair that he wished to raise this matter about the ministerial code. He should note, however, that this is not a matter for the Chair. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Marsha de Cordova: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to parking on verges and footways in England outside of Greater London and in Wales.

The Bill would give local authorities power to enforce against anti-social and hazardous pavement parking, and associated powers to enforce against obstructive parking of rental micromobility devices, including e-scooters and e-bikes.

Across much of the country, cars blocking pavements are one of the most common problems faced by pedestrians. Pavement parking can be especially dangerous for wheelchair users and those using other mobility devices, people with pushchairs and young children, and people with sight loss, like me, who can be forced into the road with traffic that they cannot see. Helen, a guide dog owner, described the impact of pavement parking when she came to Parliament to speak on the issue at the end of last year:

“My life hinges on my ability to trust in the safety of my surroundings, but when pavement parking obstructs the path, it robs me of my independence, confidence, and my trust in the world around me. Each time my trusted path is blocked, I lose a little more of my autonomy.”

Helen is not alone. According to research conducted by the charity Guide Dogs, four out of five blind or partially sighted people said that pavement parking made it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week, and nearly 95% of people living with sight loss have been forced to walk in the road owing to vehicles parked on pavements. That number rose to 99% for wheelchair or mobility scooter users.

As well as causing an obstruction, cars parked on pavements damage the surface, creating trip hazards, and one in five people with sight loss said they had been injured as a result. However, it does not have to be this way. In London, a law prohibiting pavement parking has been in place since 1974. Progress has also been made in Scotland, where the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 enabled local councils to enforce against pavement parking. So while progress has been made in some parts of the country, in many others pavement parking continues.

My constituent Kimberley spoke of the contrast when travelling outside London:

“I don’t encounter much pavement parking in London… But when I visit family elsewhere it is a different story. People park everywhere, and don’t leave enough space for me, my guide dog and my young son to pass. It means we have to step out into busy roads…I have to concentrate to make sure none of us gets run over.”

While we should commend the progress made on pavement parking in London, increasingly we are seeing abandoned rental e-scooters and e-bikes obstructing pavements. That remains a problem in my constituency. This Bill would increase the power of local authorities to introduce penalties for operators and riders of e-bikes and e-scooters left on pavements. It would replicate the existing offence of parking heavy goods vehicles on pavements or kerbs, and extend it to all motor vehicles. Civil enforcement officers could actually enforce that.

Although it has long been a specific offence to drive on pavements outside London and Scotland, it is not a specific offence to park on pavements in most circumstances. That is reflected in highway code rule 244, which states:

“You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it.”

Civil traffic enforcement is possible in some limited cases, such as for parking over dropped kerbs or adjacent to double yellow lines, but in most cases local traffic wardens do not actually have powers to act. Councils can use traffic regulation orders or install physical barriers to prevent pavement parking, but TROs are not designed to be used to cover wide areas and require considerable signage and street markings, making their widespread use expensive.

In some cases, cars blocking pavements can be considered an obstruction under the Highways Act 1980. However, as this is a criminal offence, it can be enforced only by police. Given the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes an obstruction, and the lack of police resources, relying on police enforcement has not proven effective. There is a clear need for a law that brings the rest of England in line with London and Scotland. Councils need to be empowered to take action, as they know their areas best. This Bill would give them the flexibility to create limited exemptions in response to consultation with their local communities.

A change in the law has widespread support, including from over 65% of the public and 74% of councillors in England. Sustrans, Guide Dogs, Living Streets, Transport for All, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Thomas Pocklington Trust all support a new law. This morning, I was delighted to join a group of campaigners in supporting an open letter, signed by almost 20,000 people, that urges party leaders to support a change in the law.

This is not a new debate; indeed, the measures introduced in London in 1974 were originally intended to apply to the rest of the country. In 2020, the then Conservative   Government consulted on tackling pavement parking. That consultation considered a range of options, but today marks 1,530 days since it closed. Indeed, on 8 February last year, I called on the then Government to get on and publish their response.

I welcome the Roads Minister’s commitment that this Government are looking at all options and will come forward with a response to the consultation in due course, and I look forward to working with her on that. I understand that she is due to meet some of the charities and groups campaigning on this issue, and I know that they hope to speak to her before any final decisions are made. I also welcome the references to pavement parking in the White Paper on the English devolution Bill, and the consideration of licensing for micro-mobility devices. However, there needs to be an explicit commitment, and a clear timetable, to address these problems.

The Government are rightly committed to delivering record investment in infrastructure and transport projects, but it is important that we get the fundamentals right and make sure that our streets are safe for everyone. Pavement parking prevents many people from living their lives, working, socialising, taking their children to school or getting to a vital appointment, and that has to change. We have clear evidence that laws like this can and do work, and I urge the House to support this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Marsha De Cordova, Kate Osamor, Steve Darling, Jim Shannon, Daniel Francis, Shockat Adam, Martin Vickers, Dr Scott Arthur, Jen Craft, Florence Eshalomi, Rosie Duffield and Dr Rosena Allin-Khan present the Bill.

Marsha De Cordova accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 170). \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading \p Nicholas Dakin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am pleased to be opening this Second Reading debate on the Government’s Arbitration Bill. This legislation is a direct response to recommendations made by the Law Commission of England and Wales in its report on arbitral reform, published in September 2023. If enacted, the Bill will make targeted reforms to the Arbitration Act 1996, which governs arbitration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has its own devolved arbitral framework under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010, which this Bill will not affect.

Arbitration is a major area of business activity. For example, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, headquartered in London, has more than 17,000 members across 149 countries. As the House will know, arbitration is greatly valued by individuals and businesses alike as an alternative to going to court, giving parties the ability to appoint a private tribunal to resolve disputes by issuing a binding and enforceable award. For example, when parties enter into a commercial contract, it is common to find a clause that provides that any disputes will be resolved through arbitration in this great capital city of London, rather than through litigation in court. That is often true even where a contract has no other connection to the UK, such is the prestige of arbitration here. Furthermore, thanks to an international convention commonly called the New York convention, which dates from 1958, arbitration awards made in the UK can be enforced anywhere in the world. Studies suggest that such enforcement is often faster and more reliable than seeking to enforce court judgments.

The New York convention may date from 1958, but arbitration has been a feature of our justice system for centuries. Arbitration was a common way of settling disputes back in Anglo-Saxon times. It was largely a public affair, with enforcement through community pressure. By Norman times, parties could choose their arbitrator, someone known to both sides and well placed to facilitate a reconciliation. In the 14th century—[Interruption.] The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), is enjoying my little canter through the historical background, which I am sure the massed attendance this afternoon is also enjoying. In the 14th century, the mayor and aldermen of London set up, in effect, an arbitration centre here in this great city. This also provided services to foreign traders whose disputes had no other connection to England. Arbitration then grew in Elizabethan times, and by the mid-18th century arbitration clauses were very common, as were professional arbitrators.

It is said that our first arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act xx-xxxx-xxxx, was single-handedly drafted by the famous political philosopher John Locke after he had been tasked by the then Board of Trade to devise a scheme that would help merchants to reach a satisfactory settlement of their disputes. John Locke’s arbitral framework fitted on one or two sides of paper, which is a real achievement, is it not? If only we could emulate that today, but things have got more complicated and therefore more precise.  Arbitration has come a long way since then, though we salute John Locke and his efforts in setting us on this journey.

Today, arbitration happens in a very wide range of settings, from rent reviews through commodity trades and shipping to international commercial contracts and investor claims against states. In each instance, it enables parties to resolve the dispute at hand and move on from it. The parties can choose a neutral venue to resolve their dispute. They can choose trusted arbitrators or arbitral institutions to preside over the proceedings. I add with emphasis that some of the world’s leading trade and arbitral institutions are headquartered here in London. I may have mentioned that before, but we need to be proud of it. They range from the aforementioned Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the London Court of International Arbitration to important specialist organisations concerned with matters such as shipping and trade in grains, oils and sugars.

Parties can tailor the arbitration process to their own needs, which results in an award that is internationally enforceable. At the same time, the process is respected for its integrity—at least, that is the position here in the UK, thanks in large measure to the regulation of arbitration through the Arbitration Act 1996. The Act ensures that arbitration is conducted in a way that is impartial, fair and without unnecessary cost and delay. The English courts, which command much respect worldwide, retain a supervisory jurisdiction.

Building on its extensive history of arbitration, and thanks to its legislative framework, London has become the world’s leading destination for international arbitration. It is highly respected as a neutral venue for resolving disputes across the world, something in which we all rightly take immense pride. In fact, the Law Commission estimates that at least 5,000 arbitrations take place in England and Wales each year, directly contributing at least £2.5 billion a year to our economy in fees alone. So arbitration and the Bill are part of our growth agenda for our great country. However, as arbitration is a largely private affair, we may speculate that its direct value is likely to be even greater than that £2.5 billion.

Arbitration is also an important offering in our country’s international business package, one that includes legal services, banking, insurance and trade. It is a great advantage of our jurisdiction that business can be done here in the knowledge that when legal disputes arise, they can be resolved swiftly and fairly. We enjoy a worldwide reputation for the quality, independence and ethics of our legal professions. It is therefore no surprise that arbitration here in London is a showcase for that, or that it is very much in demand.

Given that the Arbitration Act 1996 is approaching 30 years of age, the previous Government rightly asked the Law Commission to undertake a thorough review of the legislation back in 2021. It was tasked with determining whether the 1996 Act required amendment to reflect modern practices and maintain its effectiveness in a growing global market when competing jurisdictions had already updated their own arbitral frameworks. The Law Commission was painstaking in its review, carrying out the commission given to it by the previous Government, and I pay tribute to the members of the Law Commission for their painstaking work on this matter, from which we all benefit.

An initial consultation paper was published in September 2022. It laid out the Law Commission’s analysis of the law as it stood and proposed a small number of areas for reform. That consultation received responses from abroad and from an expert base of consultees including individual practitioners, academics, specialist bodies and international firms and institutions, as well as from our judiciary. Taking this feedback on board, the Law Commission refined its proposals and published a second consultation paper in March 2023. After yet another round of engagement, final proposals and a draft Bill were published in September 2023.

As I said, this process has been painstaking and thorough, and we need to credit everybody involved, including the Conservatives for their leadership of the process during that time. It is a testament to the longevity and flexibility of our arbitral framework that only targeted updates were recommended, with the Law Commission concluding that while some modernisation of the 1996 Act was needed and desirable, root and branch reform was not. And it is testament to the Law Commission’s thorough consultation that the Bill commands such support in the arbitral and legal sectors.

I cannot resist adding that the work has been watched carefully by our competitor jurisdictions abroad. The Law Commission’s report was cited by the Singapore court of its own initiative, and in the last few months, seeing the positive developments here, France has announced a need to review its own arbitration laws. We lead the way, and this Bill will ensure that we stay ahead.

As hon. and right hon. Members will be aware, the previous Government introduced an Arbitration Bill in 2023 that also sought to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations. That Bill had made its way through Committee in the other place when Parliament was dissolved for the general election. The legal sector was emphatic in expressing the view that the proposed reforms are vital for updating the arbitral framework and making sure that our jurisdiction remains competitive.

We are first in global class on arbitration, and this Bill will ensure that we stay first in global class. The Government agree wholeheartedly with the legal sector’s view, not least because of our commitment to fostering economic growth in our country. As such, this Bill was introduced in the other place at the very earliest opportunity in July 2024, as one of the first acts of this Government after the general election. I am pleased to see the Bill finally arrive in this House, as I am sure you are, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is worth saying that the 1996 Act boasts some key strengths. It provides flexible procedures that allow parties to shape proceedings to best suit them. Parties can, for example, arbitrate their dispute with one of our jurisdiction’s many world-leading arbitral institutions, which have developed procedures that parties trust will deliver a fair and timely outcome.

Our current framework also permits effective recourse to our courts, where needed. Parties can request that our courts determine a preliminary matter in the arbitration, such as jurisdiction, or later challenge an award produced by arbitration. Arbitrators can similarly apply to the courts to assist their proceedings, such as by enforcing their orders. At the same time, the regime of court support is carefully balanced to prevent parties from dragging their feet and re-litigating cases. This gives parties huge confidence that arbitrations taking place in our jurisdiction are both efficient and fair.

Many of this Bill’s reforms are designed to build on the strengths of the 1996 Act. I will now go through the key clauses, because I can tell that Members are deeply interested in checking through the detail so that, should we move to a vote, we know exactly what we are voting on. \p Kieran Mullan: Quite right. \p Nicholas Dakin: I am pleased to see the Opposition spokesman give me a willing eye of encouragement, for which I am duly grateful.

I start at the beginning. Clause 1 will make it much simpler to determine what law applies to an arbitration agreement. Currently, the rules for identifying the governing law are found in the common law and a recent Supreme Court decision. That decision shows both immense learning and the complexity of the current approach. The Supreme Court was split in its judgment, and its approach was different from that of the Court of Appeal, which used an approach different from that at first instance.

Instead, to make the law clearer and more predictable, clause 1 provides that the governing law will align with the legal location—that is, the seat—of the arbitration by default. This will ensure that arbitrations, where seated in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, will be fully supported by our law, which is among the most supportive of arbitration globally.

Clause 2 codifies a duty for arbitrators to disclose circumstances that may cause doubts as to their impartiality. This will codify the common law and align domestic law with international best practice, such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law model law, which our expert lawyers had a major hand in drafting. The model law’s influence can be found in other jurisdictions as far apart as Scotland and Switzerland. It will promote trust in arbitration by promoting trust in the integrity and impartiality of arbitrators.

Clause 3 and, in the interest of briskness, clause 4 will support arbitrators in making impartial and proper decisions by extending their immunity against liability when they resign for good reason or are removed for no fault of their own. This will support arbitrators to make robust and impartial decisions without fear.

Clause 5 clarifies the two pathways for a party that wants to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrators—that wants to question whether the dispute should be arbitrated at all. The party can either apply to the court for an early ruling, or it can wait until the award is issued and then go to court. Clause 5 clarifies that it cannot do both. It is either/or.

Clause 6 ensures that, where arbitrators agree that they should not be hearing a dispute after all, they can still award the costs incurred up to that point against the party that generated those costs.

Clause 7 will allow arbitrators to adopt expedited procedures to dispense with issues that have no real prospect of success. This aligns with summary judgments available in court proceedings and will make arbitrations more efficient.

We move seamlessly to clause 8, which will help emergency arbitrators. Emergency arbitrators are appointed on a temporary basis while a full tribunal is being  established—that process can sometimes take weeks. They are, therefore, very important to arbitrations. They are often tasked with vital preliminary matters, such as preserving evidence or assets, and are important to ensuring that arbitrations can proceed smoothly. As the practice of emergency arbitrators post-dates the 1996 Act, our framework did not make explicit provision for them, so looking again gives us an opportunity to examine their role.

Clause 8 empowers emergency arbitrators to handle urgent matters better and ensure compliance with their directions by equipping them with final orders and court enforcement. That will give emergency arbitrators the same pathways to enforce their orders as other arbitrators, and will enhance their effectiveness.

Clause 9 provides that court orders made in support of arbitral proceedings can be made against third parties, which aligns with the position in court proceedings. For example, it would enable a party to arbitration to get an order freezing assets held by a third party, such as a bank.

Clause 10 ensures that when a party challenges an arbitral award at court, the court has the full range of remedies available, regardless of the pathway. This clause irons out discrepancies that courts and practitioners have otherwise sought to work around.

Clause 11 provides more efficient court challenges to the tribunals jurisdiction through rules of court that would prohibit repeating evidence and arguments already debated in front of the tribunal. That will avoid such challenges becoming full re-hearings, reducing costs and delays.

I can deal with clause 12 pretty quickly, you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clause 12 ensures that the time limit for challenging awards is consistent across the Act.

Clause 13 corrects a rare example of a drafting error. What the Act meant to say was that court orders could be appealed, but in some cases there would be restrictions. What it actually said was that court orders could be appealed only where there were restrictions. To its credit, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords spotted this error and interpreted the statute as it was meant to be read. We have taken this opportunity to correct the drafting to reflect the judicial ruling, as a useful bit of tidying up.

Clause 14 streamlines the requirements for applying to court to obtain preliminary rulings from the court on questions of law, or on whether the arbitrators have jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Early rulings, such as those from expert judges, can save time and cost.

I am getting towards the end of going through the clauses. In fact, I have come to the last and final clause that I wish to comment upon, clause 15, as you had probably worked out, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that usually comes after clause 14. [Laughter.] There is no clause 16, so clause 15 is the final clause.[Official Report, 4 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 5WC.] (Correction) Clause 15 repeals provisions that were never brought into force, simply to tidy up the Act. Those provisions would have meant slight differences in approach between domestic arbitrations and international arbitrations. In the event, they were never used or needed, never brought into force and there remains no demand for them. Our  arbitration law is first class and applies equally to domestic and international arbitrations, so removing the provisions is a helpful way to tidy things up.

In sum, the Bill will greatly approve the arbitral process in our jurisdiction and further cement our position as a top global business destination, where legal disputes can be resolved fairly and quickly. The Bill has already gone through the other place, where it received considerable examination and support from noble and learned Members, including many experienced arbitrators. There are, apparently, a lot of experienced arbitrators in the other place, and they brought their knowledge, experience and expertise to the debate, for which we are very grateful.

Indeed, I emphasise that the Bill has been reviewed by Members of the other place not once, but twice. The first time, scrutiny was provided by a Committee, led by the noble and learned Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that took further evidence from expert stakeholders. The several technical improvements made to the previous Bill because of that work are retained in this Bill. This time, the Bill was reviewed on the Floor of the other place, where the Government amended clause 13 to fix a long-standing error in our framework on arbitral appeals.

I have been quite thorough in covering the ground. I hope all Members feel they have got a good understanding of the issues behind the Bill and why we need to take the steps that I am urging the whole House to take.

To conclude, I second the remarks made by Lord Thomas on Third Reading:

“We must find a means of doing this very rapidly, as we must keep English law—I say English law deliberately—attractive and at the forefront of use internationally, for the benefit of our whole economy.”

—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1499.]

