debates/debates2025-06-11c conversation_17
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-06-11)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-06-11c conversation_17

Joani Reid:The Prime Minister and Members across the House will have witnessed the spectacular victory for Davy Russell and Scottish Labour at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. My constituents are sick of SNP failure and they voted for change: change for their NHS, for their schools and for Scotland. Has the Prime Minister seen the calls from within the SNP for John Swinney to resign? Does he agree with me that a leader who has only ever lost elections to the Labour party should stay put? \p Keir Starmer: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the role that she and others played in seeing Davy Russell elected. He will be a dedicated champion for his and her constituents. After nearly two decades in power,  the SNP got its verdict last Thursday: Scotland wants change. People know that the SNP is completely out of ideas. That is why they want a Labour Government to deliver real change. \p Rachel Reeves: My driving purpose since I became Chancellor is to make working people in all parts of our country better off, to rebuild our schools and our hospitals, and to invest in our economy so that everyone has the opportunity to succeed after 14 years of mismanagement and decline by the party opposite, culminating in a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That was the Conservatives’ legacy, and the first job I faced as Chancellor was to set it right. So at the Budget last October and again in the spring, I made the choices necessary to fix the foundations of our economy. We wasted no time in removing the barriers to growth: the biggest overhaul of our planning system in a generation; launching Britain’s first National Wealth Fund; and reforming our pensions system to unlock billions of pounds of investment into our economy.

We are starting to see the results. The stability we have provided has helped support four cuts in interest rates, saving hundreds of pounds a year for families with a mortgage. Real wages have grown by more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government. And the latest figures show that we are the fastest growing economy in the G7. Countries around the world are lining up to do business with Britain again, with new trade deals with India, the United States and the European Union.

We are renewing Britain, but I know that too many people in too many parts of our country are yet to feel it. This Government’s task, my task as Chancellor, and the purpose of this spending review is to change that—to ensure that renewal is felt in people’s everyday lives, in their jobs, and on their high streets. The priorities of this spending review are the priorities of working people: to invest in Britain’s security and Britain’s health and to grow Britain’s economy so that working people are better off.

Today, I am allocating the envelope I set out in the spring. I am enormously grateful to my excellent team of officials at the Treasury and to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his tireless work throughout this process, crunching the numbers and looking at the assets and liabilities. On that note, I thank all my Cabinet colleagues for their contribution to this process—they are all assets to this Labour Government.

In this spending review, total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms. Compare that to the Conservatives’ choice of austerity. In contrast to our increase of 2.3%, they cut spending by 2.9% a year in 2010. Let us be clear: austerity was a destructive choice for both the fabric of our society and our economy, choking off investment and demand and creating a lost decade for growth, wages and living standards. That is their legacy.

My choices are different. My choices are Labour choices—the choices in this spending review that are possible only because of my commitment to economic stability and the decisions this Government have made. The Conservatives’ fiscal rules guaranteed neither stability nor investment, and that is why I changed them. My fiscal rules are non-negotiable, and they are the foundation for stability and investment.

My first rule is for stability: day-to-day Government spending should be paid for through tax receipts. That is the sound economic choice. It also the fair choice, because it is not right to expect our children and future generations to pay for the services we rely on today. This first rule allows me, as I set out in the Budget, to allocate £190 billion more to the day-to-day running of our public services over the course of this spending review compared with the previous Government’s plans.

My second fiscal rule enables me to invest in Britain’s economic renewal while getting public debt on a downward path. This rule allowed me to increase public investment by more than £100 billion in the autumn and a further £13 billion in the spring. That is investment to rebuild our transport networks, our defence capability and our energy security—in short, to grow our economy.

I have made my choices: tough decisions for stability and changing Britain’s fiscal rules for investment. Today, I am delivering that investment for the renewal of Britain. Now, it is time for the parties opposite to make their choices. The spending plans I am setting out today are possible only because of the decisions I took in the autumn to raise taxes and the changes to our fiscal rules, every one of which was opposed by the parties opposite. Today, they can make an honest choice and oppose these spending plans as they opposed every penny I raised to fund them, or they can make the same choice as Liz Truss: spend more and borrow more, with no regard for the consequences.

In their clamour to cut taxes for the richest, the Conservatives crashed our economy, sent mortgage rates spiralling and put our pensions in peril. I will never take those risks. Yet Reform is itching to do the same thing all over again. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) may be playing the friend of the workers now, but some of us are old enough to remember when he described the disastrous Liz Truss Budget as “the best Conservative Budget” since the 1980s. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, after the damage is done, he still nods along. Reform has learned nothing. His party has been in Parliament for less than a year, yet it has already racked up £80 billion of unfunded commitments. Reform is simply not serious. Every day it becomes clearer that it is Labour—and only Labour—that has a credible plan for the renewal of Britain.

As I said in my spring statement, the world is changing before our eyes. Since the spring, the challenges that we face have become even more acute. The signs of our age of insecurity are everywhere, so we are acting on the promise in our plan for change: building renewal on the foundations of national security, border security and economic security. As the Prime Minister said earlier this month,

“A new era in the threats that we face demands a new era for defence and security.”

That is why we took the decision to prioritise our defence spending by reducing overseas development aid. Defence spending will now rise to 2.6% of GDP by April 2027, including the contribution of our intelligence agencies. That uplift provides funding for my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, with an £11 billion increase in defence spending and a £600 million uplift for our security and intelligence agencies. That investment will deliver not only security, but renewal in Aldermaston and Lincoln; in Portsmouth and Filton; on the Clyde and in Rosyth. Investment in Scotland, jobs in Scotland,  and defence for the United Kingdom—opposed by the Scottish National party; delivered by this Labour Government.

Investing in our armed forces, our military technology and our supply chains also brings huge opportunities: £4.5 billion of investment in munitions, made in factories from Glasgow to Glascoed, Stevenage to Radway Green; and over £6 billion to upgrade our nuclear submarine production, supporting thousands of jobs across Barrow, Derby and Sheffield. We will make Britain a defence industrial superpower, with the jobs, the skills and the pride that come with that.

A more unstable world presents new challenges at our borders too. Conflict has opened the way for organised criminal gangs. The British people rightly expect us to have control of who comes into our country. The Conservatives said that they would “take back control”. Well, Mr Speaker, they lost control. With one failed policy after another, there was no control and no security. In contrast, in the Budget last year I announced £150 million to establish the new Border Security Command, and today, to support the integrity of our borders, I can announce that that funding will increase, with up to £280 million more per year by the end of the spending review period for our new Border Security Command.

Alongside that, we are tackling the asylum backlog. The Conservative party left behind a broken system: billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money spent on housing asylum seekers in hotels, leaving people in limbo and shunting the cost of failure on to local communities. We will not let that stand. I can confirm today that, led by the work of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we will be ending the costly use of hotels to house asylum seekers in this Parliament. Funding that I have provided today, including from the transformation fund, will cut the asylum backlog; allow more appeal cases to be heard; and return people who have no right to be here, saving the taxpayer £1 billion per year. That is my choice, that is Labour’s choice, that is the choice of the British people.

If we want national security in a dangerous world, that does not stop at the strength of our armed forces or at our borders. I have long spoken about what I call “securonomics”—the basic insight that, in an age of insecurity, Government must step up to provide security for working people and resilience for our national economy. Put simply: where things are made, and who makes them, matters.

Take energy: the Tories neglected our nuclear and renewables sectors and closed our gas storage facilities, leaving us exposed to hikes in energy prices when Russia invaded Ukraine, and it was working people who paid the price for their mistakes. Labour understands that energy security is national security. Because it is the right choice for bills, jobs and growth, this Government are investing in the biggest roll-out of nuclear power for half a century, with a £30 billion commitment to our nuclear-powered future.

Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary and I announced £14 billion for Sizewell C, which will produce energy to power 6 million homes and support more than 10,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprenticeships, in order to build the nuclear workforce of tomorrow. That is not all. We are investing over £2.5 billion in a  new small modular reactor programme. Our preferred partner is Rolls-Royce—a great British company based in Derby. This investment is just one step towards our ambition for a full fleet of small modular reactors, and it provides a route for private sector-led advanced modular reactor projects to be deployed across the UK.

Alongside these actions, we are making nuclear-approved land available in Sellafield to attract private investment and create thousands more jobs. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for his work in this area. To strengthen Britain’s position at the forefront of a global race for new nuclear technologies—a cause championed by Mayor of the East Midlands Claire Ward and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White)—and to support pioneering work taking place in West Burton in Nottinghamshire, we are investing over £2.5 billion in our nuclear future.

To back British industries, pioneering work in carbon capture, usage and storage will take place. Last year we announced funding for two sites, one on Merseyside and one in Teesside, where we are building the world’s first commercial-scale CCUS plant. Today I can announce support for the Acorn project in Aberdeenshire to support Scotland’s transition from oil and gas to low-carbon technology—a challenge and an opportunity well understood by the leader of Scottish Labour Anas Sarwar and my right hon. Friend the Scotland Secretary. We are also backing the Viking project in Humberside—a cause long supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn).

Because I am determined to ensure that the energy technologies of the future are built here and owned here and that jobs come to Britain, this spending review invests in the wholly publicly owned Great British Energy, headquartered in Scotland. These investments will ensure that the towns and cities that powered the last industrial revolution play their part in our next industrial revolution. Reducing our reliance on overseas oil and gas, protecting working families from price shocks, and a new generation of energy industries for a renewed Britain—that is my choice, that is Labour’s choice, that is the choice of the British people.

Economic security relies on our ability to buy, make and sell more here in Britain. In April, this Government faced a choice: to let British Steel in Scunthorpe go under or to intervene. [Interruption.] That choice was a choice not of the metal trader but of this Labour Government. We heard representations from workers, trade unions and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin). My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary and I were not prepared to tolerate a situation in which Britain’s steel capacity was fatally undermined. We were not prepared to see another working-class community lose the pride, prosperity and dignity that industry provides, so we did intervene to save British Steel and the jobs that come with it, and I am proud of that decision.

The Government will invest in Scunthorpe’s long-term future and the future of steelworks across our great country. In a vote of confidence in our home-grown steel, Heathrow airport, where we are backing London by backing a third runway, has signed the UK steel charter—a multibillion-pound airport expansion backed by Labour and built with British steel.

Building our train and tram lines, our military hardware and our new power stations will mean orders for steel made in Britain at Sheffield Forgemasters, where we are investing in nuclear-grade steel, and in Port Talbot, where the spending review confirms the £500 million grant to Tata Steel. A future for British-made steel and a proud future for Britain’s steel communities. Things built to last, built here in Britain—that is my choice, that is Labour’s choice, that is the choice of the British people.

This Labour Government are backing British business. There will be more to come in the weeks ahead with our 10-year infrastructure strategy and our modern industrial strategy: a plan drawn up in partnership with businesses and trade unions. When I speak to businesspeople and entrepreneurs about what they need to succeed, they say that they need the chance to innovate, they need access to finance and they need a deep pool of talent. We have heard that message, and today we are taking action.

First, on innovation, which is a great British strength. Our universities are world-leading, and we are proud of them. We want our high-tech industries in Britain to continue to lead the world in years to come in car production, in aerospace and in life sciences, so we are backing our innovators, backing our researchers and backing our entrepreneurs with research and development funding rising to a record high of £22 billion a year by the end of the spending review. Because home-grown artificial intelligence has the potential to solve diverse and daunting challenges, as well as the opportunity for good jobs and investment here in Britain, I am announcing £2 billion to back the Government’s AI action plan overseen by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Secondly, to champion those small businesses seeking access to finance as they look to grow, I am increasing the financial firepower of the British Business Bank with a two thirds increase in its investments, increasing its overall financial capacity to £25.6 billion to help pioneering businesses to start up and scale up, backing Britain’s entrepreneurs and backing Britain’s wealth creators.

Thirdly, as we invest, if we are to thrive in the industries of the future, we must give our young people the skills they need to contribute to our national success as scientists, engineers and designers, and as builders, welders and electricians. I know the ambition, the drive and the potential of our young people; it cannot be right that too often those ambitions and that potential are stifled. Young people who want training find courses are oversubscribed and are turned away at the door, forcing growing businesses, eager to recruit that talent, to look elsewhere—potential wasted and enterprise frustrated. So today I am providing record investment for training and upskilling with £1.2 billion a year by the end of the spending review to support over a million young people into training and apprenticeships so that their potential, their drive and their ambition is frustrated no longer.

On the subject of skills, we should all recognise the Leader of the Opposition’s own commitment to lifelong learning. At the weekend, she promised to learn and “get better” on the job. I am sure that Opposition Members will be supporting her in that endeavour. Good luck with that.

As we build a strong, secure and resilient economy, working people must feel the benefits. That starts with the security of a proper home. Our planning reforms have opened up the opportunity to build. Now, we must act to make the most of those opportunities, and a plan to match the scale of the housing crisis must include social housing, which has been neglected for too many decades, but not by this Labour Government. So, led by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we are taking action. I am proud to announce the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years with a new affordable homes programme in which I am investing £39 billion over the next decade—direct Government funding that will support house building, especially for social rent. I am pleased to report that towns and cities including Blackpool, Preston, Sheffield and Swindon already have plans to bring forward bids to build those homes in their communities.

I have gone further. Last autumn, I enabled greater use of financial transactions to support investments in our infrastructure alongside strict guardrails that ensure that money is spent wisely through our public financial institutions. So, in line with that commitment, I am providing an additional £10 billion for financial investments, including to be delivered through Homes England, to crowd in private investment and unlock hundreds of thousands more homes. Homes built by a Labour Government; homes built for working people.

But it is no good investing in new skills, new jobs and new homes if they are not properly connected. That is why last week, with the support of my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, I announced £15 billion of investment to connect our cities and our towns—the biggest ever investment of its kind—with investments in buses in Rochdale, train stations in Merseyside and Middlesbrough, mass transit in West Yorkshire and metro extensions in Birmingham, Tyne and Wear and Stockport. Alongside that, we are backing Doncaster airport.

Today, I am announcing a four-year settlement for Transport for London to provide certainty and stability for our largest local transport network to plan for the future. For other regions in the UK, I am today providing for a fourfold increase in local transport grants by the end of this Parliament to make the improvements put off for far too long, to improve the journeys that people make every day.

To unlock the potential of all parts of Britain, we are going further by investing in major rail projects to connect our towns and cities. In October, I announced funding for the trans-Pennine route upgrade—the backbone of rail travel in the north, linking York, Leeds and Manchester—with a quarter of that route expected to be electrified by this summer. I know the commitment of my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), for York Outer (Mr Charters) and for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) to this issue, and today I can announce a further £3.5 billion of investment for that route. But my ambition, and the ambition of people across the north, is greater still, so in the coming weeks I will set out the Government’s plan to take forward our ambitions for Northern Powerhouse Rail.

I have also heard the representations of my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), and for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), and I can tell the House today that to connect Oxford  and Cambridge and to back Milton Keynes’s leading tech sector I am providing a further £2.5 billion for the continued delivery of East West Rail. On a matter that I know is of great importance to my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), I can announce today that I am providing funding for the midlands rail hub: the region’s biggest and most ambitious rail improvement scheme for generations, strengthening connections from Birmingham across the west midlands and into Wales, too.

For 14 years, the Conservatives failed the people of Wales. Those days are over. Following representations from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, the First Minister of Wales, and Welsh Labour MPs, today I am pleased to announce £445 million for railways in Wales over 10 years, including new funding for Padeswood sidings and Cardiff West junction. That is the difference made by two Labour Governments, working together to undo a generation of underfunding and neglect.

This Government take seriously their commitment to investment, jobs and growth in every part of the UK. I have heard the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), and the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotheram, that past Governments have under-invested in towns and cities outside London and the south-east. They are right, so today I am publishing the conclusion of the review of the Treasury Green Book, which is the Government’s manual for assessing value for money. Our new Green Book will support place-based business cases, and make sure that no region has Treasury guidance wielded against it. I said that we would do things differently, and that we wanted growth in all parts of Britain, and I meant it.

Backing our nations and regions means backing our devolved Governments, and this spending review provides the largest settlement in real terms since devolution was introduced, with £52 billion for Scotland, £20 billion for Northern Ireland by the end of the spending review period, and £23 billion for Wales. Having heard representations from many Welsh Labour colleagues, and because I know the obligation that we owe to our industrial communities, I am providing a multi-year settlement of £118 million to keep coal tips safe in Wales.

I know what pride people feel in their communities—I see it everywhere I go—but I also know that, for too many people, there is a sense that something has been lost as high streets have declined, community spaces have closed, and jobs and opportunity have gone elsewhere. The renewal of Britain must be felt everywhere. Today I am pleased to announce additional funding to support up to 350 communities, especially those in the most deprived areas—funding to improve parks, youth facilities, swimming pools and libraries, and to support councils in fighting back against graffiti and fly-tipping, including in Blackpool South, Stockport, Stoke-on-Trent Central, Swindon North, and Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend.

And there is more. Job creation and community assets are vital to our growth mission, but too often, regeneration projects are held back, gathering dust in bureaucratic limbo. We are changing that. We will establish a growth mission fund to expedite local projects that are important for growth—projects such as Southport pier, an iconic symbol of coastal heritage that has stood empty since 2022; Kirkcaldy’s seafront and high street, where investment would create jobs and new business opportunities; and plans for Peterborough’s new sports quarter, to drive activity and community cohesion. People deserve a Government who share their ambition for their communities, and who deliver renewal, growth, and opportunity, and that is what you get with a Labour Government.

If people are to feel pride in their community, enjoy their public spaces, and spend time on their high streets, they must feel safe when they do so—safe in the knowledge that when people break the law, they feel the full force of the law. The Conservative party left our prisons overflowing and on the brink of collapse, and left it to us to deal with the consequences. We are taking the necessary action, so my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary and I have announced that we are investing £7 billion to fund 14,000 new prison places, and putting up to £700 million per year into reform of the probation system. Today, I will do more. I am increasing police spending power by an average 2.3% per year in real terms over the spending review period, to protect our people, our homes and our streets. That is more than £2 billion, supporting us to meet our plan for change commitment of putting 13,000 additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles across England and Wales.

I am determined that every family, as well as every place, should feel the benefits of Britain’s renewal. Falling interest rates, supported by our commitment to economic stability, are already saving many families hundreds of pounds a month on their mortgage. I have accepted pay review body recommendations for our armed forces, nurses, teachers and prison officers, giving public sector workers the fair pay rises that they deserve. In autumn, I increased the national living wage—a pay rise for around 3 million hard-working people. This Government are doing more: we are banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, strengthening statutory sick pay, and ending the use of unscrupulous fire-and-rehire practices. Those are my choices; those are Labour choices.

I know that for many people the cost of living remains a constant challenge. That is why we are capping the cost of school uniforms. I can tell the House today that I am extending the £3 bus fare cap until at least March 2027. Earlier this week, we announced that over three quarters of pensioners will receive the winter fuel payment this year. And there is more: to get bills down, not just this winter but in winters to come, we have expanded the warm homes plan to support thousands more of the UK’s poorest households. That includes providing £7 million to homes in Bradford, £11 million to homes in Rugby, and £30 million to homes in Blackpool. Today I can announce that I will deliver in full our manifesto commitment to upgrading millions of homes, saving families and pensioners across the country up to £600 off their bills, each and every year. I am determined to do everything in my power to put more money in people’s  pockets, to give people security and control in their lives, to make working people better off, and to show them that this Labour Government are on their side.

Taxpayers work hard for their money, and they expect their Government to spend their money with care. For the first time in 18 years, this Government have run a zero-based review, and made a line-by-line assessment of what the Government spend—something that the Tories did not bother to do in 14 years. As a result of that work, and our wider drive for efficiencies, led by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in this spending review I have found savings from the closure and sale of Government buildings and land, from cutting back office costs, and from reducing consultancy spend—all of which the previous Government failed to do. Those reforms will make public services more efficient, more productive, and more focused on the user. I have been relentless in driving out inefficiencies, and I will be relentless in cutting out waste, with every single penny reinvested in our public services.

I joined the Labour party almost 30 years ago because I knew, growing up, that the Conservative party did not care much about schools like mine, or the kids I grew up with. I joined because I believed that every young person should have an equal chance to succeed, no matter where they come from or what their parents do. I believe that just as strongly today as I did then. That is why, at the Budget last autumn, I ended the tax loophole that exempted private schools from VAT and business rates. I put that money where it belongs: into helping the 93% of children in our state schools. The Conservatives opposed money for their local state schools, but I will always prioritise those schools. That was my choice; that is the Labour choice.

Because of decisions that we made in this spending review, last week, this Government, working with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, announced that free school meals will be extended to over half a million more children. That policy alone will lift 100,000 children out of poverty—children in schools from Tower Hamlets to Sunderland, and from Swansea to Bridgend.

Last year, at the Labour party conference, I was proud to announce the first steps in our plan to deliver breakfast clubs for every child, with an initial roll-out to the first 750 schools. We will continue with that national roll-out as part of our manifesto commitment, so that no child goes hungry, and every child can have the best chance of thriving and succeeding. I know that a good start in life does not start at school, so I can also announce £370 million for school-based nurseries, to put us firmly on track to meet our plan for change commitment to a record number of children being school-ready. On children’s social care, to break the dangerous cycle of late intervention and low-quality care, I am providing £555 million of transformation funding over the spending review period, so that children do not needlessly go into care when they could stay at home, and so that, where state intervention is necessary, there is better care, and there are better outcomes.

Last week, I was pleased to announce, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, that more than £130 million from the dormant assets scheme, run with the financial services sector, will be allocated to funding facilities for our young people, to give every child the chance to take part in music, sport and drama, and to fund libraries in our schools,  so that the confidence and opportunities that those resources open up are no longer the preserve of the privileged few. Those are my choices, those are Labour choices, and those are the choices of the British people.

Overall, I am providing a cash uplift of over £4.5 billion a year in additional funding for the core schools budget by the end of the spending review, backing our teachers and our kids. People who went to ordinary comprehensives in the ’80s and ’90s are all too familiar with the experience of being taught in temporary classrooms. The previous Conservative Government oversaw another generation of kids being herded into cold and damp buildings as school roofs literally crumbled. It was not acceptable when I was at school, and it is not acceptable now. I am therefore providing investment, rising to nearly £2.3 billion per year, to fix our crumbling classrooms, in addition to £2.4 billion per year to continue our programme to rebuild 500 schools, including Chace community school in Enfield, Woodkirk academy in Leeds and Budmouth academy in Weymouth. Investing in our young people, investing in Britain’s future and investing in opportunity for all: that is Labour’s choice.

Finally, let me turn—[Hon. Members: “More!”] I knew they would cheer. Let me turn to our national health service. It is our most treasured public service, and people rightly expect an NHS that is there when they need it; that an ambulance will come when they call one; that a GP appointment will be available when they need one; and that a scan will be performed when they are referred for one. I am hugely grateful to our nurses, our doctors, our paramedics and other healthcare professionals for everything that they do.

If we want a strong economy where working people can fulfil their potential, we must have a strong NHS—not, as the Reform party have called for, an insurance-based system. We believe in a publicly funded national health service, free at the point of use. Perhaps the hon. Member for Clacton should spend more time focusing on the priorities of the British people, and less time in the Westminster Arms—although, after this week, perhaps the Two Chairmen pub might be a better fit.

At the Budget, I took the decisions necessary to provide an immediate injection of funding to get the NHS back on its feet. I commend my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for all the progress that he has already made. In less than a year, this Government have recruited 1,700 new GPs, delivered 3.5 million extra appointments and cut waiting lists by more than 200,000. Fixing our NHS also means delivering fundamental reform across social care, so we are backing the first ever fair pay agreement for that sector. I am also increasing the NHS technology budget by almost 50%, and we are investing £10 billion to bring our analogue health system into the digital age, including through the NHS app, so patients can manage their prescriptions, get their test results and book appointments all in one place.

We are shifting care back to the community and providing more funding to support the training of thousands more GPs to deliver millions more appointments. We are investing more in prevention, to meet our manifesto commitment of providing mental health support teams in all schools in England by the end of this Parliament. Those investments will enable the delivery of our upcoming 10-year plan for health and will put the NHS firmly back on the path to renewal.

To support that plan, to back the doctors and nurses we rely on, and to make sure that the NHS is there whenever we need it, I am proud to announce today that this Labour Government are making a record cash investment in our national health service, increasing real-terms, day-to-day spending by 3% per year for every single year of this spending review—an extra £29 billion per year for the day-to-day running of our health service. That is what the British people voted for and that is what we will deliver: more appointments, more doctors and more scanners. The national health service: created by a Labour Government, protected by a Labour Government and renewed by this Labour Government.

This is a spending review to deliver the priorities of the British people: security, with a strong Britain in a changing world; economic growth, powered by investment and opportunity in every part of Britain; and our nation’s health, with an NHS fit for the future. I have made my choices. In place of chaos, I choose stability; in place of decline, I choose investment; and in place of pessimism, division and defeatism, I choose national renewal. These are my choices, these are Labour choices, and these are the choices of the British people. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Chancellor. \p Mel Stride: This spending review is not worth the paper it is written on, because the Chancellor has completely lost control. This is the “spend now, tax later” review, because the right hon. Lady knows that she will need to come back here in the autumn with yet more taxes, and a cruel summer of speculation awaits.

How can we possibly take this Chancellor seriously after the chaos of the last 12 months? We were assured at the election that Labour’s plans involved barely any additional spending or borrowing. Now the Chancellor parades her largesse, with hundreds of billions in additional spending over this Parliament. The initial profile for that spending was, of course, significantly front-loaded, but the Chancellor now expects us to believe that she will let spending rise by only 1.2% a year. There is no chance whatsoever of that happening, for the lesson of the last year has been that when the going gets tough, the right hon. Lady blinks.

She presented herself as the iron Chancellor, but what we have seen is the tinfoil Chancellor: flimsy and ready to fold in the face of the slightest pressure. She said she would not fiddle her fiscal rules; then she did. She said that she would not make any unfunded commitments; with the humiliation of the winter fuel U-turn, she just has. She looked business leaders in the eye and said no more taxes, but we all know what happened next, and we all know what is coming in the autumn. Her own Back Benchers, her Cabinet colleagues, Labour’s trade union paymasters and even the Prime Minister himself have all seen that she is weak, weak, weak. They can smell the blood. They will be back for more, and they will get it.

These spending plans are a fantasy, and is it not the truth that the Chancellor has to maintain this fiction because she has left herself no room for manoeuvre?  She is constantly teetering on the edge of blowing her fiscal rules, which she has already changed to allow even more borrowing. The only way she can claim to be meeting her rules is by pretending that she can control spending over the coming years, but let us look at the record so far. Borrowing in the last financial year came out £11 billion above even the Office for Budget Responsibility’s March forecasts, and 70% higher than the plans she inherited from the Conservatives.

For someone so keen on borrowing, the Chancellor seems strangely reticent even to use the word. Indeed, Ministers bizarrely tell us that it is Labour’s fiscal rules themselves that have “generated investment”. The reality is a little more straightforward: they have loosened the fiscal rules so they can borrow more. They borrow and borrow and borrow, allowing the national debt to continue to rise higher every single year while Ministers pretend that it is not. There will be an eye-watering £200 billion of additional borrowing in this Parliament compared with the plans set out in the last Conservative Budget, with £80 billion more to be spent on debt interest alone. In fact, if the Chancellor had retained our fiscal rules—[Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but if she had retained our fiscal rules, as she said she would before the election, the OBR has confirmed that she would be breaking them right now.

