PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Spring Forecast - 3 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

This Government have the right economic plan for our country, a plan that is—[Interruption.]

Order. Look, both sides, if you are not interested, you don’t have to stay in the Chamber. I am interested, my constituents are interested, and your constituents are interested as well.

A plan that is even more important in a world that has become yet more uncertain in the last few days. With unfolding conflict in Iran and the middle east, it is incumbent on me and on this Government to chart a course through that uncertainty, to secure our economy against shocks and to protect families from the turbulence we see beyond our borders.

I want to express my gratitude to members of our armed forces as they serve across the globe to protect our country. I want to reassure this House that I am in regular contact with the Governor of the Bank of England, with my international counterparts and with key affected industries, including our maritime sector. Tomorrow I will meet our North sea industry leaders to discuss the implications they face and work with them to manage this uncertain period.

In an increasingly dangerous world, I am proud to be the Chancellor that is delivering the biggest uplift in defence spending since the cold war, with £650 million committed in January to upgrade our Typhoon fighter jets, a new Royal Navy frigate launched from Rosyth last week and, just yesterday, our £1 billion helicopter deal with Leonardo.

I am in no doubt about Britain’s ability to navigate the challenges we face. The plan that I have been driving forward since the election is the right one: stability in our public finances, investment in our infrastructure, including our armed forces, and reform to Britain’s economy. It is a plan to reshape our economy and break with the failed ideas of the past: building growth on not just the contribution of a few people in a few places, but in every part of Britain, with a state that does not stand back but steps up; strengthening our trading relationships and our alliances; creating capacity in our economy through affordable housing, better transport and free childcare; and being an active and strategic state, building growth and economic security in an uncertain world.

Stability is the single most important precondition for economic growth. That is why we have committed to a single major fiscal event a year, limiting major policy changes to the Budget, and giving businesses and households the certainty they need. Today the new forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that our plan is the right one: inflation is down; borrowing is down; living standards are up; and the economy is growing.

This Government have restored economic stability. The previous Government allowed inflation to skyrocket to over 11%, stoked interest rates to 15-year highs and delivered the first Parliament on record where people were poorer at the end than at the start. That is the Conservatives’ record, and I recognise the impact it had on families. We promised change at the election, and I understand the responsibility on me to deliver that change. I know that the question that people will ask themselves at the next election is, “Are me and my family better off?” I am determined that the answer will be yes.

The change we promised has already started: there have been six cuts in interest rates since the general election—the fastest pace of reduction in 17 years—and inflation has fallen. For businesses, that means lower capital costs and greater certainty, and for families, it means more money in their pockets to spend in local shops and on the high street. Those interest rate cuts will save households over £1,300 a year on a typical new fixed-rate mortgage. Real wages have risen by more in the first 18 months of this Labour Government than in the first 10 years of the Tory Government.

At the Budget, I went further to deliver the change that people rightly demand. I extended the 5p cut in fuel duty for a further five months, froze prescription charges for the second year in a row and froze rail fares for the first time in 30 years, and I am taking £150 off energy bills from next month. In February, the Bank of England confirmed that inflation will fall faster because of the action I took at the Budget, and today the Office for Budget Responsibility expects inflation to come down even faster than it forecast in the autumn.

In the current global context, with the risk that rising energy prices will put upward pressure on inflation, the action that I have taken is even more crucial. Keeping inflation low and stable is the best way to support family incomes and reduce pressures on the cost of living.

But that is not all we have done: this Labour Government have funded 30 hours of free childcare for working families; we are rolling out free breakfast clubs at primary schools; and we are set to achieve the biggest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began by reversing the shameful two-child limit imposed by the Conservatives. That is the moral choice, for the children who will no longer go to school hungry and for the women who will no longer suffer the grotesque indignity of the rape clause. Scrapping the two-child limit is an enduring investment in our children and in our future to realise the potential of young people that would otherwise be wasted.

The Tories have said that they would reinstate that destructive policy, and now Reform is saying exactly the same thing—two parties united in their intention to plunge nearly half a million children back into poverty at a single stroke. If you import failed Tory politicians, you get failed Tory policies too. Labour—and only Labour—has the right economic plan for our country. [Hon. Members: “More!”]

Last year, we demonstrated the resilience of Britain’s economy in the face of global headwinds with the fastest growth of any G7 country in Europe. Today the Office for Budget Responsibility has updated its growth forecasts, including reflecting lower net migration. Average growth across the forecast period is largely unchanged, while the OBR has adjusted the profile of GDP so that it grows slightly slower in 2026—[Interruption.] And then faster in both 2027 and 2028. GDP is forecast to grow by 1.1% in 2026, 1.6% in both 2027 and 2028 and 1.5% in both 2029 and 2030.

I have always said that growth is for a purpose—to make working people better off. I can confirm that GDP per person is set to grow more than was expected in the autumn, with growth of 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. That compares with a fall in GDP per capita in the last Parliament. By the next election, after accounting for inflation, people are forecast to be £1,000 a year better off. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I did not hear the Opposition that time!