I hope the House agrees, and will give the Bill a Second Reading. \p Nusrat Ghani: A tour de force. I call the shadow Minister. \p Kieran Mullan: I rise on behalf of the Opposition to support the Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill. As the Minister has laid out, arbitration is a cornerstone of the UK’s legal and economic landscape, contributing significantly to our reputation as a global hub for dispute resolution. The Bill seeks to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 to ensure our framework remains world leading and fit for purpose in a rapidly evolving global business environment.

Arbitration plays a vital role across both the domestic and international spheres. It is employed in areas ranging from family law and rent reviews to commodity trading, shipping and investor claims against states. With over 5,000 arbitrations conducted annually in England and Wales, the process directly contributes more than £2.5 billion to our economy in arbitrator and legal fees, while also supporting wider sectors, such as banking, insurance and trade. The Minister used the opportunity of this debate to cover quite extensively the long and distinguished history of arbitration in our judicial system.

We all agree that London stands proudly as one of the world’s most preferred seats for international arbitration, alongside Singapore. Maintaining this position is no accident. It reflects the strength of our legal system, the confidence of global businesses in our expertise and the robustness of the original 1996 Act. However, as other jurisdictions modernise their arbitration laws, we must ensure that ours remain cutting edge to safeguard our competitive lead.

The previous Conservative Government rightly recognised that need, and in March 2021 tasked the Law Commission to review the Act. I thank all those involved at the Law Commission for their hard and excellent work. After extensive consultation and input from stakeholders, the Law Commission published its final report and a draft Bill in September 2023, identifying targeted reforms to enhance our arbitration framework. A Bill to deliver those reforms was introduced by the Conservative Government in November 2023; I thank the Minister for his acknowledgment of the previous Government’s work.

The Bill’s progress was interrupted by the general election. The Opposition commend the Government for reintroducing the Bill swiftly in light of the broad support. Observers may have noticed that we have a quiet Chamber today, but in this the world’s first debating chamber, the lack of attendance is a reflection of the deep and considered consensus and lack of debate around the need for this important Bill and what it is seeking to achieve.

I thank Lord Bellamy in particular for his contributions as the sponsoring Minister of the original Bill and for his continued and important contributions in the development and improvement of this Bill. I also thank Lord Hacking for his contribution to the debates in the other place, particularly on the issue of corruption. We appreciate such valuable input and agree that that matter warrants further consideration. Even if, ultimately, the need to get the Bill on to the statute book for all the benefits that it brings means that it would not be appropriate to do that through the current legislation, we should continue to monitor and revisit that issue.

The Arbitration Bill introduces a range of reforms designed to improve clarity, efficiency and fairness in arbitration proceedings. Those reforms address practical changes while reinforcing the UK’s position as a global leader. I will highlight a few key provisions, as the Minister has explained in detail, which make the Bill significant.

First, the Bill addresses long-standing uncertainties in the legal framework, particularly regarding arbitration agreements where no jurisdiction is specified. By defaulting to the law of the seat of arbitration, the Bill aligns with international norms, thereby enhancing predictability and clarity for parties involved. Secondly, it strengthens the integrity of arbitrators by codifying the duty of impartiality and disclosure. As clarified in the landmark Halliburton v. Chubb case, the Bill ensures greater transparency and fosters trust in the arbitration process. Finally, the Bill promotes procedural efficiency. Provisions such as allowing summary awards, recognising emergency arbitrators and streamlining jurisdictional challenges represent vital steps towards making arbitration more accessible and efficient for all stakeholders.

Those are just some of the many commendable provisions in the Bill that aim to modernise the 1996 Act and ensure that arbitration remains an attractive and effective  method of dispute resolution. The Opposition developed the original Bill and support this one to ensure the UK’s ongoing leadership in arbitration. However, we remain committed to scrutinising its provisions in Committee to ensure they achieve their intended goals without unintended consequences. I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the contribution of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to the debate. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Olly Glover: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive history of arbitration in the United Kingdom. It has been a long time since I have considered John Locke, having studied him as part of a history of political thought paper, which feels almost as long ago as the starting point of the Minister’s survey.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the reintroduction of the Bill and its wide support across the House. As the Minister said, the Arbitration Act 1996, which governs arbitration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is more than 25 years old. As he also said, the Law Commission estimates that there are at least 5,000 arbitrations annually in England and Wales, worth at least £2.5 billion to the economy in arbitrator and legal fees alone. Arbitration is also important in supporting a whole range of business activities, as has been outlined.

An effective legal and dispute resolution process is one of the underpinnings of a successful democratic and trading nation, and something of which the United Kingdom has historically been proud. The Bill will help to maintain that status, based on recommendations from the Law Commission and, as the Minister has said, particularly that of London as one of the great centres of international arbitration. The Bill implements recommendations made in a 2022-23 Law Commission review of arbitration law to support more efficient dispute resolution. The legal sector has widely supported the targeted reforms in the Bill, with positive feedback from public consultations held by the Law Commission.

Two key issues were raised in Committee in the other place, which we are happy to see resolved. The first was on the subject of corruption risk. The Liberal Democrats pressed the Government to provide more information to ensure that confidential arbitration is not abused to hide corruption from public scrutiny. We thank the Minister for detailing the actions being taken by arbitral institutions to militate against the risk of arbitration being misused and we were satisfied with the reassurance given. The second concerns the right of appeal. The Liberal Democrats were glad to support the two amendments tabled by the Government to correct the drafting of clause 13, following concerns that the original clause provided a more limited access to the Court of Appeal than was established in case law.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are pleased to support the Bill. Given some of the other discussions in this House today, we welcome an uncontroversial contribution to the economic growth that this country needs. \p Nusrat Ghani: We now come to the wind-ups. I believe the shadow Minister has a few comments he wishes to make. \p Kieran Mullan: With the leave of the House, I will speak briefly. I focused my remarks earlier on the Bill, as hon. Members might expect, but I want to take this opportunity, as important matters such as arbitration are before the House and as I have the Minister’s attention, to reiterate our thanks to everybody involved both in this Bill and in the previous one, in both Houses. Particularly, we thank Lord Hacking for his work in highlighting other issues.

I encourage the Minister to recognise that, although the Bill is welcomed and will be positive, the Government will need to continue work on some issues: as I mentioned earlier, the interplay between arbitration and corruption; the need for expedited hearings; the role of third party funding; and the authority to mandate mediation between parties. The Minister may not have an immediate response, but I would welcome future work from the Government in those areas. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Minister. \p Nicholas Dakin: I thank all Members for their contributions. I thank the Conservative spokesperson for recognising, as we do, the work of Lord Bellamy, Lord Hacking and other peers in the other place, as well as everybody who has contributed to where we are today. I also very much welcome what the Liberal Democrats spokesman said on the tackling of issues through the process—that is, giving greater confidence about tackling corruption risk and the issues around the right of appeal. I am grateful for the constructive way in which this debate has been pursued.

The Bill mirrors that of the last Government’s, save for two changes, which I will note here for completeness. The first, as I mentioned in my opening speech, was the amendment to clause 13 to better reflect the case law on appeals. The drafting error it fixed was in section 18 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and in section 35 of its Northern Ireland equivalent, the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. That suggested that appeals to the court of appeal under part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 would only be permitted if expressly permitted in the 1996 Act. However, case law established that the intended regime for appeals under the 1996 Act was to permit appeals to the Court of Appeal, unless there is provision in the 1996 Act that adds an explicit restriction on those appeals. I hope that deals with that issue.

Clause 13 therefore corrects the drafting error identified in the House of Lords’ judgment in Inco Europe v. First Choice Distribution and makes it clear that appeals from High Court decisions under part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 may, subject to provision in that part, be made to the Court of Appeal. A slight amendment to the long title was also required to reflect that change.

The second change was to clause 1, which we made prior to the Bill’s introduction to Parliament. That was to address concerns about the effect on arbitrations between investors and states, in particular those that follow from an open invitation to arbitrate made in a trade agreement or in domestic legislation. The current position is that those arbitrations are governed by international law and foreign domestic law. Sector feedback made clear that that is what should continue. Our change therefore provides that new section 6A(1) of the  Arbitration Act 1996 does not apply to arbitration agreements derived from standing offers to arbitrate contained in treaties or non-UK legislation. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) wish to interject? \p Richard Fuller: indicated dissent. \p Nicholas Dakin: I just a pause for a little reflection while I gather my thoughts on the other issues to do with arbitral corruption. I am sure the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire, for whom I have the highest regard, would not want me to skimp on dealing with arbitral corruption, which has been raised by both the speakers in the debate so far. \p Richard Fuller: indicated assent. \p Nicholas Dakin: I am encouraged by his nodding.

We take corruption very seriously. However, we have concluded that arbitral corruption is not caused by any issue with our domestic arbitral framework. The Arbitration Act 1996 and common law already provide remedies to deal with corrupt conduct. The courts are empowered to set aside arbitral awards where there are serious irregularities, as they have done recently in the well-known case of Nigeria v. P&ID. Furthermore, arbitrators are under a statutory duty to be impartial and to reach a fair resolution of the dispute. They can issue an award that prevents the corrupt party from benefiting. Although arbitration procedures are often private, corruption can be exposed. Common law allows an exception to confidentiality when disclosure is in the public interest.

However, there is a need for arbitral practitioners and institutions across the world to ensure that their practices are continually developing to weed out attempts to exploit them. We shall support and keep track of initiatives that are under way, such as that of the International Chamber of Commerce’s anti-corruption taskforce. We will engage with the sector to adopt the very best practices as they are developed. I hope that that assures the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover).

I give my sincere thanks to right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It has been a measured and helpful debate, which underscores the broad support for this legislative programme. I am happy to have heard so much support for this Bill, particularly those contributions that emphasise its importance to economic growth. Our legal services are a vital element of our economy both for creating favourable domestic business conditions and for attracting investment in the UK. And this Government will continue to support them.

I re-emphasise that these reforms are very much appreciated. Many businesses will be deciding whether to designate London as their seat of arbitration versus competitors such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Sweden or Dubai, which have updated their arbitral frameworks in recent times. This decision is not just to settle disputes via arbitration now. Arbitration agreements are often pre-emptive, so these businesses will be making a decision as to where and how disputes may be settled many years in the future.

For the past quarter of a century, our Arbitration Act and our law have been a key draw, making our shores the natural choice for arbitration. In 1996, we created a truly world-leading legislative framework, which contributed to London becoming the preferred forum for arbitration proceedings across the globe. We must maintain our leading position and continue to attract businesses to ensure economic growth. It was therefore important that these measures sought only to improve the arbitral process and promote trust in arbitration. It would have been no good had these reforms created red tape—we would not want to see that.

Arbitration must remain a quicker and a more flexible means by which to resolve a legal dispute versus going to court. But also it is key to promote trust in arbitration to ensure that proceedings on our shores remain robust and respected internationally. The Law Commission needs to be commended for doing such a brilliant job—a superb job—reviewing our framework line by line and seeing where improvements can be made. This Bill contains, as I have said, the expertise and wisdom of myriad practitioners, experts, firms, judges and others.

I will, if I may, indulge in sharing some of the supportive quotes from the sector about the Law Commission’s work. \p Kieran Mullan: No! \p Nicholas Dakin: I have only a few. [Laughter.] The House would be the poorer for not hearing these quotes—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I feel that it is important to share them. More are available, but I will restrict myself to just a few. The Bar Council said:

“We welcome the Law Commission’s characteristically careful and balanced review of the Arbitration Act, and we support the proposals for reform which it makes. It is extremely important that the government finds parliamentary time,”—

we are doing that—

“for the short bill which the Law Commission proposes. London has a well-deserved reputation as the foremost centre”—

the foremost centre—

“for international arbitration. It is important to legislate to make the modest changes to the arbitration regime which the Law Commission has recommended in order to maintain and enhance that reputation.”

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators said that it welcomes

“the proposed changes, the majority of which are in line with our recommendations, which were informed by input from our membership… It is a sign of the Arbitration Act 1996’s strength and value that only specific changes to ensure that Act remains current have been recommended as opposed to an overhaul. As well as underpinning the attractiveness and competitiveness of London as an arbitration seat, the Act forms the basis of legislation in many other jurisdictions, lending global significance to this development.”

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

“worked closely with the UK Law Commission to inform the review. We support regular review of such legislation to ensure arbitration remains effective, fit for purpose, and a viable means of justice in a modern world.”

White & Case LLP said that

“we expect that the amendments proposed by the Law Commission will promote the efficiency and finality of arbitration proceedings, whilst not unnecessarily introducing drastic reform to existing legislation. The Report therefore is to be welcomed as a positive, incremental step in maintaining London’s position as a major centre for international arbitration and dispute resolution more generally.”

The last quote is one of many positive comments that have been received on what we are doing today and on the Law Commission’s work. Herbert Smith Freehills LLP said:

“There can be no suggestion that any changes are being made for change’s sake. The Law Commission has respected the importance of this legislation and sought only to make changes that are necessary…If enacted into law, they will continue to ensure that the arbitration legislation of England and Wales maintains its market-leading status.”

That is what we all want, Madam Deputy Speaker. We want this Arbitration Bill, which began under the previous Government and was completed under this Government, to maintain our market-leading status. We are determined to do that by working together across this House.

Those are, I assure the House, only a small sample of those who engage with, and support, the Law Commission’s review. However, I will also highlight that these comments were made almost a year and a half ago now on the publication of the Law Commission’s final report. Although it is indeed the case that law reform can take some time, this Government are committed to ensuring that these reforms find their way on to our statute book as quickly as possible.

We must ensure that the Bill faces no further delay. These measures must now proceed at pace through the House. Dispute resolution matters. Disputes that go unresolved are bad for the parties and have knock-on consequences for everyone else. At best, disputes distract from firms getting on with their business and individuals getting on with their lives. At worst, the slow and stressful impact of legal disputes can have much greater impacts elsewhere. Businesses may have money tied up in litigation that could and should go towards investment. Individuals may find that a protracted court battle, with its costs and delays, may lead to sickness, which of course will have its own knock-on effect on economic productivity.

Resolving disputes allows everyone to move forward—all the more so if disputes can be resolved by a process that is trusted and respected and that can be tailored flexibly to the needs of those involved. It is no wonder that arbitration has proved such a popular method for resolving disputes in the UK and why UK arbitration has proved such a popular method for resolving disputes worldwide.

I will also take a moment to compliment the other excellent forms of dispute resolution on our shores. In the construction sector, many disputes will by default go to an expedited adjudication with experts, allowing for a quick determination that enables the project to proceed without further delay. We also boast an excellent network of ombudsmen, which deal with all manner of disputes, including consumer matters. We also have a growing mediation sector, which, in both commercial and family matters, is expert at facilitating negotiation between parties to come to a truly consensual resolution to disputes.

The Bill will enact long-awaited reforms to our arbitration law framework, which will enable more efficient dispute resolution for domestic and international parties alike. It will attract international legal business and promote UK economic growth—not just directly because arbitrations happen here, but because it promotes the UK as a one-stop shop for business. Our arbitrations are respected, and so too are our lawyers engaged in arbitrations—lawyers who are then engaged for transactional businesses; business  that is funded by our banks, underwritten by our insurers and mediated through our trading houses; and trading houses that also offer arbitral services in a mutually reinforcing offering.

The Bill ensures that our arbitration law is cutting edge. As I have said, it has attracted attention the world over, serving as a reminder of why the UK remains a premier destination internationally for businesses everywhere. The Bill is therefore of great importance to the legal services sector and to the Government. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Arbitration Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Keir Mather.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on

(1) the Motion in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relating to the Charter for Budget Responsibility, not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; and

(2) the Motions (i) in the name of Secretary Liz Kendall, relating to the Welfare Cap and (ii) in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relating to the Welfare Cap, not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the first of those Motions;

such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the business may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Lucy Powell.) \p Darren Jones: I beg to move,

That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.

It feels like I was in the House only a few moments ago, but I am delighted to be back at the Dispatch Box for this important debate. Sustained economic growth, supported by sound investment, is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country, and, in so doing, the living standards of working people. Growth is the primary mission of this Government.

This debate is timely, as the House knows, given that the Chancellor gave her growth speech only this morning. In her speech, she reiterated that without a stable economy, we cannot hope to attract investment into the UK; that we cannot grow our economy with a black hole in our public finances; and, importantly, that fixing the foundations of the economy starts with the new fiscal rules, which we are voting on here today.

The Chancellor announced in her speech that we are taking difficult decisions in the long-term interests of the country, including, for example, on a third runway at Heathrow airport. As she set out, the Government support and are inviting proposals for a third runway at Heathrow to be brought forward by the summer. Once proposals have been received, we will take forward a full assessment through the airport national policy statement, to ensure that any scheme is delivered in line with our legal, environmental and climate obligations. According to a recent study from Frontier Economics, a third runway could increase GDP by 4.3% over the next 25 years. It is estimated that over half—around 60%—of that boost would go to areas outside London and the south-east, underlining the fact that Heathrow as a hub airport brings prosperity not just to London but to every region and nation of the country.

The Government have also set out further plans to reform our planning system, to provide confidence to investors and builders, and to show that Britain can get building again and that we can deliver on our promises. Confidence starts with stability. Stability is the precondition to a healthy, growing economy, because it gives UK businesses and households the essential confidence that they need to spend and invest, encouraging innovation and boosting our economy. In outlining our new, robust and transparent fiscal framework, the charter for Budget responsibility that we are voting on today provides a vital and stable foundation from which our economy can grow.

What the instability of the last 14 years has given us is clear: low productivity, rising debt levels and declining public services performance. Public sector net debt is 97.2% of GDP, and net financial debt remains close to its highest recorded level as a share of GDP, which was reached in the pandemic. Per capita GDP remains 0.8% below pre-pandemic levels. In contrast, had the UK economy grown at the average rate of OECD economies over the past 14 years, it would be over £150 billion larger than it is today. Public investment in the UK has historically been low and inconsistent. Our public capital stock, as a share of GDP, is the joint lowest in the G7, and more than 10 percentage points below the G7 median.

