PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy - 19 June 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

When this Government came to power, we were elected on a promise to deliver a decade of national renewal, and from day one, we have worked to fulfil that promise. Less than a year into the job, we have already started to see the results: the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first quarter of the year, interest rates cut four times and real wages rising more in the first 10 months of our Government than they did in the first 10 years under the Conservatives.

However, we are under no illusions about the challenges ahead. We will be going further and faster to turn the page on 14 years of chaos and mismanagement from the Conservative party, and to deliver the decade of national renewal that we promised. That is the backdrop against which I present this strategy to the House today. I put on record my thanks to everyone whose input has helped to shape the document, including those involved in the review I led when in opposition, which resulted in this strategy and the creation of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, about which I will say more shortly.

Infrastructure is key to unlocking growth across the country. Our roads, railways, airports and digital infrastructure connect people to businesses, public services and one another; our energy, water and housing infrastructures create and support communities; and our schools, hospitals, prisons and social infrastructure provide high-quality public services and help to keep us safe. But good infrastructure means improved productivity and efficiency in our economy too: increased resilience to shocks, stronger public services, more jobs and ultimately higher wages for working people.

From the development of the railways to the 2012 Olympic games, we have a proud history in Britain of innovating, developing and building high-quality infrastructure, but the reality is that we have now fallen behind many of our international competitors. Too many investors now question our intentions and our capabilities. When we say we will build something, they will often ask if we will and whether we can. That is because for too long the Conservatives cut capital investment, promised major projects one minute then abandoned them the next, and left the public estate to crumble for 14 long years, from the roads we drive on to the schools we send our children to. They wasted money, time and effort, saw a decline in productivity and wages, and there was stagnant growth and an increasing belief that politics cannot change things for the better. However, with this new Labour Government, we will prove once again that change is possible.

The spending review last week set out how our Government are investing in the renewal of Britain, allocating an additional £120 billion of capital investment over the course of this Parliament, with new road and rail projects to connect our towns and city regions. That includes £3.5 billion more for the trans-Pennine route upgrade to reduce journey times between Manchester and Leeds, benefiting communities along the train line. We are also investing in the next phase of the midlands rail hub to strengthen connections between Birmingham and the wider midlands to the south-west and Wales. In Wales, we are investing £445 million in new rail projects in north and south Wales over 10 years to connect cities, towns and manufacturing hubs, with two Labour Governments working together for the people of Wales. We will set out further details on our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail in the coming weeks.

This is not just about transport. We are delivering the biggest roll-out of nuclear power for half a century, with a £30 billion commitment to our nuclear-powered future. We are providing £39 billion for the affordable homes programme over the next decade, which is the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years. We are backing British industry in its pioneering work in carbon capture, usage and storage, including with support for the Acorn project, with benefits felt right across Scotland.

The task before us now is to ensure that this investment is spent effectively and efficiently—a real change in approach from the Conservatives’ time in government—and to plan for not only the next five years, but the long term. That is the driving force behind the 10-year infrastructure strategy. Crucially, it is our hope that this long-term approach will give investors and businesses the confidence to invest in skills and their workforce, hire more apprentices, create more jobs and improve wage rates in every part of the country.

The strategy is by its nature thorough and detailed, but I will draw the attention of the House to five key elements today. First, we will provide certainty and stability through increased capital investment. We are committing to funding at least £725 billion for infrastructure over the next decade, ensuring that infrastructure spending continues to grow in line with inflation after the current spending review period. At the spending review, we committed detailed capital spending plans for each Department until 2029-30. To provide further certainty and confidence in our plans, we are also confirming funding for the school rebuilding programme to 2035 and for the prison expansion programme to 2031. This long-term certainty needs to be translated into real jobs in every part of the country, so ahead of the summer recess we will publish a new online infrastructure pipeline. It will provide up-to-date information about what we will build and when, and where we will build it, giving industry and investors the confidence they need to invest in highly skilled jobs in every part of the country.

Secondly, for the first time we are bringing economic infrastructure such as transport, energy and waste together with housing and social infrastructure, including schools, hospitals and prisons, into one overarching Government strategy. In doing so, we will expect stakeholders to think more strategically about the communities they are creating, not just the specific piece of infrastructure they are building. For example, as part of our review of the Green Book, we have decided to pilot place-based business cases, which will ensure that there is proper co-ordination between Departments when bidding for funding from the Treasury. I know that will be a huge relief for communities across the country, which have relied too often on poor planning on infrastructure and community benefit. That is the difference it makes to have Labour MPs who show up and listen and a Labour Government who get it.

Thirdly, we are taking steps to address the soaring maintenance backlog in our public estate, which is estimated at more than £49 billion. I am today announcing a new maintenance fund to provide at least £9 billion per year over the next decade to improve our public services and save money for the taxpayer. That includes at least £6 billion per year to maintain and repair our hospitals, so that our loved ones can get the best possible treatment when they need it; £600 million per year for our courts and prisons, so that justice can be served; and almost £3 billion for our schools and colleges per year by 2035, so that every young person gets the best start in life.