Our country is now vulnerable to even the smallest changes in the bond markets. Should we face a sudden external shock, we have no fiscal firepower left with which to respond, all thanks to the right hon. Lady’s choices. So can I ask the Chancellor: will she be open about what she has done? Will she admit that she has made a conscious choice to borrow more and to accept higher debts? Does she accept that this means interest rates and mortgages will be higher than they would otherwise have been, as the OBR itself has said? Given that she continues to claim that she has brought stability to the public finances, can I ask her what on earth her definition of “stability” is?

The Chancellor must be delighted that she does not have to face a new OBR forecast today, because if she did, she would have to set out how she would fund her humiliating U-turn on winter fuel payments, having already blown the savings on buying off her trade union paymasters last year. She said this week that there was still

“work to do to ensure the sums always add up”.

From the person in charge of the nation’s finances, that is hardly reassuring. You do not need to have worked at the Bank of England for a decade to know that that pitiful utterance is unlikely to soothe the markets.

So can the Chancellor confirm categorically that there will be no additional borrowing to pay for this chaotic reversal? And if that is the case, can she explain how on earth it can be paid for without raising taxes? Can she explain why, last summer, apparently to avoid a run on the pound, this measure was so urgent that pensioners had to be left in the cold over the last winter? What exactly has changed? Because it certainly has not been made possible by an improvement in the economy or the public finances, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies said this week are both in a worse state now than when Labour came into office.

If we had an OBR forecast, we might also get some answers on how the Government intend to find £3.5 billion to abolish the two-child benefit cap, which we are led to believe is imminent—another addition to the ballooning  welfare bill; another expensive surrender to the Labour left. And we would certainly get the OBR’s assessment of the economic outlook following the tariffs—changes that the right hon. Lady knew full well were coming. Meanwhile, her deluge of taxes and regulations has left business confidence at record lows, costing people their livelihoods. Only yesterday we saw the latest evidence of that. Figures for last month show that the number of people on payrolls fell by more than 100,000, after already falling by 55,000 in April. Unemployment is up by more than 10% since Labour came to office.

The right hon. Lady may trumpet extra spending today, but is it not the simple truth that she has trashed the economy and left no contingency in the face of a highly volatile global outlook? Is it not the reality that the Chancellor knows she will have to come back in the autumn with more tax rises to fund these plans? Or can she assure us right now that this is not the case—yes or no? We know that the Deputy Prime Minister has helpfully provided her with an entire brochure of tax rises that she will no doubt be perusing over the summer—the Corbynist catalogue. Can the Chancellor confirm that, as promised, the income tax thresholds will not be frozen at the Budget, a move she herself said would hurt working people?

What about the uncertainties in the departmental spending plan that the Chancellor has set out today? Can she assure us that these plans will not be topped up and that no backroom deals have been cut with disgruntled Cabinet Ministers? Can she assure us that the capital allocations announced today will actually be spent on capital and will not be diverted in-year, as she has done in the past, to day-to-day budgets to play more games with her fiscal rules?

The Chancellor has had to impose a settlement on the Home Secretary because this spending review will not deliver for our hard-working police officers across the country. Instead, the Home Office budget gets squandered on asylum costs because this Government simply do not have a plan on illegal migration. As the Defence Secretary has admitted, the Government have “lost control” of our borders. Small boat crossings are up by 42% on the same point last year.

On energy, at a time when businesses up and down the country are struggling with high energy costs, the Chancellor has chosen today to fund the Energy Secretary’s vanity projects such as GB Energy. And although we welcome the announcements on expanding nuclear capacity, the scale of ambition is a downgrade on the commitments made previously by the Conservatives.

Labour barely mentioned farming in its manifesto, and now we know why. It is not enough to have hit the farmers of our country with a family farm tax; today, what we see in black and white is a choice to make further cuts to the vital grants on which many farmers rely. This is a huge betrayal of our farming communities, and something that many Labour MPs in rural areas will have to go back to their constituencies later this week to explain.

On defence, we will always welcome any additional investment in our armed forces and capabilities, though I note nothing was said about when 3% will be achieved. All we heard was that intelligence services spending was to be included in defence spending to flatter the numbers. We left Labour a fully funded plan that they dithered over for a year, but now what we get is the Chancellor’s own black hole on defence spending and the lack of a  timeline on when we will achieve 3%. Instead, we get a £30 billion bill for the Chagos surrender—money that should have gone to our brave armed forces rather than, as is being reported, funding lower taxation in Mauritius. The first tax cuts for which this Chancellor has been responsible are in Mauritius.

We would have made different choices. We would not have killed growth with huge tax rises and new regulations. We would not have talked down our economy and the great businesses up and down our country. We would be focusing on efficiency and productivity in the public sector, not handing out pay rises with no strings attached. We would be getting a grip on welfare. Labour cancelled our plans for fundamental reform to health and disability benefits that would have seen 450,000 fewer people on long-term sickness benefits—that is a disgrace. Instead of proper reforms to PIP, the Government’s own plans are a rushed cost-cutting exercise—so rushed they even had to change them after they were announced. Their own Back Benches are in full revolt. Yet again, the Government talk tough, but there is no substance.

The right hon. Lady has no grip. She has no clue. The markets and the public see a Chancellor completely out of her depth. Having blown her headroom and more from her Budget in the autumn, she was forced into an emergency Budget in March to scrabble around to try to repair the damage. Today she comes before us again with yet another fantastical tale that she knows will have completely fallen apart come the autumn. We are not left with stronger foundations, as she would have us believe, but rather another dose of that hallmark for which her actions have made her so renowned: uncertainty and failure.

So there the right hon. Lady sits, powerless to resist her disillusioned MPs and her panicking Prime Minister, like a cork on the tide, the drumbeat for U-turns pounding in her ears. Yet her tone today suggests that all is well; the sunlit uplands await. What a hopeless conceit—a masterclass in delusion. Inflation is up, unemployment is up, growth is marked down, business and households are hurting, investors are fleeing in their droves, the bond market vigilantes circle—and here we have the Chancellor who refuses to listen, not only tinfoil, but tin-eared, too.

Let me be clear: it is working people and businesses who will pay the price come the autumn, with yet more taxes to pay for her weakness and her failures. We cannot afford this spending review, and for many, the growing conclusion is that we cannot afford this Chancellor. \p Rachel Reeves: I will address the shadow Chancellor’s specific points in a moment, but I want to start by acknowledging the progress he has made. After all, it has been quite a week for him. Last Thursday, he gave a speech saying that it will “take time” for his party to win back trust on the economy. Today he showed us how far he and his party have to go to achieve that. I want to give him some credit for last week’s analysis. He said that

“the Conservative Party was seen to have failed”,

and he is right. He said that the last Conservative Government

“put at risk the very stability which Conservatives had always said must be carefully protected”,

and I agree with him. [Interruption.] \p Judith Cummins: Order. I need to be able to hear, and I am sure our constituents also want to hear. \p Rachel Reeves: The shadow Chancellor said:

“The credibility of the UK’s economic framework was undermined by spending billions…with no proper plan for how this would be paid for.”

I could not put it better myself. He could have gone a lot further. For example, he could not even bring himself to mention Liz Truss by name—Stride by name, baby steps by nature—but at least he has made a start. He also spoke about

“the death of what we might call the Age of Thoughtfulness.”

Speaking of the death of thoughtfulness, let me turn to the shadow Chancellor’s response to the spending review. He welcomed our nuclear investment of £30 billion, but he said it is not enough. He welcomed our defence investment of £11 billion, but he said it was not enough. He and his party opposed the decisions that this Government have taken to make those announcements possible by voting against the Budget in October. You cannot spend the money if you will not raise the money. That is a lesson from Liz Truss that he has already forgotten.

The shadow Chancellor complained about the level of investment that I have announced, ignoring the fact that the reason this investment is so important is because his party oversaw 14 years of cratering investment, stagnating wages and public service collapse. Let me remind him of what I said: the Tories’ fiscal rules guaranteed neither stability nor investment, and that is why I changed them, so we can get stability and investment. All their fiscal rules enabled was them to crash the economy, and the working people of Britain will never forgive them for doing that.

The Conservatives set themselves against investment in the renewal of Britain. They set themselves against NHS investment, free school meals, investment in skills, investment in carbon capture and storage, investment in transport in our towns and cities—investment in everything that we have set out today—and yet the British people voted for that investment. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Home Office budget involves an increase in asylum costs. It does not. Asylum costs are coming down under this Labour Government because we are deporting more people and getting them out of hotels. He says we are cutting police spending; we are increasing it by 2.3% a year in real terms. We have had no apology for the damage the Conservatives did to our economy and our public services.

Interest rates have been cut four times in the past 11 months; GDP was the fastest growing of all G7 economies in the first quarter of the year; business confidence is rising; 500,000 more people are in work; record investment has been made in Britain; real wages have increased more in 10 months than they did in 10 years of a Conservative Government; the national living wage has increased, giving 3 million working people a pay rise; and we have done all that without increasing taxes on working people. Those are the choices we have made. That is the difference we are making.

In the spending review today, we set out the spending that we announced in the Budget last year and in the spring statement—not a penny more, not a penny less. I said in the Budget and in the spring statement that  public services must now live within the means that we have set, and we have achieved that. There will be a Budget later this year, and in that Budget we will set out all the fiscal plans in the round. But we have already drawn a line under the Tory mismanagement, with tax rises last year, and we will never have to repeat a Budget like that again because we will never have to clean up after the mess that the Conservatives made again.

The reason that this Labour Government have spent their first year fixing the foundations of our economy and stabilising our public finances is because it is what we had to do. The Government of which the shadow Chancellor was a part of left an unenviable legacy, which is why his party is, in his own words, “in a difficult place.”

We have made our choices. We are removing barriers to growth, which were untouched by the Conservatives in their 14 years in office; strengthening Britain’s security with the biggest real-terms increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, which the Conservatives did not do in their 14 years in office; bringing our health service into the 21st century after 14 years of Conservative neglect; investing in Britain’s renewal to repair the damage done by the Conservatives in their 14 years in office; and, in stark contrast to the Conservatives’ 14 years of chaos, waste and decline, we are delivering on the priorities of the British people. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee. \p Meg Hillier: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on delivering this spending review—the first zero-based review in a very long time. It is vital that as taxpayers—the citizens—are looking carefully at their spending in this cost of living crisis, that Government do that too. We look forward to having the Chief Secretary to the Treasury before the Committee in two weeks’ time to consider the review in more detail.

I note from the figures that the Chancellor has made a good fist of ensuring that Departments have more than they did under the Conservatives in many cases, and I welcome her work to deliver on tackling child poverty, a scourge on our society. I note from my brief glimpse, however, that there is a smaller increase for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government than there would have been—there is the £39 billion over a decade for affordable social housing. Children living in poverty also face poverty of situation in many cases. Will she expand on how she and the Deputy Prime Minister will deliver that money to provide the social housing that so many children in poverty desperately need? \p Rachel Reeves: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s welcoming of the breakfast clubs, free school meals and the capping of school uniform costs, which will help families living in poverty. The free school meals will, as she knows, lift 100,000 children out of poverty. She mentions the affordable homes grant, which will have its biggest ever increase. We have set that budget for 10 years to give certainty to the sector, so that it understands what is available. In addition, we have set out some social rent changes to give certainty to the sector to invest for the future. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: It has been almost a year since Labour swept to power with the promise of change, but we are still not seeing the scale of ambition needed to turn the country around. We welcome the announcement of investment in the NHS, but it will not work unless the Government invest in social care too. We welcome the investment in infrastructure, but it will not work unless the Government invest in skilling up the workforce that we need to build it. Cutting billions in real terms from departmental budgets seems unnecessary when the Government could instead go for growth and get a much deeper trading relationship with Europe—a move that could raise an extra £25 billion a year for the public purse. As long as the Government fail to truly tackle the red tape and trading barriers blocking British businesses, the Government’s grip on economic growth is more akin to a handbrake than an accelerator.

The last Conservative Government left our NHS on its knees. On their watch, waiting lists were soaring, hospitals were crumbling and our high street healthcare was hollowed out. Can the Chancellor confirm that this funding will deliver the extra 8,000 GPs needed to guarantee everyone an appointment within seven days, or within 24 hours if the matter is urgent? Can she confirm that this funding will bring dentists back into the NHS and put an end to dental deserts? Will she promise that this funding will mean that every cancer patient starts treatment within 62 days? Will she promise that the Government will meet the Prime Minister’s own pledge for 92% of routine operations to take place within 18 weeks? Will she and the Health Secretary—they are sitting side by side—set up a crumbling hospitals taskforce to look at creative funding ideas, bring construction dates forward and put an end to the vicious cycle and false economies of delayed rebuilds leading to rising repair costs, as we saw under the previous Government?

Then, of course, there is the elephant in the NHS waiting room: the crisis in our social care services. The Chancellor knows, the Health and Social Care Secretary knows, this whole Parliament knows: today’s investment in the NHS will be like pouring water into a leaky bucket if hospitals cannot discharge patients who are well enough to leave because there are no care workers to help them recover at home. The fair pay agreement that the Chancellor talked about is of course welcome, but it is barely a baby step, and it is nowhere near enough to bring social care back from the brink. At a bare minimum, we need a higher minimum wage for our care workers to stop the sector haemorrhaging staff to other sectors. When will the Chancellor finally recognise that we will never fix the NHS if we do not fix social care too? Will the Government finally act with urgency by committing to conclude the social care review by the end of this year, not in three years’ time?

On housing, we warmly welcome the Government’s investment in social homes. Will they now commit to the Liberal Democrats’ target of building 150,000 social homes every year?

Other public services are crying out for investment, too. Our communities need proper neighbourhood policing to feel safe, our farmers need fair support payments to keep putting food on our tables, and people of all ages deserve access to training and skills to build their future and to power our economy forward. That is why it is so disappointing that the Chancellor has today made things  so difficult for our public services by cutting unprotected budgets by billions. Yes, we know she was faced with the fallout from the most reckless, out-of-touch Conservative Government in recent memory, but being responsible is not just about making tough decisions; it is about having the moral courage to make the right ones. Yet this Government seem determined not to adopt the one policy that could put rocket boosters on our economy and raise billions for our public services: a proper trade deal with Europe.

A new, bespoke customs union with the European Union could boost our GDP by more than 2.2%, securing additional revenue to the tune of £25 billion a year—a huge boost to businesses and our struggling public services. If the Chancellor can U-turn on the winter fuel payment thanks to a skinny EU trade pact worth just 0.2% in extra GDP, just imagine how many more U-turns she could perform with a proper trade deal worth ten times as much.

We Liberal Democrats strongly support the allocation of 2.5% of GDP on defence, but we want Ministers to go further and faster to bolster our national security in today’s uncertain world. Will the Chancellor agree to cross-party talks in which we can work together to set a pathway to 3% of GDP well ahead of 2034? Will the Government use some of today’s investment to reverse the Conservatives’ irresponsible cut of 10,000 troops? Will she ensure that investing in our national security becomes a lever for economic growth, putting much greater emphasis on British steel producers and SMEs as we scale-up our defences, and ensuring that British start-ups can use defence innovation for the public good?

Before I conclude, I must thank the Chancellor for finally completing the world’s slowest U-turn, on the unfair winter fuel payment cut. Now that she has U-turned, will she do the right thing and backdate the payment for all those who lost out on support last winter but who are now eligible under the new rules? And now that she has U-turned once, will she make it a hat trick and also change course on the PIP and carer’s allowance cuts? Perhaps she might even look again at the growth-crushing jobs tax and the other changes affecting our high streets, small businesses and family businesses, and consider instead the fairer ways of raising the same amount of revenue that we Liberal Democrats have set out time and again: asking the big banks, social media giants and online gambling companies to start paying their fair share of tax.

After years of chaos and incompetence under the last Conservative Government, this was a unique opportunity to draw a line under the social care crisis, squeezed budgets and sluggish economic growth. I strongly urge the Chancellor to ignore those who talk down Britain’s economic potential, to rip up the red tape holding British business back, and to strike a properly ambitious trade deal with Europe that will turbocharge our economy and bring in billions to rebuild our public services. The Government say that their No. 1 mission is growth. That is the way to deliver it. \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I know she has not had a chance to look at the figures yet, but it is not right to say that there are real-terms cuts to public services. Public service spending is increasing by 2.3% a year on average over the course of the spending review.

I will start on investment in the NHS and social care. As I set out in my speech, we have already delivered 1,500 more GPs and put £26 billion into the NHS in the first phase of the spending review. I note that that compares with the £8 billion that the Liberal Democrats said they were going to put into the NHS in their manifesto. We have already put £26 billion in, and we will put more money in today and in every year of this Parliament.

The new hospital programme is being rolled out. I think the Health Secretary met just last week with Members of Parliament who are having hospital improvements in their local communities, including many Liberal Democrat MPs, so the hon. Lady should be aware that we are making improvements to the fabric of our hospitals as well as investing in technology, scanners and so on to improve productivity in our health service.

With regard to social care, as the hon. Lady knows, we are introducing the fair pay agreement—that is something that the Health Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister are very much committed to. As the hon. Lady will know when she looks at the documents, we have increased local government spending power so that we can put more money into social care. In addition, Louise Casey is doing her review into the future of social care.

We are going big on infrastructure. We announced £100 billion more in the Budget last year and another £13 billion in the spring statement, and we are backing that up with skills. As I set out in my speech and as is detailed in the spending review documents, we are making the biggest ever investment in young people’s skills so that they can access the new jobs that are being created in defence, house building and other infrastructure.

On red tape and backing business, it is a little bit ironic that the Liberal Democrats voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill yesterday, yet they come to the House today saying that they want to do away with red tape and go for growth. Well, we want to go for growth, and that is why we took that legislation through Parliament. Perhaps the hon. Lady will ask her party’s Lords to vote for growth in the other place.

We have done trade deals with the US, India and the EU. I think the Liberal Democrats opposed the trade deal with the US, but apparently they now think that trade deals are the way to go—well, so do we. That is why my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary has three of them helping our automotive sector, our steel sector and our farming communities.

We will use defence spending to support growth—the Defence Secretary and I have been very clear about that—and, as I set out in my speech, to make Britain a defence industrial superpower. I say gently to the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Lady that if we want to support investment in public services, we have to increase the tax rises to get there. They voted against the national insurance increase, which is what has enabled us to make the investments that I have set out today.

The hon. Lady says that she wants a wealth tax. We changed inheritance tax, and the Liberal Democrats voted against it. We introduced VAT on private schools, and the Liberal Democrats voted against it. Either they are serious about investing in public services, in which  case they need to back the tax increases, or they want to go down the route of the magic-money-tree Conservative party and just borrow more to pay for things.

On the winter fuel allowance, we have made our choices clear: we will keep the means test, but it will be paid to people with a pension of less than £35,000. I think the Liberal Democrats want to make it a universal benefit again. \p Daisy Cooper: indicated dissent. \p Rachel Reeves: Okay, that is just the Tories—well, they need to explain how they would pay for it.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Lady welcomes some of our policies, but the job of the Chancellor and the Government is to ensure that the sums add up. We made difficult decisions last October, but I stand by those difficult decisions; without them, today we would not have been able to make the investments we have made in schools, energy and our health service. I am proud of what we have achieved as a Government, and I am proud of the investment that we are putting in today. \p Bill Esterson: The warm homes plan will mean healthier and warmer homes and will see lower bills and create jobs in communities right across the country. It is a very good plan, especially for those facing fuel poverty. The last Government’s home energy programme changed every few months, which meant that businesses could not plan and consumers had no confidence in it, not to mention the scandalous misapplication of fixed-wall insulation. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is a long-term warm homes plan that will deliver warmer homes and cut bills to the benefit of millions of our constituents for years to come? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for that question. Warm homes are a big part of our plan to tackle the cost of living crisis, and the money that we have put into the warm homes plan today will mean that millions more homes can be retrofitted with better boilers, insulation and solar panels. On average, that takes £600 a year off people’s bills not just for one year, but for every year to come. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we have done today is set out a five-year package of capital investment, because it is crucial that the industry is able to plan for the future and that young people are therefore willing to train up and businesses are willing to invest in apprenticeships. That is why on all of our capital spending, including the warm homes plan, we have set out a five-year plan. \p Harriett Baldwin: My constituents in Tenbury Wells are seeking funding for a flood defence scheme. They will have listened very closely to the Chancellor’s remarks today to hear her mention flood defence capital spending, yet it was not mentioned in her speech. Can she confirm that the capital that will be allocated in the spending review period to flood defences will be as high in real terms as it was in the previous Parliament? \p Rachel Reeves: The hon. Lady knows that we increased money for flood defences in the spending review in autumn last year, because we knew that there was no  time to waste. We have already increased that flood defence spending, in addition to what the previous Government were spending. \p Liam Byrne: This spending review is good for Britain’s business, because it invests in the things that British business needs: it invests in skills, infrastructure and innovation, cuts red tape and supports small firms. Can the Chancellor clarify that this spending review will also open a new era of energy abundance for our country? The Business and Trade Committee heard directly from the International Monetary Fund in Washington yesterday that high energy costs are holding back growth. That is a consequence of the dither and delay from the Conservatives, who left us with the highest industrial energy costs in Europe. Will the Chancellor confirm to the House that we are consigning that era to history? \p Rachel Reeves: My right hon. Friend is right. We are backing innovation, skills and infrastructure, because we are backing British business. We are also cutting red tape, as we did yesterday, when we took the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through the House, making it easier to get things built in Britain again. As we make the investments, we want those jobs to come to Britain, including in the energy sector, whether it is investment in small modular reactors, Sizewell C, carbon capture and storage or floating offshore wind. We will set out the industrial strategy in the next couple of weeks, in which we will have more to say about energy costs for business. \p Gavin Robinson: I thank the Chancellor for engaging productively in the discussions about sustainable budgets for Northern Ireland, for the willingness to negotiate further and for the recognition that our need levels should be met. I thank her for that engagement and for the allocations to Northern Ireland for specific community projects that have been advanced by us. She has chosen through this allocation to make a budget available for the redevelopment of Casement Park. She will know about the political nature of some of the concerns around that redevelopment, and that in all previous agreements in the Executive, these things have been advanced in a balanced and non-partisan way. This Government have chosen to step into this issue in an unbalanced and partisan way. As such, in making financial transactions capital available—£50 million over the course of the next spending period—I ask the Chancellor to ensure that where there is a need for investment in football, as there is, she returns to the Executive’s agreement of 2011 in a balanced and non-partisan way. I hope that she will not be found wanting. \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the way in which he has put it. I was pleased to be able to announce the settlement for Northern Ireland in today’s spending review, but also money through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. He mentions Casement Park, and we have put £50 million in through this spending review. I will arrange for the right hon. Gentleman to meet either the Northern Ireland Secretary or a Minister from my Department to talk through what he wants to see. \p Helen Hayes: I welcome the focus my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has placed on children and young people in this spending review, with additional investment in children’s social care, schools and skills. These announcements show the Government’s commitment to improving the life chances of every child, and my Committee looks forward to scrutinising the detail in the coming weeks. The Chancellor will know that universities are the life force of many local economies, generating jobs, improving skills and boosting life chances, yet a number of our universities are at the brink of insolvency. The sector has been calling for a transformation fund to help universities reform and secure a sustainable future, so can the Chancellor confirm that she will work with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that no town or city has to face the calamity of a university going bust? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Education Committee, for her question. I appreciate her welcoming the investment in children’s social care, in skills and in schools—issues that she knows and cares passionately about. In the spending review, we were able to set out a total of £86 billion of investment in research and development, much of it spent through our universities and research institutes, but I am certain that the Education Secretary or the relevant Minister will meet my hon. Friend to talk about the wider allocation from this spending review. \p John Glen: Scientists at the UK Health Security Agency at Porton Down make a massive contribution to the welfare of our country in difficult times. Ten years ago, the Chancellor’s predecessor wanted to invest £525 million in moving to a single science hub in Harlow. Some £400 million has already been spent, and last year, the National Audit Office said that it would cost £3.2 billion to complete the move by 2036. Three weeks ago, I had an Adjournment debate in which I was told that today, we would know the outcome of what was actually going to happen with this project. Can the Chancellor explain what is happening with the future of the UKHSA at Porton Down? Is it going to move to Harlow, at massive expense—six times the original estimate—and 15 years later than was estimated, or can we save some money and use it for better investment in our public estate? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and member of the Treasury Select Committee for his question. We have made the allocation to the Department of Health and Social Care—an annual uplift of £29 billion—and it will be up to the Secretary of State to allocate that money, but I will make sure that he has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s question and that he gets a proper reply to him. \p Louise Jones: With a £2.5 billion investment into nuclear in Derby, £2.5 billion into nuclear fusion in north Nottinghamshire, and half a billion into steel suitable for use in the nuclear industry in Sheffield, my constituency is surrounded by wonderful opportunities in these industries of the future. Can the Chancellor outline what more we can do to support young people in my constituency to access careers in those industries? \p Rachel Reeves: We as a Government were proud to be able to step in and save British Steel at Scunthorpe, and again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, but it is not just Scunthorpe. There are also opportunities in Sheffield and Port Talbot, because as we build this infrastructure—whether it is trams and trains, nuclear power or submarines—we want to use steel made in Britain. That is a really exciting opportunity, and the investments we are making in small modular reactors and fusion in Nottinghamshire and Derby create great opportunities for jobs. That is why we are also making a record investment in skills through the spending review, so that young people in North East Derbyshire and beyond can get access to the jobs that are being created. \p Judith Cummins: I call Liz Saville Roberts. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. The announcement of just £44.5 million a year for the next 10 years for Welsh rail is Labour’s flimsy fig leaf of an excuse for the multibillion and multi-decade scandal that is HS2. The money announced today is only significant if it matches what Wales will continue to lose from all England-only rail projects, up to now and in the future. Can the Chancellor guarantee that from now on, Wales will receive the full £4 billion HS2 consequential funding, or will she admit that her announcement on Welsh rail funding is nothing but smoke and mirrors? \p Rachel Reeves: I do not think £445 million is not real money. That money will be invested in the Burns review stations. In addition, we are putting in £118 million to make the coal tips safe. Maybe the right hon. Lady is not that concerned about that, but I know that plenty of Welsh Labour MPs are. \p Matthew Patrick: I wonder whether the Chancellor can help me. I want to write a letter to my constituents, and I do not know which story I should lead with—whether it is the rapid investment in our NHS to get more doctors’ appointments, the money for our police to get more police on the streets, the transport investment to build new train stations, or the money to give hungry children in my constituency free school meals. Could she help me out? I only have one page. What should I start with? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend will want to leave space on the leaflet to remind his constituents that he was lobbying for all those things so that he can take the thanks. \p Dave Doogan: I welcome the U-turn on the winter fuel payment—of course I do, and lots of my constituents will do likewise—but there is no respite in this spending review for farmers in Scotland, business owners in Scotland, GP surgeries in Scotland, or the disabled in hospices in Scotland. Despite what the Chancellor says, there have also been real-terms cuts to the Home Office, Foreign Office and local government in this spending review.