Underneath all those challenges was a £22 billion black hole of in-year spending pressures that were not disclosed by the previous Government to Parliament, the public or the Office for Budget Responsibility—[Interruption.] My colleague the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), seems to have comments on the £22 billion black hole. I will happily take an intervention from him. [Interruption.] I am told that I cannot take an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very sad. But in that context, I look forward to the shadow Chief Secretary outlining in his speech how that £22 billion black hole came into being. \p Nusrat Ghani: For the record, the Minister can take an intervention if he wishes to. This reminds me of the many years all three of us spent on the Business and Trade Committee, when we could not agree on anything either. \p Darren Jones: I was always enamoured of your arguments, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I continue to be today. I look forward to the prospect of many interventions from Members across the House as part of this important debate, and I encourage the shadow Chief Secretary to intervene. \p Richard Fuller: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm whether the OBR validated his £22 billion claim? \p Darren Jones: The OBR was very clear, as Members will see in its publications in the House of Commons Library, that the spending plans announced by the previous Government were—to quote the chair of the OBR in his evidence to the Treasury Committee—a “fiction.” The OBR forecast provided to the Government made it clear that had the in-year spending pressure been reported transparently, the last forecast under the previous Administration would have been “materially different”. That shows that the lack of transparency on in-year spending was a secret held by only a few Ministers in the last Government, and neither the public, Parliament, we in opposition nor the OBR knew about that problem. That is why this Government have already legislated to bring forward additional strengthened powers for independent checks and balances and transparency, and we have committed to sharing in-year spending pressures with the Office for Budget Responsibility so that we never end up in a situation like the one we inherited.

The Chancellor’s autumn Budget put the public finances back on track, and we will keep them there. Our commitment to sound public finances is non-negotiable. Our new charter for Budget responsibility, underpinned by the new fiscal rules, ensures a more transparent fiscal framework and provides a stable foundation for growth. Today I will outline the changes that we have made to the charter for Budget responsibility, as published in draft at the autumn Budget 2024 and laid before this House last week.

Fiscal rules are a key part of the UK fiscal framework. At the autumn Budget in 2024, the Chancellor confirmed the Government’s fiscal rules as set out in our manifesto, which will play a vital role in unlocking investment.  These rules will put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. They consist of two rules: the stability rule and the investment rule.

The stability rule aims to move the current Budget into balance so that day-to-day spending is met by revenues, meaning that the Government will borrow only for investment. We will meet this rule in 2029-30, until that becomes the third year of the forecast. From that point on, we will balance the current Budget in the third year of every Budget, held annually each autumn. This will provide a tougher constraint on day-to-day spending so that difficult decisions cannot be constantly delayed or deferred, as they were under the last Government.

I am sure the House would recommend that the Government should live within their means. That means that public services have to be able to live within their budgets, and it means that tax revenues have to pay for day-to-day spending. Never again will we end up in the position the country ended up in under the last Government, when every week and every month the country borrowed more and more in order to pay the day-to-day bills. That is why when hon. Members on the Opposition Benches complain about the debt burden this country is having to deal with, they should look in the mirror, because they built up that debt burden. The people responsible for filling up the country’s credit card just to pay the bills every month, even in advance of the pandemic, were Conservative Ministers. That will never happen under a Labour Government because of our clear fiscal rules. It is why for the first time in 17 years we are doing a zero-based review of all public spending, not once done under the last Administration but done in the first spending review of this Labour Government.

Secondly, our investment rule requires the Government to reduce net financial debt, defined as public sector net financial liabilities, as a share of the economy. Public sector net financial liabilities is an accredited official statistic, produced by the Office for National Statistics since 2016; based on international statistical guidance, it has been forecast by the OBR since that time. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has noted that the metric offers a

“more complete picture of the Government’s financial position, while removing some of the perverse incentives associated with a narrow focus on PSND”—

public sector net debt.

This rule keeps debt on a sustainable path while allowing the step change needed in investment by targeting a measure of debt that captures not just the debt that Government owe, but financial assets that are expected to generate future returns. By targeting net financial debt for the investment rule, the Government are prioritising investment to drive long-term growth while getting debt falling as a share of the economy.

The move to net financial debt will be supported by a comprehensive set of guardrails to give confidence that there are rules around the investments the country can make. Like our stability rule, our investment rule will apply in 2029-30 until that year becomes the third year of the forecast, and from that point onwards net financial debt will fall in the third year of every forecast.

The move to net financial debt means that at the autumn Budget the Government were in a position to confirm public investment that will be £100 billion  higher over the forecast period compared to the previous Government’s plans. I am pleased to say that in its autumn forecast the OBR confirmed that the Government are on track to meet both fiscal rules two years early, in 2027-28, displaying the Government’s commitment to sound finances.

The Chancellor has asked the OBR to produce a forecast on 26 March, which will assess us against these rules once again. Our commitment to these fiscal rules is iron-clad. The UK has changed its fiscal rules in the past more than any other country, but this Government know that stability matters. That is why the new charter sets out clearer circumstances under which the fiscal rules can temporarily be suspended through a new strengthened escape clause. The new escape clause requires a decision on suspension be supported by the OBR’s analysis so that the rules can be suspended only with sufficient justification.

As well as new fiscal rules, the updated charter for budget responsibility includes a set of wider reforms that ensure a more stable and transparent fiscal framework. Because fiscal responsibility is so central to this Government’s mission, the first piece of legislation passed in this Parliament was the Budget Responsibility act 2024. It delivered our manifesto commitment to introduce a fiscal lock. I do not think Members on either side of the House need reminding of what happens when huge unfunded fiscal commitments are made without proper scrutiny and key economic institutions such as the OBR are sidelined. We will not let that happen again. The fiscal lock therefore guarantees in law that from now on every fiscally significant change to tax and spending will be subject to scrutiny by the independent OBR.

The charter sets out the details of how the fiscal lock will operate. As well as the new guiding fiscal principles to move towards only borrowing for investment and to keep debt on a sustainable path, the OBR will monitor progress against a dashboard of key debt sustainability metrics to ensure the Government are taking a broad view of fiscal sustainability. A broader view will allow the Government to form a full assessment of the sustainability of the public finances and support us in seeking to improve sustainability over time.

We are also enhancing fiscal and economic stability by confirming in the charter today that the Government’s intention to move to one major fiscal event per year will be honoured, giving families and businesses certainty on tax and spending plans, as will the requirement on the Treasury to conduct regular spending reviews every two years and setting spending for at least three years, ensuring public services have certainty on their funding and that spending decisions cannot again be repeatedly delayed. In addition, it guarantees a three-year rolling budget for the OBR, to support its independence. We are further strengthening fiscal transparency and accountability by accepting all the recommendations of the OBR review of the March 2024 forecast for departmental expenditure limits, including to improve the spending information the Treasury shares with the OBR.

The OBR is widely recognised as providing independent, credible and high-quality analysis. It is a guarantor of economic stability. Going forward, the Treasury will provide the OBR with information on the in-year position, allowing it to forecast underspending and overspending  against departmental expenditure limits where appropriate. This will ensure the unfunded pressures identified at the public spending audit never happen again. We are a Government who will consider the impact of our current spending decisions on future generations, and to show how the long-term health of the public balance sheet is bolstered by sound investments, the charter requires the OBR to report on the long-term impact of capital investment and other policies at fiscal events.

Finally, I turn to the welfare cap, which we are also debating today. The Government are retaining the welfare cap within our fiscal framework to support our ambitions to keep welfare spending sustainable in the medium term. The OBR will assess whether the new cap has been met at the first fiscal event of the next Parliament. The latest OBR forecast judged the previous welfare cap to be breached by £8.6 billion, following a trend of forecast breaches by the previous Government. This is clearly an unsustainable path for welfare spending. This breach underlines the inheritance left by the previous Government: a failure to control welfare spending and to bring forward radical reform, and, crucially, a failure by the last Government to support people to get the treatment or skills they need to return to work. \p Jeremy Corbyn: In his assessment, what estimate has the Minister made of the increase in poverty and child poverty in our society and the effects of largely uncontrolled rents in the private rented sector, often well above the local housing allowance, which leads people into poverty? \p Darren Jones: The right hon. Member knows that the Labour party takes child poverty seriously. That is why we launched the child poverty taskforce at the start of this Government, co-chaired by the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Education Secretary, to do a root and branch review of the long-term structural causes of child poverty and the interventions the Government could take to reverse those growing trends that none of us across the House wants to see. The taskforce will report in the coming months, but he is right to point out that housing costs and insecure housing have become ever more important drivers of child poverty in recent years. That is why, through the Renters’ Rights Bill introduced to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister, we are taking action in the private rented sector to provide additional protections and support for families in rental accommodation—for example, banning no-fault evictions and giving more security of tenure for people who are renting.

Like me, the right hon. Member will have had lots of casework where hard-working families, who are just trying to make ends meet and to provide security of income and a roof over their head for them and their families, are failed by a market in which house prices to buy and rent are out of reach and the rate at which we build affordable and social housing is not meeting the demand of the people who need it. That is why we increased funding at the Budget by half a billion pounds to build more affordable and social housing, which we know can be delivered quickly.

On a visit last week to Erewash, I visited social housing developments supported by Homes England and learned from the company building those homes for emh Homes, the east midlands housing association,  that it takes only 14 to 16 weeks from laying the foundations through to giving the key to the person moving in. That reminds us why our reform agenda is so important, because the time involved in building—planning, consenting, infrastructure and financing deals—has been significantly holding back the rate of development of social and affordable housing across the country. Those are exactly the sorts of issues where Government have the ability to make a difference, which is why we are committed to accelerating our plans to build 1.5 million homes a year, but, crucially, to tilting that towards more affordable and social housing to support people across the country.

The Government are resetting the welfare cap, given that the previous one was repeatedly breached, and we are doing so based on the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. That will set a new target for 2029-30, alongside our action to control welfare spending and to help people who deserve the assistance. The Government have demonstrated that they will not shy away from doing what is needed to put welfare spending on a more sustainable path—for example, with different decisions such as targeting winter fuel payments to those who need them the most and reclaiming £4.3 billion of public money lost to fraud and error in the welfare system in 2029-30, and £9.2 billion over five years.

We have also announced steps to tackle inactivity through the “Get Britain Working” White Paper and will set out further proposals in the health and disability Green Paper later in spring. Progress against the cap will be monitored by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. That will include a strengthened accountability framework and the DWP publishing an annual report on welfare spending. By strengthening the accountability of the welfare cap, getting more people into work and reforming the welfare system for long-term sustainability, we are taking the necessary steps to keep spending under control. But crucially, we are also serving the people of this country by ensuring that people who for too long have been at home unable to be seen in the NHS or to get access to mental health services, who have been unable to get the training or support they need to take advantage of the jobs available in our country, and who have been unable to find jobs near where they are, see hope in their futures and know they have a Government on their side who will support them to get back into work. That outcome is better for them, their family finances and their futures, but it also supports us in ensuring fiscal stability.

The reforms to the fiscal framework outlined in the new charter for Budget responsibility will ensure a more stable approach to tax and spend, as well as better transparency and accountability for our Government and future Governments. That stability is inseparable from our plans for growth. Alongside that growth, restoring stability means the Government can pay for increased funding to repair, reform and modernise our public services and to invest in the infrastructure needed to rebuild Britain. For those reasons, I commend the motion to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: To clear up any confusion, this is the debate and motion on the charter for Budget responsibility. The next motion and debate will be on the welfare cap. I call the shadow Minister. \p Richard Fuller: As the Chancellor scours the nation turning over every stone in her desperate effort to mitigate the damage from her choices in last year’s Budget of broken promises, it falls to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to keep his face straight as he lectures the House on the importance of fiscal responsibility. He has shown the performative skills of one of the greats of the west end, but his mouthing of the words of economic stewardship, even as his audience of wealth creators get up out of their seats and leave the show, leaves few of us impressed. They know what the British public know: that this is a Treasury team and a Government who, day after day, create more problems and, day after day, demonstrate that they are clearly out of their depth. \p Darren Jones: As the shadow Minister and, I hope, the House knows, I am a humble man and am always ears-open to advice, wisdom and feedback on how we can do things better. Given his opening remarks on fiscal stability, I wonder whether he has any reflections to offer the House from the time of his party being in government and, indeed, from his time in the Treasury under former Prime Minister Liz Truss about what went wrong and what we might do differently. \p Richard Fuller: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, like so many on the Labour Benches, loves to talk—almost fondly—about the former Prime Minister Liz Truss. Well, at least she knew her time was up after 50 days; we are stuck with the Chancellor for five years.

When it was noted a few months back that the entire Labour Cabinet could barely scrape together a year’s worth of business experience between them, it was thought to be just a curiosity. Little did we know it was an early warning sign of their lack of suitability for the task of managing the British economy: business confidence down, job losses up, consumer confidence in the gutter and Government debt spiralling further upwards—and they are just getting started.

There are, of course, potential benefits from the investments that are being announced today. We share a desire for a more competitive, less regulated economy based on a passion for free enterprise, but while Labour celebrates the exodus of millionaires from our country, we recognise that it represents a loss of skills, lower job creation, and the evaporation of potential future taxation to support public services. While Labour sees the attack on family farms and family businesses as a vital part of its warped class-war ideology, we recognise that putting family at the heart of enterprise is a critical piece of our nation’s proud heritage of freedom. \p Daisy Cooper: The shadow Minister talks fondly about the importance of family farms. Where were his comments on that topic when his party was negotiating trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that have sorely impacted farms around the country? \p Richard Fuller: My friend, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on economics, makes a fair point about the impact of trade agreements on family finances. However, as she knows, that is very different from the pain that farmers are feeling right now about Labour’s attack on  the ability of families to pass on their farm to their children—it is different in scale and in type. It is a damaging policy by the Labour party that we know, or at least hope, that Labour will change in due course.

I am sure that today, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is also engaged in a series of phone conversations with his departmental colleagues as, ahead of the March update on the OBR’s financial forecast, they review what it will mean for their departmental expenditures. As he has those difficult phone conversations, I say to the Chief Secretary that we stand ready to support effective steps on prudent financial responsibility. \p Darren Jones: On the point of prudent financial responsibility—[Interruption.] I think the House is interested in a long and detailed debate this evening, so it is important that we dive into the details. On this issue of prudent fiscal responsibility, the hon. Gentleman presumably welcomes our fiscal rule that day-to-day costs will be met by revenues, as opposed to having to borrow money all the time to pay those day-to-day costs. That is something that consistently happened under the last Conservative Administration, which was a mistake in the context of fiscal responsibility, was it not? \p Richard Fuller: I am aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is interested in a prolonged debate today—I am not sure whether that is because of the content of the debate, or for other reasons. I would say gently to him that writing rules is different from following rules, so he will be judged by this House on how he meets the rules that he has set. My purpose today is to cover some of those rules, and I will have some comments on them, but first, although we will be having a separate debate on the welfare cap, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made some points about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) will respond formally on that issue, so these are just my thoughts, really.

The welfare cap, of course, was introduced in 2014 by Conservative Chancellor George Osborne, who recognised the particular difficulties with forecasting and managing certain welfare budgets. At the 2014 Budget, he explained his rationale:

“Britain should always be proud of having a welfare system that helps those most in need, but never again should we allow its costs to spiral out of control and its incentives to become so distorted that it pays not to work. In future, any Government who want to spend more on benefits will have to be honest with the public about the costs, will need the approval of Parliament, and will be held to account by this permanent cap on welfare.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 785.]

George Osborne’s initiative has shown its value over the past decade, and it is right that the new Government are following its intent in principle and, one hopes, also in practice. Our task today is to listen to the explanations for the breaching of the welfare cap for fiscal year 2024-25 and the rationale for the particular limits that the Chief Secretary’s Government will set on the welfare cap for future fiscal years through 2029-30.

As the Chief Secretary said, in October, as part of the first Budget of the Parliament, the OBR provided its assessment of the status of welfare spending compared with the cap that was set in 2024. That assessment was  an excess of £8.6 billion, which indicated a breach. With the country now spending over £156 billion on welfare every year and with the obvious pressures on public expenditure, there should be a determination to find savings in the welfare budget. Indeed, that was the intention of the Conservative party at the last election, with a commitment to reduce expenditure by £12 billion through better targeting of disability benefits, amending the levels of payments for those whose disabilities would not routinely be expected to lead to additional life expenses, overhauling the fit note process, and introducing tougher sanctions on those who shirk the opportunity to work and contribute to society.

But the Labour Government today appear to be set on a different course, with a pathway for the welfare cap that is up, not down, growing from this year’s cap of £137 billion to reach £195 billion by 2029-30. That is a 42% increase in the welfare cap. It is important to note that at the same point in the last Parliament, when the Conservative party set the rules on the welfare cap, that increase was limited to 15%. \p Darren Jones: rose— \p Richard Fuller: That difference between 15% and 42% is important, is it not? \p Darren Jones: It is important. I think we should reflect on what some of the drivers are behind the increased spend in the welfare budget, because the evidence is very clear. For people who can be—and indeed wish to be—economically active but are in receipt of universal credit support and other forms of payment, the main reasons are being unable to get access to the treatment they need in the health and mental health services space or being unable to access training opportunities for the jobs that are available in the market. Without diving too much into the weeds, that is the issue about the difference between the approach to austerity in day-to-day resource spending—where we cut spending to frontline public services—and annually managed expenditure. \p Richard Fuller: That is all very well, but the Chief Secretary is talking about the wrong budget. He is talking about increases to the health budget or changes to aspects of the DWP budget; he is not talking about why this Government are allowing an increase of up to 42% in welfare payments in this country. That is a different issue. It shows laxity on the part of the Government. Serious questions need to be asked, and I am sure will be asked, in the next debate.

Let me return to the charter for budget responsibility, which was established by former Chancellor George Osborne as part of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. On Second Reading, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury explained why the measure was necessary:

“We inherited the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history, we inherited a budget deficit forecast to be the largest in the G20, and we inherited the largest structural deficit in the whole of Europe.”—[Official Report, 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 746.]

She did not have to make up numbers, as this Government have done, about some fanciful black hole; these were facts, and my former colleague, Justine Greening, was telling the truth to the nation.

Indeed, truth is the foundation upon which any charter for budget responsibility is based. Let me be clear: when the Chancellor said on 13 November 2023 that she was

“not going to fiddle the figures or make something to get different results”,

the fiscal rules included in this charter demonstrate that she was not telling the truth. In this charter, the Chancellor has changed the rules on the measurement of debt from public sector net debt, or PSND, excluding the Bank of England, to public sector net financial liabilities, or PSNFL. This fiddling of the figures opened the taps for the Chancellor to borrow more, even while our debt to GDP ratio stands at historically high levels following the pandemic and the Ukraine war.