Fourthly, we will leverage the private capital needed to deliver this strategy. That means matching capital to individual projects and using Government debt and equity to invest alongside the private sector. We will also work with industry to explore the targeted use of new public-private partnerships where they can be shown to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. Any new model will learn lessons from the past to secure value for money into the future.

Lastly, we have established the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority. Based in the Treasury, NISTA brings oversight of infrastructure strategy and delivery together, and integrates assurance, design and delivery assessments into Treasury spending decisions. It will ensure that the strategy is implemented effectively across the whole country, including through formal reviews of progress every two years, aligned with the spending review cycle. It will also work across Government to provide expertise and support to delivery partners.

By design, this 10-year infrastructure strategy is a technical policy document, and we will continue to work with businesses, investors, workers and trade unions, and local leaders to drive up ambition and improve delivery. However, the strategy is much more than that. Alongside our modern industrial strategy, it will provide certainty and confidence in Britain as an investment destination, and will establish the framework needed to deliver the step change in infrastructure investment announced by the Chancellor in last week’s spending review. Done properly, it will result in tangible improvements to the fabric of our country: our local roads and high streets renewed so that communities are even better places to live; our public transport more available and more reliable, making it easier for people to get around and access opportunities; our schools, hospitals and GP surgeries fit for the future, to deliver for generations to come; and a country that will be stronger and more resilient. Communities will see the difference as this Labour Government deliver on the promise of change and a decade of national renewal. On that basis, I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement, and for providing early sight of it.

Our ability to invest in public infrastructure is a positive for individuals, communities and the country as a whole, and it is right that the new Government set out their strategy. The last Government had to deal with a series of economic disruptions, including the impact of covid, the unwinding of quantitative easing across all advanced economies, and the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The global impact was disrupted supply chains, increased inflation and raised interest rates. Notwithstanding those shocks, under the last Government, public sector expenditure on capital increased in real terms, from £81.7 billion in 2019-20 to £117.8 billion in 2024-25—an increase of 44%. Today, the Chief Secretary has confirmed expenditure of £725 billion, but has provided very little detail. There is no project pipeline today; will he commit to coming back to this House when it is published?

In 2024, the last infrastructure pipeline analysis included an investment pipeline of 660 projects over a 10-year period, commencing from 2024-25. The Chief Secretary’s last statement to the House was, in very large part, a restatement of the investments in local transportation projects that had already been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Will he confirm how many of the 660 projects in the previous pipeline will be retained? Will he advise the House which major projects are being abandoned, and give some insight into his reasoning for doing so?

Translating a pipeline into reality requires a labour force of sufficient size and with a range of skills—in construction, project management and engineering, for example. Again, the 2024 analysis by the Construction Industry Training Board indicated that that project pipeline would create labour pressures in many of those skills areas. Since coming to office, this Labour Government have increased national insurance and are proposing new regulations on employment, both of which will disproportionately affect the construction sector. Does the Chief Secretary have any concerns about the impact of those changes on the availability of labour? Will he advise the House what assessment he has made of skills pinch points and what steps the Government are taking to alleviate them? Fulfilling these plans will require investment by taxpayers and private capital. Will the Chief Secretary advise the House on whether there has been any significant change in the mix of private and public investments—within discrete sectors or overall—compared with the last pipeline analysis in 2024?

The Government created the National Wealth Fund, and said that it was their principal investor—a critical part of the Government’s growth strategy for infrastructure. The Chief Secretary has given the National Wealth Fund £7 billion, but has made no mention of it today. Why has there been no mention of the National Wealth Fund?

We are moving through an era with a rapidly accelerating pace of change, in which the period from technological innovation to obsolescence can be vanishingly short. The risk that public investment in new technology solutions will become redundant is increasing. While being forward-looking, the Government should also be careful to nurture both existing technologies and new but proven ones, so what are the Government’s priorities for technology choices in the energy sector, and what actions will he take to protect taxpayers from technology redundancy risk?

The Pension Schemes Bill, introduced by this Government, includes a reserved power for the Government to mandate the investments of pension schemes. Has the Chief Secretary had any discussions about—or had the Treasury do any analysis of—the use of mandation powers to provide financing to the capital investments he has announced today? Have the projects announced today been assessed according to the revised Green Book rules? If not, will they be reassessed at some point on the revised basis, and what assurance can the Chief Secretary provide that these projects will give value for money to taxpayers? As this Government have stated, and as we acknowledge, when pressures on public expenditure increase, it is frequently capital expenditure that suffers. What actions is the Chief Secretary willing to take if finances are tight to protect the budgets for the projects he has announced today?