The Chancellor is an open book. She plays roulette with the economy, but I would not encourage her to play poker any time soon, because she mentioned Reform and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in her  speech more times than she mentioned Scotland—what a disgrace! She mentioned that she has finally got around to Acorn, but without a figure attached. What funding is she going to allocate for Acorn? We know that if it is Merseyside or Teesside, there is £22 billion for them. How much for Acorn? \p Rachel Reeves: I did mention the SNP—I questioned why the SNP does not support defence investment in Scotland—but I can mention it again, if the hon. Gentleman would like me to. Why has the SNP let down the people of Scotland with rising hospital waiting lists? Why has the SNP let down people in Scotland with more drugs deaths? Why has the SNP let people down time and again? We are putting money into Acorn and into defence investment, and we are giving a record settlement to the SNP Government, but hopefully they will not be there for much longer. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for prioritising affordable housing, which is overdue. That extra investment will go a long way towards addressing the spiralling, broken housing system that has pushed so many people into poverty. Last year, a record 126,000 households faced homelessness, an increase of over 17,000 in one year alone. We see so many families placed in what we call temporary accommodation, but it is not temporary—five years or more is far from temporary. Children are travelling for hours to get to school, families do not have a space in which to grow up, and we have lost a decade of building the social homes that we need. I join with the likes of Shelter and the National Housing Federation in welcoming the investment in affordable housing and the certainty of a 10-year rent settlement, but we need more of these measures, and we need to build truly social homes. Can the Chancellor confirm what proportion of social rent homes will form the backbone of the affordable homes programme, to get those families into a safe, secure and stable home? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on housing and homelessness, which is a big challenge in many of our constituencies, including hers in Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. We want to work closely with local councils and the Mayor of London to build the affordable homes that we desperately need in the capital city, where house prices and rents are still far too high for so many families. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on just that. \p Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The billions of pounds that have been announced by the Chancellor are very big rises, and the Public Accounts Committee looks forward to scrutinising that expenditure—I am sure it will be welcomed by those who receive it—to ensure we are getting value for money, but can the Chancellor explain to the House how it will be funded, because debt and tax are at record levels? Can British workers look forward to a summer of expecting more tax increases? \p Rachel Reeves: I look forward to that scrutiny, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the allocations we have made today are based on the tax increases we made in the Budget last year. We are not spending a single penny more or a single penny less than the money we set out in the autumn Budget and the spring statement. \p Ruth Cadbury: I welcome the significant transport investment that the Chancellor has announced in the north and in the city regions. That is helped through her changes to the Green Book, but when will the place-based business cases be reviewed so that those areas can start planning for the local transport initiatives that they have waited so long for? \p Rachel Reeves: I hope that my hon. Friend can already see the impact of our changed attitude and our changed perspective at the Treasury with our putting this record investment of £15.6 billion, which we announced last week, into eight mayoral combined authorities to better connect towns and cities. Because of the changes we have made, we have been able to put more money into the trans-Pennine route upgrade and the midlands hub, as well as significant investment in trains in Wales. \p Tim Farron: My communities in Westmorland will be outraged by a 17% reduction in farm funding. We are perplexed, because we were told to expect a decision today on the vital scheme to dual the A66 from Penrith to Scotch Corner. That is crucial to east-west connectivity, to the northern economy and to saving lives. There was no mention in the statement or in the accompanying documents at all. Will the Chancellor confirm that the A66 upgrade will take place? \p Rachel Reeves: The allocation has now been made to the Department for Transport. We have not set out every project that that will fund, but I am sure the Transport Secretary will come to this House or the relevant Select Committee in due course. \p Graeme Downie: I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for putting her faith in young people and the future with investments in the AI, nuclear and defence opportunities that young people in Scotland deserve, alongside £1.2 billion for training and apprenticeships. Meanwhile, in my constituency, Fife college has recently warned about course cuts and campus closures, thanks to the mismanagement of the Scottish budget by the SNP. Does she agree that the best way to get young people the opportunities they deserve in defence, nuclear and other industries is with a Scottish Labour Government and Anas Sarwar as First Minister? \p Rachel Reeves: We saw in the by-election last week how desperate the people of Scotland are for change, after two decades of SNP so-called leadership. We are investing in training and apprenticeships in this spending review, and I very much hope that the SNP will match that investment in Scotland. \p Richard Tice: The Chancellor supposedly inherited a black hole, and she has dug a crater into which public confidence and business confidence are plunging. The truth is that 250,000 jobs have disappeared since the blunder Budget. Despite all the noise we hear from those on the Government Benches, the reality is that Government spending is completely out of control. Inflation is up, unemployment is up, Government borrowing is up and the cost of Government borrowing is up. The only things that are going down are jobs and GDP. I have some good news for the Chancellor, however. The 10 councils that we  control are already identifying savings of hundreds of millions of pounds. She may want to learn some lessons. That is why Reform is leading in the polls. \p Rachel Reeves: I noted recently that the hon. Member said on a podcast that he wanted to cut Government spending by £300 billion, but that would mean getting rid of the whole of the NHS and the whole of the defence budget. We have increased spending by £300 billion to invest in our schools, our hospitals, our transport and our defence. I know that Reform is soft on defence, soft on workers’ rights and wants to privatise our NHS. I do not think those are the priorities of the British people. \p John Grady: Reform’s economic policies appear to have been cooked up after a heavy night at Moe’s bar in “The Simpsons”. In 18 years, the SNP has failed to invest in Glasgow’s transport infrastructure. We have no airport rail link, and no Parkhead station. We do not even have lifts at Bridgeton station. I contrast that with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s firm commitment to transport. There is also £50 billion extra for the Scottish Government to sort out the SNP’s NHS waiting lists; record investment in the defence industry and the Clyde to defend our nation, which the SNP objects to; investment in clean energy, which is critical for jobs in Glasgow; and continued support for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city deal. Does she agree that those things demonstrate that Scotland is at the heart of this Labour Government? It is time that we turfed out the SNP, after its 18 years of failure. \p Rachel Reeves: In the spending review today, we have set out: investment in defence to support jobs in Scotland; investment in Acorn to support jobs in Scotland; investment in nuclear, which will benefit the people of Scotland through lower bills; and a record settlement for the Scottish Government. It is up to them now to use that money wisely. I would not hold out much hope, under the SNP. \p Esther McVey: I know the Chancellor considers herself to be a world-leading economist, so can she tell me how it is that everyone in the country knew that hiking taxes on employers’ national insurance contributions—making it more expensive to employ people—would destroy jobs, destroy businesses and destroy the economy, and the only people who did not know that were her and her socialist boss? \p Rachel Reeves: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Lady, but there are 500,000 more jobs in Britain since the last general election. Business confidence is going up. \p Jeevun Sandher: My constituency of Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages is in the east midlands, a region that has been overlooked for too long. That ends today, first with the changes to the Green Book, which we all welcome. There will be more money outside London; I hope my colleagues do not mind too much. Secondly, we have more than £100 billion of investment. Can the Chancellor please set out how today’s investment will get bills down and wages rising in my constituency of Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the changes to the Green Book, which will better enable the Government to invest, and will stop the situation whereby the Treasury used to wield the Green Book against local communities when it came to the investments that they wanted to make. This was a good spending review for the east midlands, as my hon. Friend mentioned, with investment in nuclear fusion and small modular reactors. Many businesses in the supply chain right across the east midlands will benefit from that significant investment and the jobs it will bring. \p Bobby Dean: Last year, during the mayoral election, Sadiq Khan claimed that a Labour mayor working with a Labour Government would be a game changer for the city, but just now he has released a statement criticising the spending review for underfunding the Met police, failing to invest in our transport infrastructure, and potentially making the housing crisis in our capital worse. Was Sadiq Khan wrong to put his trust in this Labour Government? \p Rachel Reeves: For London, today we have increased the spending power of the police by 2.3% in real terms every year; we have record investment in the affordable homes programme, which includes building new homes in London; and we have free school meals, lifting around 10,000 children in London out of poverty, and much more. We are also backing a third runway at Heathrow and investing in tunnelling to take HS2 to Euston. This is a good spending review for London, but most importantly, it is a good spending review for the whole United Kingdom. \p Alex Baker: I congratulate the Chancellor on the spending review, and welcome her commitment both to defence spending and to our being a defence industrial superpower, which is vital to my community in Aldershot and Farnborough. This week, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) and I published a report entitled “Rewiring British Defence Financing”, which supports the Chancellor’s work to fire up our defence industrial base. As part of that, will she support my campaign for a UK-led multilateral defence security and resilience bank to finance our national resilience, support our allies, and keep our country safe? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) have done to make the moral case for financial services funds investing in defence, which is what keeps our country safe. As we uplift our defence spending, we want to get value for money. That is why we were so pleased that, in the deal that we did with the European Union, we secured a defence industrial partnership with the EU. \p Adrian Ramsay: Across the country, people see their health services severely overstretched, school headteachers face having to make cuts, and, of course, the most vulnerable people in society face cuts to disability benefits. According to the BBC’s analysis of the Chancellor’s statement, her figures will mean a sharp decline in budgets for public services after 2026. Is not the statement a matter of smoke and mirrors? Will the Chancellor instead consider the growing  call for a wealth tax on the ultra-rich, so that she can raise the extra tens of billions that are needed to support our public services and restore much-needed pride and hope in Britain? \p Rachel Reeves: It is difficult to tell whether the hon. Gentleman supports the spending review and the additional money that we are putting into public services, or is against it. The settlement for the NHS means 3% real-terms growth a year, and for the police the figure is 2.3% a year. There is also an increase in per-pupil funding, as well as a real-terms increase in the schools budget, so I am not exactly sure what the hon. Gentleman’s complaint is. \p Nick Smith: There was a terrible, dangerous coal slip in my constituency last autumn, and the coal tips safety funding announced today is hugely welcome. It is great to see our Labour Government standing up for Wales. Looking forward, however, may I ask the Chancellor please to review the miners’ staff superannuation scheme? Hard-working families deserve fairness in their retirement, and I am sure that she will give them a fair hearing. \p Rachel Reeves: I am very pleased that we were able to make this multi-year commitment on coal tip safety. The Government provided money for this in last year’s spending review, but that was for just one year, and today we have been able to give certainty that money will be available for the vital work that is necessary. I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming it; it is a shame that Plaid Cymru did not.

My hon. Friend has been a staunch supporter of reform of the miners’ pension scheme. We made reforms in the Budget last year, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets him to discuss what more we can do to secure a fair pension for miners in retirement. \p Sarah Olney: London Members were hoping to hear more about infrastructure investment in the capital today. We are looking for spending on the Bakerloo line extension, and spending to deal with the Croydon bottleneck. I even dared to dream that Hammersmith bridge might one day be fixed, but all we have heard from the Chancellor is her reiterated support for the expansion of Heathrow airport. As she will know, Heathrow expansion is opposed by every political party in the capital, and by the Mayor of London. It is not welcome. The negligible economic benefits of expanding Heathrow do not compensate for the massive environmental and noise impact that expansion will have on many people in the capital, particularly my constituents. May I ask the Chancellor to look again at her support for Heathrow, and consider the greater merits of many other infrastructure projects across London? \p Rachel Reeves: The hon. Lady started that question wanting to be a builder, and ended it by being a blocker. I suppose that is not surprising, given that the Liberal Democrats voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill yesterday, while we Labour Members supported it, because we want to get Britain building and to create prosperity and wealth in all our communities. In today’s spending review, we have provided an integrated settlement for the Mayor of London and a multi-year settlement for Transport for London. We have also supported  expansion at City airport, and we have an in-principle commitment to expansion, and a second runway, at Gatwick. This Government are backing London, but most importantly, we are a Government for the whole country. That is why we have announced significant investments across the UK today, which are much needed. \p Claire Hanna: The SDLP’s priority continues to be funding Northern Ireland on the basis of need, and I urge the Government to take focused action, so that we can have sustainable public services and, hopefully, stable politics that will start to deliver for health and education and deal with the squeeze in housing and childcare.

I warmly welcome the funding allocation for Casement Park, which represents much more than just a stadium. It is a home for Ulster’s Gaelic Athletic Association, to match the wonderful homes that we have for soccer and rugby in Northern Ireland, and it is a flagship venue for west Belfast and an economic opportunity for the whole city. Does the Chancellor agree that, while there is a way to go to secure the funding for the stadium that the GAA’s hundreds of thousands of supporters and volunteers deserve, the onus is now on the Stormont Executive—on Sinn Féin, the Democratic Unionist party and the Alliance party—to get moving, end a decade of dither and delay, and finally get Casement Park built? \p Rachel Reeves: This Government have provided £50 million in the spending review today, but we have also, I hope, done much more for Northern Ireland, providing a settlement that is a record since devolution, as well as significant investment in our defence sector. Northern Ireland has a proud history of producing for the UK’s defence needs. \p Martin Vickers: Of course I welcome the continuing support for Scunthorpe steelworks, but may I gently remind the Chancellor that that support came seven months after I first raised the issue in the House, and we then had the panic of the Saturday sitting in April?

The Chancellor mentioned support for the Viking carbon capture and storage project, for which, again, I have lobbied for a long time. Can she give me a little more detail about the timeframe? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming what we did with British Steel in Scunthorpe. I know that he has been a strong voice advocating for British Steel there, unlike some of our late arrivals in another party. As for Viking CCS, I was very pleased to announce that funding today, along with the Acorn investment in Aberdeenshire. The Energy Secretary will set out, in due course, the timing and the money available, but after our investment in CCS in Merseyside and Teesside at the end of last year, we are now in a position to provide a second tranche in Aberdeen, and also in the Humber. \p Yasmin Qureshi: I thank the Chancellor for all her commitments to spending on education, health and transport, but I thank her particularly for the £39 billion that she has committed to housing. In my constituency, thousands of families are still waiting for social homes, and about  20,000 people are now on Bolton’s housing waiting list. May I ask whether some of that money could be used to build more social housing in areas like mine, so that we can meet the needs of our constituents? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about the desperate need for more social and affordable homes in all our communities, including those in Bolton. That multi-year commitment and £39 billion of investment will help us to build the social and affordable homes that our country desperately needs, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will work with local authorities to bring forward those plans and get Britain building the homes that we need. \p Ben Spencer: What is most interesting about the spending review is what is not mentioned: there is no mention of the River Thames scheme, no mention of our rivers, no mention of the Animal and Plant Health Agency in New Haw, and no mention of improvements to rail, despite the nationalisation of South Western Railway. In fact, there is almost no mention at all of the south-east, despite the Chancellor saying that this a spending review for the whole UK. However, she has effectively confirmed the third runway at Heathrow, despite there being no local engagement. May I invite the Chancellor to come to Runnymede and Weybridge to meet people and see if their priorities are indeed hers, as she claims? \p Rachel Reeves: It is difficult to understand exactly what the Conservative critique of this spending review is. The shadow Chancellor says that we should spend less, but the hon. Gentleman has just asked us to spend more. If hon. Members on either side of the House want to spend more, they need to say where the money would come from. I am not sure that he has an answer to that. \p Lola McEvoy: I welcome the Chancellor’s statement and her steely determination to ensure that everyone in Darlington is better off. I particularly welcome the capital infrastructure projects, which are essential not only for sovereign security but for regional growth. Does she agree that these projects will be transformational for engineering and fabricating SMEs in my constituency, many of which were set up and are staffed by incredibly highly skilled people who found themselves out of a job when the last Government turned their backs on British foundation industries? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: what this spending review does, through its investment in infrastructure, is create jobs in our supply chains for small businesses in communities right across our country. The investment in some of our foundational industries, such as steel, offers real opportunities for good, unionised jobs that pay decent wages, and I am really proud to be able to set out that investment and the jobs that young people in Darlington and around the country will be able to access because of the choices we have made today. \p Chris Coghlan: As the Chancellor knows, our economy will only escape its difficult place if we raise economic productivity. On the Treasury Committee, I introduced the Chancellor to  London Business School’s Paolo Surico’s research on how using public R&D, and especially defence spending, can help us to do that. In the spring statement, the Government used Professor Surico’s research to upgrade long-term GDP forecasts by £11 billion a year—that is how we pay for it. I strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to investing in public R&D in the spending review, but how will the Chancellor follow through to ensure that the R&D will be used to crowd in and stimulate public investment—especially from the more innovative, high-tech start-ups and venture capital firms—which is necessary to realise the potential of Professor Surico’s research? \p Rachel Reeves: Every £1 of Government investment in R&D crowds in £2 of private investment and returns £7 of benefit to the wider economy. That is why we have put £86 billion of investment into R&D over the course of this spending review. \p Imran Hussain: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that your constituents, my constituents, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), and indeed the Chancellor’s constituents, will greatly welcome the £2.1 billion for a new tram and a new bus station in Bradford, as well as the billions for social and affordable housing, which is much needed. However, the Chancellor will know that over half of all children in my constituency are still growing up in poverty, which is true of many hon. Members’ constituencies. Child poverty is not a statistic; it is a national disgrace. It is a direct result of 14 years of ideological austerity under the Conservatives. Today’s statement is a step in the right direction, particularly with the announcement that half a million more children will be eligible for free school meals, but frankly it does not go far enough. Will the Chancellor tell me what further measures this Government will announce to alleviate and finish child poverty, including scrapping the two-child limit, which continues to put thousands of children into poverty? \p Rachel Reeves: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s welcome for the £2.1 billion for the West Yorkshire combined authority, which will help pay for mass transit to connect Leeds and Bradford, but also Kirklees and Calderdale. In today’s statement we were able to provide money for free school meals for 500,000 children, lifting 100,000 out of poverty, as well as continuing to roll out breakfast clubs and the warm homes programme, which will help insulate properties and bring down bills for millions of families. In addition, we have increased the national living wage by nearly 7%, and the Employment Rights Bill will ensure that more people have security and dignity at work—all part of our plan for change and lifting children and families out of poverty. \p Gavin Williamson: High Speed 2 owns vast swathes of the Staffordshire countryside. In fact, it owns a third of all the properties in the village of Hopton, which is having an enormous impact on residents and causing an enormous blight. Could the Chancellor set out for the House, and for so many residents right across Staffordshire, when we will know whether farmers are  going to have their land back and whether villages will be able to return to normal life, with people moving into the empty houses? \p Rachel Reeves: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has apologised to his constituents for the total mess that the Conservatives made of HS2. We are fixing their mess and getting a grip of the project costs. Frankly, it is astounding for the right hon. Gentleman to raise HS2, given the mess they made of it. \p Melanie Ward: After almost 20 years of an SNP Government in Scotland, we have 43,000 Fifers on an NHS waiting list and a growing gap in educational achievement between kids from the richest and poorest areas. After less than one year of a Labour UK Government, we are delivering record funding for Scotland, falling energy bills, a pay rise for 8,000 Fifers, new defence jobs in Fife and, following an announcement that will be warmly welcomed by my constituents today, new investment in the renewal of Kirkcaldy town centre and the potential of our amazing seafront. Does the Chancellor agree that this is the difference a Labour Government can make? \p Rachel Reeves: The work that this Labour Government are doing will reduce inequality. We are giving a pay rise to millions of workers and creating defence jobs that pay a decent wage, and GB Energy will be headquartered in Scotland. Today I have been able to announce additional investment in the seafront in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which will bring economic benefits. \p Robin Swann: An NHS fit for the future—I congratulate the Chancellor and the Health Secretary on the investment in the health service in England. Given the money that has been allocated to Northern Ireland, will the Chancellor encourage the Executive to provide the same investment in the health service in Northern Ireland? The Executive have been working with single-year budgets since 2016. Does the Chancellor agree that this SR allows them to set a multi-year, recurrent budget that allows the transformation of health services and other public services in Northern Ireland? \p Rachel Reeves: The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. What we did today was not just set out money for next year; we have set out money for day-to-day spending for the next three years, and for capital spending for the next five years. Wherever people are in the UK, it is vital that local councils, the devolved Administrations and community groups can plan for the future with confidence. That is what we have done with this spending review, and I urge the devolved Administrations to do similar and make multi-year settlements in order to give certainty for the future. \p Rachael Maskell: Despite being the lowest-funded unitary authority in the country, we are doing everything possible to drive down inequality in the city of York, but the differential has stayed at 13 years. Today’s announcement of investment in health, investment in social housing and investment in education will make a real difference for my constituents. However, I worry about the inequality for disabled people in our country. I have looked through the statement. Will the Chancellor give assurances that if disabled people are  unable to work, they will not be left behind, and that we will ensure that we have the social security they need, so that they, too, can gain from today’s statement? \p Rachel Reeves: Part of the investment in the north of England is for the trans-Pennine route upgrade, which my hon. Friend and I both welcome. The investments in health and education are important, but so too is supporting disabled people, which is why £1 billion has been set aside in the spending review to help get people back to work. Many disabled people are desperate to work, if the right support is available. Of course, the social security system and the welfare state must always be there for people who cannot work, and under this Labour Government they will be. \p Adam Dance: I heard very little about Somerset, which is facing huge pressure on GP practices, affordable homes, SEND provision, reliable bus services and access to affordable energy. Can the Chancellor promise my constituents that Yeovil will not be overlooked, and does she believe that the decisions announced today leave Somerset council and Government Departments with enough to properly invest in communities in Yeovil? \p Rachel Reeves: Let me put that right: the people of Somerset will benefit from a 3% uplift in NHS spending; the people of Somerset will benefit from free school meals for their children if they are on universal credit; and the people of Somerset will benefit from stronger defences and stronger borders through the investment that we are making. This is a spending review for the whole country, including people in Yeovil in Somerset. \p Preet Kaur Gill: The Chancellor, who visited Birmingham last week, knows that the west midlands region has the talent and ideas to thrive. A fair settlement in today’s spending review is not just support; it is a smart investment in Britain’s future. Over 26,000 people are on the housing register in Birmingham, so I thank her for doubling investment in the affordable homes programme. I also thank her for the announcement on the midlands rail hub investment, which I have been campaigning for. Does she agree that that will be transformational in delivering a decade of renewal and growth that works for everyone? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We will build more housing, which is what the investment in affordable homes grants will achieve, and that goes alongside transport investment—significant transport investment—in the west midlands and Birmingham. I was very pleased that my hon. Friend joined me in Birmingham last week, when we were able to celebrate the investment to extend the Metro out to east Birmingham and then to Solihull. \p Lincoln Jopp: I thank the Chancellor for her statement, but I fear that she may have misunderstood the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) asked about the River Thames scheme. He asked whether the scheme is included in the £4.2 billion TDEL—total departmental expenditure limit—over three years referenced in paragraph 5.121 of the review. The Chancellor replied that my hon. Friend wants to put up expenditure and will not say where it is coming from, but both he and  I are asking this: is the Environment Agency’s half of the River Thames scheme—Surrey county council pays the other half—funded from the £4.2 billion TDEL that she has announced today? \p Rachel Reeves: The allocations have been made to Government Departments, and the Treasury is not going to micromanage every scheme, so it will be up to Departments to allocate the money in the way they choose. I am sure that the Transport Secretary will come to the House and set out those plans. \p Rachel Blake: The spending review says that there will be a report from the Office for Value for Money on temporary accommodation and the terrible waste of money going into poorly procured temporary accommodation. Some 90,000 children live in temporary accommodation in London. Does the Chancellor agree that the £39 billion for new, genuinely affordable homes, combined with that review of the cost of temporary accommodation, is really positive for all children living in London who, sadly, do not have a permanent home into the future, and does she agree that this will make a transformational change in London? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend has spoken to me powerfully on many occasions about how much Westminster city council has to spend on temporary accommodation, which is why the investment in affordable homes grants is so important—and not just for London, but for the whole country—but there are specific issues. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), there are particular challenges in London because of the extraordinarily high house prices and rents. This investment in affordable and social housing can have a big impact in London. Combined with the additional money for free school meals, the roll-out of breakfast clubs and the increase in the national living wage, this is a spending review to benefit people across the whole country, including in Westminster and London. \p Josh Babarinde: Fellow Eastbournian Mark Tonra and I were gravely ill together in the same ward at Eastbourne district general hospital last year. Harrowingly, because of the outdated and outgrown hospital buildings at the DGH, Mark watched from his bay as a patient opposite him died, and other patients watched Mark deteriorate, with only a flimsy curtain to protect his dignity, before he himself died. The delay to our new hospital will mean that many more Eastbournians will face this indignity until it is fully rebuilt come 2041. Short of heeding my town’s calls to unlock that investment sooner, will the Chancellor at least confirm to local families such as Mark’s and to my NHS trust that her NHS capital expenditure will specifically be able to fund the 98% unmet cost of our maintenance backlog in Eastbourne to help more patients get the care and dignity they deserve? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking powerfully about his experience and the experience of his constituents. After the 14 years and the broken promises of the Conservative party, our hospitals are not in a good enough condition. That is why we have set out the new hospital buildings programme, but it is also  why we have put aside money in the spending review for improvements to hospital conditions in the meantime. I will make sure that the relevant Health Minister meets him to talk through what that means for people in Eastbourne. \p Chris Webb: Today’s announcement is a great day for Blackpool, which was mentioned more than any other place in the country. The Chancellor will know the issues we face from when she joined me in Blackpool last year and saw for herself the deprivation and the damage that 14 years of the Tories did to our town. Will she confirm that this is just the start and the beginning of new investment for deprived areas such as Blackpool across the country now that we have a Labour Government and a Labour Chancellor in charge? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and he always passionately argues the case for Blackpool. Yes, there is deprivation in Blackpool, but there is also huge opportunity, which is why we are backing Blackpool with the investment we are putting in through the spending review. \p Jim Allister: Why does the Chancellor think it appropriate to pledge £50 million on a preferential basis to a sporting organisation that has a political objective as its first and defining attribute, and that has named some of its sports grounds and trophies after IRA terrorists who brought such death and destruction to Northern Ireland, while other organisations are required to make do with what they were allocated in 2011? Does the Chancellor not see and agree that £50 million would make a far better contribution to meeting the housing needs, particularly for social housing, and the sewerage infrastructure needs that in my constituency have brought much of the building of new housing to a halt? What is the priority when matters like that are ignored? \p Rachel Reeves: Alongside the investment at Casement Park, we have also made record investment, with a record settlement for the Northern Ireland Executive, in the announcements we have set out today. In addition, there is substantial investment in the defence sector, including in Northern Ireland. So there is plenty of money going into Northern Ireland, and it now needs to be spent wisely. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: I commend the Chancellor on her statement, and I pay tribute to her, and to my right hon. Friend the Welsh Secretary and all my Welsh Labour colleagues for their advocacy in standing up for Wales at this spending review. I particularly welcome the investment in coal tips, which will be really important in constituencies across Wales, and in rail, with £445 million to turn the tide on 14 years of under-investment by the Conservatives, of whom four are left on the Opposition Benches. As she is here, can I take this opportunity to ask her whether, given the substantial rail investment that has been announced, she will use her good offices to support a campaign in my constituency for Ely Mill station to be built? Now all the stakeholders have the money they need, they can get on with it, can they not? \p Rachel Reeves: Well, we did announce two new railway stations in Wales today with that £445 million. In the 10-year infrastructure strategy, which we publish next week, we will be setting out more details of investment right across the UK. I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes the £118 million for the coal tips work, which I know is so important and which so many Welsh Labour MPs have lobbied me about over the last few months. I am pleased that we can deliver for their communities in Wales. \p Vikki Slade: I declare an interest as a sitting councillor. Local government will be pleased to see an increase in spending and to have clarity but, alongside social care, we have no clarity on another area that will sink councils: the statutory override on special educational needs. That was promised time and again, and we were hanging our hats on having it today. Will the Chancellor tell us what is happening and can we give security to councils on special educational needs? \p Rachel Reeves: The hon. Lady makes a really important point. Every single MP in this House will have heard harrowing stories of parents desperate to get support for their kids with special educational needs. The Secretary of State for Education will be bringing forward a White Paper to make the reforms that are desperately needed. We will make sure that we do that in partnership with the parents and children who are most affected. \p Chris McDonald: The Chancellor of the Exchequer may remember that the last Conservative Prime Minister boasted about moving funding from Teesside to Royal Tunbridge Wells. I am pleased to see that her statement plugs places such as Stockton North back into our economy. I thank the Chancellor for agreeing to make Stockton central one of the trailblazer areas, investing in our local facilities and tackling fly-tipping and graffiti. Does she agree that the statement shows that our Labour Government are providing jobs for working people, providing homes for working people and providing opportunities for our young people? \p Rachel Reeves: I am pleased that Stockton will be benefit from some of those investments, because pride in place is so important for all our communities. Some of the most deprived parts of the country have missed out on funding for too long, which is why we are pleased to be able to rectify that and ensure, for example through the Green Book reforms, that money goes to where it is most needed. \p Sammy Wilson: First of all, I welcome the fact that, at least in real terms, the Northern Ireland budget has been maintained over the spending period, although I would point out to the Chancellor that a 0.5% real increase will not enable the Northern Ireland Executive to match the real increase in spending on health and policing which will be taking place in the rest of the United Kingdom.