The Guardian newspaper, which I am sure the Chief Secretary reads avidly, reported on 24 October 2024 that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), the former Conservative Chancellor, had acted similarly to the current Chancellor, his fiscal headroom would have ballooned from £9 billion to £49 billion, but he knew better than the current Chancellor.

The Chancellor has even had to create her own name for things, just so that she can claim she is getting debt falling. She said in her Budget statement that she will call PSNFL

“net financial debt, for short.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 823.]

The reality is that the proper measure of Government debt, as per the previous fiscal rules, is rising in every single year of the forecast. The OBR has confirmed that on the previous definition, which she had said she would keep to, the fiscal rules are being broken. At the last election, Labour said it would get debt falling, and the Government continue to claim that they are delivering that. They are doing nothing of the sort. Let us be very clear: debt is rising, and it is forecast to continue to rise. We will be spending nearly £50 billion more on debt interest over the next five years as a result of their first Budget alone.

There are also concerns about the rolling three-year targets for the rule that the current Budget should be in surplus and the rule that debt—the Government’s dubious definition of debt—should be falling as a share of the economy. Like the water and fruit for Tantalus, the rules permit these reasonable targets to remain just out of reach every time—they are always there but never met. To extend my similes, the charter rules are to the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary as St Augustine regarded self-control: “Grant me chastity and self-control, but not yet.”

The charter begins on shakier ground with a weaker Treasury team, but it remains an important part of our country’s fiscal framework. Under the rules of the House, the motion is not amendable, so we shall not oppose the measure. We do need fiscal rules, but we condemn the Government’s approach of fiddling the figures to add more borrowing. They promised that they would not, but, as so many times before, they have broken their promises once again. \p Matt Rodda: It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate and something of a privilege to be the only Back-Bench speaker. I shall make a series of points, including welcoming the  Chancellor’s commitment to growth and the announcements that she made today before moving on to a number of other areas.

I commend what the Chancellor said this morning in Oxfordshire and, in particular, what she said about the importance of investment in infrastructure for the long term, whether in transport, new powers to streamline the planning process or indeed attracting more tech investment to the UK. My Reading Central constituency and the whole of Berkshire benefits enormously from such investment, so I wholeheartedly welcome her announcements and commend her for her work on that.

If I may, I will somewhat cheekily ask the Chief Secretary to take a few points back to the Chancellor. In our area, we are looking for further investment to drive economic growth. I will highlight a couple of points of local importance. In particular, the western rail link to Heathrow scheme is supported by all Berkshire MPs and colleagues from across a much wider area. Heathrow airport is unusual in being a hub airport in western Europe without a rail link in both directions. A number of local authorities, parliamentary colleagues and the rail industry have pushed for this measure, which, compared with some points discussed in the Chancellor’s speech and more widely in the House this afternoon, would require only modest investment. A short stretch of railway line from Langley, just outside Slough, into the airport, where space for a station already exists, would significantly cut journey times for workers at the airport, commuters and many others, and attract business to Berkshire. The scheme is supported by local business groups.

To give an idea of the importance to Reading, at the moment it takes around 50 minutes from Reading station to travel to Heathrow by bus, but it would be just 15 minutes with a rail link. Many of the firms relocating to the Reading area from across the country would be encouraged further by that and have far greater connectivity to international markets through swift access to Heathrow. Equally, it would appeal to inward investors coming to our part of England. There would be an additional benefit—the Chief Secretary may know well know about this—for travellers from the west of England and south Wales in vastly speeding up their journeys to Heathrow airport. I want to flag that up to him.

May I ask the Chief Secretary to relay to the Chancellor my wholehearted support for the Oxford-Cambridge corridor? The area that I represent sits at the south-western edge of that corridor. Given the excellent rail and road connections between Reading, Berkshire and Oxford—it takes as little as 25 minutes to get from Reading town centre to Oxford city centre by rail—that route could extend the corridor, which will run through Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire, as the Chancellor highlighted. Indeed, the rail corridor into Berkshire and through southern Oxfordshire passes Culham, an area of significant science investment that was formerly the site of the UK and Europe’s Joint European Torus project. It also runs through Didcot, which is a major centre of inward investment, as well as to Reading. There would be enormous benefit to residents and businesses in Oxfordshire and to businesses in Berkshire if that were seen as a whole, rather than the line stopping in Oxford. I hope that he will take that back to his colleagues.

I appreciate that many colleagues may want to speak later on the welfare cap motion, so I will limit my remarks and not stray too far. I would, however, like to  describe some of the benefits to the Berkshire local economy of the stability that the Chief Secretary outlined. We have a fundamentally strong local economy; we are lucky to have high levels of growth relative to other parts of the UK. We face the same challenges as areas from across the country, which he outlined earlier: the importance of stability and long-term investment, and making sure that businesses understand that there is stability so that they invest and spend their own money creating jobs.

Let me draw out some examples from local businesses. I represent a constituency that has high tech and telecoms employment. Something like 300,000 people work in those sectors in the county of Berkshire. In Reading, there is a significant cluster near the station, which has been fostered not just by the rebuilding of the station but by Reading being the western terminus of the Elizabeth line. That has led to a significant number of employers moving to the town centre. It is a good example of the benefits of investment that the Chancellor talked about earlier, and of the importance of high-speed rail and other improvements to rail and public transport, to connect major centres of employment and allow employers to recruit from a much wider pool. That is exactly the message I have been told when visiting employers in that area. They have based themselves near the station because they can access a much wider pool of workers with higher levels of skill, and that drives productivity and growth in their business. There are strong local examples which, at microeconomic level, make the point that the Chief Secretary has made today.

Let me also draw the House’s attention to the importance of education, which the Chief Secretary hinted at, to managing public finances. In my experience, having a university in the constituency is a huge driver of economic activity, particularly for creating a skilled workforce, who often wish to remain in the constituency. That is certainly the case for many places the Chancellor described in her speech, particularly the great university cities of Oxford and Cambridge. It also applies to London and many other centres such as Manchester.

Higher education is central. It must be linked with employment and offer the right programmes to attract a wider range of young people into higher education. It was a privilege to meet staff at Reading University recently. They briefed me on some of their work to encourage young people from families who traditionally might not have thought about going to university to consider higher education at their local university. That is an important part of the bigger picture. I commend the Chief Secretary for his wider approach on the importance of investment and stability linked to investment, in transport infrastructure, as well as IT and tech infrastructure such as data centres, and a range of other forms of infrastructure.

Let me move on to some of the points made earlier. It is important to note that we are at a turning point. We have had a long period of low growth. The Government are right to make growth their top priority, to move on from 14 years of historically low growth compared with the UK average over the past 40 or 50 years and going back to the industrial revolution. The Chief Secretary rightly made the connection between growth and investment, and so did the Chancellor today.

I welcome and wholeheartedly support the Chancellor’s emphasis on releasing pension savings to drive economic growth. That has been a successful policy both in Canada and in Australia. Although they are much bigger countries and have more natural resources, they have significant similarities to the UK—the benefit of English common law and many other historical advantages of our system and history. There are some important points to be made on that front. Above all, we must avoid the mistakes of recent years—the instability, the disastrous mini-Budget, the gambling with public finances and the lack of transparency.

The Chief Secretary is right to commend this charter today. I will draw out two particular points to flag to the House that I think are vital. The first is reporting on capital investment, which is an important measure in the charter. The second is in-year pressures, which, from the point of view of managing public finances, is vital. As he rightly said, it will allow policymakers much greater insight into what is happening in near-real time, which is important in avoiding future problems. I commend those measures.

In summary, the macro-level changes that we have described today will do a great deal to support my local small business, as well as larger investors coming into my constituency. I wholeheartedly support and welcome the measures set out today, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: The charter for budget responsibility is at the heart of the OBR’s function, setting the Government’s fiscal rules, as well as the OBR’s broader remit and how it is to perform its duties. It is important to stress just how vital the OBR is for the sound management of our public finances and for the UK’s economic stability.

I am very proud that the OBR was set up during my party’s time in office, and the Liberal Democrats have backed it at every turn since. In our most recent general election manifesto we said that every fiscal event should be accompanied by an OBR report, and we are pleased that this Government are taking the same approach. We also called on the Government at the time to establish the OBR to assess general election manifestos independently.

Unfortunately, commitment to the OBR as an institution cannot be taken for granted, as we have seen over the past few years. We saw Liz Truss’s Conservative Government sideline the independent watchdog at the mini-Budget and cast doubt on its forecasts at every turn. Equally unfortunately, we all witnessed the consequences: soaring interest rates, sky-high mortgage bills and a spike in the cost of servicing our national debt. We Liberal Democrats are crystal clear that we can never have a repeat of that debacle. \p Matt Rodda: The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Will she also reflect on the disastrous impacts on pensions savings, and particularly on people who were drawing their defined contribution pensions at that point in time? Some of my constituents had awful experiences, which they relayed to me. \p Daisy Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that many people were impacted by the mini-Budget in different ways. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from a sedentary position from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). Those on the Conservative Benches may want to forget the impact of the mini-Budget, but many of our constituents across the country continue to live with the consequences.

In the run-up to the Labour Government’s Budget, we Liberal Democrats welcomed one of the Government’s new fiscal rules—namely, the switch to public sector net financial liabilities as the targeted measure of debt. We are pleased that the Chancellor made a change that will create more room for productive public investment, while also making a commitment that debt as a share of GDP should keep falling. We Liberal Democrats have long recognised the need to boost public investment in a responsible way, and we are glad that the Government have moved in that direction.

However, as we debate the new charter, it is also worth reflecting on how fiscal rules are treated in our politics more broadly. Although they are absolutely necessary for economic stability, there is too often a sense that fiscal targets can be arbitrary and that they are chosen based on what is convenient for each Government; previous Conservative Chancellors changed the fiscal rules five times in seven years between 2015 and 2022. What often seems to be lacking throughout the process is a sober, pragmatic dialogue about what the best fiscal rules are for our economy, for everything from growth and investment to jobs and net zero—a discussion perhaps ideally not affected by politics, but focused on what is right for our economy.

Notwithstanding that, and although I hope we will all agree to these changes in the borrowing rules, the costs of borrowing clearly rely on good economic management, which, in turn, as the Chief Secretary said, relies on stability. Borrowing costs have gone up in part due to events abroad, but they have also risen because of the Government’s jobs tax, the uncertainty over their business rates reform and the impact that that will have on small businesses. It is therefore clearly important that we recognise that any changes to productive borrowing must go hand in hand with the responsible management of day-to-day spending and tax changes.

A second point, which I made in an earlier debate around the time of the Budget, is that although the Liberal Democrats welcome productive borrowing for investment, we recognise that the Government’s headroom is quite slim. Will the Minister be able to offer a word or two about which measures the Government are taking to ensure that we have a resilient economy that can withstand any external shocks? We live in a very uncertain world. There are rumours of trade wars and tariffs, and God forbid we have another pandemic. It is only by having a resilient economy that we can withstand unpredictable external shocks.

There are several elements in the charter that we support, and we do not want to stand in its way, but I express the hope that, from here on in, we may be able to adopt an approach to fiscal rules that is more pragmatic, open and grounded in what is best for our British economy. \p Darren Jones: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for this afternoon’s debate. I will reflect on some of their questions and comments in winding up the debate.

To begin, I can provide assurance to the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). He was concerned that the Labour party had misled the public. There could not be anything further from the truth. In the manifesto, the wording was very clear. We would have two fiscal rules: first, to bring day-to-day spending in line with receipts; and secondly, that debt would fall as a share of the economy. Those are our fiscal rules. Now, he is right that we defined debt at the Budget, but that did not change the fiscal rule. The fiscal rule is that debt should be falling as a share of the economy. That is the fiscal rule. [Interruption.] It is the fiscal rule; there is no debate about it. It is as clear as the letters on a page. As was alluded to in the debate, the Chancellor chose a well-established metric for debt—PSNFL, public sector net financial liabilities—which recognises the fact that a competent Government can invest in the country and get a return for the taxpayer. \p Richard Fuller: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is making a bizarre comment. The point is that the Chancellor stated in 2023 that she would not fiddle the figures. She has now changed the numbers. The definition of debt for public sector net debt excluding the Bank of England is different from her PSNFL. They are different. It enables the Chancellor to borrow more. That is fiddling the figures to achieve an objective. It is not the same, and she did not tell the truth when she said that she would not fiddle the figures. \p Darren Jones: That is a very strong accusation, which I refute in the strongest terms. The Chancellor was very clear that debt would be falling as a share of the economy. That is the fiscal rule. As predicted by the OBR, we will deliver on that promise. It is right that the Chancellor chose at the Budget to define debt as public sector net financial liabilities. The big question is why. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said, it is because having a Government with stability and competence at their core means that we are borrowing not to pay for out of control day-to-day spending, which I think everyone in the House would agree is an unsustainable path to higher debt burdens, but instead borrowing responsibly within guard rails for investments, predominantly alongside the private sector, to enable, for example, infrastructure delivery across the country or investment in businesses, for example, through the national wealth fund.

The reason that the public sector net financial liabilities debt rule is important in that context is because it reflects the fact that, where Government have an equity stake or have provided debt for non-commercial terms, there is a rate of return. The taxpayer receives some of the benefit of that investment and growth in the economy, which I am sure we would all welcome. There is the important difference about the type of debt. Under the last Administration, debt was spiralling out of control because the last Government could not pay their day-to-day bills. Everybody knows, whether they are running their household finances or the country’s finances, that that is not a sustainable thing to do.

That has changed under this Government. Debt will be for productive investment only and day-to-day costs will be met by revenues. Yes, that means that public services have to live within their means, and often that means difficult discussions in the spending review that I have to conduct with Secretaries of State, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. However, all of us around the Cabinet table recognise not only the non-negotiable nature of the fiscal rules, which are the foundation of economic stability, but the prize of the modernisation and reform of our public services. He will have heard the Prime Minister and other Secretaries of State talk about just that fact. There is a huge amount of opportunity to achieve better outcomes for people at lower cost, not just through basic technology but by improving the way we deliver public services. That means delivering services designed around the person and how they wish to interact with the Government. It means that people can receive support from different Departments and different functions, and they can receive the information they need at the time they need it.

Let me give one example. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove)—just north of my Bristol North West constituency—I visited a community diagnostic centre. The CDC programme began under the last Administration, but we have committed ourselves to it. The provider works in partnership with the NHS trust, charging exactly the same rate as the hospital for a diagnostic scan. The company involved does not make profits in comparison with the hospital costs; it is the same NHS tariff rate. People can have MRI and CT scans, gastroscopies, and other tests. The centre is attached to a branch of Asda and there is plenty of free parking.

I asked the owners, “Why are you able to charge the same rates as the hospital in my constituency while running this service more effectively?” They said, “We are open for 14 hours a day from Monday to Saturday and for 12 hours on Sunday, we sweat the assets more than a hospital can, and we have new bits of kit with AI that are more productive to use”—which is why the Health Secretary wants to roll those out across the NHS. They also said that the customer service was the key driver for productivity, because customers could book their appointments and move them if necessary, they could visit the centre after work, and they could go there between shopping trips. Essentially, the service has been designed around the patient. Patients turn up pretty much all the time, and they are never not able to do so. That is just one example of the way we are modernising public services. \p Daisy Cooper: The Chief Secretary has given a fantastic example of how improving capital infrastructure in the NHS can improve productivity, but one of the big frustrations in the NHS is the fact that staff cannot be productive because the buildings around them are falling apart. I have seen that in Watford General hospital, where A&E staff cannot be as productive as they might be because they are in a crumbling, cramped hospital. Has the Treasury considered conducting any assessment of the productivity gains that could be produced by the new hospital programme, and by potentially speeding up the delivery of those hospitals? \p Darren Jones: The Health Secretary is actively working on this. There are huge opportunities, not just in the NHS but in the Department for Work and Pensions where my right hon. and hon. Friends are working, and throughout Government as a whole. Imagine having a jobcentre in your pocket, on your phone, where you can gain access to the support that you need—as opposed to services that are often out of town or not available when you are available, and where there are difficult processes to go through. That is not great for the people who work in those services. They are there to serve the public, but they are not helped to achieve the right outcomes for people.

This Government are committed to reform but also to investment, because we can achieve better outcomes for people and reduce the cost of running public services in the long run. We are committed to unlocking investment, whether it is through the PSNFL debt definition for infrastructure and businesses or, as a consequence, freeing up public sector grants for public sector investment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) made a number of excellent points. I am pleased that he is supportive of the commitments made by the Chancellor today to back the Heathrow plans and the enormous opportunity presented by the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. He gave the great example of his local technology and telecoms cluster and its development around rail infrastructure, including extra capacity on the Elizabeth line. It is a classic and probably obvious example: if rail and other transport infrastructure is built, people will come and invest in lab spaces, offices and homes. That is why the Chancellor made such a strong commitment today to get infrastructure built and enable private sector investment.

My hon. Friend also made a good point about the role of universities. Our universities sector is one of our great strengths. We have a number of world-leading universities, as well as the brilliant universities that are teaching and carrying out research in every part of our country. These are often the engines of economic growth in their regions, and also the gateway to opportunity for many people. \p Jeremy Corbyn: The Chief Secretary has referred to the great benefit of infrastructure projects. The Elizabeth line is a very good example of that, but it was way over budget and very late, and the same applies to HS2 and most other big infrastructure projects. What plans do the Government have in that regard? Later we will discuss the welfare cap, an attempt to control welfare spending for the next five years. Does the same cap apply to infrastructure projects? \p Darren Jones: I thank the right hon. Member for his question, because he invites me to talk the House through our infrastructure strategy. For the first time, we are bringing together Government plans on economic infrastructure, housing and social infrastructure in the same place. It means that when we go through the spending review in the Treasury, working with colleagues across Whitehall, we will be much better than the previous Government at taking place-based decisions. In the past, it was a bilateral discussion between a Department and the Treasury, with no dots being connected between different types of infrastructure. That has led to the failure to capture the growth potential in different places.