Investment in infrastructure benefits from a stable economic background, a clear set of priorities, efficient delivery, and optimal returns for taxpayers and investors. Madam Deputy Speaker, I miss the Chief Secretary in his old guise as Chairman of the Business Select Committee, when there was less of the rhetoric and the partisanship. These big decisions need open communication and critical analysis if we are to improve value for money and get projects delivered on time and on budget. In those endeavours, the Chief Secretary will always have our support.

As Mr Fuller knows, there were three of us on that Committee back in those good old days.

I remember them very fondly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your support, and for that of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his statements today. He has asked me a number of questions, which I will take in turn.

The first question was about detailed spending allocations between Departments. Today, we are making a commitment to a minimum level of investment in infrastructure— £725 billion over 10 years, which is rising in line with inflation. The detailed spending plans per Department get allocated at the spending review. We have returned to longer-term, multi-year spending reviews, which are obviously different from the annual allocations done under the previous Government; capital is now allocated at a departmental level until 2029-30. We will do the subsequent five-year detailed allocations in 2027 at the next spending review.

The pipeline will be published in a couple of weeks, in mid-July. The reason for a small delay between the strategy and the pipeline is that we wanted to integrate the data from last week’s spending review, and it takes a little time to do so. We have worked in partnership with industry, skills providers and others to develop the pipeline, which—as I say—will show on a map of the country which projects we are procuring, when, and where. That will give investors and businesses long-term confidence about the jobs that are going to be available, so that they can invest in their own workforce. The shadow Chief Secretary is right to highlight that skills is a constraining factor in the UK economy. We have the strategy and the money from the Chancellor; we now need to work through the industrial strategy with the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Transport and with private sector partners, to do all we can to create the great jobs in every part of the country that will enable us to build the infrastructure we have set out today.

The shadow Chief Secretary asked me about the role of private capital. The strategy set out today contains a whole chapter about the role of private capital and the different mechanisms that we use with private investors. There is a commitment to use private capital for economic infrastructure where there is a revenue stream, and some of the approved methodology for looking at those options. Further work will be done between now and the autumn Budget on some very targeted potential applications of private capital for social infrastructure but, crucially, only where that provides value for money compared with it being funded by the state.

The shadow Chief Secretary also asked me about the Green Book. The Green Book review was published last week as part of the spending review, and it will be applied on a business case basis as projects come through to the Treasury for spending approval. There is nothing in the strategy set out today that pre-approves a business case, so the new Green Book will be applied to business cases as they come through in the normal way.

At a couple of points, the shadow Chief Secretary asked me to explain the difference between this Government and the last Conservative Government. To put it simply, it is failed promises from the Conservatives, and promises delivered by the Labour Government.

I call John Grady, a member of the Treasury Committee.

I welcome today’s announcement and in particular the focus on housing and transport, because Glasgow has a real housing crisis. In my constituency, the busy Bridgeton train station does not even have lifts for disabled people. All taxpayers are concerned about value for money, particularly given the huge overspend and utter chaos of HS2 under the last Government. In Scotland, there is the absolute scandal of the Arran ferry. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and set out the steps that the Government are taking to ensure value for money in this infrastructure spending? Will he commit to sharing the learnings with the Scottish Government, who desperately need help on that?

The key thing I will point my hon. Friend to is the role of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority sitting in the Treasury. The assessment on delivery, assurance, design and commercial capabilities for projects will be part of the advice now coming to me as Chief Secretary and to the Chancellor, and it will be aligned with spending decisions on budgets. That means that if a project is not delivering effectively or is not yet ready to start, we will not release the money for that project, and we will stop funding projects that are failing. That is a key difference from how decisions were processed previously, and we think it will lead to much better discipline in delivering big projects.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Last week, the Liberal Democrats welcomed the announcement of investment in public infrastructure and transport projects, which we have long called for. We are glad that today the Government are setting out a 10-year infrastructure plan to realise those projects, and the Liberal Democrats will be closely scrutinising it to ensure that it delivers for communities across the UK.

Boosting our infrastructure is vital, given the appalling mismanagement under the last Conservative Government that left our school and hospital buildings crumbling while neglecting critical infrastructure, from transport to renewable energy generation. Today’s plan must draw a line under the disastrous mismanagement of projects such as HS2, which promised to connect our country and communities only to end up another hollow Conservative promise, long delayed and billions over budget. While we welcome the Government’s intention to deliver productive investment, we will closely scrutinise its implementation.

I have been concerned that Ministers have been unable to answer questions regarding delegated funding from the structures fund, such as for Hammersmith bridge in my constituency. Will the Minister confirm that specific projects have been selected, and will he ensure that infrastructure funding is distributed fairly for the benefit of all regions? Will he set up a crumbling hospitals taskforce to identify creative funding ideas, speed up construction timelines and put an end to the vicious cycle and false economies of delayed rebuilds, which lead to rising repair costs?