May I emphasise again the preference that she has given in this budget to money for a Gaelic Athletic Association ground? In blundering into this issue, she has given the Executive a massive financial headache. She requires £50 million to be matched by funding elsewhere. The Executive will be required to find about  £200 million to make up the deficit, raising expectations and, I believe, creating tension within the Executive as a result. I think it was wrong for her to try to interfere in the minutiae of spending of the Executive in that way. As a general point, maybe in the autumn many people who welcome the headlines today will be regretting the tax increases they will face to pay for the announcements today. \p Rachel Reeves: The announcements today are all within the envelope that I already set out through the tax increases and the changes to the fiscal rules in autumn and then the decisions in the spring statement. All we have done today is allocate the envelope that we already set out. As I said at the time, public services would now need to live within the means that we have set at that Budget. This statement does not spend a single penny more or a single penny less than the money that was already allocated.

On the specific issue the right hon. Gentleman raises, I am very happy to pass on what he says to the Northern Ireland Secretary and to ensure that there is a meeting between the relevant Minister and the relevant Members of Parliament. \p Andy MacNae: I wholeheartedly welcome this statement. It is a true Labour package that backs Britain and reverses years of declinism under parties on the Opposition Benches who seem to have given up on Britain. I particularly welcome the results of the Green Book review, which will get investment into the places that need it most. In that regard, does the Chancellor agree with me that, while big projects and city schemes will get the headlines, it is vital that the full benefits of renewal are felt in small towns like those that make up my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen, and that these previously left behind places must be at the forefront of our thinking as we develop local transport and infrastructure delivery plans? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend is one of many MPs who has spoken to me about the need to reform the Green Book. I thank him for feeding in his concerns about the ways in which the Treasury has previously looked at requests for investment. I am pleased for the people of Rossendale and Darwen that we can start making a difference to the communities that were forgotten about for 14 years under the Conservatives. I was also very pleased to be in his constituency at the end of last year to open the 100th banking hub on a local high street. \p John Milne: I welcome the Government’s decision to widen access to free school meals—a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy—but Castlewood primary school in my constituency tells me that it is currently losing 56p for every single meal it provides. Will the Chancellor undertake to fully fund school meals, or else is she asking schools to choose between teaching and eating? \p Rachel Reeves: I am really pleased that what we have set out today will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by providing free school meals to an additional 500,000 children. Real-terms funding for schools is increasing and real-terms funding per pupil is increasing to ensure that schools are able to provide the free school meals and the teaching that our children need. \p Matt Bishop: I thank the Chancellor for announcement of the extra funding for crumbling schools. As we know, schools across the country were left to fail under the 14 years of the previous Government. How can establishments such as Forest high school in my constituency, which is literally crumbling day by day and at serious risk of closure, access the vital funds so we can provide the service required by students in the Forest of Dean? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for raising those concerns about schools in the Forest of Dean and that school in particular. The state that schools are in after 14 years of Conservative Government is just not good enough. After what they did in the ’80s and ’90s, I did not think that even a Conservative Government would leave schools in this state. Many MPs will be able to talk about examples similar to my hon. Friend’s from their constituencies. I will ensure that the Department for Education and the Education Secretary hear about the specific case that he raises, because we want to improve the conditions that our young children are taught in. \p Gideon Amos: I thank the Chancellor for her statement. As well as freeing people up by tackling the social care crisis, the real way to get the growth we all want is a target for publicly funded social homes—albeit, I welcome the funding that has been found for housing—and funding for the infrastructure that communities want, which will unlock tens of thousands of homes. The Wellington and Cullompton stations project was something I raised with the Chancellor last summer. She said at the Dispatch Box that it would be going ahead, because it had started. That project will bring £180 million of growth to the Cardiff-Bristol-Exeter corridor and generate hundreds of new jobs. Are my constituents right—a genuine question to the Chancellor—to be dismayed that there is no mention of any south-west projects in the statement today? \p Rachel Reeves: Last week, we set out additional money for the Mayor of the West of England, and today we have announced a fourfold increase in local transport funding, which will be available for communities across the country. The hon. Member says that he wants to grow the economy—it is disappointing that the Liberal Democrats voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill yesterday, which will do exactly that. \p Yuan Yang: I strongly congratulate the Chancellor on the impact she has already had by reforming the way the Treasury works, in particular to unlock the capital investment that we need for the future of our economy. I also commend her for her commitment to future generations through her funding for schools and the extension of free school meals. Will she continue to work with the Treasury to change the way it appraises the benefits of human capital investment to ensure there is sufficient funding, particularly for early intervention in special educational needs and disabilities in local authorities like mine in Reading and Wokingham? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the reforms we have introduced at the Treasury—the reform to the fiscal rules to unlock money for investment, the reform of financial transactions to enable more  money to be spent through public finance institutions, and particularly the reform of the Green Book. She is absolutely right to mention the importance of human capital, which is why we have announced in the spending review significant investment in skills and in the early years to ensure that children are ready for school. \p Will Forster: As the MP for Woking, I represent the most bankrupt and indebted local authority in the country. I was very disappointed, therefore, that it appeared that the Chancellor did not mention councils or local government once in her statement. I am more disappointed, having listened to the detail of the statement, that the Government are investing only an extra 1.1% in local government next year and the year after. What does the Chancellor say to councils across the country and to my constituents in Woking to justify that lack of investment? \p Rachel Reeves: This Labour Government are giving real-terms increases in spending to local authorities every year. Compare that with the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Administration from 2010 to 2015 that cut real spending by 2.9% every year. I am much happier to stand on my record as Chancellor than I would be to stand on what the Liberal Democrats did when they had a chance at being in government. \p Anna Dixon: I thank the Chancellor for listening to the priorities of people in my constituency and across the country and investing in our schools. It was great to see free breakfast clubs in action at Baildon Glen and Beckfoot Priestthorpe schools recently, and I am delighted to hear today that the Labour Government will be putting in some £2.3 billion to fix our crumbling schools, having recently visited Eldwick primary school, where pupils are being taught in a temporary building with half the school out of action due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Can the Chancellor reassure the pupils at Eldwick that they will finally be able to get back to their classrooms? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for the passion with which she speaks about schools, which is something I very much share. That is why we are rolling out breakfast clubs at primary schools and introducing free school meals for all children whose carers are on universal credit; it is why we are putting in real-terms increases for school funding and per-pupil funding; and it is why we are addressing the terrible situation of children being taught in temporary classrooms and crumbling schools. I will ensure that the Department for Education hears about the experience in Shipley to hopefully ensure that that school is on the list. \p Deirdre Costigan: A woman came to my surgery in Ealing Southall last Friday and showed me photos of the one bedroom she shares with her four children. The five of them share beds and they live with black mould on the walls. All the kids have been hospitalised, no doubt because of related bronchial infections. It is temporary accommodation, but she has been there 10 years. That is not unusual. Does the Chancellor agree that today’s record £39 billion investment in social and affordable homes marks an end to Conservative  austerity and an end their failure to build, and that it will finally give hope to families stuck in damp, overcrowded flats in London and across the country? \p Rachel Reeves: Stories like that are exactly why the Deputy Prime Minister and I have prioritised investment in affordable homes. Nobody should have to live in those conditions in the 21st century—and, with the reforms we are making and the money we are putting in, they will not have to for much longer. \p Adam Thompson: I thank the Chancellor for her statement today. I welcome all the choices she has made, but especially the investments in Derby and the wider east midlands, which will be an enormous boon to my constituents in Erewash. I also warmly welcome her commitment to ending the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament. The Tory party let the asylum system get completely out of control. Does the Chancellor agree that investment now will result in savings of billions as the system is fixed? \p Rachel Reeves: The investment we are putting into Derby and Nottinghamshire is significant, with small modular reactors, investment in defence and investment in fusion, creating good jobs and paying decent wages right across the east midlands. I do not think that taxpayers’ money should be used to pay for asylum hotels, which is why we are reducing the cost of asylum accommodation by around £1 billion during the course of this Parliament and ending the use of asylum hotels. \p Andrew Lewin: It is a source of pride to see a Labour Chancellor announce such a transformative programme for social housing. My hope is that the boost to the affordable homes programme can be used to unlock stalled projects like those in Welwyn Garden City, in my constituency, where the Metropolitan Thames Valley development adjacent to the station needs to get motoring. I thank the Chancellor for her investment today. Does she agree that our message to councils and housing associations is, “We back you—now it is time for you to build”? \p Rachel Reeves: The changes we have made to the planning system and the changes we are making through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill provide the opportunity to build. Today, we have backed those opportunities with money through the affordable homes grant to ensure that a good proportion of social and affordable housing is included in that, for all the reasons that hon. Members have mentioned. On the particular issue of housing around stations, there is huge potential there. The infrastructure is there—we want to have the housing there, too. \p Lauren Sullivan: I thank the Chancellor for the spending review. Local austerity is over—after being a local councillor for nearly a decade, I thank her for that. Labour-led Gravesham council has given thousands of permissions for stalled brownfield sites, many of which are needed for the homes that we need in Gravesham. I seek reassurance from the Chancellor that this can be supported by Homes England to deliver and retain council, social and truly affordable homes for our community. \p Rachel Reeves: I know that there is great need for affordable homes in Gravesham. With today’s spending review, as well as the planning reforms we have introduced and continue to introduce—opposed, I think, by all the Opposition parties—we can get those homes built for families in Gravesham. \p Jack Abbott: I welcome the huge raft of announcements today, not least the announcement that we will expand free school meals, which will benefit 6,500 children in Ipswich. I also want to celebrate the enormous, multibillion-pound green light for Sizewell C. We all know its national importance, from energy security to powering 6 million homes, but I cannot overstate the difference it will make in Ipswich and Suffolk, particularly to our young people, who now have the promise of a skilled, secure and well-paid job. I thank the Chancellor from the bottom of my heart for the investment in my town and county. Can she expand on how else the new age of nuclear will benefit our whole country? \p Rachel Reeves: The Prime Minister was in Ipswich yesterday with my hon. Friend to visit a local college. He came back from that visit even more determined to crack on and build Sizewell nuclear power station in Suffolk because of the impact it will have not just on bringing down bills, but on bringing good jobs to Britain—good jobs through the supply chain—and on giving young people their hope and future back, knowing that they will have good jobs in the places they live, where they can make a career for themselves and bring prosperity to their families and communities. \p Daniel Francis: I know that my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford will welcome the investment that the Chancellor has announced today for new and affordable housing. The Government have set an ambitious target of 1.5 million homes, including 88,000 across London. To reach those targets, we will need investment not just in affordable homes, but in new transport infrastructure. Projects such as the docklands light railway extension to Thamesmead, for example, is forecast to unlock up to 40,000 new homes in brownfield sites across two of the most deprived boroughs in London. Will the Chancellor reaffirm the Government’s support for this important project and commit to providing funding for it? \p Rachel Reeves: As my hon. Friend is aware, Bexleyheath and Crayford is a part of the country that I know well. It has huge potential for more homes and more investment. We have set a budget for the Department for Transport. We will set out the 10-year infrastructure plan next week to unlock further investment—both public and private—in housing and transport. \p Antonia Bance: One of the first pieces of casework that I picked up was from a young woman pushing her two children through central Wednesbury. We moved to the side and she told me that she was in temporary accommodation, and then she showed me the insect bites up her arm. In my council area, there are 21,000 people on the housing waiting list and nearly 550 families in temporary accommodation—awful, substandard bed and breakfasts, from which it takes multiple buses to get the kids to school. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our  share of the £39 billion for council and social housing is coming to Tipton and Wednesbury and Coseley, to the Black Country and to the west midlands to build the homes that our local families need? \p Rachel Reeves: It absolutely is. \p Laurence Turner: I was delighted to hear the official commitment today to backing the midlands rail hub. I thank the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary for listening to the, at times, persistent representations in support of this essential project. We inherited a set of engineering plans with no money behind them. Now there is a chance to turn them into something real, and that is good news for Birmingham and for the economy of the west midlands.

At the centre of those works is Kings Norton station in my constituency. We need the works there to unblock the cross-city line. On a matter of literary heritage, Kings Norton is also the birthplace of Thomas the Tank Engine—the Reverend Awdry lived a few yards down the road. Would it not be a great tribute if spades could go in the ground for the 80th anniversary next year? Will the Chancellor and her officials work with local representatives so that we can understand which of those individual projects are going to be started first and finally restore Kings Norton station to its former glory? \p Rachel Reeves: I once spent a day at Thomas the Tank Engine world. I hope that the trains and the tram lines that we are going to be investing in will be a little less talkative and a bit more productive. The reason I mentioned my hon. Friend in my speech today is that he has persistently lobbied for the midlands rail hub, and we are very pleased as a Government to be able to make that commitment today, which will benefit his constituents and many others as well. \p Kevin Bonavia: Today’s spending review is a great big boost for the defence and life science sectors in this country. My constituency of Stevenage is a national hub for both those sectors. This morning, I visited the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult with the Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, Lord Patrick Vallance. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited MBDA to see the Storm Shadow missiles being fitted out for Ukraine. Today’s extra investment will be hugely welcomed in my town of Stevenage. Young people want those new jobs. When can they expect to see the benefits of that new investment? \p Rachel Reeves: There are huge opportunities in Stevenage, both in life sciences and in the defence sector, to take advantage of the investment that we are putting in—whether that is in research and development or lifting defence spending to 2.6% of GDP in the next two years. I know that businesses, working with their tireless local MP, will make sure that that investment gets to Stevenage. \p Sam Rushworth: A third of children in Bishop Auckland live in poverty, so I welcome today’s spending review, which set out how they will benefit not just from the free breakfast clubs, but from the extension to free school meals, warmer homes, more access to sports and the arts, and their parents getting the pay rises that they deserve under this Labour  Government. But many of those children live in deprived neighbourhoods, which have seen big cuts to social infrastructure over the past 15 years, including the closure of swimming pools, youth clubs, Sure Start centres, boxing gyms and the like. I noted with interest that, on page 36, there was a reference to 350 deprived communities across the UK receiving Government investment. Will the Chancellor say more about that, because there are no figures in the spending review. If she cannot give a full answer today, perhaps I could engage with her office on this later. \p Rachel Reeves: This will be a scheme operated from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We announced some of the neighbourhoods that will benefit from that investment today. This is not something that neighbourhoods will have to bid for; this will go to the communities that need it most. The Deputy Prime Minister will be setting out in due course all the 350 neighbourhoods that will benefit from this investment. \p Joe Powell: Under the Conservatives, London’s housing crisis escalated to dangerous levels, with one child in every classroom in temporary accommodation. I warmly welcome not only the £39 billion for the affordable homes programme, but the 10-year rent deal, the new low interest loans, and something that I have been pushing for—I can see that the Minister for Building Safety and Fire has just entered the Chamber—which is equal access to the building safety fund for housing associations, so that money can go towards improving conditions of homes and not to remediation. Can the Chancellor outline how this package will tackle London’s housing crisis, including in my constituency, which is one of the most unequal parts, not only of London, but of the country. \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is good to see the Minister in his place to hear it, too. It is really important that, as we invest in the social and affordable housing needed both in our capital city and in the whole country, we are investing in the right places. That housing must have the potential not only to provide the homes that people need, but to reduce that pressure on local authority and national budgets, which, so often, are picking up the costs of previous Governments who failed to invest in social and affordable homes. \p Jacob Collier: I, too, warmly welcome the investment in the midlands rail hub, which will mean 150 extra trains a week through Burton, and the investment in Rolls-Royce, which will produce small modular reactors and nuclear subs that will benefit my constituency and local jobs. The Chancellor also announced a huge package around transport. She will know that I have been pushing for improvements on the A50/A500 and in the infrastructure around Branston bridge. Can she say more about when we can expect an announcement on the road investment strategy? \p Rachel Reeves: It sounds like it is a pretty good day to be an MP in Burton. We are pleased to be able to make those investments in the midlands rail hub and in nuclear technology. There will also be additional housing investment that will go into Burton and other places across the  country. The allocation has been made to the Department for Transport, and the Secretary of State will set out her plans in due course. We will also be setting out more detail in the 10-year national infrastructure plan next week. \p Johanna Baxter: Fourteen years of the Tories and 18 years of the SNP have left many Scottish high streets in desperate need of investment, including those in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South. I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement today of investing in new community funds, bringing the total UK Government direct investment in Scottish local growth funding to almost £1.7 billion. Will my right hon. Friend agree to come to Paisley to see why our high street deserves a slice of that very substantial pie. \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind invitation. I look forward to being with her in Paisley and Renfrewshire before too long. It is the case that 14 years of Conservative Government and an additional 18 years of SNP Government in Scotland, have left many communities on their backs. The investments that we have announced—particularly with their multi-year nature—are about turning those communities around, so that more people can have pride in the places in which they live. \p Elsie Blundell: I welcome the Government’s announcement of an additional £2.5 billion in Greater Manchester. This will have a real benefit for my constituency and the town of Heywood, which will get the tram for the first time. What can the Government do, together with the Greater Manchester combined authority, to make sure that we get shovels in the ground as quickly as possible? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for her lobbying; because of her efforts, Heywood will now get that metro station. Working together with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, we will ensure that the spades are in the ground quickly so that her constituents can benefit from the additional investment that this Government are putting in. \p Zubir Ahmed: It is clear from my right hon. Friend’s statement that she understands Scotland and that she has left no stone unturned in backing Scotland’s economy. Despairingly, her ambition is not matched by the SNP Government in Holyrood. Will she join me in urging the SNP Government to end their ideological blockade on the defence industry and nuclear industry so that my constituents can finally access the skills, jobs and prosperity that this Labour Government are investing in? \p Rachel Reeves: In the statement today we were able to announce investment for Acorn in Aberdeenshire and for Great British Energy, headquartered in Scotland, as well as substantial investment in defence—£11 billion extra by the end of the spending review period—to keep our country and the continent of Europe safe. Scotland and Glasgow have a proud tradition in the defence sectors, but our ambition is not being matched by the SNP Government. This Labour Government are backing defence across the whole of the UK, including Scotland. \p Amanda Martin: I thank the Chancellor for listening to me on behalf of Portsmouth residents with her commitments in today’s review to investing in building British in our defence sector, backing our SMEs, investing in our country’s security, our Royal Navy base and our NHS, and investing in the education of young people and our public services. A really important issue for my constituents is housing. With the £39 billion affordable housing pot and local growth funding targeted to reach hundreds of communities, under Labour there is now a real chance of addressing the housing need in Portsmouth. How can I work with the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that this ambitious investment is wholeheartedly embraced by my Lib Dem council, so that it is as ambitious for Portsmouth as we are, and so that we finally see action and much-needed homes for the people of Pompey? \p Rachel Reeves: I think the whole House would pay tribute to the people of Portsmouth and their commitment to our country’s defence. On affordable housing, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the planning reforms we have already announced, we are enabling the building of these homes. Through the £39 billon announced today, we are putting in money so that we can build social and affordable homes. It is disappointing that the Liberal Democrats do not back our planning and infrastructure reforms, because unless everyone backs those, it will be very hard to get Britain building again and to build the 1.5 million homes that people in Portsmouth and the rest of our country desperately need. \p Gill German: I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), in particular the historic £445 million investment into rail in Wales. I also echo my hon. Friend’s thanks for the tireless representation of our Secretary of State for Wales and our Welsh Labour MPs. For my constituency, the investment means vital funding for Network North Wales to seamlessly connect with Northern Powerhouse Rail, bringing us closer to realising the ambitious vision of our UK Labour Government, our Welsh Labour Government, and our Labour metro mayors. Does the Chancellor agree that it is only with Labour working together that we can truly deliver for the people of north Wales? \p Rachel Reeves: We finally have a Labour Government here and in Wales to work together for the people of Clwyd North and across Wales to make those investments, including the significant investments in transport that we have announced today. I pay tribute to all the Welsh Labour MPs who have lobbied me so extensively to get this investment into Welsh rail. I was left with no doubt about what the priority is for the people of Wales: transport investment and investment into coal tip safety. I am pleased to have been able to set that out in the spending review. \p John Slinger: In the age of anger that our opponents seek to exploit, we need a responsibility revolution. This Government have taken on that responsibility by taking tough decisions to stabilise the economy and carry out long-term reforms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is her responsible approach, not cakeism 2.0, Trussonomics or Reform’s fantasy economics, that enables today’s welcome investment?  The investment will benefit my constituents—in healthcare, the green transition, and the defence investment that will help GE Vernova employ hundreds more people in my constituency. \p Rachel Reeves: We had to make difficult decisions last year to put the public finances on a firm footing after the appalling economic management of the Conservatives sent interest rates soaring and put pensions in peril—something that was welcomed by the current shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and that is why he has the word “shadow” at the front of his title. Economic responsibility is essential. I set out the envelope for public spending in the Budget last year, and we have allocated that money today—not a penny more, not a penny less. \p Mark Ferguson: A Labour Government, a Labour Chancellor, and a Labour plan. We have half a million children getting free school meals, huge investment into our national health service, jobs and opportunities closer to home, and £39 billion for affordable housing. This is fantastic for my community, but does the Chancellor agree that people in Gateshead and Whickham may benefit the most from the changes she made to the Green Book, and that it gives communities like mine huge opportunities for the future? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend has been a big advocate of reforms to the Green Book, and after setting up the consultation in January, we are pleased to be able to announce changes today to get more investment into places such as Gateshead and Whickham in the north of England. My hon. Friend is also a big champion for free school meals. I am really pleased that in the spending review 500,000 more children will get free school meals, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. \p Lorraine Beavers: I welcome the Government’s commitment to investing in Britain’s future, tearing up the old rulebook that held back constituencies like mine for too long, but my constituents need to feel the benefits now. We need better transport infrastructure, including the reopening of our train line and more jobs. Can the Chancellor confirm that Blackpool North and Fleetwood will get the attention that the Conservatives refused to pay it? \p Rachel Reeves: Blackpool will benefit from the affordable homes programme, free school meals for children and the roll-out of breakfast clubs. It also stands to benefit from the increase in the local transport grant—a fourfold increase compared with the plans we inherited from the Conservatives. \p Jim Dickson: People in my constituency will hugely welcome today’s statement—not just the investment in public services such as schools and the NHS and in new homes, but the commitment to investment in transport infrastructure. People in Dartford are sick and tired of living with the terrible congestion caused by the Dartford crossing as well as the collapsed Galley Hill Road in Swanscombe. Can the Chancellor reassure me that as a result of the spending review not only will families be better off, but Dartford will be helped to get moving? \p Rachel Reeves: In January I gave the Government’s backing to the lower Thames crossing. We have set out the allocation for the Department for Transport and the 10-year infrastructure plan. The Secretary of State for Transport will set out more detail in due course. \p Claire Hughes: I thank the Chancellor for her statement and for what is a record-breaking settlement for the Welsh Government to invest in public services in Wales. On Wales, I understand that some Opposition Members might not be happy with the announcement, but my constituents who rely on the north Wales main line to get to work, as well as those of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German), will be delighted. Does the Chancellor agree that investment in rail is about so much more than trains and tracks; it is about connecting people across Wales with opportunities and jobs? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend for making those representations to me and to the Secretary of State for Transport on the importance of better rail connections so that people in Bangor Aberconwy and across north Wales can better access good jobs and public services. That is why we have put in £445 million at the spending review. \p Judith Cummins: For the final question, I call Gregor Poynton. \p Hon. Members:: Hear, hear. \p Gregor Poynton: I thank everyone for staying.

I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement, which shows that this Labour Government are investing in Scotland’s renewal. I particularly welcome the funding allocation for the Acorn carbon capture and storage project, which will unlock billions of pounds of private investment and create high-quality jobs in Scotland. May I ask the Chancellor how the project will create jobs in my constituency and support sites such as Grangemouth to thrive? \p Rachel Reeves: After backing Teesside and Merseyside for carbon capture and storage last year, we are really pleased today to be able to announce tranche 2, with backing for both Acorn and Viking. We will crack on and get that investment to Aberdeenshire, as well as the investment that we are putting into Great British Energy. We know of the huge potential that Scotland has to contribute to those jobs and industries of the future in energy security, defence and so much more, and that is why we are backing Scotland with this spending review. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Question Time today, the Secretary of State for Wales—I have endeavoured to contact her about this—accused me of unintentionally misleading the House when I raised concerns about the reclassification of the east-west Oxford to Cambridge rail line as an England and Wales project, thereby denying Wales its full share of consequential funding. She claimed that the previous classification of England-only was merely a Conservative publishing error and insisted that all heavy rail projects would now be classified in such a way—so as to deny funding to Wales. To my surprise, however, the 2025 statement of funding policy still lists the Oxford to Cambridge line as England-only. That contradicts the Secretary of State’s assertion and raises questions about the accuracy of her comments in the House. What steps should I take when I have been accused of misleading the House yet Treasury documents suggest that it is the Secretary of State who has done so? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of her intention to raise this point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Members’ speeches. However, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her point of order, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will seek to correct the record if necessary. \p Jim Allister: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The whole House will be appalled, as I am, by the grotesque and wanton violence that has afflicted Ballymena in my constituency, and appalled by the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. There can be no excuse for the resulting violence. However, the Government must be aware of the underlying tensions produced by uncontrolled, and often undocumented, immigration. In that regard, would it be in order to ask that the Government make a statement to the House on what they will do to constrain the flow of migrants who legitimately travel under freedom of movement from one EU country to another—in this case, into the Republic of Ireland—and then pass unchecked from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland? That has been a contributor—particularly in respect of Romas, it would seem—to the concentration and the resulting problems. None of that excuses violence, but it is a matter of concern to many. How can I obtain a statement from the Government on how they intend to address that gap in our ability to control who comes and goes from our own  country? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. I have had no notice that the Government intend to make a statement. However, those on the Government Benches will have heard his comments, which are now on the record. He will also have an opportunity tomorrow during Business questions to raise the matter again. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Richard Holden, supported by Rebecca Harris, Mr Mark Francois, Dr Neil Hudson, Mr Peter Bedford, Andrew Rosindell, Sir Ashley Fox, Sir Julian Smith, Bradley Thomas, Sir Andrew Mitchell, Dan Carden and Marie Goldman, presented a Bill to make provision for the licensing of animal shelters, and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 20 June, and to be printed (Bill 260). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Anneliese Midgley: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend building regulations to require letter boxes in new buildings and new front doors to be positioned in accordance with British Standard EN 13724:2013.

The Government say that they want to raise standards and focus on delivery, so I have got a perfect Bill for them—the Letter Boxes (Positioning) Bill. Last Christmas I visited the Royal Mail delivery office in Huyton in my constituency. I watched our posties working flat out, and it really hit home how hard they work, whatever the weather and whatever the conditions. I asked what I could do to help. They said, “Sort out those low-level letter boxes.” They are worried that one of these days, one of them could get a life-changing injury just from doing their job. For example, Lancaster postie Anthony Quinn lost the top of his finger after a dog lunged through a letter box and bit him. He was just doing his job, delivering the post. South London postie Andrew Berge was attacked through a letter box by a dog that locked on to his hand and would not let go. He suffered serious damage to his ring finger, and he was just doing his job, delivering the post. And Wakefield postie Elaine White lost the top of her finger in a similar attack. The damage was so bad that doctors could not reattach it. That is permanent, life altering, but she was just doing her job, delivering the post.