We will take a different approach and make sure that infrastructure investments relating to public investment are capped by the numbers set out in the Budget. That is the spending envelope that we have, and we have to prioritise those investments, but they will be based on driving growth and opportunity for people in the places in which they live.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central made a great point about the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, the role of connecting some of our great universities, and unleashing the opportunity that exists between them. As I said to the House earlier, the living connectivity arrangements between Oxford and Cambridge are basically non-existent. By connecting these two hubs of innovation and investment, the opportunities are endless. \p Richard Fuller: I have to be careful, because I have a significant constituency interest in this issue, but I want to ask a more general question about the role of infrastructure investments and the fiscal rules. East West Rail’s proposal to complete the railway line had a benefit-cost ratio of 0.3 in its last business case: building it would basically lose 70p of every pound of taxpayers’ money. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury regard that as a loss? If not, will there be a business case that shows that the project has a benefit-cost ratio that does not lose taxpayers’ money? \p Darren Jones: That is a great question. All these infrastructure opportunities will go through both value-for-money assessments and growth assessments. The argument that we have been making today is that initiating projects such as the East West Rail line in a co-ordinated way with private capital, universities and our house building plans lifts the growth opportunities that come from those projects. That is why Patrick Vallance has been appointed as the champion of the growth corridor. We will take a whole-corridor view on the investments and the opportunities across different investments, regardless of whether they are public or private, but they will all have to go through value-for-money and growth assessments.

The infrastructure strategy will be a 10-year strategy. It will give a long-term view on economic, housing and social infrastructure, but they will be underpinned by longer-term capital budgets. The capital budget that we will set in June will be for four years, until 2029-30, but the normal approach, as set out in the charter, will be that the capital budgets will be for five years. As the House knows, we have committed to doing the next spending review every subsequent two years. In 2027, when we conduct the next spending review, we will have the 10-year infrastructure strategy but also pretty much 10 years of capital budgets being allocated for those projects. That is a hugely important signal to investors.

We are working with industry and investors on what the biannual pipeline might look like, so that we can publish in real terms the investable propositions, but also so that businesses know that work is coming if they invest in their supply chain or their workforce. That is a crucial part of unlocking investment in skills and training in our country. Much like we have just seen in the water industry, which has agreed a longer-term investment settlement, suppliers are already telling us that they are now able to invest in staff, training and capabilities,  because they know that the flow of investment will be coming over a period of time. We are seeking to do that across a range of infrastructure in order to unlock the investment that this country needs. \p Matt Rodda: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend some further questions on the points he is making. The Elizabeth line demonstrates the case that he is making for the importance of place-based investment and the way in which houses, flats and businesses have been built near stations. There has been a combination of public and private investment in the project, which is arguably part of its success. So I welcome the points he is making about the longevity of the infrastructure investment, the role of the joint investment or co-ordinated investment with the private sector and, above all, the place-based nature of this. The role of Patrick Vallance, in particular, is an important one in that corridor. I would also urge my right hon. Friend again to look at the far ends of the corridor, both at the Oxfordshire and Berkshire end and also possibly towards Norwich and further into East Anglia. I know that a former Minister in the previous Government has been highlighting the potential benefits of investment along rail in East Anglia. \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He reminds me that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked me about broader reform to ensure that infrastructure is delivered differently from how it has been in the past, and I would point the House to the action that Ministers have already taken to call in projects that have been gummed up in the system for a long time, which we have allowed to take place, and also to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will be presented to the House in due course, which will show the level of ambition this Government have for streamlining planning and consenting processes so that we can get things built. As I have already mentioned, I think today in the House, the fact that we can build a house for someone in 14 to 16 weeks but it seems to take years to get planning approved shows the size of the prize for delivering for people across the country.

I will end by thanking the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans, for her comments and for reminding the House why this debate matters and why the fiscal rules matter. Because, as we saw under the last Administration, this is not an obscure debate here in the House of Commons, or a kind of Whitehall guidance debate; this is important to people’s lives, because when Governments lose control of the economy nationally, it hits family finances.

We all know from talking to our constituents how stressful it was when the Conservative party lost control of the economy and when inflation went through the roof. It had a direct impact on people’s mortgages and on their ability to buy a house. So many people lost their mortgage offers overnight because of the actions of the last Government. It also affected people in the private rented sector when their landlords increased the rent, and because no-fault evictions were allowed under the last Government, many people lost their homes. This fundamental insecurity in people’s lives stems from the actions of politicians here in Government.

That is why the fiscal rules are so important and why the Chancellor—and indeed the whole Government—are so iron-clad in their commitment to them. That is why  the fiscal rules are non-negotiable. [Interruption.] Shadow Ministers on the Conservative Benches laugh, but I would encourage them to meet some of our constituents and to explain why their actions led to such hardship for them. I have not even started to talk about the cost of energy bills or the food inflation that we are still struggling with today, directly as a consequence of the mismanagement of the economy under the last Administration. The sooner the Conservatives—should they wish to receive advice from me—apologise for the consequences of their actions, the sooner the public might start to listen to them again.

But while they are listening to this Labour Government, I can reassure hon. and right hon. Members in the House today that the fiscal rules are non-negotiable. They are the bedrock of economic stability. They enable us to invest in our public services in a sustainable way, to secure growth in the economy and, ultimately, as set out in the Prime Minister’s plan for change, to deliver for working people so that they will know in the years ahead that life is better under a Labour Government than it is under a Conservative Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved. \p Judith Cummins: With the permission of the House, the motions relating to the welfare cap will be debated together. \p Alison McGovern: I beg to move,

That, pursuant to the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2022 update, which was approved by this House on 6 February 2023 under section 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, this House agrees that the forecast breach of the welfare cap in 2024–25 due to higher forecast expenditure on Universal Credit and disability benefits is justified and that no further debate will be required in relation to this specific breach. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:

That the level of the welfare cap, as specified in the Autumn Budget 2024, which was laid before this House on 30 October 2024, be approved. \p Alison McGovern: Before this Government were elected, we said that we would change this country, and we will. To get change done, any Government have to stand on firm foundations, which is why, as we have just heard from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, we promised to be responsible with the public’s money. We know that every penny counts in this mission, because if we fail to protect the public purse, we fail to protect the purses of the public. Family finances can never withstand fantasy economics.

That was supposed to be the whole point of the welfare cap. It was designed to help better control public spending, counting the cost of the rising price of failure. I will come to some of the failures we are now seeing and the people thrown on the scrapheap as a result of the failure of 14 years of economic policy, particularly on the labour market.

The welfare cap was intended to ensure that the cost of important parts of the social security system, such as universal credit—though not counting those actively looking for work—the personal independence payment and pension credit, remains predictable and affordable. Only the state pension and benefits for unemployed households were excluded.

What was the result of a decade of Conservative welfare caps? Repeated breaches of the cap, with ever higher limits. The latest cap is now on course to be breached by an £8.6 billion overspend. This is not tolerable, given the state of our economy and the public finances.[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 5WC.] (Correction)

Worse still, there is the human cost for every single person who could be enjoying the benefits of work but has been denied the choices and chances they deserve. I regularly meet people in that position. There is the young person who has not recovered from the dreadful legacy of the pandemic—not in college, not starting their first job, barely even able to go out with friends, and bearing the burden of the mental health crisis that our young people face. I believe the pandemic generation was completely let down.

There are our older relatives who have been pushed out of work before their time with hip or knee pain. The NHS is just not able to help them at the moment, and they are not even getting advice about how to make ends meet. That is the legacy we inherited, and it is not  good enough for anybody. It is also the legacy of low growth, the higher cost of living and high inactivity, with employment and social security systems ill equipped to meet the requirements of an older, sicker nation. That is the Conservative party’s record.

Unfortunately, this breach—forecast as far back as March 2023 but ignored—is now wholly unavoidable in this fiscal year, given the scale of failure we have inherited. We will not duck the difficult decisions needed to restore economic stability, and we will deal with the failure we see before us.

Before I say how we will do that, I want to reflect on exactly how we ended up in this situation. The sad truth is that, in way too many parts of the country, too many people are denied the opportunity to have a good job so that they can support themselves and put a roof over their family’s heads.

The benefits bill only reflects that failure, with 2.8 million people locked out of the workforce due to poor health, and 3.4 million more working-age people reporting a long-term health condition than 10 years ago. We have large numbers of people turning up to a social security system that is not geared up to meet what has become the greatest unemployment challenge of a generation. \p Alistair Strathern: My hon. Friend is doing a compelling job of setting out the damning state of the welfare system we inherited when we took charge. Does she agree that investment in the NHS, so that people finally have the healthcare support they need, is fundamental to making sure they can get back to work, contribute as they would like and build a secure future for themselves and their family? \p Alison McGovern: The NHS is the bedrock that ensures people can thrive and contribute to society, economically and in every other way. We also need to ensure that the health support people get is the right support. At the moment, we are not doing enough on occupational therapies and other things that provide health support tailored to people’s work. We will have more to say about that in the near future, I am sure.

A huge number of people are turning to a social security system that is not geared up to meet the huge employment challenge. At the moment, social security cannot cope. Hon. Members may ask themselves how on earth we got to this place, after 14 years of so-called benefits crackdowns by the Conservatives. Well, I invite everybody to look at their record. When universal credit was introduced 12 years ago, the Government of the day made all sorts of promises. They said it would

“break the cycle of benefit dependency”

and offer

“greater incentives to find a job”.

The former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), said that universal credit

“will ensure that work always pays and is seen to pay”,

but what have we seen since? A disastrous series of wrong-headed choices that have achieved precisely the opposite effect.

New data, which we are publishing today for the first time, shows the extent of the effects of universal credit on incapacity benefits. There has been increase of 800,000  people receiving incapacity benefits between 2018 and 2023. Around 10% of that increase is because of the rising state pension age and another 10% because of the way changes were made in the move from employment support allowance and other benefits to universal credit, a situation that should have been foreseen and planned for by the previous Government. That leaves an increase of over 500,000 people, to which I will now turn. The Conservatives need to take a long hard look at the changes they made to universal credit.

We must consider how people transitioned between the “looking for work” group in the universal credit health journey, where they are told that they have limited capacity to do any work or work-related activity, to “actively looking for work”. How did people move between being told they cannot work and being told to actively look for work? People moving between those two groups used to receive a top-up to their benefits, but that was removed in 2017, creating a hard barrier between those categorised as incapable for work and those looking for work. In addition, there was a four-year freeze to the rates of universal credit in the late 2010s, except the highest tier of health-related benefits. As a result, the income of those trying to find work was squeezed, and the barrier between those on universal credit actively looking for work and those who had been told that they were unable to work was hardened.

We have seen a steady rise in the number of people on the highest tier of health benefits, where there are no requirements to look for work or to get any help to make the steps on that journey, and no support to find jobs when many people actually want to work. All the while, there have been more and more conditions and box ticking in a system that has failed.

Social security was designed to smooth people’s incomes over time and to take account of life events that could happen to any of us, but the result of all the changes is that either by design or mismanagement—probably both—the previous Government created a social security system that segregated people away from work and forgot about them. There was no helping back to work, and only the promise that they would be left alone.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that

“the wider benefits system—in particular the conditionality and generosity associated with incapacity benefits relative to other parts of the system—has affected incapacity benefits flows over time”.

Unfortunately, that situation, created by the last Government, is far from the only problem, because social security will only ever function where the Government take their wider duties seriously. \p Jeremy Corbyn: On the point of support for people who are on benefits, the Social Security Act 1986 ended the requirement on the now Department for Work and Pensions to provide advice and welfare support to people. Will it now be the policy of the DWP to automatically offer advice and support to people on the benefits they are entitled to claim, or to give more support to voluntary advice agencies so that people get what they are entitled to? \p Alison McGovern: We published in November an extensive reform programme for the Department to get Britain working. We showed how in some parts of the country—I will come to this in more detail shortly—people have been abandoned and their labour market has not supported enough good jobs for a very long time.  We showed how, by acting on better health and better local support services, we will reintroduce ambition into our support services.

We want to help people get into a job that will support their family finances and help our economy thrive. We have a huge change programme underway in the Department for Work and Pensions, and we will be doing even more than we set out in that White Paper. The challenge is huge, but the potential is also massive. I worry about everybody who is out of work, but particularly our young people, who have effectively been thrown on the scrapheap. It is a disaster now in exactly the same way that it was a disaster, brought about by the economic turbulence that I grew up in, in the 1980s, which is the period the right hon. Member refers to. We will therefore take the challenge of restoring employment—proper employment—in this country extremely seriously.

In doing that, I want to talk about the Government’s wider responsibilities, not just in reforming the social security system but far beyond that. You will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I return to the founding document of our social security system, the Beveridge report. In 1942, William Beveridge identified the

“establishment of comprehensive health and rehabilitation services, and maintenance of employment…as necessary conditions of success”

in social security.

That lesson is forgotten again and again in this country, and we will never have a social security system that functions well unless we have an NHS that works and we maintain policies designed to move towards full employment. Social security cannot soak up every single problem in this country if the Government forget their wider responsibilities. I note that the Beveridge report considered the consequences of war and the injury to the nation that that had brought about. In many ways, we ought to learn the lessons of the pandemic: that the health of the nation can never be taken for granted and that, in setting us on the right path in terms of both health and employment, we can plot a course towards a more sustainable future. As I have said, is it any wonder that our social security system is broken given the health of the nation, given what we have been through and given the last Government’s neglect of the NHS and the state of our labour market?

To look backwards again for a moment, we know that in our country’s economic history, we had periods when whole towns and cities were deindustrialised and left to fend for themselves. Economies simply failed, and while great progress has been made, including in my constituency, in my city region in Merseyside and in other places whose economies have moved on greatly since that time, sadly, too many have never properly recovered. As a result, we have a labour market that simply fails to offer good work everywhere.

As part of our “Get Britain Working” White Paper analysis, we found that when students are not counted, the inactivity rate, to give the example of Blackpool, is 29%. That is nearly a third of working age people. That can never be a good platform on which to build a thriving economy, and I am determined that we will turn it around.

More than half of the 20 local authorities with the highest rates of inactivity in England are in the north, while none are in the south-east. It is, however, far from  a north-south divide. We have identified 14 types of labour markets in the United Kingdom and considered their features: what they share and what divides them. We want to identify those places that are furthest behind, precisely so that we can help.

It is not just the prevailing economic circumstances or what has happened in the recent past to a local authority that defeats people, but, unfortunately, the jobcentres that are supposed to be there to help. When we did our analysis for our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, we uncovered the record of the last Conservative Government. I was shocked to find that only around 8%—only 8%—of universal credit claimants in the “searching for work” group move into work from one month to the next. In the “no work requirements” group, 92% were still there after six months. That is the very definition of being on the scrapheap: no work and no help to get work. That is just failing people.

Then there is the price tag. Spending on universal credit and disability benefits was £10.9 billion higher than anticipated when the level of the welfare cap was calculated. That is a dreadful record. For the reasons that I set out earlier, the breach of the cap is unavoidable this year, but this Government are taking the action necessary to drive up opportunity in employment while driving down the benefits bill. Our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, as I have mentioned, set out the biggest reforms to employment in a generation, with a radical new approach backed by £240 million of investment. We are overhauling our jobcentres and creating a new jobs and careers service, doing away with needless admin and freeing up work coach time, so that my colleagues can give real, high-quality support to people.

Although I am often disappointed in the help that people receive in jobcentres, I am never disappointed by what our work coaches do. The thing that lets the work coaches down is the system in which they work. For example, they are told that they can see someone for only 10 minutes. How are they supposed to help in 10 minutes? They have to carry out numerous admin checks that could be done with modern technology, when the person in front of them is just sat there waiting, not receiving any help. Our work coaches are full of ideas, full of local knowledge and full of determination that we will make a new system work. I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to every single DWP member of staff who has embraced change with gusto. \p Daisy Cooper: When I visited the jobcentre in St Albans last year I, too, was struck by the fantastic support given by some of the work coaches. However, I was also struck by what some of the jobseekers had to say. One said that she had been in full employment, but had to give up her job to look after her two children because they could not get the special educational needs and disabilities support that they needed in school. Another said that they were struggling with addiction and could not hold down a job because they could not get the support needed from the NHS. Does the Minister agree that, while our work coaches are doing a really good job, ultimately, we need to get our public services, particularly the NHS, back on their feet? \p Alison McGovern: I agree with the hon. Lady. Can we just take this moment to thank the DWP team in St Albans? They sound like they are doing a great job and they are also briefing their local MP, which is really  good of them. I encourage all colleagues in the House to ensure that they have a regular catch-up with their jobcentre colleagues so that they know the kind of things that our work coaches have to deal with. Often, Members of Parliament can be quite helpful in putting people in touch with other organisations, so I encourage all colleagues to do as the hon. Lady has done.

On the point that the hon. Lady makes about SEND, she is absolutely right: this is a major barrier. If Members want to understand what a struggle to get to work and to stay in work looks like, they should ask the parent of a disabled child. This issue of where the effect of poverty and the SEND crisis can compound is being considered by the child poverty taskforce in particular. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: good public services and a good, strong economy go hand in hand. It is not “public services or a strong economy”—we called that ideology “austerity”, and it did not work. The two go hand in hand. We need to look in that rounded way to see how we can help people, and that is the approach that we are taking. We want to make every jobcentre in the country a place that people who are looking for work, and employers, will actually want to use. We know that what happens early on in a career echoes down the years; as I have said, our young people—the pandemic generation—were failed. That is why our youth guarantee will give every 18 to 20-year-old access to quality education, training or employment.

On top of that, we are working with local leaders who know their towns and cities best, supporting them to produce their own local “Get Britain Working” plans that join up work, health and skills to support their communities. I have mentioned the major fractures still in the UK economy following previous economic events that were not managed properly. That is how we know that the same thing just will not work everywhere. The DWP will reform itself so that we are able to localise support services, and we will work with local leaders to do that.

All of that will ensure that we help people to enjoy the benefits that good work brings to wellbeing—and I do mean “good work”. The choice in this country should never be between the scar of unemployment and the scar of poor work that does nothing but keep people poor. Poor work does not reduce the pressure on our social security system; it just means more people working too hard for their poverty. That is why we will improve the security and quality of work through our plan to make work pay. We will create more good jobs in every part of the country with a modern industrial strategy and local growth plans. Together, they will help us to meet our long-term ambition for an 80% employment rate.

We will create the conditions for success in social security. As I have outlined, the changes made to social security were ill-thought through. A fresh approach is needed to make our social security system sustainable, and we will build that system to give people the help that they need to find great jobs and feel the benefit of work. We want to tackle poverty and target support at those who need it most. We will set out our proposals in a Green Paper on reforming the health and disability system in the spring. We will work with disabled people and their organisations to get that right.