As we look carefully at the implementation of these plans, the Government must ensure that we have a workforce equipped with the necessary skills to meet these commitments. Does the Minister therefore agree that it is time to replace the broken apprenticeship levy with a broader, more flexible skills and training levy? Will the Government fulfil their promise to make Skills England an independent body with employers at its heart?

The hon. Lady is right to point to the fiasco of HS2, which my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary updated the House on yesterday. The complete and utter negligence in delivering on that project over many years has left us with the legacy of having to pay more for longer, which has implications for all the other things we would like to do in the country. We commissioned the James Stewart review, which was published yesterday. All its recommendations have been adopted, and lessons are already flowing through this infrastructure strategy, so that we never end up in that situation again.

The hon. Lady asked me about the structures fund, which was a particular fund that we prioritised because we know that in many constituencies, bridges in particular often miss out on funding and are in desperate need of it. She will have to speak with the Department for Transport about the allocations of that funding, but I will make sure that she gets an answer from my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.

Lastly, the hon. Lady asked about hospital maintenance. There is a big commitment in the infrastructure strategy on maintenance. Maintenance is not sexy, and it is not good for election leaflets, but it is important. That is why we are committing so many billions today to it, because there is an enormous backlog. NISTA will be co-ordinating across Government and across all social infrastructure to make sure that we are prioritising that going forward so that people can see quick, real, tangible improvements to their public infra- structure in their local communities.

Order. The Minister missed the Mexican wave that took place behind him. It was down to Chris Vince mostly, although probably it was also down to the length of the answers, which could be shorter.

I thank the Chief Secretary for his excellent work on this strategy, which will turbocharge confidence in the investment community while improving the lives, incomes and opportunities of my constituents in Darlington, which is exactly what I was elected to do. It will not surprise him to hear me ask politely for him to outline more detail on his ambition for the place-based approach, the Green Book reforms and the pilots that he has mentioned. Can we have one in Darlington, the home of many of his Treasury colleagues?

I will give a shorter answer, given the time available. We will be setting out further detail shortly about where we will be piloting these place-based business cases. It is a new process for Whitehall. It requires a level of co-ordination that does not currently exist, but the outcome if we get it right will be people experiencing co-ordinated, thoughtful infrastructure spending in the places they live, in a way that makes sense for how they live in those areas. I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to bid for Darlington as we decide where to pilot those place-based business cases in due course.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned the midlands rail hub. He will know that the previous Government committed to the £1.75 billion project. There has been a pause, and paragraph 5.83 of the spending review states that the Government will fund its progression. In the spirit of short answers, can he tell me exactly how much money has been committed to it?

The difference from the last Government is that they promised things with no money, and we are promising things with actual money. The hon. Member points to the midlands hub in the spending review document. That is about development funding. One of our different approaches under this infrastructure strategy is that, instead of just allocating the total estimated spend at the start of the project and letting the project get on without proper oversight, we are issuing development funding earlier and more often, so that we can have properly costed business cases with proper assurance. That means we can guarantee members of the public that we will deliver on our promises, unlike his party.

I welcome this investment strategy. Many of us have seen at first hand the broken infrastructure we are dealing with. The Chief Secretary will know my concern that many of the organisations we will be asking to tackle these problems are also dealing with the legacy of the private finance initiative, which saw buildings and projects cost three times more than the actual assets themselves. The pleas that many of us made to the previous Government to tackle these legal loan sharks of the public sector fell on deaf ears, and I know that this Chief Secretary will not make the same mistake. Would he be open to meeting those of us who are keen to learn the lessons of the private finance initiative? In particular, can we cap what private companies can make on military contracts, children’s care homes and other social infrastructure projects, so that we do not see our public sector savaged by these companies in future?

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. I can confirm that in the design and funding of NISTA, I have funded a particular team to work on the management of disputes under the old PFI contract schemes to make sure that we are getting the best outcomes and best deal for the public sector.

I cannot believe it, but I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). It is a shock to the system, but the Chief Secretary has announced the return of the public-private partnership. The last Labour Government were a byword for disastrous contractual negotiations, and that led to the infamous £1,000 lightbulb. Given that Labour was so bad at these contract negotiations last time around, what confidence does the Chief Secretary have that he will be any better this time around?

I am usually confident in my abilities, to be frank. We will be consulting on some of the design details. We will be using private capital for social infrastructure only in particular potential use cases. We mention in the strategy today certain types of primary neighbourhood healthcare centres. We will be transparently consulting on that detail, and we will only allow such capital to be used in a way that is value for money. We will not be returning to the PFI contracts of the past.

I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement. As someone whose parents and grandparents grew up in and lived in council housing and benefited from that opportunity, I particularly welcome the record investment in social and affordable housing. Under the previous Government, the UK was 28th out of 31 OECD countries for business investment, and it was regularly at the bottom of the G7 for the combination of public and private investment. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that this strategy today will begin to turn that terrible legacy around?