During my visit to the delivery office, posties showed me scars and injuries from dog attacks through letter boxes. Members across the House will have heard countless stories and first-hand experiences from our campaigners about getting dog bites while delivering leaflets to low-level letter boxes. Around 1,000 of our posties have had their fingers partly or fully bitten off through a letter box in the past five years. It is clear to me that letter boxes have reached a new low, and it is time we in this House raised them.

When a letterbox is down by someone’s ankles, any dog can bite, draw blood, or sever a finger or two. And it is not just about dog attacks; low-level letter boxes force our posties to stoop repeatedly, day in, day out. We have all been there on our leaflet delivery, and as we walk down the path and see a low-level letter box, the heart sinks—indeed, the only thing lower than the letter box is the mood of anyone who has to use one. Our posties have to do that every single day, dozens of times, and many of them get serious back problems and suffer back pain for years as a result of their job. Royal Mail recorded more than 18,000 back-related injuries in just one year.

Some of those posties are with us in the Gallery today—I thank them for joining us, and for all that they do. Their union, the Communication Workers Union, has campaigned for this change since 1958. Why has it not happened yet? A recent survey of CWU reps found that 93% reported issues with low-level letter boxes in new buildings, and 99% said that following the standard proposed in this Bill—letter boxes being 70 cm from the ground—would make a real difference.

This is not just about protecting workers, though that is reason enough; it is also about the cost of inaction. In 2022, back pain alone led to 154,000 lost working days at Royal Mail, costing it £16 million, and dog attacks lead to NHS treatment, police investigations and court cases.

I thank the Members who have co-sponsored the Bill. It is a change that is supported by posties up and down the country and by Royal Mail. I also believe it is supported across this House, because in the last Parliament the former Conservative Member for Chelmsford, Vicky Ford, brought forward a similar Bill, which had widespread support, and I pay tribute to her and to the work she did on the issue. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who is sitting next to me. He is a former postie and CWU regional secretary. I know that this issue can unite us all, because when I asked a question on it some months ago in this Chamber, there was cries of “Hear, hear” from across the House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is rare.

This should be a simple fix. The current British standard is that letter box height should be at least 70 cm off the ground. Right now, that is advisory; this Bill would make it mandatory. This is not about asking people to change their existing doors or letter boxes. This Bill is just about low-level letter boxes in new buildings, both residential and commercial.

This Labour Government will build 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, and I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement today at the spending review of £39 billion to help build new social and affordable housing. However, let us ensure that those homes are built right so that posties do not go to work in fear of injury, and let us build them without burdening our public services with the costs of those injuries. As a Labour Government, we take our duty to look after working people seriously. The Bill will do just that.

Loads of other countries, such as Ireland, Portugal and Belgium, have already banned low-level letter boxes. Why are we behind them? Let us catch up with our neighbours on this. Let us raise the bar—or height, literally—on letter boxes. It will save pain, prevent injury and cut costs. It is the right thing to do for the people who deliver our post, are part of our community and look after us day in, day out—and we will never forget the role they played during the covid pandemic.

Our consideration for our posties’ health and safety at work should be first class. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill its stamp of approval and get it signed, sealed and delivered. \p Nusrat Ghani: As a frequent leafleteer in Sussex Weald, I am particularly invested in this piece of legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Anneliese Midgley, Lee Barron, Charlie Dewhirst, Colum Eastwood, Emma Foody, Louise Haigh, Sally Jameson, Joe Morris, Sarah Owen, Laurence Turner, Chris Webb and Michael Wheeler present the Bill.

Anneliese Midgley accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 259). \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading \p Heidi Alexander: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

On the day when the Chancellor has set out this Government’s determination to deliver a decade of national renewal, I am proud to stand before this House to make good on our promise to deliver a sustainable aviation sector. If we are once again to be an outward, confident trading nation that is connected to the world and leading the way on innovation, we must run as fast as we can towards a greener, cleaner future for flying. The Bill before us today will enable us to do precisely that. We do not have time to waste. \p Siân Berry: Does the Secretary of State agree that this Bill has a missing half, which could cut aviation emissions by demand management, and that at the very least, if there is to be public money spent setting up this system, it should be raised from the most frequent flyers and private jets? \p Heidi Alexander: I think the hon. Lady and I fundamentally differ on the issue of demand management, because demand for air travel is only going one way, and it is therefore our moral responsibility, if we are going to have more people in the skies, to reduce the carbon emissions associated with that.

As I said, we have no time to waste. That is why, when it comes to aviation, this Government have rolled up their sleeves and got on with the job, putting an end to the dither and delay of the past. In less than a year, we have approved the expansion of Luton airport and invited plans for a new runway at Heathrow, and I will be making a final decision on Gatwick expansion as soon as possible. We have invested in the future of aviation, not just with the help we have given to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport or the work we are doing to strengthen connectivity around Liverpool John Lennon, but also by putting £1 billion towards aerospace technology. We have introduced the sustainable aviation fuel mandate and provided £63 million to the advanced fuels fund, helping the industry prepare for a sustainable future. Just last week, we kick-started the largest redesign of UK airspace since the 1950s, paving the way for cleaner flights, fewer delays and more direct routes. This is what governing for growth looks like. \p Rachel Hopkins: I really welcome the Bill and the creation of a mechanism to increase the supply of sustainable aviation fuel. Can I add that, as we look towards airspace modernisation, we will have not only cleaner and quicker but quieter flights? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the benefits of cracking on and delivering airspace modernisation. It could mean not only more direct flights and therefore less use of carbon, but noise benefits for communities close to airports.

We are determined to make rapid progress on this issue because we have an iron-clad belief that our success as an island nation rests on our international  connectivity. The flow of trade, exporting British expertise and the movement of people for business and leisure all depend on aviation continuing to grow and thrive. We could put our head in the sand and pretend that people do not want to fly, that the sector does not support hundreds of thousands of jobs, that people do not look forward to foreign holidays or family reunions and that air freight is not a significant part of our trade by value, but we would be on the wrong side of both reality and public aspiration.

The truth is that demand for flight is only going in one direction. According to the Civil Aviation Authority, passenger levels were 7% higher in 2024 than in the previous year. If we do not respond and if we do not set aviation up for long-term success, we do not just make ourselves poorer today, we kiss goodbye to the growth and opportunity this country needs in the decades to come.

I want a future where more passengers can take to the skies, not fewer. But like the rest of our economy, that must mean emitting less carbon, not more. This Bill will help secure that future. It builds on the fantastic work across Government and industry, led by my hon. Friend the Aviation Minister, which saw the SAF mandate come into effect earlier this year. As we run towards a future of green flight, we know that sustainable aviation fuel is one of the biggest levers we can pull. It emits 70% less greenhouse gases on average than fossil fuels. It can be used in existing infrastructure and aircraft engines, and it is now backed by a mandate that is rightly ambitious: 10% SAF in the fuel mix by 2030 and 22% by 2040. I want as much as possible to be made in the UK. \p Monica Harding: The mandate, which we welcome, calls for only 22% sustainable jet fuel usage by 2040, while the Chancellor has said that she wants a third runway in use at Heathrow by 2035. That would mean more aviation-related health hazards to my constituents. Does the Minister agree that we should not pursue Heathrow expansion until we can turbocharge the SAF mandate and bring non-sustainable fuel usage down further? \p Heidi Alexander: The Government have been clear that we will permit airport expansion only when it is consistent with our legally binding climate change targets. SAF is one way in which we can clean up aviation, but the work we are doing on the development of new aircraft technologies, alongside the work we are doing on airspace modernisation, is all connected to how we bring those emissions down. I point out to the hon. Lady that the expansion of Heathrow has already been modelled in relation to the sixth carbon budget.

We have been clear that the mandate alone is not enough. Creating the demand for SAF but not the supply does not get us where we want to be. We have heard the industry’s concerns around risk and uncertainty for investment, and that is why we are acting today. The Bill creates a revenue certainty mechanism that will boost SAF production by giving investors confidence to choose the UK. \p David Davis: I declare an interest as a pilot. In this context, I spoke to one of the would-be producers—I think it is called Zero—and its primary concern with respect to the strike price  mechanism that the right hon. Lady talks about is how that will be set and what input producers will have. Will she address that when she talks through the mechanism? \p Heidi Alexander: There is more detailed design work to do on all that, and we will work alongside industry to ensure that we have a workable proposition.

The mechanism boosts SAF production and gives investors confidence in the UK by addressing one of the biggest barriers to investment: the lack of a clear, predictable market price for SAF. That starts with a guaranteed strike price agreed between a Government-owned counterparty and the SAF producer. If SAF is sold for under that price, the counterparty will pay the difference to the producer. If SAF is sold for above that price, the producer will pay the difference to the counterparty.

The revenue certainty mechanism will be funded by industry, specifically through a levy on aviation fuel suppliers. That makes sense for two reasons. First, it is the industry that will benefit from more and cheaper SAF production, so it is only right that industry, and not the taxpayer, should fund it. Secondly, placing the levy higher up the supply chain spreads costs across the sector and is the least burdensome option. It is important to note that the revenue certainty mechanism will not be indefinite. It will be targeted and time-limited, helping to get first-of-a-kind UK projects off the ground. The Bill’s sunset clause means that we can offer contracts only for 10 years, unless it is extended via the affirmative procedure. We will have a firm grip on costs throughout. We will decide the number and duration of contracts, limit support to a predetermined volume of SAF and negotiate acceptable strike prices. There is no obligation on the Government to enter into a defined number of contracts or to agree contracts at any cost.

I know that some hon. Members may be concerned about the impact on passengers, so let me reassure them: none of this will limit people’s ability to fly. We expect minimal changes to fares, with an average ticket increasing or decreasing by up to £1.50 a year. I am pleased to say that this is a product of many months of consultation with the industry. Airlines are calling for it, airports are calling for it, SAF producers are calling for it, environmental organisations are calling for it, and the Government are therefore getting on with delivering it. \p Julian Lewis: I am sure that we wish the Government well in what they are trying to do. I gather that the International Air Transport Association highlighted only last week that, at the moment, sustainable aviation fuels cost approximately five times as much as conventional jet fuel. Will she explain how the measures in the Bill will bridge that gap to make it economical? \p Heidi Alexander: Supply is constrained at the moment; the UK has one commercial production facility, in Immingham. We need to build investor confidence to commercialise some of the sustainable aviation fuel demonstration projects around the country. More supply and lower prices are good for the aviation sector and, ultimately, good for those who wish to fly.

I think it is worth taking a moment to reiterate what is at stake. When UK production of low-carbon fuels is up and running, it could support up to 15,000 green jobs, contribute £5 billion a year to our economy, and  deliver clean and secure energy. What is more, fulfilling the SAF mandate could save up to 2.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year by 2030. Seizing those opportunities will ensure that we deliver on our bold plan for change and that the UK and our world-class aviation sector are leading the way in the race towards sustainable flight.

This country cannot be open for business, open to investment and open to growth yet have a closed mind when it comes to international connectivity. The Bill is a clear signal that we will not accept false trade-offs that pit aviation’s growth against our commitments to net zero. We can and must do both. We have the opportunity of a lifetime and, I believe, a moral mission to future-proof aviation. When the sector succeeds, it is not only a source of growth, through trade, business and tourism, but a source of joy, aspiration and opportunity. It is as vital today as it will be for future generations. Their need to fly, explore the world and do business requires us to act now. That is what the Bill does, and I commend it to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Gareth Bacon: Let me begin by setting out an unambiguous truth: aviation is vital to the British economy. It is a cornerstone of our national infrastructure, our competitiveness and our connectivity.

When it comes to the impact of aviation on our economy, the figures speak for themselves. Aviation contributes £52 billion to UK GDP, supporting over 960,000 jobs across the country. That includes 341,000 people working directly in aviation—from air traffic controllers to aerospace engineers—350,000 jobs in the supply chain, and another 269,000 supported through consumer spending. Aviation also delivers nearly £8.7 billion in tax revenues, and aerospace manufacturing adds a further £9 billion directly to GDP, plus over £10 billion more when including its supply chains. Some 197 million passengers and 2 million tonnes of freight move through our airports each year. The economic case is therefore unanswerable. In short, we must all support this thriving industry with clear benefits to the country.

The Conservative party has always recognised the strategic importance of aviation, but, unlike the current Government, we understand the damage that can be done with poor policy choices—I regret to say that we have seen plenty of that from the Labour Government over the past year. Alongside their national insurance jobs tax, which is putting pressure on businesses and threatens to leave working people £3,500 a year worse off, Labour’s decision to hike air passenger duty threatens the vitality of this thriving industry. The Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that rises planned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will raise an extra £555 million in taxes over five years, pushing up the costs for businesses and passengers alike.

In a speech that will have a lot of common ground with the Secretary of State’s speech, I regret to say that Labour’s handling of its professed desire to expand aviation raises more questions than answers. The decision  to approve a second terminal at Luton airport, which we support, will be judicially reviewed. The proposal for a second runway at Gatwick has been kicked down the road for surprising reasons, to say the least, and the supposed support for a third runway at Heathrow is no more credible. The Chancellor has promised that the latter proposal will be operational by 2035, with spades in the ground in this Parliament, but that ambition looks very far-fetched, and there are substantial logistical and financial barriers to its construction. So far, the Government have provided no solutions on those points, so we will watch developments in the next few weeks with considerable interest.

It is against that backdrop that we come to the Bill before us. When we entered opposition, we made it clear that we would not oppose the Government just for the sake of it. We made it clear that where the Government’s choices would benefit the country or the economy, we would welcome them. That is why we will not seek to divide the House on this legislation on Second Reading. This Bill is a logical follow-on from the statutory instrument passed in September last year that established the SAF mandate, the first stage of which came into effect in January. Having mandated that airlines will be required to use a specified percentage of SAF—2% this year, rising to 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040—it is logical to take steps to ensure adequate levels of locally produced fuel.

While the mandate requires the consumption of SAF, it is a new technology, and its production carries a high risk for investors. Encouraging the development of the plants required to produce this fuel is the purpose of this Bill and, to a very large degree, it is a continuation of the policy of the previous Government. In 2023, it was the last Government who committed to an industry-funded revenue certainty mechanism to support UK-based SAF production. In early 2024 we published the detail, with plans for a guaranteed strike price model to give price certainty to SAF producers. I hear the Minister say, “You didn’t do it!” He is completely correct, because unfortunately there was something called a general election that followed shortly after.

As the Secretary of State has outlined, under this model, producers will be topped up when the market price falls below a guaranteed strike price; when the market price rises above, they will pay it back. The system mirrors the successful contracts for difference model in offshore wind, and the economic benefits could be considerable. A cost-benefit analysis produced by the Department for Transport before the general election suggested that the SAF industry could add more than £1.8 billion to the economy and create more than 10,000 jobs in the country, but, more fundamentally, SAF is a product of what we know to work. As the Secretary of State said in her speech, it can be blended with conventional Jet A-1, used in existing aircraft and refuelled at existing airports. The capability exists. The challenge is not scientific; it is economic. That is why the concept of a revenue certainty mechanism was one of the six pillars in the previous Government’s jet zero strategy, and, as the Secretary of State outlined, the introduction of a revenue certainty mechanism has wide support in the aviation industry.

Let me be clear: while we will not oppose the legislation this evening, we will carefully scrutinise it as it progresses through the House. In that spirit, I will put some questions to the Minister, which I hope he will address  in his summing up. The first is about passengers. In the press release announcing the Bill, the Government said that the revenue certainty mechanism would keep ticket price changes minimal:

“Keeping fluctuations to £1.50 a year on average.”

The Secretary of State said the same in her speech. Perhaps in his speech the Minister could outline what this figure is based on. Do the Government stand by it? Is it a commitment, or a rough estimate?

The second question is about what type of SAF the Government favour and how it will be produced. While the SAF mandate permits the production and use of hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids SAF in the early years of the mandate, and also contains a small but increasing requirement for power-to-liquid SAF in later years, the bulk of the SAF to be developed and used under the terms of the mandate is second generation SAF, which is to be made from municipal waste, non-edible crops and woody biomass. The UK is a small island, with insufficient spare land to enjoy self-sufficient food security or to grow new forests at scale. Does the Minister think we will be self-sufficient? If not, what proportion of the ingredients necessary for making second generation SAF does the Minister think we will need to import?

Relatedly, the HEFA cap comes into force incrementally from 2027, despite there currently being no domestic production of second generation SAF in the UK and low levels of second generation SAF produced globally, removing the opportunity to source mandated volumes through imports. This risks making the costs of hitting SAF mandate targets very high indeed, because suppliers will soon be forced to buy out of their mandate obligations—a significant cost that will be passed on to the airlines and, ultimately, to passengers without delivering any decarbonisation benefit at all. Will the Government consider revising the timelines for phasing out HEFA SAF to bring them more in line with the timescales for domestic second generation SAF production, in order to minimise the costs for passengers?

The next area of interest is planning. The plants in which the Government are seeking to encourage investment will be large, and—as the Minister no doubt knows—large developments tend to attract a lot of local opposition, often leading to planning inquiries, judicial reviews, vast expense and years of delay before any construction work begins. If this does not change, the revenue certainty mechanism may not be sufficient to attract investors, so what will the Government do to minimise delays in the planning process?

I turn now to timescales. When will the first contracts be awarded under the RCM? Will there be a timetable for reaching full mandate compliance? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis)—who is no longer in his place—touched on, the issue of the strike price is critical to the success of the proposal. What criteria will be used to set the strike price? Will the methodology be published, and will there be regular reviews? Finally, will the Government commit to regular reporting to Parliament on industry take-up, production capacity and cost trajectory, to ensure that they remain accountable for the Bill over time?

The importance of this Bill is clear. Backing UK production of sustainable aviation fuel is necessary if we are to meet our net zero goals without undermining the competitiveness of the aviation sector. However, let me be clear: as the Bill moves through the House, we  will continue to look closely at the detail and press for changes where necessary, where improvements can be made to ensure that the scheme delivers on its promise. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Transport Committee. \p Ruth Cadbury: I start by thanking the Secretary of State for Transport for her speech. I also thank her and the Aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for coming to speak to the Transport Committee earlier this year about aviation and, of course, wider matters.

I welcome the introduction of the Bill, and I was pleased to hear the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). The Bill will play an important role in our work to decarbonise our aviation sector. Some 7% of domestic greenhouse gas emissions come from domestic and international flights, and it is estimated that this figure will increase to 11% by 2030 and 16% by 2035. We all know the huge challenges involved in decarbonising aviation, and this Bill is a much-needed step towards addressing them. I am glad that the Government are taking action, and I know that many in the industry want to ensure that the Bill is operational as soon as possible.

As I am sure the Transport Secretary will appreciate, I have a few questions about the Bill, which I am sure will also be raised at later stages of its progress. However, I start by saying that it is rare to find a Bill on which there is so much agreement; every major airline I have met has mentioned its support for SAF, and there is widespread agreement that we need a price certainty mechanism. That is a sign that the Government have been pragmatic, working with business and—in the case of SAF—working to ensure that we have domestic capacity here in the UK.

I am glad that the Bill will start to move us away from our dependency on imported fossil fuels, particularly for aviation. This House may forget that our reliance on foreign fossil fuels meant that in 2022, we had to spend more than £35 billion bailing out our energy market. That reliance leaves us reliant on the whims of autocratic regimes across the world. We need to move away from that costly model and, in turn, bring investment into our regions, growth to our economy and much-needed tax revenue to our Treasury.

I am glad that the UK Government are working to make sure that we continue to lead on decarbonisation and to reduce our carbon emissions in line with the Paris agreement. I want to touch on the nature of the SAF we will be using. First and second generation SAFs are made from waste—the first from used cooking oils predominantly, and the second from waste such as household black bin bag waste. Where do the Government see that waste coming from in the future? How does that tie in with our efforts to reduce our residual waste, particularly black bin bag waste, and wider efforts to reduce the non-recyclable waste that we produce? Is a large part of our household waste not already going to waste-to-energy plants, providing electricity that we depend on?

There is a lot of support for SAF in America and, as with ethanol, it offers a huge chance for large-scale agricultural businesses to profit from the sale of their waste and their oil. Ethanol is often produced in the same plants as SAF. In seeking to secure UK domestic production of SAF, what could the challenges of the US-UK trade agreement mean for our biofuel industry and its ability to transition to producing SAF? Has the Department modelled the economic and environmental impact of providing resources for second generation SAF? What is the timescale to bring on third generation SAF?

One issue that has been raised with me is whether companies looking at producing SAF will be able to enter negotiations with the Government before the Bill reaches the statute book. I understand that that has been the case for the mechanism for renewable energy projects, where negotiations began early to ensure that the investment is locked in.

We need to see changes in aviation to meet our ambitious climate goals. Now that aviation and shipping are included in our carbon budget, those changes are even more important, and I hope that the Government will also look beyond SAF when thinking about decarbonising aviation. SAF is not and will not be the silver bullet solution to the sector’s responsibility to this country’s decarbonisation strategy. \p Deirdre Costigan: My hon. Friend, like me, represents a west London constituency. Brentford and Isleworth is very close to my constituency of Ealing Southall. She will know that while our constituents support the work towards a more sustainable air industry, they also want to see work to reduce the noise we hear in west London from the airline industry. Does she agree that the airline industry must also look at new, quieter planes and airspace modernisation for those communities? \p Ruth Cadbury: My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right, and I know that the plane and engine manufacturers are continuing to work—as they have done for decades, to be fair—on quieter and less polluting aircraft. Sometimes there is a tension between those two. Airspace modernisation will not make a lot of difference to my constituency in terms of landing aircraft, but overall airspace modernisation will play a part in reducing emissions and flight times for passengers.

As I have said, SAF is not and will not be the silver-bullet solution to the problem of aviation’s responsibility for decarbonisation. The Climate Change Committee warned Parliament in 2023 that relying on SAF alone was “high risk”. For example, Heathrow airport is already the single greatest source of carbon emissions in the UK, and the current plans for expansion would add an extra 8 to 9 megatonnes of carbon dioxide a year. If the Government do expand Heathrow, other airports across the UK will have to make cuts to ensure that aviation does not breach its carbon targets. Furthermore, continuing increases in aviation emissions will have to be offset against significant cuts in emissions in other sectors. I should like to hear from the Transport Secretary what the Government are doing to address that particular challenge.

When the Transport Committee considered SAF during the last Parliament, we found that it had “significant potential”, and I know that there is support throughout the House for us to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. As Chair of the Committee, I also know how widespread support across the sector is for decarbonisation, and that many private companies are already way ahead in preparing for the future. This country needs to stay ahead of the game internationally, and I am glad that by introducing the Bill the Government are showing their commitment, investing in UK industry, and showing that the UK can be a leader on sustainability. \p Paul Kohler: I thank the Secretary of State for her speech, and congratulate the Aviation Minister on the Bill.

The challenge facing the aviation sector—as with our entire economy—is decarbonisation. Reaching net zero by 2050 is essential, and given the scale of the scientific and technical challenge, it is clear that decarbonising aviation will not be easy. Sustainable aviation fuels have an important role to play in this effort. We consequently welcome the establishment of a SAF revenue certainty mechanism, which has long been called for by many in the aviation industry and which, as we have heard, is vital to ensuring that the SAF mandate is both feasible and achievable for airlines. Providing SAF producers with a guaranteed level of revenue will be key to unlocking investment in the sector—which, I think, answers some of the questions posed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). It will help to stimulate private capital at this early stage, and will support the UK’s ambition to become a global leader in SAF development and production. The growth of the industry also has the potential to generate jobs and economic activity across the country.

However, while my party supports the Bill, there remain important questions, regarding in particular the scrutiny of the mechanism, international alignment, and the wider strategy for aviation decarbonisation. The Bill sets out the broad principles for the revenue mechanism, but leaves much of the detail to secondary legislation and ministerial discretion. That is, to a degree, understandable—the early stage of SAF technology and the uncertainty in market development mean that flexibility is crucial and necessary—but the Government must ensure that Parliament has an adequate opportunity to scrutinise the development of the mechanism, and the SAF sector more broadly. Given the importance of SAF to achieving net zero in aviation, it is vital that the House is updated regularly on progress in the industry, and on whether any adjustments to the mechanism are necessary. That is especially important in the light of previous Government promises to kick-start the domestic SAF industry—promises that have yet to materialise. In 2022 the Conservatives promised to have five commercial SAF plants up and running by 2025, but, as so often, they failed to deliver. I will therefore be pushing in Committee for the Bill to increase the level of ongoing scrutiny.

It is also crucial for the UK to work collaboratively with international partners on net-zero aviation technologies. Currently, the criteria for both what qualifies as SAF and what levels of different technologies should be used differ between the UK and the EU, with each jurisdiction  prioritising different fuel types at different times. Given the inherently international nature of the aviation sector, closer regulatory alignment with the EU and other key partners is essential to fostering growth in the industry and ensuring that there are sufficient levels of SAF production internationally to support the transition. The Government must therefore work more closely with the EU and others to ensure that our frameworks dovetail.

Finally, while we welcome this Bill, it is important to acknowledge that SAF alone will not be enough to decarbonise aviation, as the Chair of the Transport Committee made clear. Although SAF can significantly reduce the carbon intensity of air travel, flights using SAF will not be carbon neutral, so many of the necessary emission reductions to reach net zero will need to come from other areas. By the Government’s own estimates, SAF could cut emissions by 6.3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2040. That is not insignificant, but given the projected growth in passenger numbers, it would represent only a 0.8% reduction in overall aviation emissions compared with today.

While the Lib Dems support the Bill, we continue to urge the Government to take more ambitious action to decarbonise the aviation industry. With plans for airport expansion still on the table, the Government must clearly articulate how net zero aviation will be achieved by 2050. \p Sadik Al-Hassan: I thank the Secretary of State and the Aviation Minister for their engagement while bringing forward this legislation. This Bill is vital not only to meet our national climate commitments, but to ensure strong regional economic growth, such as in my constituency of North Somerset, where Bristol airport, a beacon in the UK’s transition to sustainable aviation, is located.

Bristol airport has long demonstrated real leadership in this space. In March 2021, it became BP’s first UK customer to receive a supply of sustainable aviation fuel. In March 2024, nearly a year before the Government’s mandate, Jet2 began operating flights from Bristol airport using a blend of sustainable aviation fuel, reducing the emissions that these flights generated by an astounding 70%. In recognition of the airport’s leadership in this area, in December this Government made the very wise decision to appoint it to the jet zero taskforce, where it will be able to share its years of experience and expertise with the group.

The leadership and vision shown by institutions such as Bristol airport are not just laudable, but necessary, if we are to reach net zero by 2050. Aviation has been a domestic economic success story in recent decades. It now contributes £40 billion to the UK economy annually, including £20 billion in exports, and supports over half a million jobs across the country. With over 60% of the Members of this House having 500 or more constituents who work in aerospace, aviation or the wider supply chain, I will not be alone in recognising how vital it is for the economic future of our country to ensure that this industry remains a success. However, the ugly truth is that the sector accounts for around 7% of the UK’s total emissions, and if we are to decarbonise the aviation industry while ensuring that flying remains affordable  and accessible, it is to innovations such as sustainable aviation fuels and hydrogen in aviation that we must turn.

As the sustainable aviation fuel mandate begins to ramp up demand in the years to come, domestic production will sadly continue to lag behind, so this Bill’s revenue certainty mechanism is essential. Learning from the success that contracts for difference have led to for renewables, the revenue certainty mechanism will unlock the UK’s production by providing certainty for investors, and could see up to 60,000 skilled and well-paid jobs created by 2050.