A strong social security system needs the confidence of us all. Anyone might suddenly find themselves unwell or with the extra costs that children bring, and we all  hope one day to enjoy the benefits of the state pension, so we must protect the social security system now and in the future. Not only did we confirm at the autumn Budget that we would keep a welfare cap in place with a margin of 5% to account for the volatility of recent forecasts, but later this year we will publish a new annual report on social security spending across Government, setting out the DWP’s plan to ensure that it is on a sustainable path. The days of setting spending targets without a proper plan to meet them are over. \p Jeremy Corbyn: If next year’s report recommends an increase in welfare spending, would that be impossible within this cap, or will she come back to Parliament to ask for a change in the cap well ahead of its 2029 expiration? \p Alison McGovern: In the specifics of our proposal, we will publish a Green Paper on health and disability in the coming months. With regards to the financial controls, we will do all that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out some moments ago on allowing the Office for Budget Responsibility to perform its function. That is the best way to ensure that we take fiscal decisions within the guardrails that he set out.

The results of 14 years of failure are unfortunately only too obvious, as I said earlier. Everywhere we look in this country, we can see the impact of what the previous Government did. Too many people in far too many places were neglected and failed, starved of opportunity, and left to turn to a social security system that just is not working. Everybody in this country suffers the consequences. \p Kirsty Blackman: I am not sure how long the Minister has left in her speech, but I have a question about the welfare cap. We are being asked to make two decisions: to approve the welfare cap, and to note the breach. She has made the case for how the Government are trying to get Britain working and why the breach has happened this year, but so far she has not made the case for why they are putting in a welfare cap this year and why we parliamentarians should agree to it. \p Alison McGovern: I did make the case for the overall welfare cap and for that policy at the beginning of my speech, because it is important that we have proper controls on public spending. Fantasy economics will do absolutely nothing to support family finances and the Government are determined that we will manage public finances in a responsible fashion.

The results of failure are far too obvious; we all pay the consequences. That is why we will not stand for it. Every penny counts, but so does the future of every person in this country. That is why, in order to ensure we save every penny for the things we want to spend on in social security, we are bringing forward the biggest welfare fraud and error package in recent history. We are not just tweaking a broken system; we are going to fundamentally change the way we approach reform, starting with the principle of focusing on people.

We will tackle the root causes of unemployment—whether you are out of work because you cannot find a job or are out of work because the last Government wrote you off, everybody deserves to build a better life and fulfil their potential. \p Peter Swallow: I am proud to be a Labour MP. Labour is the party of the dignity of work. We know that, for those who are able to, the best place to be is in work with a well-paid job with good rights. Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government did far too little to ensure that people who could work were helped back into work to get all the benefits and dignity that working can bring, and that they wrote off far too many people, which has left us in this sorry state? \p Alison McGovern: I am glad that my hon. Friend is proud to be a Labour MP, as am I, and I am glad he is proud of the approach we are taking on employment, because so am I. We cannot afford this failure any longer in the cost to our public finances. We will never tolerate the failure in hope, dignity, ambition and opportunity that the levels of unemployment in this country now represent. \p Helen Whately: The welfare cap we are debating today was introduced back in 2014 by the Conservative Chancellor at the time, George Osborne, to hold the Government to account on the cost of our welfare system. Through the 2010s, in government, we broadly kept to that cap; it was part of the discipline we applied to the welfare system to make it fair for the taxpayer and to put into practice the strongly held Conservative principle that if you can work, you should work. We introduced universal credit to ensure that work always pays and supported businesses to create millions of jobs, and we helped thousands of people into work and drove down economic inactivity—and were opposed at every step of the way by the Labour party.

But in the years during and since the pandemic—I will not shy away from telling the truth—things changed. While the number of jobs kept going up, the number of people economically inactive also started to go up, and with that, the welfare bill, and that is a big problem. It is a financial problem that means we are today debating a welfare cap which has been breached. It is an economic problem because our economy needs the talents and energies of everyone. And it is a social problem: of the 9 million people of working age defined as economically inactive, 2.8 million are not working because of ill health. That includes growing numbers of young people. Young people are starting out on a life on benefits instead of starting out on a career, missing out on the opportunities that work brings—the sense of purpose, the connections with other people, the chance to learn and develop skills—missing out on the experience of being paid for their efforts, and missing out on the chance to build financial independence and security. We as a country have a moral and financial imperative to turn this around and in government we were working flat out to tackle it. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that under the last Conservative Government inactivity rates among the young were the highest in the OECD, and that they were working on it, but it was not working? \p Helen Whately: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman heard, I was just acknowledging the fact that the economic inactivity rate started going up in the run-up to and  particularly following the pandemic. We have a particular concern, which I am sure the Government share, around growing inactivity among young people. It is a challenge that we are experiencing more than other countries, and there is a lot of work to do to get to the bottom of it. I was involved in that work in government as a Health Minister, and it is imperative that the new Government get a grip on that issue. \p Peter Swallow: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Helen Whately: I will make some progress.

In government, we were working flat out to tackle that problem. We were changing how we assess people’s capability for work, recognising that the world of work has changed. We developed WorkWell to help people with health conditions or disabilities find and stay in work, and we were reforming the fit notes that GPs give people. Once again, we were opposed by Labour every step of the way.

We also had plans to go further. In our manifesto, we committed to £12 billion-worth of savings by reforming sickness benefits. Labour responded at the time by saying that the money is simply not there, and the present Chancellor said that not a single penny could be saved from welfare. It turns out that, on this one occasion, Labour has stuck to its word: it has no plans to control welfare spending. Today, the Government are setting a welfare cap that does not include a penny’s worth of savings at a staggering £195 billion by 2029-30—a 44% increase on this year’s cap. In cash terms, that is more than our entire defence budget. Not content with not saving a single penny, they have given themselves a £10 billion buffer on top of that. That lack of ambition is terrifying.

We believe that money can and should be saved from the welfare bill. The Chancellor finally seems to agree with us, because she has been busy briefing the papers in a panic about cutting spending. But where are those plans? Unfortunately, she has not got any because, as I said, until now she did not believe any savings could be made. Perhaps the Employment Minister can give us some clues. I believe she has canned my fit note reforms, so what will she do to get the welfare bill down and by when? How on earth does she expect to get people into work when 50,000 people were added to the unemployment figures in December alone? \p Alison McGovern: I think I am being asked whether we stopped the extensive work that the previous Government were doing on rising inactivity. I have to say that when I got into the Department for Work and Pensions, there was not an extensive plan available. That is why we have had to embark on fundamental reform, which we set out in a White Paper in November, and that is why we will shortly be bringing forward a Green Paper on health and disability reform. The idea that somehow there was an instruction list left in the Department that we could just crack on with is a fantasy. \p Helen Whately: The hon. Lady will know—at least I think she will know—that the vast majority of what she set out in the White Paper was the continuation of things we were doing in government. In fact, if she has read it she will see that it even says that the youth guarantee is essentially a new name for a repackaged set of measures  that are already in place. That is literally in the White Paper. I am happy to follow up with her afterwards on the page that she will find that phrase on.

I have yet to see a single sign to suggest that this Government can tackle the welfare bill, and the cap they are setting today tells us that they agree. The Opposition will support efforts to bring down welfare costs sensibly. We need a compassionate safety net, but that net should never become a trap. If the Government do not get a grip of the problem, it will put our entire social contract at risk. Ministers have finally twigged that action is required—a Green Paper is, they say, on its way. I urge the hon. Lady to get on with it, because each month that passes see thousands more drift out of work and into a life of inactivity. \p Jeevun Sandher: Every person in this country should be able to live a decent life, but too many of us are unable to earn a decent wage. That is what is pushing up social security spending, leading to the motions that we are debating today. Too many people are forced to claim sickness benefits because the NHS has failed them; there are not enough well-paid jobs; and people do not engage with the social security system that the Conservative party left us, because it demonised and attacked them.

That left us as an incoming Labour Government with a choice between massive implementing cuts to social security this year and technically breaching the welfare cap. I am proud that this Government have chosen to breach that cap rather than drive people into destitution. I am proud that we will get people who want to work into work, and that we will change the system for the future to ensure that people are not left as they have been for the past 14 years. I am proud that this Government will ensure that every person has the support they need when they need it.

Our nation is sick, and things need to change—specifically, three things. First, our NHS needs to shift. After 14 years of mismanagement and the disastrous Lansley reforms, we have almost 3 million people out of work. We were the only G7 nation to see sickness rise during the pandemic and after it as well. Every single one of us sees that degradation and damage when we try to get an appointment with our local GP. That is what we need to fix in the years ahead.

Secondly, we must transform our low-pay, low-training economy, which does not provide enough good jobs or pay enough to live. Thousands of people are unable to turn on the heating because they cannot afford it, and thousands are unable to eat; nurses are forced to go to food banks. Around 70% of children in poverty are in working families, and being cold and hungry makes people sicker. Too many people in this country go straight from school into sickness; the number of young people in this nation who are too sick to be active in the labour market has almost doubled since 2013. Those are the problems that we will be fixing in the years ahead.

The third thing that needs to change, of course, is the punitive social security system that pushed people to the brink. When people could not see their GP, could not earn enough to live a decent life and were too scared to go to the jobcentre, they stopped working altogether. That has led us in this country into a toxic doom loop, with sicker people having less money in their pockets  and becoming too sick to work, leading to higher social security payments. The amount we are spending on social security is a sign not of the former Conservative Government’s generosity, but of their failure. That is what we will be addressing in the year ahead.

The amount that we are spending on sickness and disability benefits has risen from £42 billion in 2010 to £65 billion today, and that is in real terms, not nominal terms. That is an increase of around 40% to 50%. That is why we will breach the cap by £8.6 billion this year, rather than impose devastating and swingeing cuts on those who already cannot afford to eat. We on the Labour Benches know that food banks are not an integral part of our welfare system; they are a symbol of failure. These are the things that we must change in the future.

We need changes not simply to policy but in attitudes. For 14 years it was said that every person who was failing to earn enough was somehow a skiver. That was wrong, and it drove those who needed to engage with the social security system not to engage with it at all. I used to work at the Department for Work and Pensions and I can tell the House that people on both sides—those who wanted to work and those who wanted to help people into work—were good people who were let down by a bad system. \p Chris Curtis: Somebody who works in my local jobcentre in Milton Keynes came to visit me last week and told me about his experiences. He currently has to conduct 10-minute appointments, and as a lot of that time is spent on admin, he is not able to give the necessary help and support to people who are desperate to find a job. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that this Government, unlike the previous Government, focus on providing the support necessary to get people into work, rather than setting a narrative about people being workshy and not wanting to work, which is not the truth? \p Jeevun Sandher: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Ten minutes is nowhere near enough time for people to get the job support they need. It is not enough for those who are seeking help or for those seeking to give that help, especially as the economy is changing and getting a well-paid job requires more training. The country changed before with the automative revolution, and it is now changing with the artificial intelligence revolution. Those people need support and help in order to get security, but they are not guaranteed it or given it at the moment, and that is the precise intention of the changes we are putting forward. It is not easy to put forward these changes and it will not take a short time, but by starting that work today and by changing the relationship between those who are seeking to give help and those who are receiving that help, we can ensure that those who need help will actually receive it.

This is not just about those on the ground who are doing great work, or indeed about my former brilliant colleagues at the DWP. It is also about how we in this House speak about those who need help, who are in poverty or who receive social security payments. We must understand that every single person in this country wants to work and wants the dignity that comes with it, but they are too often let down because of a lack of well-paid jobs, a lack of support and a lack of dignity afforded to them by a party that sought only to demonise. That is what we seek to change in this House and, indeed,  in this country. That is the choice before us, and it is why we are making these decisions: a technical breach of the welfare cap this year and a more accurate welfare cap in the years ahead, so that we can begin to provide the support that people need. \p Kirsty Blackman: People go to food banks because work does not pay and the two-child cap, for example, means that they do not have enough money to live on or to support their families. Why is the hon. Member supporting a welfare cap that bakes in the two-child limit? \p Jeevun Sandher: I do not believe that the hon. Member is correct. The welfare cap does not define future decisions; the welfare cap in future years defines the total amount that will be spent at that time. We should be clear what the welfare cap refers to. She mentioned the two-child limit in particular, and Government Members have been clear that choices have to be made in straitened times. We know that children are driven into poverty and that no child deserves to be born into such circumstances. Indeed, we know about the huge and shocking rise in child poverty and child hunger in this country. I know that Members across the House are shocked by that, but the truth is that we cannot make every such decision in this House because these are straitened times. However, I appreciate the intervention and, indeed, the good faith in which it was made. There is a lot we have to change in this country, and I am sure we will do so in the years ahead.

The choice before us today is simple. The technical breach this year and the change in the years to come are the right choices, and we are making them for the right reasons. Many in work today cannot make it pay, and that is why we will make sure that people who are in work get the training they need. That is not just about the training they need to get a better job; it is about the support they need to ensure that their healthcare, and indeed their health, is good enough to continue working.

More broadly, we must ensure that every single person in the country can have a decent job that pays enough, and we are taking action in three areas to do that. First and foremost, there is our action on the NHS and through the Darzi review, because we should not live a country where almost 3 million people are too sick to work. We have offered thousands more appointments to get waiting lists down, because people who cannot see a GP today are far more likely to end up out of work tomorrow.

Secondly, we are helping people get into work. There are the 16 trailblazer programmes to join up work skills and health support, and the £115 million to help those with complex needs get back into work.

Thirdly, we are creating good jobs for young people with the youth guarantee, so that every single young person in this country can access the training they need and the apprenticeships they require.

The fundamental reforms the Chancellor set out in her speech today are also about supporting people into work so they can contribute to our economy, and do what they need to do to get a decent life for themselves and their family. Having a decent job and earning enough to live is about more than the pound in a person’s pocket; it is about a sense of contentment and something to talk about with their mates. It gives meaning to each day. \p Robin Swann: The hon. Member has talked eloquently about the challenges of getting into the workplace. Does he realise that a large number of people across our society who are economically inactive have the desire to look for work and have welfare payments to support them getting into work, but sometimes through no fault of their own the system works against them? \p Jeevun Sandher: I thank the hon. Member for that point. Indeed, that is the entire reason why we are changing the system today. Yes, it is about practical changes and providing more support, but it is also about a change of tone, a change of attitude and treating people like human beings. That is exactly what Labour Members believe.

These reforms and support, at their core, are about ensuring that every single person has a decent job, which gives them meaning and something to talk about with their mates. A previous Labour Government did that so well, and that is how we got poverty down. A previous Member for Sedgefield, who is a shining light for us on the Labour Benches, promised to end child poverty in a generation, and a previous Member for Dunfermline, who is a hero to us, put that into practice and reduced child poverty by almost a million. It is that Labour tradition to which I speak. That Labour tradition is why I am proud to stand here today, and that is why I am proud to vote in favour of these motions. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: Years of mismanagement by the previous Conservative Government damaged our economy, hit people’s living standards and left our public services on their knees—especially our NHS and care—so it is no wonder that we have seen the welfare bill go up. The Conservatives left GP and hospital waiting times soaring. They also saw staff vacancies spiralling, and local public health funding was slashed. The cancer treatment target has been missed every year since 2015. They promised 6,000 GPs and left government with fewer of them. Of course, the 40 new hospitals fell apart—literally in some cases—leading to inefficiencies in our health service as staff and patients battle cramped and crumbling buildings. I remember a former Conservative Prime Minister standing on the steps of No. 10 and promising to fix social care once and for all, but, as we know, millions of people around the UK are left to pick up the pieces of a broken social care system.

That disgraceful legacy and the blatant mismanagement of our economy has left millions of people unable to work due to long-term illness and having to rely on support instead, impacting growth and productivity. Under the last Conservative Government, the number of people not looking for work, especially due to ill health, reached record levels, and Government spending on welfare went up drastically as a result. Their mismanagement has left so many people unable to seek work and reliant instead on Government support.

We Liberal Democrats have always understood that a healthy economy requires healthy people. As I have said a number of times in the House, health and wealth are two sides of the same coin. The best way to bring down welfare spending is for the Government to act with  urgency and ambition to end the crisis in our NHS and care, empowering people to join the workforce and reducing the need for welfare support in the first place.

The Conservatives’ mismanagement of the economy has had a direct impact on decisions being made today. At informal assessments in 2020, 2021 and 2023, the OBR clearly said that the welfare cap was on track to be breached this year, but the new Labour Government must do far more to fix our health and care services so that fewer people require Government support in the first place. I have to say that the Conservative party has lost every right to criticise the current situation when its fingerprints of failure are all over it.

We have previously discussed the impact of the Government’s national insurance contributions rise and other changes. The Government have said repeatedly that these changes are inevitable as a way to fund the NHS, but they know, and we know, that some of this is really not needed. The national insurance contributions rise will impact our GPs, dentists, public health providers, primary care providers, pharmacists, social care providers and hospices—the list goes on. Those people and businesses are propping up our NHS.

I use this opportunity once again to encourage the Government to reverse the national insurance contributions rise and look to other means of raising those funds. Fundamentally, the best way to bring down welfare spending is for the Government to act with urgency and ambition to end the crisis in our NHS and social care. We Liberal Democrats made that our No. 1 priority during the general election, and with 72 MPs, it remains our No. 1 priority in this House. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her opening speech, on a timely subject as the Government have just laid out their bold and striking ambitions to grow our economy and take the tough decisions needed, after years of dither and delay by the Conservative party. Today more than on other days, we have seen laid out in stark relief the choice before us of either doubling down on the failures—more of the same—or picking a new route. That is what this debate is about.

I want to talk about the root causes of some of the growth issues that we face. But first I want to focus on a number: £8.6 billion. That is how much the welfare cap was breached by, because of the Conservatives’ failures time and again. That is not a small amount. To put it in some context, it is as much as the entire programme budget of the Department for Work and Pensions. To give another comparison, it is half the entire police grant for all policing in England and Wales.

It is a phenomenal failure on the part of the Conservatives that we face this issue today, and it is not their only failure in the DWP. My hon. Friend the Minister laid out fantastically well the litany of failures. Let me pick up one in particular: the Conservatives breached the welfare cap, but we have not had much time to talk about their failures on fraud and error. Because of failures on their watch, the numbers more than doubled, and are now stuck at an elevated post-covid rate. They left us with an entrenched fraud and error problem.