I agree with my hon. Friend on our extremely ambitious plans for council houses—or social and affordable houses, as we call them now. He will know that I, too, grew up in a council flat. I now represent the constituency of Bristol North West, and over 20,000 people in the city of Bristol are waiting for secure housing. I am very confident that our £39 billion commitment on building affordable and social housing will make a huge difference to the lives of people across the whole country.

My hon. Friend asks about unlocking private capital. The good news is that plenty of investors want to invest private capital in the UK, but they have told us through the British infrastructure taskforce and other vehicles that they did not invest for many years because they thought that we had lost the plot in this country, whereas we now have a clear strategy. We have stability both politically and economically, and we will now work with those investors to provide opportunities across the country to bring money to communities that have missed out for too long.

I welcome the Chief Secretary’s comments on maintenance. He may be aware that a huge maintenance project is about to begin on the most beautiful stretch of motorway in the country, the M6 at Lune Gorge. Eight bridges under and over that motorway will need replacing in the coming years. Will he have a look at the resource that is being made available to mitigate the impact on the local community? The plan is to close the northbound exit and the southbound exit consecutively for three years, and to close the A685 bridge connecting Kendal to Tebay. Will he make sure that there is resource to ensure that there are temporary slip roads, so that local communities are not cut off?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman makes a very good case, which Ministers in the Department for Transport will need to answer, but I am pleased to know that the Liberal Democrats think maintenance is sexy after all.

Through my work on the Public Accounts Committee, I have seen just how severe the public estate maintenance backlog has become. In fact, the Conservatives had their heads so deep in the sand on building maintenance that I am surprised they did not apply for planning permission. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that York’s public buildings will benefit from the £9 billion maintenance fund that he has announced?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the challenges that I learned on coming into government is that the last Government did not even ask what the maintenance backlog was in certain Departments. There was not a clear set of data that told us which assets the Government own and the quality or state of them, so we have some pretty basic work to be getting on with through NISTA as we allocate the money, which will go directly to the schools, hospitals and other public sector buildings that have been ignored for many, many years.

The creation of another new authority will be met with an eye-rolling sigh in Scotland, because although it is called the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—a very shiny title—the reality is that it will have little oversight in Scotland. The plan announced today will generate Barnett formula money, which will go to Holyrood and disappear—it will go into ferries that do not float and things like that. In my constituency the A75 road is a piece of critical national infrastructure. It services the ferry ports to Northern Ireland, and it is vital for all the countries that make up the United Kingdom. Will we see any money coming for that road through today’s innovation, or will the money once again disappear into the coffers in Holyrood?

I politely point the hon. Member to the fact that previously there were two functions in Government, and I have closed both of them and created one, so we are actually down by one. He asks about the devolved Governments, which have devolved responsibilities. We will not interfere with the devolution settlement, but I think that he and I agree that Scotland needs a new direction, and I hope the people of Scotland will vote for Anas Sarwar and Labour at the election next May.

I welcome the UK Government’s bold 10-year infrastructure plan, and the swift action they have already taken to green-light projects such as the third runway at Heathrow. However, sadly for my constituents, infrastructure policy and delivery in Scotland is in the hands of the failing SNP Government—a Government who cannot dual a road or build a ferry. We are in the grips of a housing emergency in West Lothian, and they are not building the homes that we need. Does the Minister agree that there is much that the SNP Scottish Government can learn from the UK Government about getting the country building again?

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Next week I will be meeting finance Ministers from the devolved Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. We will put forward today’s update on our infrastructure strategy and seek to partner with them as best we can to deliver for people and places across the whole of Scotland. But given the track record of the SNP Government, I am afraid that I do not have a huge amount of confidence.

The denial in this statement is truly breathtaking. This UK Government could not come up with a 10-year strategy that would survive first contact with reality on anything, and the statement comes against a backdrop of challenging cuts off the backs of the poorest while we are fitting £10 million new doors to the House of Lords and providing £100 billion for a not-very-fast railway that will not be finished for some time.

There was nothing for Scotland in the Chancellor’s spending review, there is nothing for Scotland in this statement, and there is nothing for Scotland in the UK’s 10-year infrastructure working paper. On that latter document, it is interesting to note that it does not mention devolution, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland once. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury think that simply mentioning Acorn will make private capital hang around and wait for the Government to put a number on it? How much of this will be a rerun of Labour’s disastrous private finance initiative projects, which Scottish councils are still haemorrhaging money on, and why is he heralding working with the Welsh Government but not the SNP Scottish Government? Is he a democrat or not?