My constituents in North Somerset will welcome the news that the Government continue to balance the need to support regional economic growth with meeting our net zero commitments, and I look forward to seeing the local jobs and cleaner skies that this Bill will deliver in the years to come. \p Blake Stephenson: The UK has a real opportunity to lead the world in the production of sustainable aviation fuels, and this Bill aims to provide the investment certainty needed to scale up domestic SAF production and achieve just that.

My constituency is located a stone’s throw from London Luton airport. It is a rapidly expanding regional airport, and that expansion will bring with it huge economic benefits, including jobs for thousands of my constituents and better connections for business and leisure. Indeed, airport expansion will help to bring millions of people to the Universal UK theme park—which I have to mention every time I stand up—and play a key role in driving local economic growth. But just as it is important to support the growth of airports such as Luton, it is important that expansion happens as sustainably as possible to ensure that we get as many of the benefits, and as few of the harms, as possible.

This is the subject of a current Environmental Audit Committee inquiry, which I was pleased to secure, investigating how the Government can deliver airport expansion while meeting their legally binding climate targets. Some, such as the Climate Change Committee, say that it is not possible, and the Government need to square that circle. With around 7% of greenhouse gases derived from aviation in the UK, we should not underestimate the challenge, but it is clear to me that sustainable aviation fuels are an important piece of the jigsaw.

In my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, Cranfield University and local industry are already working at the cutting edge of developing new technologies in this area. I have heard from them and other experts about the potential of British-made sustainable aviation fuels. I have even learned about second-generation SAF—not something that I thought I would get into this time last year—which turns the waste we all put in our black bins every week into the fuel that powers us to adventures abroad. That is a remarkable thing, and I am glad to have learned about it since coming into the House. If we get sustainable aviation fuels right, we can create and support thousands of highly skilled jobs in places such as Cranfield.

Doing more to stimulate the development of sustainable aviation fuels is an obvious route to economic growth, so will the Minister reflect on our global market position,  explain how the mechanism compares with other approaches, and give an assurance that the measures in the Bill will be enough to avoid the UK aviation industry needing to import SAF from abroad? It would be a huge missed opportunity to later find that this mechanism and related policies have not been ambitious enough, leaving foreign countries to benefit from domestic mandates.

One thing that strikes me immediately as worthy of more thought—the Minister may wish to comment—is black bin waste. Taking waste that was heading to landfill and instead using it to power us into the sky would seem to be a simple way forward, although whether there is enough of it is another matter. I declare my interest as a Central Bedfordshire councillor, but will the Minister consider the merits of including, in this Bill or elsewhere, a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide local authorities with guidance on how they can take advantage of this opportunity to help in the national effort to scale up production? Unless it is financially prohibitive for them to do so, would it not be sensible and pragmatic to let them use our household waste in this way, rather than let it head to landfill or local incinerators?

Finally, I have a few questions for the Minister on the costs of aviation travel. As we all know, times are tight for many of our constituents. UK air passenger duty is the world’s highest tax levied on airline passengers, and following the autumn Budget, the OBR forecasts that it will increase 9% a year on average to a whopping £6.5 billion in 2029-30. On top of that, it is estimated that the impact of the Bill through the levy and administration costs will raise the cost of a ticket to travel. I know Ministers say that it is a modest increase, but that is why some may prefer the Government to use an alternative funding mechanism, such as the industry’s contribution to the UK emissions trading scheme. I am not saying that the Government should take that approach, but it would be worthwhile for them to explain why they have taken the approach they have. Reflecting on the fact that the costs of the Bill come on top of the increase to air passenger duty in the autumn Budget, will the Minister provide an assurance that the Bill will not clobber our hard-working constituents with yet higher prices when they jet off on their family holiday? \p Baggy Shanker: I refer the House to my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

As a proud advocate of UK aviation, I am pleased to speak in support of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, and I add my thanks to the Aviation Minister for his determination in support of UK aviation and to the Secretary of State for her leadership. By backing industry with a revenue certainty mechanism, the Bill will turbocharge the production of UK SAF, reducing reliance on imports and generating jobs up and down the country. As one of the most carbon-intensive and hardest-to-decarbonise forms of transport, aviation is vital to get right. Alternative and sustainable aviation fuels will help us to safeguard the future of our planet, because without a decarbonised aviation sector, there will be no net zero.

Decarbonising will ensure that future generations can enjoy the opportunities that air travel brings without compromising the health of our planet. It will ensure that our regional economies continue to benefit from the growth that the aviation sector can offer, such as the whopping 6,000 jobs that East Midlands airport supports. In Derby, we are already making bold strides towards our net zero future. I am proud that Rolls-Royce moved quickly to confirm the compatibility of its long-haul aircraft engines, in both the wide body and business jet sector, with 100% SAF usage. The Derby factories will continue to play a significant role in shaping the future of aviation decarbonisation for years to come.

We recognise that decarbonisation will not be without its challenges. Sustainable aviation fuels offer a practical and innovative solution to those challenges, with SAF made from waste emitting a staggering 89% less carbon than burning conventional jet fuel. This is what the SAF Bill recognises. It is a bold and necessary step forwards to secure a sustainable net zero future for aviation. I am proud to support it. \p Luke Taylor: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I very much welcome this step to push the aviation industry into a sustainable future. I encourage Members to join the APPG and come along to our meetings if they want to find out more about sustainability and the future of aviation. I worked in the aviation industry for 16 years before being elected to this place, and I studied aeronautical engineering for four years before that, so it would have been remiss of me not to come to the Chamber today to share with hon. Members my expertise on the subject, but I will try not bore them.

I welcome the support for future technology and the investment previously announced by the Government. We have massive and historical expertise in aviation here in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and we really must grasp the opportunity to develop those skills and that technology further. It is an incredible opportunity for UK plc and we need to grasp it. I want to pick up on a comment by the Secretary of State in her opening speech about airspace modernisation, because it is relevant to the discussion. We must grasp the opportunities of airspace modernisation, which have the potential, as she mentioned, to deliver shorter, more direct and more efficient flight routes. But as MPs, we must engage with the process. We must understand and learn about how that is happening around us. It is inevitable, but we must get the best for our communities. We must understand and engage with that process as it goes along. It is an incredible opportunity.

Over the past few months, the APPG has been hearing about the technologies that we have today. Of particular interest is ZeroAvia, which is already flying a hydrogen-electric, zero-emission aircraft in the UK—it has a hydrogen fuel cell with electrical propulsion, which offers completely zero-emission flight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) mentioned, this is only a stepping stone to the truly zero-emission flight that we really need to capture.

If hon. Members will forgive me for boring them slightly, the Breguet range equations that I learnt about for my degree are the reason why an Airbus A380 will  take off from London at 580 tonnes and land in Sydney at around 340 tonnes. The burning of fuel throughout the journey means that it is able to maintain the range and maintain the flight levels that the burning of the fuel and the reduction in the weight require. That is one reason why liquid fuel will almost always be required for very long-haul flights, no matter how far we progress with hydrogen and electrical power plants for short and medium-haul flights.

That amplifies the need not just for the current second-generation SAF production, but for looking at alternative fuel sources such as algae-derived SAF. Others have correctly made the point about the reduction in residual waste, which is the current fuel source for a lot of biodiesel for the development of SAF. As those sources decrease and the cost potentially increases, we need to look at truly zero-carbon sources of SAF.

I will not bore hon. Members more. In closing, I will just echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and of my party and encourage the Minister to go further and faster to achieve truly zero-carbon and lower-noise aviation technology so that we can continue to enjoy the incredible freedoms and opportunities in both economic activity—jobs, skills and trade—and the broadened horizons that aviation has offered us for more than a century. Long may it continue. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 350 and the Noes were 176, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.] \p Sally Jameson: Since entering this place almost a year ago, I have been proud to be a part of the campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport and unleash the economic potential of the surrounding land as a hub for sustainable aviation. Our airport is a source of pride for all of us in Doncaster and South Yorkshire. We all eagerly anticipate the first flight for holidaymakers, but also—perhaps more importantly—we are looking forward to the high-skill, high-wage jobs that the airport will bring, and not just for people in Doncaster and South Yorkshire today, but for young people for generations to come.

That is why my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) and for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and I, along with Mayor Ros Jones and Mayor Oliver Coppard, and indeed the whole of South Yorkshire, were delighted that this Labour Government backed £30 million of devolved funding into our airport. I thank the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister with responsibility for aviation for their support in our airport, our area and our potential.

A Government who prioritise growth must ensure that it is place based and felt in every corner of the country. \p Lee Pitcher: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way and for what she has said today. Does she agree that there is real potential for farmers to contribute by supporting feed stock from winter crops, creating a circular environmental economy that helps the local economy to grow further with new kinds of jobs, including for people who live in rural areas? \p Sally Jameson: I absolutely agree. The Bill is not just about the small, narrow element of sustainable aviation; it is about what every industry across the country can do in the shared endeavour to make our aviation sustainable.

If this Government’s growth agenda is to be a success, it must be felt in every corner of the country, including Doncaster and South Yorkshire, and I am pleased that with our airport investment and the backing from the Prime Minister—reiterated just today by the Chancellor—this Government have proved that they will do just that.

As the Secretary of State said, low-carbon fuels could support up to 15,000 jobs and contribute £5 billion to the economy by 2050. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill is a promising boost to our ambition in Doncaster to create a sustainable aviation hub linked to our airport, proving, despite what some on the Opposition Benches may say, that the green agenda and the sustainability agenda are firmly woven into—and are, in fact, essential to—the regeneration of areas that have often been forgotten, such as mine, and to the industries of the future, good jobs for young people and the security of the nation.

The Bill’s revenue certainty mechanism will widen opportunities for innovators, entrepreneurs and producers of fuels, propelling our aviation industry to world-class levels and helping us to become world leaders in an emerging market that will benefit our economy, our industry and our climate.

Perhaps most importantly, this critical infrastructure is sorely needed in Doncaster, and indeed across the country, to bring about the high-skill, high-wage jobs for my constituents and for young people across South Yorkshire. I know that our airport will champion the Government’s aviation fuel ambitions, as will I. \p Graham Leadbitter: The SNP welcomes the Bill, which will support the expanding use of sustainable aviation fuel. We view that as an important action among the range of actions that are needed to meet our legal and—most importantly —moral obligations to reduce carbon and support global efforts to tackle climate change.

My constituency has already played an important role in the use of SAF, with RAF Lossiemouth being the first Air Force base to use a SAF fuel blend for routine operations, for both the Poseidon submarine hunters and the Typhoon squadrons operating with a SAF mix. The RAF has also conducted demonstrator flights with 100% SAF-fuelled aircraft, and refuelled jets in the air with SAF. Indeed, Group Captain Sarah Brewin, the station commander at RAF Lossiemouth, has stated:

“The use of sustainable aviation fuel represents a significant milestone in the RAF’s journey towards helping mitigate against climate change. By integrating sustainable practices into our  operations, we are not only enhancing our ability to protect the nation and deliver excellence on operations, but also contributing to a more sustainable future for generations to come.”

I welcome the fact that the RAF has some ambitious targets to reduce its aviation carbon emissions.

Inverness airport, publicly owned by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd and responsible to the Scottish Government, has offered SAF to operators since 2023—a vital piece of work towards the Scottish Government’s deliberately ambitious goal of creating the world’s first net zero aviation region by 2040.

Offshore supply flights are one of the most promising parts of our aviation sector for SAF potential. With Scotland having the lion’s share of these flights from Aberdeen airport, it is vital that we see investment in SAF production in Scotland. Aberdeen airport, operated by AGS Airports, has supplied SAF since 2022, helping offshore industries to reduce their emissions. In 2021, one of the first fully-SAF helicopter flights in the UK took off from Aberdeen airport. BP is working with Bristow Helicopters to ensure that flights to BP platforms have used a SAF blend for more than two and a half years.

Scotland has an immense SAF production potential. The Bill alone is insufficient to see us reach that potential, but it is an important part of that. Scotland’s SAF progress has been held back by the inaction of successive UK Governments on funding the Scottish carbon capture, usage and storage cluster. The CCUS cluster is, in turn, integral to the investment in SAF production at Grangemouth.

Industry body Sustainable Aviation found that a UK SAF industry could deliver £2.9 billion annually to the UK economy, and create more than 20,000 jobs. It is vital that, with long-overdue funding finally confirmed today—something that the SNP has campaigned on for over a decade—the full detail is rapidly made clear and that pace is further injected into the process if that overdue cash is to be converted to construction and processing.

My SNP colleague and Transport Secretary in the Scottish Government has put in place an expert working group on sustainable aviation fuel to exploit the potential for the Scottish economy.

I have covered our broad welcome for the Bill, but there is one area that the Government must address, which is ensuring that feedstocks are coming from sustainable sources. We welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on further design work in the process and we will see that come through in the passage of the Bill. However, the Government must set out how they plan to manage the sourcing of sustainable aviation fuel feedstocks, so that the waste hierarchy is adhered to, and that existing businesses are not damaged by the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism.

The most obvious illustration of this is the potential use of high-quality wood as one potential feedstock for SAF production. Some Members, but I suspect not all, will be aware that current demand for wood will outstrip supply by 2035. It will be obvious to everyone that it takes more than 10 years to grow a forest, so there is a real and well-articulated concern from organisations such as the Wood Panel Industry Federation and the many sawmill operators throughout the UK.

The UK wood panel industry currently supplies 65% of the UK’s demand for wood panel products, utilising 25% of the annual roundwood harvest basket and 25% of the annual waste wood basket. Fully 10% of the UK economy utilises wood panel products and, again, it will not be lost on the Government that, in order to achieve a 1.5 million new homes target—something the SNP welcomes, given our own substantial success in social and affordable housing build in Scotland—protecting and growing wood supply will be absolutely vital.

The eligibility criteria for the SAF mandate stipulates that feedstock materials must be waste that cannot be prevented, reused or recycled in accordance with the waste hierarchy. While the mandate acknowledges the waste hierarchy, which in principle would prioritise the use of waste wood for recycling before energy recovery, it is not clear how it will be monitored and enforced, leaving supplies of waste wood vulnerable to being used in SAF, against the eligibility criteria. There is a risk that the introduction of a revenue certainty mechanism will incentivise producers wishing to use this essential raw material for SAF production.

There will be time during the passage of the Bill for Ministers to mitigate this risk and address this issue across the Departments involved, of which there are several. I particularly hope that the Deputy Prime Minister’s responsibility for housing will help to focus ministerial and wider departmental minds on ensuring that the final iteration of the Bill supports sustainable SAF feedstocks. There are many good ways to manufacture SAF, and there are some bad ones. Let us get the mix right in this Bill. \p Euan Stainbank: I welcome this tremendous legislation, which comes not a minute too soon after the previous Government self-admittedly sat on their hands. The Bill will enable the essential move to the production of British sustainable aviation fuel, and I put on the record my thanks to the ministerial team and officials for bringing the Bill forward and for their answers to my extensive written questions.

Unless it is the will of the House to cry for the end of aviation as a practice, it is imperative that we back the sustainable use of biofuels, municipal waste, cover crops, ethanol, and even carbon dioxide straight out of the atmosphere, for aviation fuel. The mandate provides a modest progression for the aviation industry towards incorporating this fuel into its mix. We have genuinely world-leading research and development on Teesside, such as through Project Speedbird and Lighthouse Green Fuels. The green shoots of industry there must be supported by Government to enable their outcomes.

Both airlines and airports recognise the environmental and economic imperative of building a domestic SAF market. They understand that relying on imports to meet the mandate increases costs and introduces risk to our energy security, aviation resilience and national competitiveness, and there is the geopolitical risk of exposing ourselves to a cheap Chinese market. We shamefully saw the previous Government be willing to do that, as exposed by the hundreds of jobs now on the line at Alexander Dennis in my constituency due to aggressive state-subsidised Chinese industrial practices  capturing an incrementally increasing share of the British bus manufacturing market. It is also in no small part thanks to the SNP Government recently buying four times as many Chinese buses as buses from Scotland, but I digress.

There is credible investment interest from traditional jet fuel producers and aviation operators, which have shown their willingness to put capital behind UK SAF projects. That investment is waiting for the RCM to be put in place, for private law contracts with manufacturers to be agreed, and for the industry to have complete certainty in investing in what is a nascent and uncertain technology.

The Bill must pass through the House as quickly as possible. One of the places that cannot afford to wait for investment is Grangemouth. The closure of the Grangemouth refinery has marked the end of over a century of oil refining on Falkirk’s doorstep, and jobs in the wider supply chain are at risk daily due to the loss of the economic anchor that the refinery provided the community. Petroineos’ conversion of the refinery into an import terminal compounds the concerns within the community that we will be reliant on cheap Chinese imports instead of growing our own SAF.

Grangemouth has the infrastructure, skills, logistics and the will to be a cornerstone of our domestic SAF industry and strategy in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, and it already has a commitment from the Government of £200 million from the national wealth fund. Organisations such as Scottish Enterprise and the team around Project Willow are already assessing investable proposals centred on SAF in Grangemouth. However, the dates for commencement of operations suggested in the report are still far too remote from the practical reality of workers who need to feed their kids and pay their mortgage.

With strategic support and the wise and expedient deployment of the £200 million dedicated by this UK Labour Government to Grangemouth, I firmly believe that we can rapidly transition Grangemouth from aviation fuel to SAF, serving as a model of industrial renewal. There are implications for fuel security in Scotland, for jobs in my constituency and the cost of heating and industrial fuel across the country. We cannot allow this to become another missed opportunity. For Grangemouth to have a chance of succeeding, we need acceleration.

With that in mind, I would like the Minister to answer the following questions. Considering that industry is raising concerns that we may have to wait up to nine months between the commencement of this legislation in quarter 4 of 2026 and the first private law contract being confirmed, what work can be done prior to the introduction of this legislation to bring the first of the contracts into effect as soon as humanly possible? How does the Bill intersect with Project Willow proposals for SAF at Grangemouth? Does the Minister understand the need to back and deliver that at pace? Would he like to touch on how the Project Willow report recommends delaying the HEFA cap? Does he consider the use of waste feedstocks for sustainable aviation fuel to be dirtier, cleaner or the same as waste incineration? What conversations has he had with colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding the waste hierarchy implications?

In summary, we need the RCM rapidly, and we need to develop the industry at scale, and affordably. I hope  that we can genuinely back British SAF, safeguard fuel security, protect skilled jobs and anchor the energy transition in communities such as Grangemouth, Teesside and all across the United Kingdom. \p Lillian Jones: I rise to speak in this important debate as we address the challenge of modernising fuel sources and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the wood panel industry. The transition to net zero in aviation is not just a climate imperative but an industrial opportunity. I commend the Government for bringing forward the Bill, which aims to provide long-term certainty for investors in the UK’s growing sustainable aviation fuel sector. However, in our efforts to decarbonise aviation, we must be careful not inadvertently to harm other strategically important industries that also contribute to our economic growth and environmental goals.

The UK wood panel industry is one such sector. It generates more than £1.1 billion in gross value added and supports more than 10,000 jobs across the UK, many in high-skilled manufacturing roles in Wales, the north of England and Scotland, including my home of Ayrshire and beyond. Those are well-paid, productive and future-facing jobs.

The sector is one of the UK’s largest industrial recyclers of post-consumer waste wood. It takes what would otherwise be discarded and turns it into essential materials for furniture, interior design and—crucially—the homes we are building, yet there is genuine concern that the SAF revenue certainty mechanism could distort markets by incentivising the diversion of recyclable wood and forestry products to fuel production. We have seen that before with the renewable heat incentive, where subsidies inflated virgin wood prices and squeezed out established manufacturers. We cannot afford to repeat that mistake. I am pleased to hear that Ministers have met industry representatives, listened to their concerns and responded positively. I would like to invite my hon. Friend the aviation Minister to come and speak to the APPG so that he can hear from the industry at first hand.

The SAF mandate rightly references the waste hierarchy, prioritising reuse and recycling before energy recovery. However, the enforcement mechanisms remain unclear. If high-quality waste wood is drawn into SAF production, prices will rise, availability will fall and our domestic supply chain will suffer.

Let me be clear that I support the ambition of SAF. I also support the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million new homes, but that will not be possible without affordable, sustainable construction materials, including wood panels. I urge Ministers to maintain the current safeguards in the SAF mandate, uphold the exclusion of virgin and recyclable wood from eligibility, ensure robust enforcement of the waste hierarchy so that only truly non-recyclable wood can be used, and put in place transparency mechanisms so that we can track what feedstocks are being used. If we get the balance right, we can deliver cleaner skies and affordable homes, and we can decarbonise aviation without decimating domestic manufacturing. Let us make SAF sustainable in every sense: environmentally, economically and industrially. \p Alice Macdonald: I thank the Minister for all his engagement on the subject. I am definitely not an expert on sustainable aviation fuel—it is nice to be in a debate where we can learn so much—but I will focus on what it could mean for my area of Norfolk and the east of England.

As we have heard, the Bill has the power to support a sustainable aviation industry that will reduce carbon emissions, protect highly skilled jobs and drive green growth. Norwich airport in my constituency has been a user of sustainable aviation fuel since 2023. SaxonAir, a local flight operator, reported that it used nearly 3,000 litres of sustainable aviation fuel for a single aircraft alone in 2024. That usage shows us what a substantial reduction in carbon emissions can be made compared with regular jet fuels, but much more needs to be done.

Recently, Norwich airport, Suffolk and Norfolk county councils and SaxonAir launched Aviation East: a vision to make East Anglia an innovation hub for sustainable aviation. Sustainable aviation fuel was referenced as one of the vital building blocks for that mission, but that and what we are discussing today is part of a much broader landscape of innovation and decarbonisation in aviation. The east of England is already seeing amazing work to revolutionise the way we travel, resulting in faster, cleaner transport solutions such as electric aircraft and drone taxis. In fact, as the Minister said recently, we could have flying taxis in the Norfolk sky by 2028—the Jetsons are coming to Norwich, and the Minister will be coming too, to go in an electric plane.

Alongside this important Bill, I welcome action that the Government are taking to decarbonise aviation through airspace modernisation, low and zero-emission aircraft, and carbon pricing. I welcome the £1 billion of funding for the Aerospace Technology Institute, and the work that the Civil Aviation Authority is doing in the regulatory environment for zero emission aircraft.

The potential in our region, the east of England, is huge, including for our local economy and—importantly—our young people. Young people growing up in Norfolk and Norwich, as I did, want lots of different opportunities, but too often those opportunities are not there, and especially not on their own doorsteps. I know we can deliver many more jobs and apprenticeships, including at the International Aviation Academy in Norwich, which counts KLM as one of its partners. I am also on a mission to work with local stakeholders, so that that academy is working at full capacity, opening up opportunities to local people both now and for future generations.

Delivering the vision of Aviation East, and the measures in the Bill, feeds clearly into the Government’s growth missions, by delivering highly skilled, sustainable, world-leading engineering jobs. However, all fledgling innovations need protection, and sustainable aviation fuel is no different if it is to grow into an industry that could transform air travel for the better. I welcome the sustainable aviation fuel mandate that came into force this year and requires the blending of SAF into the UK-wide aviation fuel mix. I support that goal, but I recognise that it is achievable only when suppliers are protected and supported, by ensuring that a price is guaranteed, regardless of market forces. I recently met members of the East Anglian air ambulance, and I pay tribute to the amazing  work they do, based out of Norwich airport. They told me that they use a mix of SAF, but that it is expensive and perhaps they could use a bit more if the price came down.

If the Government want to encourage innovation and drive growth in regions such as the east of England, providing a backstop price is the signal that shows investors we are serious about good green growth. With the Bill supporting sustainable aviation fuel producers, regional innovation hubs such as Norwich airport will only benefit, helping to increase their contribution to the UK’s sustainable aviation industry, reducing carbon emissions, tackling climate change, and driving green growth. I fully back the Bill. \p Brian Leishman: My contribution comes from a slightly different angle compared with that of other hon. Members, but from the outset let me be clear: I welcome the Government’s plan for sustainable aviation fuel, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his generous time discussing the matter. We can, however, hold different feelings at the same time, and while I approve of the plans, I feel a lot of anger and frustration at what has happened to my constituency. A joint venture of private capital through Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s INEOS and the Chinese state, called Petroineos, has closed the Grangemouth refinery. Hundreds of workers on site, and thousands in the wider supply chain, are to lose their jobs. Scotland no longer refines our oil and fuel, and national security has been weakened as a result.

Everyone is aware that the previous Conservative Government did not want to know about that issue, and the current SNP Government tried their very best to conceal their knowledge of the closure years ago. So while my Government have committed £200 million from the national wealth fund for new industries to come at some point down the line, that frankly is not enough. At Grangemouth we have seen another unjust transition. Four decades ago, it was the miners who were cast aside; now it is refinery workers. I understand why oil and gas workers in the north-east of Scotland are anxious, and they have every right to be.

The last four decades of privatisation have also highlighted the danger of private capital and foreign Government ownership of our vital industry. At Grangemouth, conversion from a traditional oil refinery to a plant that would create sustainable aviation fuel was a viable alternative to closure and would have meant a truly just transition for workers and my local community. It would also have helped the Government meet our ambitious SAF mandates and supported the UK aviation industry. Yet conversion was not deemed profitable enough for Petroineos, and the Scottish and UK Governments both meekly accepted the company calling the shots, with minimal pushback, in an example of working-class communities being let down by the collective political class.

Only yesterday, in questions to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, I asked what ownership stake the Government would take in future industries at Grangemouth. I am still waiting on a coherent answer. Let me be clear: if there is no Government ownership stake taken and we surrender all the new, greener industries,  such as SAF, to private capital, the Government will have learned no lessons at all from the past four decades and we will never free ourselves from being at the mercy of those who put corporate profit ahead of our country’s needs.

Earlier today, the Chancellor said that she and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade were not ready to let a working-class community in Scunthorpe go to the wall. That is why they intervened to save steel there and that was absolutely the correct decision. However, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State should have treated the refinery workers of Grangemouth in the same way as they did the steelworkers of Scunthorpe. I urge the Government to take responsibility and to take ownership of vital industry in our national interest. \p Christopher Vince: I take this opportunity to wish everybody across the House a happy Carers Week.

It is a pleasure to speak on Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill. I know that many Members think that I make my speeches up as I go along, but I want them to know that I wrote this in advance and I did not wing it. Members will also be happy to know that that was my last joke in this speech. I will just say quickly to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) that he should never apologise for using an equation in a speech.

As Members across the House will be aware, although I do not have an airport in my constituency, Harlow starts at the very end of the runway at Stansted airport, and thousands of its residents work at the airport in a variety of roles. I briefly pay tribute to the work of Stansted airport college in investing in training the local workforce.

As the Minister is aware, Stansted is part of Manchester Airports Group, which is focused on the development of SAF. Like this Government, the group recognises that SAF is the future. I will also briefly give a plug for the Harlow Group, which is involved in machining vital aircraft components, and so is in line with the airport on that.

As Members will recognise, the UK has a world-class aviation sector and a proud history in the field, from R. J. Mitchell to Morien Morgan. I am proud that this Labour Government are promoting growth, as well as decarbonisation, in the sector. SAF will help us deliver our clean energy mission and our growth mission, allowing the UK to be a world leader in the field once more.