We could go on. The litany of catastrophic mismanagement is almost endless. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) said that  she could make savings. The Conservatives had 14 years —where were they? Instead, we got lots of “dog ate my homework” excuses. They should be hanging their heads in shame. As hon. Friends have pointed out, it is telling that, behind the shadow Minister, the Opposition Benches are empty. They know how badly they let the country down.

It is not just about the £8.6 billion; the Conservatives’ failures shine a spotlight on two deeper failures that are the root causes of today’s motions: a failure to grow the economy, and a failure to get people into work and to help those with health conditions move on in the labour market. Let me turn to growth first. We have heard a lot today about the economy, but it is worth pausing to remember how bad things were under the Conservatives. From 2019, on their watch, the economy grew slower than any other G7 economy, bar one. In the last decade of their rule, GDP rose in real terms by only 6%. If it had grown at the same rate as comparable countries, on average we would each be more than £8,000 better off.

I welcome the fact that after years of this country being held back by previous incompetent Governments, this Government are finally taking the decisions to realise our country’s potential. That is what we heard today: £78 billion being released through supporting the Ox-Cam arc; £160 billion through the Chancellor’s excellent announcements over the weekend to allow investment of pension surpluses; £7.9 billion of infrastructure to give us nine new reservoirs. The Conservatives had 14 years in government—do you know how many reservoirs they built, Madam Deputy Speaker? Zero. That is the difference.

I am proud of our Chancellor, who has made the tough decisions that have given us the foundation of stability and allowed us to make these announcements today. It is because of the stability created by the Budget and her other decisions that we now have inflation of 2.5%, that interest rates have been cut twice, because the Bank has confidence in the Government’s fiscal management, that investment is at a 19-year high, and that wages are growing at their fastest rate in three years—I could go on. It is only because of the tough decisions that we have made that we are in that position.

Beyond the Conservatives’ failure on growth, the breaches of the welfare cap also shine a spotlight on their terrible failure to get people into work and to combat poverty. The figures are extraordinarily stark; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) for sharing some of them. Today, one in five adults is economically inactive because of the Conservatives’ legacy. We are the only G7 country where employment rates remain below the pre-covid level. I note that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent, when asked, acknowledged the fact, but she could not tell us why that is. Well, I have a clue for her. It is because of the incompetence and the failures of her party.

What is more, we know that these problems are driven overwhelmingly by ill health, with 85% of those who have dropped out of the labour market having done so due to ill health. This disproportionately hits those over 50, but, scandalously, also affects the youngest in our society. The number of NEETs—those not in employment, education or training—went up by a third in the last three years of the previous Government.

It goes deeper than that. Beneath the shocking rise in 16 to 24-year-olds who are out of work and inactive, a stunning 79% are also low skilled, with skill levels lower than GCSEs. Because of Conservative failures, so many of our young people have been caught in a downward spiral of low skills, poor opportunity, low self-esteem and poor mental health.

This failure by the Conservatives is a moral disgrace, but it is also a massive economic problem. If not addressed, the sickness bill they bequeathed the country could exceed £100 billion by the end of this Parliament. I would like to say that this is the first time they Conservatives have done something like this, but that would not be true. Those of us old enough to remember will know that in 1997, the outgoing Conservative Government bequeathed more than 5.1 million inactive people to the incoming Labour Government. It is just what Conservative Governments do.

My hon. Friend the Minister also mentioned the fact that many of the technical changes the previous Government made to universal credit and other benefits actually dragged people further away from the labour market, putting up barriers and making it harder to get work. This is an absolute scandal, especially because we know that DWP staff—the people who work on this—want to make a difference. I worked for the new deal taskforce 26 years ago, working on the previous Labour Government’s strong efforts to get people back into work. I know that DWP staff want to make a difference, but, because of the previous Government’s terrible policy design and incompetence, they are often prevented from doing so.

This is a massive human tragedy. We know from survey work that at least half of the people who are inactive—4.5 million people—say that they want to work if they can have the right support. We also know that work is the best tonic for many of the issues faced by those who are inactive. We know from a University of Cambridge study, for instance, that just eight hours a week of paid work can reduce mental health issues in a large portion of the population by up to 30%.

What is more, the Conservative party did far too little to tackle the underlying dynamics of low work and no work faced by so many people in poverty. We know that the average family in poverty goes through up to seven separate spells in poverty. All too often, it is like “Hotel California”: they can check out, but they can never leave. Rather than trying to deal with that problem, all we got from the Conservative party were sticking plasters and political slogans.

I am incredibly proud to sit on the Labour Benches and support a Government who will take a different approach and are absolutely determined to make an actual difference and tackle the root causes. We heard from the Minister the action that will be taken to give our young people a choice, through the youth guarantee, between earning and learning—a real, proper stable start in life. We heard about the changes we will make to the DWP to actually get it working. We heard about the changes that will actually tackle the barriers to work—real, practical steps rather than the slogans of the Conservative party. We heard about the work on fraud and error, so that our public money is spent on helping people to get   back to work, rather than leaking out of the system. We heard about the efforts that will be made to get people not just into jobs, but into good jobs.

It is worth pausing on that point for a second. The labour market has changed a lot in the past 30 years. It is no longer a given that all jobs provide a ladder to good, fulfilling, family-supporting work. For too long, the Conservative party, when it was in government, ignored that. It is such good news that through the good work laid out by the Minister on the industrial strategy, and through bringing the careers service together with Jobcentre Plus so that we have a system that focuses not just on getting people into work but on helping them get on, we finally have a Government who are taking the problem seriously.

Our ambition is no less than to give people proper power over their own lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough pointed out, the Conservative Government so often just sought to demonise and sloganise. We are trying to put power back into people’s hands and give them the real power over their own lives that only fulfilling and decent work can offer.

As I said, I started work in the new deal taskforce in the DWP’s predecessor Department. I was lucky enough, later on, to work on similar issues in the Prime Minister’s strategy unit. What characterised the Administration then was a real passion to change lives and a real passion to make things better. That has been so lacking for the past 14 years, and it is so refreshing to hear that it is back. I am absolutely proud to stand here and support the motion. \p Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased we are having this debate, although I am sorry that it is relatively short. My concern about the proposal before us is that it recognises an overspend on the welfare cap—I support the idea that we should be allowed to overshoot the cap—but hardwires decisions on welfare spending for the next five years. It therefore restricts any future changes to any element of welfare spending.

The cap does not include pensions and work-related benefits. What it does include, in particular, is disability living allowance, housing benefit and personal independence payments. Those benefits relate to the areas in which, it seems to me, there are often the greatest levels of poverty and people face the greatest problems in simply trying to survive. The Government have already removed the winter fuel allowance, which is included in the estimates for the next five years, and are maintaining the two-child benefit cap, which restricts the amount of money paid on benefits to families. I understand all the points the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) made and the passion with which he made them, but the reality of not removing this ridiculous cap, put in place by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is that we have a lot of children living in desperate poverty.

Any Member who goes to a food bank—we all have food banks in our constituencies—and talks to the parents picking up food will find a wholly disproportionate number of, usually, mothers of children in very large families who cannot make ends meet because their benefits apply only to the first two children. We need to  get rid of the two-child benefit cap, but what we are being invited to support today will ensure that we keep it, while maintaining the removal of the winter fuel payment and boxing us in when it comes to what we can do to improve both the take-up and the availability of disability benefits as a whole. I must therefore caution the Minister and question her optimism. I recognise the need to overshoot the cap today because I understand why it has come about, but we need to look at the levels of poverty in our society.

I also understand all the points that have been made about the role of the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to people seeking work. In 1986, I was a member of the Bill Committee that took a sledgehammer to the then Department of Health and Social Security’s methods of supporting people who were out of work and helping them into work. We have suffered ever since as a result, and I am pleased that the DWP is reforming its ways of doing things and will help people into work by providing more advice and support. The reality is, however, that many people in this country suffer because of the mental health crisis that we are in, have suffered industrial injuries or are living in great poverty, and they need support. Surely we should be measuring the levels of poverty, the increased levels of child poverty and the educational underachievement of children living in poverty, rather than saying that the most important thing to do is limit the level of welfare spending.

There is a reason for that. I meet many people, in my constituency and in other places, who are receiving DWP benefits. Some are in work, some are unemployed and some have sickness problems and cannot work. They are not shirkers. They are not skivers. They are people who need help within our society. For too long we have had a culture of blaming anyone who seeks help within the law through our benefits system. I hope that we will hear a reply from the Government in which they accept the need for a re-examination of the levels of poverty in society and demonstrate a preparedness to change the welfare cap in the future to accommodate any increased needs that result from it. The thinking behind the cap was not about eliminating poverty from our society; it was all about limiting the level of welfare payments and the benefit that people gain from them.

In an intervention in the earlier debate, I pointed out to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that huge infrastructure projects had gone massively over budget and had been financed. I support the Elizabeth line—it is a wonderful thing—but it was way over budget, like plenty of other projects. There seems to be one approach to investment in major infrastructure projects that run way over budget, and another when it comes to a welfare budget: anything that might go over will be prevented from going over by the Treasury. We cannot predict who will be injured next year, what illnesses will come or what needs will arise. Surely the principle of the welfare state must be that we help and support people when they need that help and support—and yes, help them to be available for work and get back into work, and say to employers, “You need more flexible working arrangements so that people can work part time.” We must look at the levels of unemployment among people with disabilities who simply cannot get work because the employment laws are not strong enough to require employers to provide work for people who, despite having disabilities, are well able to work.

I think we should be more cautious, rather than adopting a gung-ho approach and saying, “We are cracking down on welfare.” I want to crack down on poverty, I want to crack down on unemployment, and I want to crack down on those who prevent people from achieving the best that they can in their lives and in our society. \p John Martin McDonnell: I hope that the Government will consider completely scrapping this debate in future years, because it has become farcical. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) will remember that the welfare cap was introduced because of the Dutch auction that was going on in this Chamber about who could be more brutal on the poor. The welfare cap was part of that period of debate, in which anyone claiming benefits was allegedly a welfare benefit scrounger who was not willing to work for a living. That was the atmosphere that was engendered in this Chamber. At that stage, to be frank, it was deeply worrying. In many ways, humanity almost left the Chamber.

The farcical nature of the debate is that, having introduced the cap, Minister after Minister would have to come back each year and report that the cap had been breached, because more expenditure had been forced on the Government as a result of the increasing levels of poverty. I suppose that it at least gives Members the opportunity to have some discretion over issues of poverty.

May I suggest to those on the Labour Front Bench that they should remove the cap, because it has become a farcical exercise? If we are to have a debate on poverty, there should be an annual report by the Labour Government on the poverty strategy that they are now developing. I believe that the commission established by the Labour party is now working, and it would be so much better if we had a report and did not have the farcical pantomime that we have today. \p Alison McGovern: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene briefly to say that the child poverty taskforce’s work is ongoing, and that it regularly engages with parliamentarians and others to update them. I know that many parliamentarians have been pleased to involve themselves in that work, given the importance of tackling child poverty. \p John Martin McDonnell: That is a really helpful response, but it does not respond to the fact that if we are to have a focus on poverty, rather than a debate on the welfare cap, which is breached on virtually an annual basis, it might be better to have a debate on the Government’s strategy to tackle poverty overall. Then we could have a proper discussion, and even a debate with a motion that could be amended where we want to see improvements. That is what I want to get on to now.

I hope that people have seen today’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on overall poverty, which reflects what most of us know and experience in our constituencies. It is shatteringly depressing, to be frank, because it does not show any improvement over the last few decades. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) mentioned that the Tory Government introduced this measure when they came into power. It was during the period of austerity, and it is worth reflecting on what that meant.

The London School of Economics’ report and other independent reports say that 140,000 people lost their lives as a result of austerity; others have estimated that the figure could be up to 300,000. In part, that was because of the grinding poverty that was imposed on people, as reflected in all our constituencies—we saw it. I remember a time when there were no food banks in any of our constituencies, because they were not necessary, but now they are, as a result of 14 years of austerity.

If we are to have a proper debate on poverty, we need to highlight as individual constituency MPs where we think the Government should be going, so I will briefly do so on the basis of what we have seen in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report. I always cite the overall figures: we have 15 million people living in poverty, including 5 million children. I think the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report says that there are 4 million people living in deep poverty, and nearly 4 million in destitution.

The statistic that always shocks me is that 1 million children are in destitution. I never thought we would use the word “destitution” again in our society; I always thought we would improve year by year and lift people out of poverty. I never thought that children would live in poverty in the way that some of my generation did.

There are groups that clearly need to be on the agenda, and my hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned some of them, thank goodness. I chair a group of unpaid carers, of whom there are 5 million in this country. If an unpaid carer is looking after a disabled member of their family, it is almost inevitable that they will be living in poverty, unless we face up to the central demand of unpaid carers, which is to address their income. It is not just about how much they can earn, which the Government have looked at recently; it is about the carer’s allowance being at such a level that people cannot survive on it.

Looking at the report with regard to families with children living in poverty, I cannot at the moment see a faster way of getting children out of poverty than scrapping the two-child limit. I am hoping that will be on the agenda as a priority when the Child Poverty Action Group reports to Parliament.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has identified that the poverty rate among disabled people is now 30%. The Government are about to consult again on the work capability assessment reforms because they lost in court to Ellen Clifford two weeks ago. I am pleased that the Government lost in court, to be frank. The basis of that decision was the lack of consultation on the previous Government’s reforms. I do not understand why our Government continued the appeal within the court, but they did. They have now lost and have been forced to bring forward their consultations on the reform of the work capability assessment.

I am hoping that those reforms will be done in co-production with disabled people—on the basis of the disability groups’ principle, “nothing about us without us”. My fear is that an overhanging £3 billion-worth of savings is required from the DWP on this issue. If that results in cuts to individual benefits, I think there will be uproar within our communities and across this House. What is also interesting in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report is that the poverty rate among people who are suffering long-term health conditions is 50%. The work  that the Department of Health will now do in walk-in advice surgeries, for example, and the focus on mental health, will be key.

The household benefit cap overall is iniquitous. It forces families into poverty, particularly in places such as London, because of the high rents that are hitting people. According to the Joseph Rowntree report, the poverty rate among renters in social housing is 44% and in the private rented sector it is 35%. The Government’s refusal to accept the amendment to introduce rent controls, which was tabled by a number of Labour Members, was extremely disappointing. The Government could at least devolve that power to the individual Mayors so that they can represent their communities and introduce rent controls where necessary. I believe that Sadiq Khan has expressed his support for that power to be devolved. With rent controls, we could tackle the housing crisis that we face within our constituencies.

When we talk about poverty, we need to come forward with an agenda that will tackle it at pace, and I do not think that, in our discussions in the future, a welfare benefits cap in any form will assist in bringing forward the reforms that our constituents so desperately need. \p Kirsty Blackman: I agree with a number of the comments that have been made across the House today. I found myself nodding along with the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) there, and particularly with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I just want to highlight a couple of things before I get into the meat of my speech.

We know that 38% of universal credit claimants are in work, so I am glad that the Government are talking about how to make work pay and how to get more people into work. I am glad that the Government are investing in strategies that will get young people into work, and that will get people who have been long-term unemployed, or even short-term unemployed, back into work. I am glad that they are reforming jobcentres so that they will be assisting people in a way that they maybe have not been doing in recent times. I am pleased about all of that, but we need to recognise that 38% of those on universal credit are already working. It is just that their work is not paying enough or is not offering flexible enough hours if they have childcare or other caring commitments, and therefore they need that top-up.

The welfare cap covers not only benefits and other elements of social security provided to people who are out of work, but child benefit and a huge number of different things. It is not entirely focused on people who are out of work, although I appreciate the Government’s action on that.

The right hon. Member for Islington North talked about how the welfare cap is a bit backwards. Everyone would be jumping up and down, saying, “That’s backwards,” if we said, “We are going to put a cap on the number of people who can receive chemotherapy, and on the amount spent on it, because we are going to reduce the rates of smoking, obesity and other risk factors. We are going to have a healthier population, so it is okay for us to cap chemotherapy. We are going to put all this stuff in place to ensure that we reduce the spend on chemotherapy.” We should first spend the money and solve the problem, and then the spend will reduce.

That is the whole point about the welfare cap—it is backwards. By having a welfare cap, the Government are saying that they will reduce the spend on welfare by doing all the things that they are not yet doing. They have not solved the problem. Once they have solved the problem, and once the welfare system has improved in the way they are trying to improve it, the numbers and the spend will reduce.

I am, however, not entirely convinced that everything the Government are putting in place will reduce the spend, because they are battling against a number of factors. Even if they manage to get jobs to pay better, even if they further increase the minimum wage so it is closer to a living wage, even if they ensure there are more opportunities, and even if the Chancellor’s opportunities for growth actually exist and create many more jobs, there will still be a significant number of people whom the system is not set up to support.

I have dealt with people in my constituency surgeries who are being supported by third sector organisations, which are being hammered by the national insurance changes and will not be able to provide the support they have been providing. I have dealt with individuals who are six months away from having the consistency in their lives to be able to get up at 8 o’clock every morning.

My concern is that all Governments—I am not specifically blaming the Labour Government—look for quick wins. They look for the low-hanging fruit. “Where can we try to improve things so that people who are pretty close to work anyway—who are not that far out, who have pretty stable lives and who do not have an incredibly chaotic lifestyle—can access work?”

We will be letting down those people who have chaotic lifestyles and who are so far away from being able to get into paying work—particularly full-time paying work—if we reduce the amount of disability benefits they can claim or reduce the amount of support they can receive, when they are a year away from having the stability to be able to access work.

The social security safety net is not a safety net unless it provides support to people who absolutely cannot work right now, and who will need 12, 15 or 18 months, or two years, of intensive support to get to a position where they can achieve part-time work. I do not think that support is in place, and I do not think any Government have provided enough support to ensure that people are not left on the scrapheap. \p Robin Swann: We talk about labelling people, and we used to have that awful acronym “NEETs”—young people who are not in education, employment or training—and thank goodness we have moved away from that.