That was a stream of slightly incoherent questions, if I may say so. I point the hon. Gentleman to the document that we have published today, which does mention Scotland quite a few times. He says that this Labour Government have not delivered anything for Scotland. I will just point him to the largest real-terms increase in funding since devolution began—his SNP colleagues might want to think about how they could spend that more wisely for the people of Scotland. That is in addition to the supercomputer in Edinburgh; the development funding for Acorn, and for carbon capture, usage and storage; and our defence spending, including on the Clyde—I could go on and on. The only people in denial are those in the SNP.

I warmly welcome this statement. After years of neglect, it is quite clear that our infrastructure has been creaking and that opportunities have been missed. That is particularly the case in the east of England, where the Government inherited a per head of population spend that is £1,000 less than the UK average. May I ask the Chief Secretary please to look at the Ely junction project, where for every £1 invested there would be a £5 return? The project would help not only my constituency but dozens in the east of England, and help drive economic growth in our part of the world.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the Ely junction. The great thing about the multi-year spending review in the 10-year strategy is that the Department for Transport and its partners are now able to plan ahead, so I encourage him to talk to Transport Ministers about that particular project. He is right to say that we are absolutely in the business for high value-for-money cases that unlock growth and opportunity in every part of the country.

A long-term approach to spending is really sensible and I, as a northern MP, particularly welcome the Treasury reviewing the Green Book to make sure that regional inequalities are not further entrenched by future spending. Stepping Hill hospital in my patch has a reported repairs backlog of £138 million, so I was really interested to hear the Chief Secretary talk about the pilot of place-based business cases. Can he say a bit more about how the Treasury will review those pilots, and does it mean that Stepping Hill is more likely to get the funding it needs so that my constituents get the hospital they deserve?

I hope that Stepping Hill will be able to bid into the new, longer-term maintenance fund so that we can get work done more quickly than it has been done in the past. On the place-based business case pilots under the Green Book review, we have not yet made any decisions about where we will pilot them or how, so we now have to do that work. As I said in my statement to the House, the intention behind them is to look across different types of spending to make sure that we are creating functioning places that have the relevant public service infrastructure, transport infrastructure and house building in one place. We will be able to come to the House with more detail on that in due course.

I know that my constituents in North East Derbyshire will warmly welcome the infrastructure strategy, because we have been on the sharp end of Government Departments failing to co-ordinate when building infrastructure. Can I make a bid for a place-based business case pilot in North East Derbyshire? Our unique mix of urban, rural and semi-rural communities, as well as the fact that we are in the east midlands and close to South Yorkshire and Sheffield, makes us an ideal area for a pilot.

It seems that I have a list of bids for place-based business case pilots, which we will take away and consider. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight why this issue is important. When the Government are spending a lot of money on a particular thing, including through industrial policy or defence spending, we need to ensure that that translates into good jobs and good pay, with housing and good public infrastructure, so that people can access those opportunities and help drive the economy forward.

As one of my constituency neighbours, the Chief Secretary will be aware of our local infrastructure needs, such as upgrading junctions 16 and 17 on the M5, fixing the original Severn bridge and upgrading Westerleigh rail junction. The West of England has often been overlooked in the past, so how will he ensure that the funding is distributed fairly and for the benefit of all regions?

Noting that I need to manage carefully my conflicts of interest as a Minister and a constituency MP, I would just point the hon. Lady to the announcement made the other week—I thought it was very good—about nearly £800 million of devolved funding going to the Mayor of the West of England, Helen Godwin, allowing her to get on with lots of the transport upgrades that in the past we waited many years to get funded.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s statement, which is a plan to rebuild Britain from the mess left by the Conservatives. Can he inform the House how constituencies such as mine can take advantage of the new place-based business case as part of the Government’s Green Book strategy?

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a champion for securing investment in her constituency. The approach with the Green Book has been changed to make sure that we are investing in the places that have been left behind for too long. It will be for local leaders to work together to bid for the type of funding that will enable them to deliver on the Government’s missions, whether that is house building, economic growth or helping public services get back on their feet. We will certainly be open to bids from her constituency and region in due course.

I welcome this announcement, and while there are aspects that I do not support, I particularly welcome the Government’s investment in vital flood defences. As the Minister knows, these are critical in ensuring that we are better protected against the impacts of climate breakdown. With the Met Office warning this week that we could reach 45° temperatures in the current climate, clearly the effects of climate breakdown are already here. Does he agree that protection needs to be fully integrated into every aspect of our economy—from housing to transport and farming—and does he also agree that it is a good idea to put climate resilience and preparedness on a statutory footing by requiring all major infrastructure providers to carry out climate risk assessments in order to make us all safer?

I thank the hon. Member for raising those important points. Adaptation and sustainable development are at the heart of this infrastructure strategy, and they have to be for all the obvious reasons. He may like to know that, as part of our new approach to spatial strategies in Government, we are already integrating data from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on flood risk, heat risk and water availability with data from other Departments—for example, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—to ensure that we are planning properly for the future.