Compared with fossil jet fuel, SAF will reduce gas emissions by around 70%, and we can all welcome that. The Bill will introduce a revenue certainty mechanism to provide a price guarantee for SAF producers. The Government believe that that will increase investor confidence in SAF production, and having spoken in depth about the issue with Stansted airport, it is clear that that is the stumbling block for greater SAF production and use.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and the Government’s ongoing commitment to decarbonisation and tackling climate change. I also welcome their commitment to being a world leader in the field. \p Sureena Brackenridge: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way right at the end. Just like him, I welcome the announcement. As we hear from across the aviation sector, there is much to be championed in the transition to sustainable aviation fuel that will be enabled by the Bill. Although Collins Aerospace in my constituency does not produce SAF, it does develop the components and systems that mean that 100% SAF flight is a reality. Does my hon. Friend agree that that backs both the green transition and the industrial future for places such as our regions and Wolverhampton and Willenhall? \p Christopher Vince: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She managed to get in just before my last words, so I shall have to make up a new conclusion. I absolutely agree with her point. The point I was going to make in my conclusion is that this Bill is really important for climate change and meeting our decarbonisation targets. We all know about the impact of climate change on the planet that we live on, and we only have one planet so we have to get this right. She is right to say that there is also a massive economic advantage to this.

I was really proud to mention two aviation pioneers from the United Kingdom earlier, and I think this country should be ambitious. We should once again be at the front of the queue when it comes to aviation technology and aviation pioneers. SAF is a huge part of that. This is not just about climate change; it is also about jobs and opportunities, and I am really excited that this will mean more jobs and opportunities for my constituency of Harlow as well as for Wolverhampton. I am delighted to support the Bill today, and I look forward to hearing many more contributions. I also look forward to this Government continuing with their flying start. \p Amanda Hack: It has been said by the Secretary of State and echoed across the Chamber that the UK has a world-class aviation sector that is key to growth in our economy. I welcome the introduction of the Bill as it will provide certainty for producers of sustainable aviation fuel, allowing the sector to grow and invest.

We all know the benefits that airports have for our communities, which is why my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) will welcome the Chancellor’s investment in Doncaster Sheffield. When we think about airports, we may automatically think about Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Birmingham and Manchester. However, as East Midlands airport is in my constituency of North West Leicestershire, it will be no surprise to anyone here that that is the airport I automatically think about.

The airport provides huge benefits to my local economy, as well as making an important contribution to the wider UK economy. As the second largest air freight terminal in the UK, East Midlands serves as the hub for DHL, UPS, FedEx and Royal Mail. This growth is backed by investment in the nearby east midlands rail hub, which transports our goods from port to port. In addition, the airport serves as a base for RVL, a specialist airline that provides support to the Environment Agency and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The transition to sustainable aviation fuel is going to be key if those organisations are to grasp the nettle on net zero.

My airport also serves millions of passengers every year, with the likes of Jet2, easyJet and Tui operating out of it, supporting my constituents and those from those across the midlands to take a well-deserved holiday. Having met representatives of Jet2 recently, I know that there is huge support for the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism, and it will be interesting to hear more about the transitional arrangements to ensure that airlines such as Jet2 have the fuel they need to decarbonise and meet the mandated mix over the short term, as well as to see the SAF industry develop for the future.

As East Midlands airport’s thriving cargo facility extends to meet the demands of exporters from across the UK, cutting greenhouse gas emissions via sustainable aviation fuel will not only have significant benefits for net zero, but will put an estimated £5 billion a year back into our economy by 2050. It will also create additional jobs, securing a long-term sustainable future for the industry. It also puts forward a clear commitment to jobs at the airport, which will benefit my constituents and those of neighbouring MPs in the east midlands. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that North West Leicestershire will see the full strength of these training and work opportunities when they come about, because we have a lot to offer.

I know that the measures in this Bill, alongside the work announced to modernise airspace, will be welcomed by the sector. May I take this opportunity to invite the Minister to the 60th birthday party of East Midlands airport on 21 July? \p Nusrat Ghani: I notice that that was an exclusive invitation just to the Minister. \p Graeme Downie: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) should never be ashamed of being a geek of any kind. I definitely do not have his knowledge of formulas or anything like that, but I certainly am a self-professed aviation geek who has spent probably far too long sitting at the end of runways watching planes land for hours on end. When I was in high school, I used to cycle with one of my friends who lived close to the end of Edinburgh airport runway to just sit and watch aircraft come in—to the point that one time, the police came along and asked why these two 14-year-olds were sitting at the end of the runway watching aircraft land. I can assure everyone that nothing untoward or illegal was happening—we were just being that sad and geeky. I think that was the problem the police had; they did not believe that that was what two 14-year-olds were intending to do. \p Luke Taylor: I would challenge the hon. Member’s commitment to aviation spotting if, during university, he did not take a date to the final approach at Heathrow airport and have her observing the flights coming in for a good two hours. He may be a geek, but he is not quite there yet. \p Nusrat Ghani: It would rather depend on whether the date ended up marrying him, wouldn’t it? \p Graeme Downie: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I will not ask for a second intervention on how that relationship progressed.

Aviation is a critical part of our national story and our economy, as others have said. As an island nation, we rely on the maritime and aviation sectors to get goods and people in and out of our country, so it is clear that aviation must continue to play a role in our future. In Scotland and in my constituency, that includes the movement of products like salmon and whisky, as well as tourists, to and from Dunfermline and the rest of Scotland. However, with aviation expected to become the largest transport sector emitter of carbon by 2040, it is clear that a range of transformational, long-term changes are needed in the sector to make it sustainable.

I recently had the privilege of hosting a sustainable aviation technology showcase in Parliament with companies such as Airbus, Boeing, easyJet, International Airlines Group and others, including some of the ones that have been mentioned. There I saw technological solutions ranging from radical changes to aircraft design to hydrogen-powered aircraft, as well as a number of SAF producers. I have also heard from Edinburgh airport, one of the largest employers in my constituency, of the importance of airspace reorganisation and regulatory changes, all of which will have a role in modernising aviation and reducing the environmental impact. I know that the Minister has been relentless in pursuing all these avenues to improve aviation in the UK, and we should thank him, his officials and the ministerial team for that work and commitment.

For all those people from different parts of the aviation ecosystem, the issue of SAF has been prime. On taking office, this Government took action much faster than many expected with the introduction of the SAF mandate. It obligates companies supplying fuel to airlines operating out of the UK to either incrementally increase the amount of SAF in use or pay a buy-out fee. That mandate started at 2% and will rise to 10% in 2030 and to 22% in 2040. That is the kind of direction and steer that the industry needed, but it will mean nothing if we do not produce SAF in the UK and invest now in the much longer-term plans for third generation SAF to make that a reality here and to make the UK a world leader in this technology, as well as playing a part in the future of our fledgling hydrogen sector.

Developing a strong SAF industry is a major industrial opportunity for the UK, as others have said. The UK can lead the SAF industry with job creation and innovation. At the event I mentioned, Airbus told me that it is committed to enabling 100% SAF capability across its aircraft production by 2030. According to the Back British SAF campaign, there is potential for over 10,000 jobs in the UK by 2030 and 60,000 jobs by 2050, a number of which would be in Scotland and in my constituency, as well as in the constituencies of other Members across the country. In due course, I hope that some of that might include investment in different parts of the SAF infrastructure in Fife, with proximity to Edinburgh airport and excellent sea, road and rail links.

For these and other reasons, I am delighted to see the Bill come forward. It clearly sets out the revenue certainty mechanism and the framework for setting a strike price that will support businesses and investment cases to make SAF a reality in the UK. It also establishes the route for funding via a levy on suppliers, along with enforcement and oversight.

I hope the Minister might respond in his summing up to a few specific points, some of which have been mentioned by colleagues. Under clause 1, what process does he intend to use to shape precise price points for producers and to calculate the market reference price? Clause 11, on financial penalties, contains provision to amend amounts in the light of inflation. Are those the only circumstances in which penalty amounts can change? Under clause 14, what oversight does he envisage if financial assistance is required to ensure value for money?

Clear and stable policy frameworks like this SAF Bill will be essential to unlocking private investment, accelerating SAF supply chains and positioning the UK as a global leader in the net zero transition, but the pace at which the legislation is introduced will be key, so will the Minister consider what steps he can take to accelerate the creation of a successful SAF industry here in the UK? As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) asked earlier, will the Minister begin work to create strike price contracts so that they are ready as quickly as possible when the legislation is passed? Will he consider moving the start date for the revenue mechanism forward to allow projects to get started as quickly as possible?

The Bill will be a significant part of the future of British aviation, British industry and British growth. I look forward to seeing its progress through the House. \p Luke Myer: I welcome the Bill, particularly the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism, which is not only a sensible intervention but a timely one. It gives investors clarity, it gives producers confidence and it gives communities such as mine a sense that this transition will bring jobs rather than take them away. I thank Ministers for listening not only to the sector but to those of us who represent Teesside.

In our region, we have a number of producers with an interest in scaling up SAF production—principally Alfanar, which has already invested £2.5 billion in our region and wants to go much further by building a brand-new plant that will create 2,300 construction jobs and 300 permanent jobs. Alfanar is not alone, however; we also have Iogen, Willis, Nova Pangaea, Abundia, Arcadia and many active producers or others looking to scale up—serious players with serious plans. I spoke to one earlier this week; it said that the Bill is exactly what the industry is looking for.

May I put just a couple of questions to the Minister? What those producers need now is confidence that enabling work for final investment decisions can begin, ideally before the Bill completes its full legislative journey. Of course, there is a precedent for that in the Energy Act 2023. What engagement will the Minister have with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on the carbon capture track project. I know that a number of the producers are keen to benefit from track 1 expansion, so producing those two things in train seems like a sensible thing to do, and I hope that there is cross-departmental engagement.

Ultimately, I thank the Government and urge them to move at pace to deliver the jobs that we want for the industry in our region. I want to ensure that young people watching from working-class communities across  Teesside know that these are not abstract opportunities that are distant from them, but opportunities for them that they can get into—like our expansion in skills training. This sector can be transformative for the Tees valley region—not only for Middlesbrough but for Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton, Darlington and Hartlepool. Our area suffered industrial decline for many decades, but now we are seeing new life and new industry. Finally, Teesside is taking off. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Chris McDonald for the final Back-Bench contribution. \p Chris McDonald: We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) how proud the people of Doncaster are of their airport, but I challenge her to a “pride in your local airport” competition, because nowhere is more proud of its local airport than Teesside—to the extent that whether politicians promise the continuation of flights from Teesside to Alicante is the most important issue in local politics. Quite right, too, because working people in Teesside save all year round for their seven days in the sun, and that is important to me and to everybody else who lives there. People who say that we need to reduce flights and the opportunity for working people to go on holiday are not living in the real world —they are certainly not talking to the people I talk to and live with. \p Deirdre Costigan: I support the right of my hon. Friend’s Stockton North constituents to go on holiday to Alicante. Equally, in my Ealing, Southall constituency, 53% of people—including me—were born in a different country. Does he agree that they have the right to go home and visit family and friends, so it is important that we accept the reality of air travel and focus our time and energy on realistic plans, such as the one before us, to invest in sustainable air fuels? \p Chris McDonald: I could not agree more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) said, we are indeed an island nation, if anyone had not spotted that, and the quickest way to get about is to go by air. What everyone wants is to wake up on a morning in Stockton and then be sat on a beach in Benidorm by lunch time, and of course they can do that at Teesside airport.

The people of Teesside know that our future is about decarbonising. This Government have invested £4 billion in carbon capture and storage. We have the largest offshore wind monopile factory in our area, and we are producing green hydrogen in Billingham in my constituency—in fact, Billingham produces 50% of the UK’s hydrogen, and Billingham and Teesside more generally is set to become Europe’s main centre for sustainable aviation fuel.

I am sure that sustainable aviation fuel will be produced in Grangemouth, Humberside, the north-west and south Wales, but the market is enormous and, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), Teesside and Billingham in my constituency is best placed in the whole of Europe to deal with this. The biggest threat to that at the moment is not the fantastic plans of this  Government, but the ideological adherence of members of Reform to anti-net zero. As usual, I find myself in this House standing up for new jobs for industrial communities in my area, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Where are the Reform Members? They are not here—they are never here. \p Lewis Atkinson: As well as the welcome developments that my hon. Friend alludes to in the Tees, this is about the wider north-east. In my constituency, Wastefront has a £100 million investment and is creating 100 good jobs on the River Wear. Does he agree that jobs are being made in the wider north-east through this Government’s policy and that they are under threat from the policies of Opposition parties that he mentioned? \p Chris McDonald: I agree. Whether it is in Sunderland or, as I mentioned, the north-west and down in south Wales, we will see jobs in the supply chain throughout all this work. It will also benefit Heathrow and our other major airport hubs.

I thought it might be useful to make a few comments about why I believe SAF is the solution. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) gave a great description of why the flight range equations essentially drive us in the direction of sustainable aviation fuel. Electrification certainly would be possible for short-haul flights, but the hydrogen simply does not have the density. As I think the hon. Gentleman also said, infrastructure is important—we heard that from the Secretary of State in her opening statement—because planes take off from one place, but they land somewhere else, and they need to be able to refuel there too.

Sustainable aviation fuel is certainly the right approach, but a couple of Members raised concerns in the debate about the raw materials for feedstock—my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised that issue. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) said that he had learned about second-generation sustainable aviation fuels; it is probably just as well that he is not in his place, because I might blow his mind when I talk about third-generation and fourth-generation sustainable aviation fuels.

Essentially, there are concerns about the raw materials and municipal waste. Although the amount of waste per person will decline, a lot of it is put into energy from waste plants, and the new investments are really about future generations of SAF. We have heard about biomass. If that biomass is not from a feedstock, perhaps that verges into the second generation, but it is third-generation and fourth-generation sustainable aviation fuel that will enable us to scale up this industry. That will open it up to the direct combination of carbon dioxide and hydrogen using green electricity, which will enable us to scale it up. An abundant supply of those raw materials is needed, which is why I am so confident that we will see the industry spread around the whole of the UK.

Why do I say Billingham will become the UK and European centre for this work? There is a justification. Teesside already produces 50% of the UK’s hydrogen, and the chemicals cluster there is well-known for producing pharmaceuticals for fertilisers and various other chemicals.  We produced synthetic petrol in Billingham in the 1930s, and we produced synthetic jet fuel there in the 1940s for the Royal Air Force during the second world war. I say that not to imply in some way that we still have the skillset—many of those people are quite rightly enjoying their retirement, or have perhaps moved on from that—but to demonstrate to the House that there is not a big technological risk associated with this technology. Third-generation SAF will rely on the Fischer-Tropsch process, which has been around for 100 years.

In fact, when I talk to investors in the industry and ask them what the big risks are, they highlight economic risks—with which the Government are getting to grips right now through this legislation—and political risk, which is about the consistency of Government policy. As I mentioned earlier, the biggest threat to these jobs and to this industry is the ideology of the Reform party. As we see the jobs and investment, I am confident that people in my local community will vote for jobs and investment in the future as well.

As such, I warmly welcome this legislation. I very much look forward to the day when I can welcome right hon. and hon. Members to Teesside international airport, and enjoy a drink with them in the bar before we jet off to Alicante for our holidays. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Greg Smith: Before I begin, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, with respect to a donation from P1 Fuels. Although it does not make aviation fuel, it was in the synthetics business, and—as the Minister well knows—I ran a classic Land Rover on that fuel last summer to prove the point that this stuff works.

The test that net zero must meet is that all our constituents must still be able to do everything they do today—be it fly on holiday, drive, or get a ferry or anything else that runs on a liquid hydrocarbon—and that businesses must still be able to move goods around the world and trade at the same price as today, or for an equivalent price, just greener. In that, technology is our friend, as is the innovation we see—particularly on these shores, but also innovation that is happening abroad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), the shadow Secretary of State, said earlier in the debate, the Opposition do not seek to divide the House on Second Reading. This Bill is an extension of the previous Government’s agenda in this regard, and we fully recognise the need to replace fossil fuels over time and, in this instance, to replace aviation fuel with a cleaner, greener alternative. However, there will be key questions that the House should look at as this Bill goes through Committee and its later stages, which do need answers. We have heard some of those questions throughout this afternoon’s debate.

We have had a good and wide-ranging debate, with very little deviation from the core consensus that sits underneath the Bill. On the Conservative Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made the important point that aviation will be critical to get the tourists into the new Universal  theme park in Bedfordshire when it eventually opens. He also focused on the important role that Cranfield University and industry in his constituency are playing—they are providing part of the solution to the problem that this Bill seeks to support and deliver. Equally, he asked the legitimate question of how the United Kingdom mechanism and mandate compare with those overseas, which I hope the Minister will reflect on in his winding-up speech.

On the Government Benches, the chairman of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), spoke well and in an informed way on this subject. She and I both served on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and we both worked on the inquiry and report on the fuels of the future that the Committee produced during that Parliament. She rightly made good points about the supply of waste for SAF technology and the trade-off with energy from waste facilities, for example. There will have to be some conversations within Government, particularly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, about the way in which so many councils, including my own in Buckinghamshire, now send all general waste to an energy from waste facility. Those incinerators and facilities have been financed through multi-decade deals, and if we are to get that waste into SAF production, some of those deals will inevitably have to be undone or renegotiated. Who will bear the cost of that?

The hon. Lady equally raised an important point about bioethanol—I do not know whether it was just shadow Ministers who received an email from Vivergo Fuels this week, or whether it was all Members of the House. That email gave a pretty stark warning, particularly about the impact of the US trade deal that the Government have done on the bioethanol space. Essentially, it warned that that deal could completely undermine the UK bioethanol industry. That is a serious concern that the Department for Transport and the Department for Business and Trade will have to work out if we are to have domestic bioethanol production, as much for sustainable aviation fuel as for petrol. We largely all fill up—unless we have classic cars—with E10 at the pump. E5 is still 5% bioethanol. As this Bill passes through the House and as the petrol debate for road cars moves on, that serious question will have to be answered. When we get a warning from industry as stark as the one from Vivergo Fuels, it needs to be addressed.

The hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) mentioned the role of hydrogen in the mix, and I look forward to debating that with him when he has a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall next week, I think. He is absolutely right that there are other technologies and other fuels out there. The hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) correctly pointed out that there can be no net zero without many of the elements of this Bill. The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke passionately about Doncaster airport and the sustainable future that the Bill will help bring about.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) spoke in support of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) spoke in an informed way about SAF production, which forms such an important part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) rightly spoke of the innovative landscape, although the drone taxis did worry me a  little bit—I am not sure we have completely got goods being delivered properly by drones yet, so we should do that before we start putting people in them. Equally, she rightly spoke about the world-leading engineering jobs that will be created.

The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) slightly broke the consensus, but he was entirely right to speak up for his constituents and his constituency interests so passionately. I think there is a legitimate debate about the refineries that we have lost, the refineries that we still have and how this debate intersects with them.

I will not dwell too much on the puns of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). I thought he was a teacher before he entered this House, but perhaps he also wrote for Bobby Davro, given some of the puns he came up with. \p Gareth Snell: For the benefit of younger Members, Bobby Davro was a comedian. \p Greg Smith: The hon. Gentleman shows my age, and no doubt his own, with that sedentary interjection.

The hon. Member for Harlow was right to focus on the skills agenda that underpins this legislation, on which I do not think we have heard so much from the Government. Likewise, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) rightly pointed out the lived experience of Jet2 and the impact on cargo. We have heard a lot in this debate about moving people around the country and the world using aviation, but not so much about cargo, which is an equally important part of our role as a global trading nation. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), putting aside his little geek-off with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), was right to focus on that agenda of moving goods as well as people.

We also heard from Teesside, with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). In fact, I am a little worried. This morning I was in Westminster Hall with the hon. Member for Stockton North, for a debate on the space industry, in which I agreed with every word he said, and I am a bit nervous to say that I agreed with him this afternoon, too. That does not often happen in this House, but he was absolutely right that all our constituents work hard and save hard. They want that family holiday or that weekend away or whatever it is every single year, and it would be a gross dereliction of duty for any of us to lumber them with higher airfares or to try to make their holidays more expensive. That is not what any of them send any of us here to do; they want us to ensure that they can still live their lives in the way they wish.

Briefly, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam warned us that he might be boring but, uncharacteristically for a Liberal Democrat, he actually was not. [Laughter.] I very much enjoyed his speech and the knowledge that he brought from his 16 years of work in the aviation sector. The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) was equally right to focus on another matter that a few Members have raised in the debate: the use of SAF by our armed forces, particular the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.

The use of technology, from fuels derived from waste and feedstock to pure synthetics, is where I think much of the debate will go in the coming years. In fact, the technology to enable us to move on from those feedstock and waste-derived fuels already exists. In 2021 the RAF flew a plane not on a blend of SAF, but on 100% synthetic fuel made right here in the United Kingdom by a company called Zero Petroleum, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis).

Let me now turn to a part of the agenda on which I think we will need to have a conversation when the Bill goes into Committee. The Bill gives no detail on the approach to be taken regarding the specifics of the contracting between the producer and the counterparty, the Government contractor for the strike price. In the background material, especially that which can be found in the Government’s response to the consultation on the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, the ambitions are largely there, and we are not critical of the ambitions that sit within that document, but it might be beneficial to be sure that the contracting will follow those ambitions.

Given that the SAF mandate already in force includes a ringfenced mandate for an electro-sustainable aviation fuel quota, it is critical that eSAF projects are supported equally within the revenue certainty mechanism. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF and eSAF, and local production as created by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of SAF and eSAF, as that not only retains revenue within the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. Sadly, a great many projects supported by grants from the Advanced Fuels Fund are using foreign technology.

Perhaps I could suggest that the Government reflect, ahead of the Committee stage, on the possibility of adding another ambition to those that they have already set out: namely, to reward or incentivise the use of UK technology in projects supported by the revenue support mechanism. The House may be surprised to know that, despite the various programmes of UK Government support for SAF and eSAF, AFF grants, SAF mandates and the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, no UK Government bodies are mandated to support the development of the core technologies of fuel synthesis.

We have a great tradition of research and development in this country. Companies such as Zero Petroleum have been funded entirely by private capital—which is largely a good thing—and also through some of their RAF and Ministry of Defence contracts, for different reasons. Notably, however, the Aerospace Technology Institute is the Government-funded body that should be supporting SAF and eSAF manufacturing technology. It supports everything else, including hydrogen and electric aircraft, but, bizarrely, it is not permitted to fund SAF and eSAF technology programmes. That is a huge misalignment in the strategy, which I hope the Minister can address.

I have a few key questions for the Minister, and he is showing great enthusiasm about answering them. We will be spending three days in Committee, so there will be many more to come. \p Max Wilkinson: Only three? \p Greg Smith: We can negotiate more, I am sure. [Interruption.] The less we hear about the hon. Gentleman’s date at Heathrow, the better.

Are the Government able to outline their level of certainty about the costs to taxpayers? Is there confidence that the levy imposed on fuel suppliers will not lead to significant rises in ticket prices? In other words, what will ensure that the £1.50 variance in either direction is not a hope, not a dream and not a best-case scenario, but a reality about air fares?

It would also be helpful if details could be provided about the expected cost of importing SAF in comparison with the cost of producing it in the United Kingdom. If we are imposing costs on passengers through levies, is it expected that SAF can be produced more cheaply in other regions, or is the policy focused primarily on energy security? As I have said, our view is that we should make the fuel right here in the United Kingdom using our technology, but in order to get the right price from our technology in the UK, it is important that we understand the market overseas.

Can the Minister outline what proportion of the SAF used in the UK is expected to be produced domestically in the first instance? What would constitute success in the first iterations? The Government have suggested that financing a plant costs between £600 million and £2 billion. From a regulatory perspective, what can be done to ensure that plants fall towards the lower end of that cost range?

There are many questions to be answered in getting the Bill right. We want to get it right, and we want to see sustainable aviation fuel used in our aircraft. We will not divide the House today, but the test, as always, is this: have the Government got it right? \p Mike Kane: I thank nearly all Members—no, all Members—for their consideration of the draft Bill and for their valuable contributions to this debate. I am grateful to the Opposition for their questions and scrutiny, and we will make sure as a House that we get this right for our nation.

I fully concur with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), that the Liberal Democrats have not been boring today, and I am grateful for their support in this matter. Having worked with the Liberal Democrats in the past, I know that they are always with you in the room until the fight breaks out, so let us see how we get on over the next period. \p Max Wilkinson: Will the Minister congratulate innovators such as my constituent James Hygate, who was recently awarded an OBE for his work on green fuels? Over genteel tea and cake—as the House can imagine, this happens all the time in Cheltenham—he told me of his plans to turn human faeces into SAF. He is an innovator at the leading edge, and he says that the Minister might be able to work with his friends in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to solve some of the problems that we have with sewage in our rivers, by taking it out at source. Is the Minister considering that as part of this legislation? \p Mike Kane: I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and join him in thanking James Hygate OBE for his work in this area. On the serious point about waste, I sit on the small ministerial group for the circular economy. It is a big part of what this Government are trying to do, and we will see how that work progresses.

The UK stands at the forefront of global efforts to decarbonise aviation. When this Government came into power, we acted immediately by laying the statutory instrument for the SAF mandate, which has been in place since 1 January. We have established the UK airspace design service, a programme of work that will modernise the airspace above us by decarbonising and supporting cleaner flights with fewer delays. We are now the first legislature on the planet to introduce a revenue certainty mechanism, and the world is looking to us. I hope that this House can get behind us. \p Jim Shannon: We cannot help but be excited about the Bill because of its potential to deliver. The Minister is a good friend of us in Northern Ireland, and a good friend of all of us in this Chamber and across this great nation. There are innovative people in Northern Ireland who have the technology, and they wish to play their part. Is it the Minister’s intention to ensure that everyone across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has the opportunity to feed into SAF and to gain the benefit from it? \p Mike Kane: I am always delighted to answer questions from the hon. Gentleman, who represents a place that I love dearly. I have responsibility for maritime travel, and we see Artemis Technologies decarbonising our maritime sector. We have refineries in Belfast. I spoke to a major chief executive whose family emigrated to Canada from Belfast and who is very fond of the city. We expect him to talk to his companies about applying for the contracts when we eventually let them do so, and that will be key.

I have a lot of questions to get through. The £1.50 that the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) mentioned could be £1.50 more or £1.50 less, but I am happy to hand over £1.50 to him now, if he wishes. That is not going to have an impact on people’s ability to fly to destinations, as he rightly said. I think people flying for their annual holiday is key to the British way of life, and I do not want to damage that whatsoever. That analysis comes from Department for Transport business team itself.

Many of the questions were about going faster. I must gently point out that we were promised four plants by 2025 by the last Government, but I am not going to get into that. We could not go any faster—this is still the first Session—and we had to introduce the mandate and we are now introducing part 2, which is the RCM. So I would say we are going at as fast a pace as humanly possible.

We are neutral on when the contracts are bid for, so I say to those worried about waste or HEFA streams that these contracts change over time, and we will see what bids come in. The hon. Member for Orpington also mentioned large plants, and he will have seen Members—mainly those Government Members behind me—from our industrial north, south Wales and other places queuing up to get advanced, high-manufacturing facilities with well-paid, trade-unionised jobs. As we advance this, we are working with the industry on the strike price.

The Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), said this is not a silver bullet, and it is not, but it is part of the package—airspace modernisation, sustainable aviation fuels, carbon pricing, carbon capture technology and zero emission flight—that this Government are pursuing to decarbonise aviation in our country, and we are investing £1 billion in the Aerospace Technology Institute to do that.