The hon. Lady is talking about programmes, and the programmes we had in Northern Ireland under the European social fund and the UK shared prosperity fund are now being withdrawn from those communities. Those organisations were crucial in helping people who were far from employment get into gainful work. It takes time to build up young people’s confidence in society so that they see the value of work. I agree with the hon. Lady that the problem requires a long-term plan, but the Government are looking for short-term plans. \p Kirsty Blackman: It is absolutely about long-term planning. That is why we are making the case that we cannot have a welfare cap and that things are being  done backwards. We should put in place all the supports that the Government are promising, and more, to get people to the position where they can get into work.

The welfare cap is an unfortunate hurdle, particularly as it bakes in some of the cuts that have been made, such as the winter fuel payment. It seems that there will not be an increase in the level of paternity pay; it would be nice to see an increase in paternity pay levels and in the number of men taking up paternity leave. On young people not in education, employment or training—a phrase that was used earlier, when somebody said NEET—it would be great if young people had more chances and choices.

Finally, on issues relating to specific geographical locations—the Minister mentioned Blackpool—hon. Members would not expect me, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, to avoid talking about the importance for Aberdeen of having a just transition. I mentioned doing things backwards; the Minister needs to ensure we build up renewable energy jobs before we knock down the jobs in fossil fuels. I am concerned that the Government are failing to do that in the right order, and that we will have gaps where people will become unemployed because of the UK Government’s actions. \p Dan Tomlinson: I thank the Secretary of State for all the work on these important issues. I am aware that we are close to the end of the debate, so I will raise just one issue.

A small business owner in my constituency of Chipping Barnet in north London told me about the way the jobcentre failed to support people into work when the previous Government were in charge. It is encouraging to see what is coming forward in the White Paper, but the small business owner, whose name is Simon, told me how he had advertised some jobs in his company. He and his team spent seven hours going through lots of issues with 80 applicants, all of whom were referred by the jobcentre but none of whom had any desire to take up the job. They were applying because they were being forced to do so by the work coaches in the jobcentres in those 10-minute appointments.

I am happy that the Government have set out proposals in the White Paper—there will be more to come soon in the Green Paper—to help people who want to work to find jobs that are right for them, and to help employers to get good matches to improve productivity and growth in this country. \p Alison McGovern: I thank every Member who contributed to the debate. My hon. Friends the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) and for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), the hon. Members for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) all made important contributions.

All of us have pointed out that our social security system should be a safety net and a springboard, and should help people be and do all the things they might wish. However, when we look at what we have inherited, it is a mess and it does not serve the purpose it is supposed to serve. That presents a crisis for this country,  because each and every one of us knows that one day it could be us that gets sick and needs help, and that one day, hopefully, we will receive a state pension. We need the social security system to do its job. We are not in a good place, but we will move on.

We are all impatient to get the change we need. We have already set out plans that are being discussed. We need big, fundamental reform, because the scale of the challenge is huge. There is an £8.6 billion breach this year; the OBR saw the breach coming for over 18 months, but the previous Government did absolutely nothing to prevent it. That is not a number that you get because of one or two—

One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, this day).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That, pursuant to the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2022 update, which was approved by this House on 6 February 2023 under section 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, this House agrees that the forecast breach of the welfare cap in 2024–25 due to higher forecast expenditure on Universal Credit and disability benefits is justified and that no further debate will be required in relation to this specific breach. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved,

That the level of the welfare cap, as specified in the Autumn Budget 2024, which was laid before this House on 30 October 2024, be approved.—(Alison McGovern.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2024, be approved.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p Claire Young: I want to start by setting the scene. The A432 M4 overbridge forms part of a key route from my constituency into Bristol. It was erected in 1966 when the M4 was built and is a post-tensioned concrete bridge. That is, it has high-strength steel tendons in ducts within concrete to which tension was applied after the concrete set, before they were anchored in concrete and the ducts filled in with grouting. I will come back to the problems of such bridges later, but for now the key point to note is that it usually takes around 16,000 vehicles a day over the motorway to the Wick Wick roundabout, where drivers can continue on the A432 into Bristol or take the A4174 ring road.

I say usually, because in June 2023 National Highways closed the bridge, having given 48 hours’ notice to South Gloucestershire council, of which I was leader at the time. In December 2023, after six months of investigations, National Highways announced that the bridge would have to be replaced and could not reopen in the meantime, and that the work would take between two and three years, backdated to June. At one point, an end date of 2025 was mentioned, but that has now become the spring of 2026.

The closure is having a massive impact on local residents. The official diversion is long, so many of the 16,000 vehicles are ending up on local country lanes such as Henfield Road, Ram Hill and Down Road. Even part of the official diversion route is only a C road. The council has put in extensive measures to improve traffic flow, but roads are taking loads that they were never designed to take. That is resulting in long queues, residents being unable to get out of their properties safely or at all, and more potholes and the edges of roads breaking up. Heavy goods vehicles are using roads with weight limits and there is no enforcement to stop them. Henfield Road and Ram Hill are in a quiet lanes scheme, where walkers, cyclists, horse riders and drivers are supposed to share the roads respectfully, but that is not happening.

The situation has also exacerbated flooding on Henfield Road, and high levels of traffic are pushing water on to people’s properties. That has left villagers feeling cut off, especially when flooding has taken other routes out of action. Further, when the bridge is demolished, which we are told is due to happen in March, pedestrians and cyclists will also be forced to divert.

Above all, people question the length of time that it is taking to replace the bridge. One wrote:

“For the past 16 months, we have had just one route to exit Yate to reach the city centre, which has been plagued by continuous temporary traffic lights—often two sets on Bristol Road. Why is it taking so long?”

Another said:

“When the bridge is eventually replaced, it’s likely to be the best part of 3 years to fix the issue. This is an utter embarrassment and quite frankly an absolute disgrace. The inconvenience this is causing to businesses, commuters and homeowners to name but a few is immeasurable. Those responsible for this debacle should hang their heads in shame.”

The closure has left the usually busy stretch of Badminton Road between Coalpit Heath and the bridge practically deserted, which has had a huge impact on local businesses. Kevin at the Bigger Eater burger van has been trading in that lay-by for 30 years. He provided a great service to local people during the pandemic, but the loss of passing trade because of the closure could be the final straw. There is also a kebab van in the lay-by in the evenings. Viaduct Café has lost 60% of its turnover since the bridge closed, resulting in its losing half of its staff. The premises where it is located have lost two business tenants. PM Autos, which services cars and has an agreement to take vehicles for their MOT to a garage in Downend on the other side of the closure, has to take a round-about route that adds significantly to the time taken and cuts into their takings. The Golden Heart pub has lost the passing trade of people deciding to stop for a meal on their way home from work. Heritage Sheds and Fencing has complained that potential customers are not sure whether it is still open; again, it is losing trade.

The impact on the local economy does not seem to be fully recognised. This is not something that businesses can reasonably insure against, yet when I wrote to the Minister I was told simply that there is no right to passing trade. In the same way that viable businesses needed help to see them through covid, these businesses need support to ensure that they survive this closure.

Although the bridge is the responsibility of National Highways, it has fallen to South Gloucestershire council to deal with the impacts that I have described on the local road network. I wish to put on record my thanks to the many officers involved for their efforts in responding to such an unexpected event. After initial monitoring, they put in place temporary measures, including traffic lights, road closures and temporary signage, and when it was confirmed that the road would remain closed for two to three years, they reviewed the existing measures and implemented more. Although some were funded by National Highways, others were deemed to be an “existing problem”—overlooking the fact that the closure is exacerbating those existing problems—or too far away to be related to the bridge, despite the fact that closing such a major route has ripple effects across the local road network.

Unfortunately, the measures that the council put in place are not enough, for example, to stop the HGVs using unsuitable roads, because any physical measures that stop lorries also stop buses, and the police do not have the resources to enforce the restrictions. For a long-term issue such as this, it is vital that the police have the resources to manage it. I also highlight the impacts on other council services: carers, waste lorries and so on all have to take longer routes

The council has been dealing with extensive communication from the public and liaising with National Highways, the police and bus operators, which has been a significant drain on resources in itself. One thing that I was determined to do when I became leader of South Gloucestershire council was improve communication with our residents. In the case of the bridge closure, that meant doing video updates in which we put residents’ questions to National Highways officers. At the beginning, it felt that getting information out of National Highways to share with the public would be a challenge, but I am pleased to say that it got on board with the updates, so much so that I understand it was considering rolling  them out elsewhere in the country. Not only have the video updates continued with my successor, but National Highways has attended public-engagement sessions alongside councillors and council officers. Although communication cannot remove all the frustration and disruption, it is vital that people know what is going on and can get answers to their questions.

Why am I bringing what could appear to be a hyper-local issue to the House? I believe that there is a significant wider risk. National Highways manages 169 post- tensioned concrete bridges on the strategic road network in the south-west alone, and 1,195 nationwide. In addition, there are an estimated 675 that are the responsibility of 105 local highway authorities. Of those 675, research by the RAC Foundation in 2021 reported that a whopping 293 required intrusive inspections that could cost £100,000.

“CS 465 Management of post-tensioned concrete bridges”, a document I am sure we are all familiar with, says in its introduction that

“tendons can be vulnerable to corrosion and severe deterioration where internal grouting of tendon ducts is incomplete and moist air, water and contaminants can enter the ducting system.”

It goes on to say that

“construction practices and a lack of maintenance”

are the key factors affecting deterioration. In the case of the A432 bridge, workers discovered when they drilled through to the tendons that the grouting was missing.

CS 465 also explains that the problem with post-tensioned concrete bridges is that “safety critical defects in post-tensioned concrete are typically hidden, very difficult to detect and may result in a brittle mode of failure.”

Unfortunately, visual inspections alone will not give warning of imminent collapse, and intrusive investigations can be expensive and potentially damaging. If a problem is identified, these bridges have to be removed very carefully, as the tendons are under tension—if we think about what happens when we release a taut elastic band, we can see why that would be dangerous. With many bridges having been built during the height of motorway building in the ‘60s and ‘70s, it is entirely possible that this sort of major disruption is coming to many other communities across the country.

I come now to my asks of the Minister. Given the high level of disruption and the local dismay about the length of time the work is taking, will the Minister work with National Highways to try to bring forward the reopening of the road? Turning to the wider issue, what reassurance can the public have that all the thousands of post-tension concrete bridges in the UK are safe? What is the plan to ensure that that is the case, and has it been reviewed in the 19 months since this bridge was discovered to be failing? How will lessons be learned from this experience to reduce the time needed to replace other bridges that are identified as failing?

Will the Minister review how residents and businesses are supported and compensated when National Highways inflict significant disruption on them for an extended period? Will he also look at how the local highway authority is helped to manage its road network when impacted by a National Highways closure, and at how the police are resourced to help it to do that? Will he review how the assessment is made of which measures should fall within the costs ascribed to National Highways, whether an existing problem is being worsened by the closure, and how widely the impact is recognised, so that  local highway authorities are not left with huge bills? Will the Minister consider the approach taken to communications in this case, and work with National Highways so that initiatives such as the video updates are rolled out to other incidents, to ensure timely communication with the public?

I have previously spoken in this House about the financial challenges facing local authorities in simply trying to maintain basic infrastructure, even without additional problems such as this road closure. Will the Minister commit to giving South Gloucestershire council the money that it needs to restore the damaged roads when the bridge has reopened? \p Claire Hazelgrove: I welcome the debate of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), although I would have appreciated some notification of the debate, given that the bridge also sits within my constituency and impacts my residents every single day in exactly the same way as it does hers.

I completely agree with the challenges that have been described. Delays in getting home, to work or to a doctor’s appointment are very real challenges. As the leader of the council at the time the big challenges with the bridge were discovered, when National Highways thought that it needed to intervene to close the bridge because things had got to that stage, the hon. Lady has deep insight into those challenges. I welcome the work that she and others, including Ian Boulton, who was co-leader of the council at the time, have done alongside council officers to mitigate the impact of the bridge closure. I work closely with them and get regular updates, for which I am very grateful as a constituency MP. That close relationship between the council and MPs is what our constituents want. They want us to work together with council leaders in South Gloucestershire, and I am fully committed to that.

Although there are delays and we wish the bridge could be opened soon—I echo that desire—I understand that National Highways has brought about this work as quickly as it could. We seek to communicate that to residents —I know that I do as an MP—so that they know the hard and fast work being done. National Highways recognises the importance of this bridge as an artery across and between our communities for people to get to work and see family members. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who is sitting beside me, knows the situation well, he having lived just on the other side of the bridge for a long time. He can attest to the delays and the challenges that the situation is causing hard-working families and individuals across our community.

A lot of local people recognise not only the challenge, but the ambition being led by the council, alongside National Highways, to ensure that the new bridge can serve our communities in the way that it needs to in the long term—that is positive. The consultation work done over a long while on ways to bring in active travel measures and offer more opportunities will serve our communities well in the long term. I hear and echo the challenges that have been described, which my residents and I share and understand, but I am optimistic about  the long-term future of the bridge. I hope that it can be an example of the good types of bridges that we want to see elsewhere across our country.

I will leave it there for now. I wanted to share those additional and important factors, as well as the views of local people on my side of the bridge. \p Simon Lightwood: It is a pleasure to respond to the important points raised by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove). I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate for securing the debate on such an important matter: the replacement of the A432 Badminton Road M4 overbridge.

Safety on our roads is of the upmost importance, which is why the Government have announced that we intend to publish a new road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. Work is already underway on that. The maintenance and renewal of vital structures on our roads is also of the utmost importance and contributes to the safety of everyone who uses the strategic road network.

I note from the hon. Member’s efforts to secure a debate on this subject that she is indeed a strong advocate for her constituents, businesses and road users—as is my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke—and she has been campaigning extensively to see improvements and to see how quickly this vital structure over the M4 can be replaced with minimal impact on local people and businesses, and to protect the safety of everyone who uses it.

Our strategic road network is the backbone of our country’s economy. With 4,500 miles of motorways and major A-roads, it connects people, builds communities, creates opportunities and helps the country to thrive. Although it makes up only 2.4% of England’s overall road network, it is the most heavily used and carries a third of all traffic and two thirds of all freight.

Investment in our strategic road network is made through the road investment strategy process, which is focused on creating a road network that is safe, accessible and reliable for all road users, and which addresses its impacts on those who use it and live near it. We are committed to putting road transport at the heart of our mission-driven Government, transforming infrastructure so that it works for the whole country, unlocking growth, promoting social mobility and tackling regional inequality.

The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate may be aware that locally managed roads make up 98% of the road network, and that almost every journey starts and ends on a local road. We understand how critical it is to keep the local road network functioning as this promotes growth locally and nationally and has a daily impact on the lives of millions of people. Where these local roads interact with the strategic road network, we aim to ensure that that is seamless and there is minimal impact on local people and businesses, while recognising safety needs.

The A432 M4 overbridge has been closed since July 2023, following a detailed structural survey conducted by National Highways. The survey identified accelerated deteriorations and cracking on the underside of the bridge. As the hon. Member will understand, the safety  of all road users is paramount, and a decision was made to close the bridge to traffic while maintaining access for cyclists and pedestrians.

I understand the concerns that the hon. Member may have due to the length of the closure, but I want to highlight that this is a complex scheme that has involved numerous specialists, including utility providers, in preparation for the demolition to begin. The demolition is planned for March this year, with a new bridge planned to open for motorists early next year.

The hon. Member called for the work to be expedited and I can assure her that National Highways has already worked hard to accelerate many of the activities that support the replacement, to ensure that the bridge is available for the community as soon as possible. Indeed, I have been talking to National Highways and understand that normally a project of this scale would take about five years, whereas the period for this project is three years. My Department will continue to engage readily with National Highways as the project progresses.

I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that National Highways has no intention of inconveniencing road users, but it accepts that, due to the nature of this type of work, and especially when road closures are necessary, some level of disruption is unavoidable. I understand the concern that there will be a period when no crossing of any kind is possible over the M4 on Badminton Road.

As I mentioned, the hon. Member is a strong champion for local businesses in her constituency and has called for compensation due to the impact of traffic diversions. National Highways provides compensation as required by legislation across its projects and schemes. The compensation arrangements generally cover permanent adverse impacts, and the generally held principle is that the public purse does not compensate businesses for loss of earnings due to temporary road works.

National Highways has worked with South Gloucestershire council on funding and implementing the traffic management it requires on its network. Mitigation provided includes significant volumes of static signing, variable electronic message signs and temporary traffic signals. The diversion routes used during the A432 closure have been agreed with the council and are the optimum routes available. The council will have considered the impact of the reassigned traffic, its implications and the limited alternatives available on its network. None the less, I understand the hon. Member’s views on the impact that increased traffic may have on local roads that are not designed for heavy traffic volumes. However, the strategic and local road networks use each other when diversion opportunities are for mutual benefit.

I assure the hon. Member that National Highways will continue to work with South Gloucestershire council to ensure that works are completed efficiently and to   mitigate, as much as is practically possible, the disruption caused by the closure of the bridge. That includes working with South Gloucestershire council to refine the traffic management arrangements on local roads.

I want to take this opportunity to affirm that National Highways has a robust inspection regime, ensuring the delivery of a safe and reliable motorway and trunk road network in England. It has a programme of structural inspections, investigations and assessments to ensure that potentially vulnerable structures are identified, that safeguarding measures are adopted and that maintenance works are programmed and prioritised. National Highways inspects all its bridges and other structures in line with the published guidance in the design manual for roads and bridges. That includes a general visual inspection every two years and a more detailed principal inspection every six years, which identifies and records defects in reinforced concrete, steelwork and other construction materials.

Where necessary, further investigations, which may include material tests, are undertaken to establish the extent, severity and specific causes of the defects. If maintenance works are required, they are prioritised and the necessary repairs are carried out to ensure that the structure remains safe and fit for purpose. National Highways applies any lessons learned on challenging projects across the organisation as standard practice. However, it is worth mentioning that inspection is based on standards set out in the design manual for roads and bridges.

Protecting the safety of all road users will always be a priority of this Government. Road safety is a shared responsibility, and it is important that we all recognise the part we can play as it cannot be achieved in isolation. Disruption will occur when action must be taken to address safety issues on the network, but we also acknowledge that maintenance of our roads ultimately benefits the whole community.

I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate once again not only for securing the debate, but for the important points she has raised and for her campaigning on behalf of her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke for her contribution. I reassure the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate that I take this matter seriously and will aim to continue the conversation to see what we can achieve to provide a positive outcome for road users in the short and long term.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.