I welcome the Green Book review of the co-ordination of joined-up infrastructure thinking—thank you so much. Promises have previously been made to local places affected by major infrastructure projects that they would see some local benefits. With that in mind, and with the lower Thames crossing coming to Gravesham, will he meet me to see how Gravesham could be a pilot for this place-based study and to really help with the affordable homes that are also desperately needed?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am always delighted to meet her, and we should meet colleagues from the Department for Transport to make sure that, where we are investing billions of pounds—whether that is public or private capital—in important infrastructure such as the lower Thames crossing, people benefit from the wider effects of that investment.

Last week something amazing happened: I actually found myself in agreement with the Labour Mayor for York and North Yorkshire, when he said that spending review

“announcements fall well short”,

and that this

“government had a real chance to show it was serious about rural…areas—but it missed it.”

Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree with me that one of the best ways to invest in new infrastructure would be by dualling and electrifying the line between Leeds and York via Harrogate in order to unlock growth in our part of Yorkshire?

I thank the hon. Member for his question. As he will have seen from the Chancellor’s previous statements, we are increasing investment in transport—whether rail, road or buses—specifically in the north and the midlands, so there is plenty of opportunity to bid for the project he mentions, and I am sure he will talk to Transport Ministers to make that case.

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and for the national infrastructure strategy. It is particularly welcome that, after the dither and delay of the last Government—who failed to get important projects such as the lower Thames crossing, which has been mentioned, over the line—this Government are finally setting out a plan to do so. Does he agree with me that investing in infrastructure sets the foundation for growth across the whole country, so that there will be not only jobs in north Kent, a reduction in congestion and opportunities for small businesses, but majorly enhanced connectivity for businesses in the midlands and the north with our channel ports?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will see in due course, when the industrial strategy is published, that we have been thinking across Government about the role of infrastructure as an enabling investment to unlock other types of investment, and to create great opportunities for people and economies where they can afford to live and are able to get around to access those opportunities.

The Chief Secretary’s statement made no mention of rural areas. When it comes to infrastructure, Welsh rural communities have for decades lost out, with a lack of investment in both our physical and digital infrastructure. Unfortunately, the £445 million on rail does not come anywhere near rural Wales. What are the Government doing to prioritise investment in disadvantaged rural areas in Wales?

I thank the hon. Member for her question. Without wanting to go through the entire infrastructure strategy or spending review, there is significant money coming to all parts of the country. The Chancellor has increased day-to-day spending by £190 billion and capital spending by £120 billion, so I am confident that the hon. Member’s constituents will benefit from an improved national health service, improved road maintenance and improved digital infrastructure. There is a very long list of things people will be able to experience, and they will see the difference made by a Labour Government as we deliver on our promise of change.

I am hoping that the next question will be as entertaining as his constant chuntering. I call Alan Gemmell.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is very nice to finally be recognised by the Chair.

Does the Minister agree that this approach to investment is fundamentally different from the Conservative chaos that led to crumbling schools, hospitals and roads, and light-years away from that of the SNP Government, whose profligate waste of public money has led to a £1 billion ferry fiasco in Ayrshire?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the failure of other Governments—both the previous Government at Westminster and the current Government in Scotland. When preparing this work in opposition, I was very taken by investors saying, “When I can invest anywhere in the world, if the UK says it is going to do something and Germany says it is going to do something, I am probably going to bet on Germany over the UK.” That has to change because Britain is a brilliant country with lots of opportunity. The long-term stability we are setting out in our strategy, our long-term spending plans and our commitment to stability are unlocking that investment to create great opportunities for people across the whole country, including in Scotland.

I hope the Minister appreciates just how insulting it is to Welsh ears for us to be told that we are getting a fair deal on railway funding, when we know that we have been cheated out of billions of pounds due to the classification of several projects as England and Wales projects. Wales is getting only five railway stations between Newport and Cardiff. That is hardly national renewal, is it? Will he bet on Wales and commit to projects outside that belt, such as projects across mid-Wales and west Wales or the electrification of the north and south lines?

There is a key difference: under the last Government, Wales did not get a penny, but under this Labour Government, working with the Labour Government in Wales, it has had not only the largest real-terms increase in spending since devolution began, but £455 million for rail infrastructure, nearly £130 million for coal tip safety and many other things. That is the benefit of two Labour Governments working together to deliver for the people of Wales, and the hon. Gentleman may want to be a little bit more grateful in future.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his very welcome statement. In my constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow, we have the Avon gorge, which is unsuitable for the volume of heavy goods vehicles that traverse it every day; a motorway junction at Burghmuir only for traffic going east, not west; and, of course, the long-awaited Winchburgh train station that has never been delivered, despite years of promises from elected SNP Members. As well as being in my constituency, they are in the constituency of the SNP Cabinet Secretary for Transport. Can I urge my right hon. Friend to encourage his counterparts in the Scottish Government to take a leaf out of this Government’s book, and invest in infrastructure to support our businesses and local communities?