My hon. Friend also mentioned Heathrow, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has shown great leadership in this space—along with other Members, officials and the industry—has pointed out that the expansion of Heathrow is accounted for in the sixth carbon budget. I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for his thanks to me for getting on with what is part of a package of decarbonisation, as he rightly pointed out.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) is a doughty champion for Bristol airport—he mentions it every time I meet him in the Tea Room—and a champion for hydrogen. I look forward to visiting his airport and to replying to his Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) takes any opportunity he has to plug the Universal theme park. He spoke about his support for Luton airport, and how it will be a gateway for regeneration in his area. On how the approach differs from those of other markets, we are the first ones to do it. If we get this done in the next few weeks, we will be the only legislature on the planet to have done so, and the world is looking to us to move this forward.

Coming to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), there was a bit of an arms race between Members, if they do not mind my saying so, about who loves their airport the most—Teesside, Norwich, East Midlands and on it went. I think we should have an independent competition for who loves their airport— \p Luke Myer: rose— \p Mike Kane: I think the hon. Member representing Teesside is about to intervene on me. \p Luke Myer: Does the Minister agree with me that Teesside International airport is a real gem in our region, and it is absolutely critical that it returns to profitability as soon as possible? \p Mike Kane: How could I not agree with my hon. Friend. We are proud of our airports—I am proud of mine in my constituency—which provide jobs and services. As everybody has said, they have a great history and provide great innovation, and we should celebrate them. \p Gareth Snell: Stoke-on-Trent does not have an airport, but we do use Manchester airport quite a lot, so while the Minister is sitting next to the Transport Secretary on the Front Bench, could he put in a word for a direct train link from Stoke to Manchester airport, so we can all enjoy his airport as much as he does? \p Mike Kane: Personally, I disagree with my hon. Friend, because I think Stoke has a great airport—it is in my constituency, and it is called Manchester airport.

I can assure the House that I am not going to take any lessons on date nights from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor). [Laughter.] But it is great to hear his expertise in this area. We do value that expertise in the House and I hope he makes the Public Bill Committee. He mentions ZeroAvia, which I worked with in opposition and in government, and how well it is doing with zero emission flights. He may have to run that equation past me again—I did not pick it up the first time.

What a doughty champion for Doncaster Sheffield airport my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) is. It was great to hear the Chancellor mention it in her statement today.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), the transport spokesman for the SNP, welcomes the Bill. It is really good to see how the military and our armed services are getting in on the decarbonisation agenda. The RAF Lossiemouth, in his patch, is showing good practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) talked with passion about Grangemouth near his constituency. In direct answer to his question, we have no plans to review the HEFA cap. This is about security in a fragile geopolitical situation and also about competitiveness. I remind him and my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) that the Government are considering EY’s report and recommendations regarding the refinery. The national wealth fund stands ready, and we encourage investors to come forward and secure the long-term future at Grangemouth.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) is right. This industry produces well-paid, unionised jobs often in industrial areas that have been deindustrialised. I thank her for her work chairing the APPG for the wood panel industry, and I am happy to accept her offer to speak to it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) is another doughty campaigner for Norwich airport and its sustainable aviation hub. She is pushing that so hard. I was glad to meet her recently and I hope to visit Norwich in the near future. She talked about the jobs and apprenticeships that go with it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth —I will refine my remarks on Jim Ratcliffe; as a Manchester City fan, I had better be careful that I do not say anything out of turn—is right to talk about deindustrialisation. I saw that in east Manchester growing up in the ’70s, with the chemical and the mining industries. We are only now getting over that in parts of our great city. I just remind him that if we do this right, we are looking at 15,000 jobs and £5 billion to the economy by 2050.

I once tried a joke in the House and Mr Speaker said, “Don’t give up the day job.” I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) of that advice. At every opportunity, he raises the work he does with Stansted airport. He ended his speech really strongly, saying that the country should be ambitious in this field. I completely concur.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about her love affair with East Midlands airport and how important it is to freight. I have had roundtables with the freight industry on how we grow our freight industry in the UK. If I can get to her airport’s 60th birthday celebrations, I will.

I wondered where my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) was going with that police story. And then we got into a very geeky arms race with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). He is right to say that aviation, while a small emitter now, becomes a much larger emitter, or the largest, by 2040. That is why it is imperative that we do this now—another call to arms to go faster.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) said he was a supporter of the airport near his constituency. Alfana, Arcadia, Iogen and a plethora of companies could bid for contracts in the region and support a manufacturing renaissance. Just to remind him about carbon capture, which he mentioned, the Prime Minister recently announced £22 billion of Government money to research carbon capture and technology at Stanlow.

In the arms race for who loves their airport most, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) talked about hydrogen, wind, solar and clean energy.

Reform Members are not present, which is key because—[Interruption.] Oh, they are here now. Reform promises that it is going to re-industrialise these areas, but without a financial plan that adds up. This Government are actually getting on with it, and we will continue to get on with it.

This Government have demonstrated that we are committed to supporting our world-class aviation sector through what we have done in the first short few months of this Government. We have the third biggest aviation market on the planet, which is world class and competitive, and we want it to remain that way. We want more people to be able to fly, and we want them to do it sustainably, and that is why the transition to SAF is not a mere aspiration, but an imperative. I recognise that there will be challenges, but SAF will have our unwavering support, which is why we are backing it in the Bill, and I am grateful for the support around this Chamber today.

The revenue certainty mechanism will help new SAF plants to get off the ground, supporting good, green jobs in places like Teesside. Our SAF policies are helping to create the right environment for companies like Exolum, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), which pipes the sustainable fuel to Heathrow, Gatwick and, of course, the UK’s fastest-growing airport, Manchester.

The Bill is delivering on our growth and clean energy missions and on our manifesto commitment to secure the aviation industry’s long-term future through promoting SAF. I urge this House to give the Bill its full support, and I stand ready to work with Members across this House on that. I commend the Bill 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 Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill: \p UNKNOWN: The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee. \p UNKNOWN: (2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 22 July.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets. \p UNKNOWN: (4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading. \p UNKNOWN: (7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Heidi Alexander.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Heidi Alexander.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(a) provisions by virtue of which persons may be required to make payments, or to provide financial collateral, to a designated counterparty, and

(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Heidi Alexander.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 2 April, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gen Kitchen.) \p Lee Anderson: Before I start, I declare an interest in this debate as a member of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, which, for the purpose of this debate, I will refer to as the BCSSS. Before I go on, I want to say a special thanks to the BCSSS Facebook campaign group, which has been a great source of support and advice. The group represents more than 2,500 scheme members, and I am sure many will be watching this debate right now.

All the arguments for a fairer deal for BCSSS members have been heard before, so I want to take this opportunity to speak as an ex-coalminer, and as the only member of the BCSSS, I think, in this Parliament—and yes, I have a financial interest in this, but I feel that I am qualified to speak up on behalf of members of the BCSSS. I know that he hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), another ex-coalminer, is present; I am sure he will support many of the things I have to say.

I am the last generation of coalminers in my family. I followed my dad, my granddad, my great-grandads and my great-great-grandads into the pits in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. In fact, I cannot think of any male family member before me who did not spend some time underground.

I worked at four different pits. Miners will usually say that the best pit they worked at was their first pit, and my first pit was Sutton colliery in Ashfield, north Nottinghamshire. I started there about a year after the miners’ strike in the 1980s. It was a great pit, but this was a pit where, sadly, just a few decades earlier, five men had been killed in an explosion. I went on to do my coalface training at Creswell colliery in Derbyshire, where in 1950, yet another disaster had occurred: 80 boys and men lost their lives in an underground fire. We have had countless disasters, horrific accidents and nasty things going on, but still men and boys went down the pit—the black hole—to do a shift, digging coal out to fuel our nation.

It is hard to describe what it is like to work underground; there is nothing like it. It is dark and dangerous. It can be red hot in some places, yet freezing cold in others. There are no toilets, as the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington can tell us. We just had to dig a hole and then cover it up. It is hard to explain what it is like crawling up and down a coalface, which is 29 inches high and 250 yards long, with a shearing machine spitting out coal, dust, heat and oil. It was a horrible feeling.

It is hard to explain what it is like to carry a steel ring on your shoulder—a girder—with your mate, on uneven ground and in dusty conditions. It is hard to explain what it is like to bandage up a workmate who has just been trapped, has had a big chunk ripped out of him and has lost a few fingers and half a foot. He has to be put on a stretcher and carried out to the pit bottom. On one occasion, that was seven miles of the pit—seven miles underground. That is from here to the edge of London.

But that is what we did—we did that for a living, day in, day out. We didn’t moan. Towards the end of my mining career—the last three years of it—I worked as a  deputy underground. I was responsible for the health and safety of the men in my district. When I became a deputy, I was transferred from the mineworkers’ pension scheme to the BCSSS. I did not have any say in it; they just put me in it. That is what they did. While we continued working—digging the coal to fuel the nation and keep the lights on—all we asked for was a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. The pits are long gone now, but there are still thousands of ex-miners and their widows in the coalfield communities— \p Michelle Welsh: My constituency of Sherwood Forest has the second largest BCSSS membership in the country. Almost 40% of the membership is women—women who were formerly employed in the mining industry, and women who were the spouses of members who have sadly died. Does the hon. Member agree that it is vital that the Government deliver justice for this scheme not only for constituencies such ours in Nottinghamshire but also for women? \p Lee Anderson: Yes, I will come on to the women who worked in our industry a bit later, but the hon. Lady is absolutely correct. All we ask for now that the pits have gone—we still have the communities—is a fair day’s pay from our own pot of money. That pot of money is the £2.3 billion investment reserve fund. That is our money. We paid it in. All we are asking is for the Government to give it back to us. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I would never have known about what happened in the mines, but for the stories that he has told us. He has told those stories in debates in this House in the past. I thank him for his service. We congratulate the Nationwide building society for doing the right thing and sharing the bonus that it earns with its customers. Therefore, with great respect, Minister, the fact that the Government seem to be dragging their heels on seeing mineworkers receive rightful dividends from their back-breaking, life-altering work is jarring and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. \p Lee Anderson: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As always, he makes a fantastic contribution and I agree with every single word that he has just said.

The Labour party was founded on the backs of coalminers, and I think it is time for the current Labour Government to repay those miners. They should remember that the miners paid their union subs; they helped to bankroll the Labour party. Let us be honest, the Labour party has supplied some good ex-mining MPs to this House. There is one sat there tonight. There was one who used to sit over there. I do not agree with their politics, but they are great MPs.

Let us remind ourselves that about 4,000 or 5,000 women are part of the BCSSS. We could not have done our job underground if it were not for those women, who did a great job. Then there are the widows of the ex-miners who would love to see a few extra quid in their bank account each month when fuel bills are going through the roof. About 2,000 members of the BCSSS die every year, and there are less than 40,000 members still in the scheme. \p Steve Yemm: The hon. Member and the House will know that I am a big supporter of returning the reserve to the fund, particularly because  many members are dying. The hon. Member sat as a Conservative Member on the Government Benches for a number of years and, indeed, was deputy chairman of the Conservative party while they were in government. Given the promises that Boris Johnson made in Mansfield in the 2019 election, why did the hon. Member do nothing to correct this injustice, since so many members of the scheme are passing away each year? Would he agree that it is somewhat hypocritical to now be championing this issue? \p Lee Anderson: If the hon. Member had studied Hansard and paid a little more attention to Parliament during the past five years, he would know about the representations I made. In fact, I had my own Adjournment debate on the MPS. I met the former Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the miners’ asks, so it is a bit unfair of the hon. Member to try to score points in a very serious debate. I would have hoped that he would come here to support me in this debate, instead of trying to score political points. I do not think it is a good look, and I am sure that the BCSSS members in Mansfield and across Ashfield will not be very happy with his contribution. \p Graeme Downie: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Lee Anderson: I will make some progress. As I said, there are 40,000 members left in the scheme, and it will not be that long until there are just a few thousand of us left. Meanwhile, miners and widows die without getting the justice they deserve.

Members may find it hard to believe, but I am 58 years old, and I am one of the youngest members in the scheme. Many members are over 70 years old. In fact, the average age of a member in the scheme is 75, and time is running out for these old colliers to get what they deserve. \p Lillian Jones: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Lee Anderson: I will make some progress. It is worth remembering that when the last member of the MPS dies, the billions of pounds in the fund go straight to the Treasury and the Government of the day, and they can spend that money on whatever they like. \p Alan Gemmell: I want to put it on the record that we have seen a transformative intervention by this Labour Government on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and over 100,000 former mineworkers already received their first pension increase in November last year. I wonder whether the hon. Member might want to congratulate the Government on that innovation. \p Lee Anderson: If the hon. Member shows a little patience, he will hear me move on to that later.

The previous Labour manifesto stated that the reserve funds of both the MPS and the BCSSS would be released to members, yet the BCSSS was omitted from Labour’s manifesto in 2024. Maybe the Minister can explain why that was. She may be aware—obviously the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) is not aware of this—that during the last Parliament, I continually  pressed the Government for a fairer deal on the MPS, and I was knocked back at every single opportunity. Credit where credit is due, this Labour Government have stuck by their word, and the members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme are a lot better off under this Labour Government due to the extra money in their pay packet. \p Elaine Stewart: Time is of the essence. While colleagues across the House may differ on these issues, we represent constituents who continue to suffer from the historic injustice created by the hon. Member’s former Tory Government. Thousands of miners have died without justice, with 2,000 passing every year. This is about fairness, and the Government have acted, but does he agree that they are right to resolve this swiftly so that no more families wait in vain for their money? \p Lee Anderson: I think that the hon. Member is getting a little confused; she probably needs a history lesson. There was a Labour Government for 13 years from the ’90s that could have put this right—it works both ways. It is unfair to blame just the Conservative Government; I would blame both Governments.

To go back to the surplus from the MPS, I thank the Labour Government for giving the mineworkers their much deserved reserve fund, but I gently remind them that they should act to implement the full findings of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s 2021 report. By the way, that is Reform UK’s policy.

Sue Edwards from Ashfield is a BCSSS pensioner who has asked me to keep pushing on this issue. She said that although women members never worked underground, their contribution should never be forgotten. Sue is right: we should never forget the contribution made by women at our collieries.

There are about 800 members of the BCSSS in Ashfield. One of them is Paddy Gumley, who will be watching the debate right now. He sent me an email yesterday, which said:

“Dear Lee,

Thank you for your email regarding the forthcoming debate on the BCSSS…We will watch out to ensure that the Treasury give sensible answers to your questions…and hopefully…will…bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. We are quite happy for you to use our names should you think it necessary. Again, I wish to advise you that I am now over 80 years old and have recently been treated for cancer, so time…is of the essence.”

I think we all know what Paddy means: in plain English, “Please give me my money before I die.”

None of us is getting any younger, and transferring the investment fund now to members would allow pensioners to live a more dignified life in their final years. It would also put tens of millions of pounds back into local coalfield communities, helping local shops and businesses prosper. Let us not forget that if these pensioners get this extra money, they will be taxed on that extra revenue, which will go back to the Exchequer.

The trustees have two simple requests: the return of the £2.3 billion investment reserve to the members as soon as possible this year, and a commitment to review how any future surplus will be shared out after the investment reserve is returned. I have yet to find a coalfield MP who does not agree with those simple requests. Most coalfields are now represented by Labour MPs, and I am really  hopeful that in the four years they will still be here, they will put pressure on the Treasury and the Government to provide justice for members of the BCSSS. \p James Naish: I sincerely hope that many of the Labour Members in the Chamber will be here for more than four years. The key point that the hon. Member alluded to is the need for us to work effectively together, recognising that, as he described, we have a whole range of constituents who would benefit from the BCSSS being treated differently. Does he therefore welcome the constructive way in which Labour Members are working? \p Lee Anderson: Yes, I like to be constructive. The hon. Member for Mansfield has not been so constructive; he has used the debate to try to score political points. I am using the debate to try to get justice for the members of the BCSSS.

The trustees were disappointed by the previous Conservative Government, and they are a little bit disappointed with the current Labour Government, who they feel have dragged their heals in dealing with the BCSSS. They have dealt with the mineworkers’ pension scheme much quicker. We are all ex-mineworkers, and we should be treated fairly.

I know the trustees have met the Minister today. I have spoken to the chief integrated funding adviser and the feedback is that it was a positive meeting, and the Minister once again appeared receptive to the requests put forward by the trustees but stopped short of saying she fully supports those requests.

There is a very simple solution to all this. Just give us our money back—it is our money—and let us discuss the future surplus sharing agreements. We ex-miners should not be a cash cow for the Treasury. I could go into all the facts and figures in this debate, but it is simple. It is about giving back to the mining community what it is owed. Not only did the miners of the past help create the Labour party, but they gave their money to the cause through their union donations. It is time to pay back the miners; there should be no excuse.

Let us imagine two brothers in their 70s who spent 40 years each down the pit. One is in the MPS and the other in the BCSSS. They worked side by side underground. The brother in the MPS has just had a 50% uplift in his pension thanks to this Labour Government, but the one in the BCSSS has had nothing. That cannot be right; it is not fair.

I hear people in this bubble in Westminster say that young people would not go down the pit these days, but you are all wrong—every single one of you. In the coalfield communities, mining, hard graft and a sense of working-class pride are in our DNA. When the time comes for mining communities to step forward and go back underground, the descendants of our brave miners will do their duty. That time will come, mark my words. In the meantime, it is time for this place to deliver justice for the miners.

I would like to hear the Minister state from that Dispatch Box that she fully supports the trustees’ two main requests and that she agrees that the whole of the investment reserve fund, and not just part of it, should be shared out. There was a saying when I worked  underground and all the pits were shutting. It was: “Have we heard owt, duck?” That is what ex-miners are saying right now to their pit mates, so I say to the Minister, who I know has been speaking to the Treasury and the trustees: have you heard owt, duck? \p Sarah Jones: I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the BCSSS. There are a lot of hon. Members in attendance. Many have long associations with the coalfield communities they represent, and I know that this is an incredibly important issue to many people across the country. It is also a matter of great importance to me, and I am pleased to be speaking to the House following a meeting I had with the BCSSS trustees this afternoon. \p Natalie Fleet: When we speak of the mineworkers’ pension, we speak of everyone who has sustained our pits, such as my constituents Anthony Peck, who joined the scheme aged 17, and Kevin Jowle, automatically enrolled when he became a deputy, without any consultation. Does the Minister agree that everyone deserves a fair pension and compensation for the £3.2 billion that the Treasury has received to date? \p Sarah Jones: We believe that everybody deserves a fair pension, and I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I want to set out where we have got to.

As Members will be aware, this Labour Government committed in their manifesto to ending the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and I was incredibly proud to deliver on that commitment last October. We committed to transferring the investment reserve fund back to members and reviewing the surplus arrangements so that the mineworkers who powered our country receive a fairer pension. I was incredibly proud that, after only three months in power, the Chancellor announced the transfer of that investment reserve fund at the Budget in October. This was the action of a Labour Government overturning an historic injustice that the previous Government had failed to act on. \p Graeme Downie: Does the Minister agree that it is thanks to campaigners such as Bobby Clelland in my constituency and to the local party that we have managed to succeed in having the MPS move towards a resolution and seeing that money being paid out to those communities in the coalfields in my constituency? It is also thanks to people such as Alan Kenney in my constituency, who is leading the campaign in Scotland on the BCSSS. I hope that she will be able to give us some good news. Does she agree that this is thanks to those former miners who are always standing up for their communities and still fighting now for the justice they deserve? \p Sarah Jones: Of course my hon. Friend is right. I want to thank everybody who has campaigned and worked for so long on the mineworkers’ pension and everybody who has been in touch with me and with colleagues across the House on the BCSSS. One of the most humbling events I have been to in my political life was speaking to former miners following the announcement on the mineworkers’ pension. I am incredibly grateful to  the many people who have campaigned and who are getting in touch and showing us how important this is. Of course, we completely understand it. \p Martin Wrigley: This is a new topic to me personally. I was contacted by a constituent whose late husband, a good friend of mine, Michael Green, worked for British Coal at the time. He too was passionate that this money should be returned to the miners. Does the Minister agree that we need to get on with this and get this to happen as quickly as possible? \p Sarah Jones: We are certainly moving as fast as we can. I will explain where the process has got to, and I hope that Members will be reassured.

The transfer of £1.5 billion from the mineworkers’ pension boosted pensions by 32%, which was an average increase of £29 a week for each member. The hon. Member for Ashfield made the point that this is about putting money not just into people’s pockets but into local communities, and that is incredibly important. I also understand that in the context of the BCSSS in exactly the same way. My officials are working closely with the trustees of the mineworkers’ pension on the review of the future surplus sharing arrangements, and we hope to come forward with proposals and reach an agreement on that soon. Having worked closely with the coalfield communities on the delivery of the mineworkers’ pension, I completely recognise the strength of feeling on the BCSSS. \p Ian Lavery: I want to place on record my sincere thanks on behalf of my constituents and the people who work in the mining industry across the country for the fantastic work the Minister is doing in relation to the finances in the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Might she be able to inform the House what the main differences are between the MPS receiving the money and the challenges with regard to the BCSSS? \p Sarah Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I will do exactly that and set out what the challenges and the differences are.

Having a process of work ongoing with the mineworkers’ scheme and working out how we will do surplus sharing, we are now working on the BCSSS and what we do in that space, even though it was not a manifesto commitment. I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in February and secured his agreement to undertake a similar review of the BCSSS, and that review is now well under way. The schemes are not identical. They are different, and the main difference is that there are currently no surplus sharing arrangements in the BCSSS. That is because they were removed in 2015 following two deficit valuations.

The situation at that time meant that members were unlikely to realise any increases to their pensions for a decade or more, and the Government risked having to find new money to fund pensions. Changes were therefore made, and an agreement was reached with the then Government that bonus pension increases would be paid for three years and that the scheme would invest so as to ensure that pensions could be paid, with the aim of returning the reserve to the Government in 2033. That is the main difference.

I met the BCSSS trustees, to whom I am grateful. We are working well together and will continue to do so. I first met them in April, during which I shared my determination to move at pace—that is a Government saying, isn’t it? But we will genuinely move as fast as we can on the review and to start that process for the Government and trustees, and we jointly commissioned analysis from the Government Actuary to inform our decision making. \p Louise Jones: I have heard from many of my constituents affected by the BCSSS, and many are advanced in age so there is a real need for speed. I appreciate the Minister setting out how committed she is to getting this sorted as quickly as possible and would appreciate hearing about any further things she could do to expedite it. \p Sarah Jones: I completely appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. I think everybody in this House shares them, and I feel that strongly and am committed to doing exactly that.

We have recently received the analysis from the Government Actuary on the options for making a transfer to scheme members. Because we received that information, I had a meeting with the trustees today to hear their views on that analysis. At that meeting, I committed to move at speed. My officials are meeting the Treasury tomorrow. We are going to put a recommendation to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I made a commitment to meet the trustees again before the summer break so we continue to make progress as fast as we can. \p Josh Newbury: I am proud to have supported the BCSSS campaign since long before I became an MP, and I have continued to support it. I pay tribute to the campaigners in my constituency, including ex-miner Tony Jones, who gave me a badge that I wear with pride. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement with BCSSS trustees and us as coalfield MPs. However, many of my constituents are often elderly, in poor health and desperate for a resolution. Given that the investment reserve is already held within the scheme and its return would not require any new public spending, will the Minister continue to work hard to ensure that these deferred pensions are rightly returned as quickly as possible to their rightful owners? \p Sarah Jones: That is certainly what we are working to do. Because the two schemes are slightly different, the way the Treasury has to interact and think about these things is slightly different, but we have done this Government Actuary process, and we met the trustees today. We will now put our recommendation to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I know that a lot of my hon. Friends are talking to him about this issue whenever they can. While I have a desire to move at speed, I hope colleagues will appreciate that we also need to ensure that we get this absolutely right, and that any spending decisions are carefully considered, especially given the role that the Government have as the guarantor to both the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the BCSSS. I want to assure all hon. Members that I am doing all I can to reach an agreement and improve the conditions for members as soon as possible. \p Lee Anderson: The Minister has been good today, actually, at the Dispatch Box, so I thank her for that. A lot of positive things have come out of this Adjournment debate. I have one question: is the scheme running at a surplus and if so, by how much? \p Sarah Jones: I will not give figures, but the scheme is doing well. That is in part because of the trustees and the actions they have taken, and the investments and process they have undertaken. While the 2015 situation caused there to be a change in the way it was managed, it is now running well, and people can be reassured about that. I recognise that for many in coalfield communities, delivery on the mineworkers’ pension scheme has only heightened the sense of injustice about the BCSSS—I hear and feel that and am determined to take action on it. \p Lee Pitcher: For my 719 BCSSS members, with the scheme looking quite healthy now, does the Minister have that oomph to push it forward and expedite it as quickly as possible to get them justice? \p Sarah Jones: I certainly have oomph, yes, and I am working as fast as I can on this. I will not talk now about the wider support that we are offering people in our former coalfield communities, but a whole raft of Government interventions are there to support people. \p Gareth Snell: My constituent Robert Ferguson echoes many of the points made by the constituent of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) about the difference between families who worked side by side, whereby one benefits and one does not. I know that the Minister has a rather full portfolio—there are many other things that I constantly nag her about—but will we wait for the Treasury, which is not known for its speed in making decisions, or could interim arrangements be put in place to give some of the surplus back to the BCSSS, or something that allows a demonstration of progress while we wait for the Chief Secretary to come to a decision? \p Sarah Jones: I would not want to give the impression that this decision is waiting on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to say yes. That is not the case. We have to go through the correct processes to get it over the line, because it was not in the manifesto; it is a different scheme and we must go through the proper processes. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that.

It would probably cause more trouble than not to give part but not all of the surplus back, because people would wonder why we were doing that. We want to resolve this properly and quickly. The two outcomes that the hon. Member for Ashfield referred to, and which the trustees want, are goals that we all share, but we have to do this properly by going through the right processes and ensuring that we are not putting words into the mouths of our Treasury officials and colleagues before it is right to do so. My commitment is to work  at pace on this. As I said, my officials are meeting the Treasury tomorrow, and we are meeting the trustees before the summer. \p Adam Jogee: I have two quick points. First, as the Minister carries out those meetings—I wish her well—will she consider meeting some of us from coalfield communities, to facilitate that conversation? Secondly, she has just touched on the industrial strategy. She knows my views on the BCSSS and its importance to many people in Newcastle-under-Lyme. That industrial strategy must be felt by people not just in Newcastle-under-Lyme but up and down our country, particularly in coalfield communities. As it is finalised, I urge her to give a thought to us—that is really important. I hope that she will find time to meet us soon. \p Sarah Jones: I am always very happy to meet my colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend. I am very happy to meet anybody in receipt of or campaigning on the BCSSS. My door is always open. He is right, of course, that our industrial strategy needs to do something that we have not had for so long: it needs to grow our economy across the country, not just in certain areas. We want the industrial strategy to do just that.

I will end by saying that, as politicians, we know that people find it very hard to trust us and what we will deliver, in part because they have been let down so many times over so many years, but I hope that they have noted our delivery of the mineworkers’ pension scheme within three months of coming into office. I understand the frustration and need for speed because the people concerned are getting older. We know that many people passed away before they could get the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The same is true during the long time that we have been talking about these issues. Now, I hope that people can see that we mean it when we look to work at pace on the BCSSS. \p Adam Jogee: I am mindful of the fact that hon. Members do not have to be present at Adjournment debates, but does it not say everything that there is not a single Conservative MP here this evening—although there is a former one—to discuss this issue of importance not just to Newcastle-under-Lyme but to the whole United Kingdom? \p Sarah Jones: I will let anybody watching the debate draw their own conclusions on that front, but it is there for all to see.

I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield for securing the debate and many hon. Friends for their representations. The Labour Government are absolutely committed to addressing the BCSSS. I look forward to updating Members on our progress towards improving pensions for all our former miners and correcting these historical injustices.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 2 April, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 176.

Question accordingly agreed to.