I thank my hon. Friend, who knows that this Labour Government at Westminster have given the Scottish Government the money to get on with the job. They have no excuses left for not delivering for the people of Scotland. We will continue to partner with and support the Scottish Government as best we can, but ultimately the SNP-led Government in Scotland have to change their ways, and if they cannot, the people’s only choice will be to vote for a new direction under Labour next May.

I thank the Minister very much for his answers. He is always incredibly pleasant, and we appreciate that. Can he confirm that the 10-year strategy incorporates the need to enhance connectivity throughout the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? In particular, may I ask him about flights between Belfast and other major UK cities, which are becoming more costly by the day?

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He will know that the Government have renewed our commitment to regional airport capacity, with plans for a national policy statement to be published in due course. I am sure the Transport Secretary and her team are listening to him on the increasing costs for his constituents of those flights, which we would of course like to reduce, if we can.

As a civil engineer, I absolutely welcome the Minister’s statement, but I want to respond to it within the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. If he does not mind, I will start by giving him some advice. If he is going to meet his counterpart in the Scottish Government, do not mention Sheriffhall roundabout on the Edinburgh city bypass. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) is laughing. Over the past eight years, there have been lots of reports but no delivery and the price has moved from £120 million to, I think, £300 million now—quite incredible.

On to my point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the long-term plan. There are kids at school today who will be involved in delivering it. I welcome the connection with schools and colleges, but my right hon. Friend will know that universities in England are under huge pressure and universities in Scotland are in crisis. What part will they play in developing the skills we need to deliver these projects?

Our universities play a crucial part in our education and skills landscape. They are, of course, privately-owned organisations and so are funded separately from the departmental budgets we have allocated in the spending review. The money announced last week and in the infrastructure strategy today is for schools and further education colleges. Any further changes to help universities with their estates will be announced in due course.

Please keep questions short.

I spent a week in Leeds at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum, banging the drum for Bournemouth and the south-west to say that we are open for business with this Labour Government. Investors and builders are responding. They are encouraged by the pension, regulatory and planning reforms and by this infrastructure approach, but we need more investment. We have £1.6 million going into Bournemouth and Poole college, £500 million into two new NHS buildings and £230 million into water upgrades, but we need more. Will the Chief Secretary meet me and Dorset MPs to consider how we will take forward this place-based approach towards investment, so that Dorset can benefit?

That was not a short question.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for championing not just his own constituency, but the region in which it sits. He is right to raise the fact that many communities have lost out on funding over many, many years because of the chaotic approach under the previous Government. Our approach to this long-term strategy, with long-term funding and partnering with private capital, is essentially set up to try to drive investment in the places that have missed out. I would be delighted to work with him to try to unlock those opportunities.

Don’t let me down, Chris Vince.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and in particular for the funding for the maintenance of hospitals. I will be lobbying the Health Secretary in due course, but first will my right hon. Friend let me once again advocate for Harlow in respect of the future of the UK Health Security Agency? It is shovel-ready, well located and cost-effective.

I thank my hon. Friend for continuing to make the case for that investment in his constituency. Now that the spending review has concluded, it will be for the Department of Health and Social Care to make decisions on the allocation of its spending. I am sure that he will continue to lobby the Health Secretary in the normal way.

I welcome the statement. Does the Minister agree that our investment plans are a world away from the chronic under-investment of the previous Government, with their lack of investment in public services, housing, people and an ambition for Britain. That included the previous Government decimating shipbuilding in my city, snatching it away and not replacing the economy and jobs, leaving a hole for 14 years. How will this Government’s plans deliver for Portsmouth? Will he meet me to see how we can finally open up place- based investment for Portsmouth and wider Hampshire?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have long-term budgets, a long-term strategy and a long-term commitment to places across the country, in particular to Portsmouth where, working with our friends in the Ministry of Defence, we are spending an increased amount of money to ensure we have wider benefits for communities and for workers in that sector.

Milton Keynes is proud to be a growing city, but too often under the previous Government new homes did not come with the infrastructure required for the new communities. Will the Minister please set out how the new strategy will help to support the infrastructure, in particular GP surgeries and hospitals, that will be needed to support those new homes? More specifically, will he please let us know how it will help to support the building of new towns when we hear back from Sir Michael Lyons in his report shortly?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the legacy issue of poor planning. NISTA, our new centre of expertise in the Treasury that is implementing the strategy, has been given the authority by Cabinet to co-ordinate spatial strategies across Government. That means that Departments will have to think between themselves about making sure that they put things like GP surgeries and hospitals in the right places when they are building significant numbers of new homes.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being so successful in securing so much investment in his constituency. I am sure his constituents will be deeply indebted to him now and in future elections. I know he will continue to make the case for investment for his constituents.