We promised change, and we are delivering that change. The economy is growing, living standards are rising and inflation has fallen, but I am not satisfied with those forecasts. I know that the economy is not yet working for everyone and that the deep economic scars left by the Conservative party and their mates in Reform are still blighting the lives of too many people.

In today’s forecasts, unemployment is set to peak later this year and then fall in every year of the forecast period, ending at 4.1%, which is lower than it was at the start of the Parliament. However, young people in particular are still suffering from the aftermath of years of Tory mismanagement. In the last five years of the previous Government, the number of young people not in education, employment or training increased by 113,000. The number of inactive young people reached record highs under the Conservative Government, and over the last decade, apprenticeship starts by young people fell by 40%.

This Government will not leave an entire generation of young people behind. We are already taking action to prioritise young people with additional investment to reform apprenticeships and through the £820 million youth guarantee, providing young people with employment support and a guaranteed job. In the coming weeks, I will set out more reforms to undo the Tory legacy of neglect, and give young people the support and the opportunity that they deserve.

In the face of global uncertainty, we beat the forecasts last year. In the year ahead, the choices that we are making give me confidence that we will beat them again. In the year ahead, more of the choices that we have already made will come into effect: discounts on business energy costs; trade deals with India, the US and the EU; reforms to back our entrepreneurs; investment in our infrastructure; skills funding for further education; and more planning reforms—progress opposed by the Conservatives, opposed by Reform, opposed by the Liberal Democrats, and opposed by the Green party too. It is Labour and only Labour that has the right plan for our country.

Our plan for growth is grounded in a profound rejection of the failed economic dogmas of the past—the trickle-down, trickle-out thinking that produced ever-diminishing returns for working people. I know that an economy cannot be working if it is delivering for only a few people in a few places; I know that it matters where things are made and who makes them; and I believe that the working people who keep our country moving deserve a fair day’s pay for an honest day’s work.

Since the election, I have been making the big choices that will bring about the deep structural changes that our economy needs so that it works again for working people: the choice to take on vested interests and back the builders, not the blockers; the choice to increase public investment and protect our public finances with new fiscal rules; and the choice to give people in all parts of our country the opportunities that they deserve by reforming the Treasury spending rules in the Green Book to unlock investment in all of our urban, rural and coastal communities. Those are the right choices for our country—for security, stability and growth. Today’s forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that they are starting to pay off. I am clear-eyed about where the opportunities for the British economy lie in this Parliament and beyond.

In my second Mais lecture in two weeks’ time, I will set out three major choices that will determine the course of our economy into the future: to go further in strengthening our global relationships, breaking down trade barriers and deepening alliances with our European partners for a more secure and connected economy; to go further in backing innovation and harnessing the power of AI, so that entrepreneurs and innovators thrive here in Britain, and so that working people reap the rewards; and to go further in transforming our economic geography so that we can build growth on a broad and stable basis, spreading opportunity and unlocking opportunity in every part of Britain.

I came into politics because I believe in Governments who stand up for working people; that everyone, no matter where they grow up, deserves security and a fair chance to achieve their potential; and that being able to manage the bills, afford a home and pay for a holiday should never be too much to ask. When Governments lose control of the economy, as the Tories did, it is working people who pay the price—in their pay packets, in their bills and in their mortgages.

That is what the Conservatives inflicted on working people over 14 years. We had austerity, which cut off investment; Brexit, which cut us off from our closest trading partners; and Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget, cheered on by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—oh, he’s not here today. [Laughter.] Five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, and 11 plans for growth, and at the end of it all, it was the only Parliament on record where living standards were worse at the end than they were at the start, and there was a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That is the Conservatives’ legacy.

And make no mistake, the Tory tribute act on the Reform UK Benches would do exactly the same thing. They may have changed the colour of their rosettes, but the British people will not forget that they are the exact same people who wrecked our public services and our public finances in the Tory Government—the same people, the same policies, and the same disastrous outcomes for working people.

The Tories left our country, our people and our allies exposed. They had no plan and no intention to fund their pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. Reform UK would go one step further, by ditching our allies and siding with Russia, while the Green party wants to take us out of NATO and jeopardise our alliances. Green Members are shaking their heads. I do not know if they have changed their policy, but it was to take us out of NATO. Let me be clear: it is Labour and only Labour that can provide social justice, national security and fiscal responsibility.

In its forecast today, the Office for Budget Responsibility shows that we are set to reduce borrowing by nearly £18 billion compared with the autumn. This year we are set to borrow less than the G7 average—something that the Tories never achieved in any of their 14 years. The forecast today shows that public sector net borrowing is set to fall from 4.3% this year to 3.6% next year, then to 2.9%, 2.5% and to 1.8% in 2029-30. Even after funding other measures announced since the Budget, including the new special educational needs system that was set out by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary last week, headroom against the stability rule in 2029-30 has increased from £21.7 billion to £23.6 billion, and headroom against the investment rule is also higher at £27.1 billion. Debt is now set to be lower in every year of the forecast compared with the autumn. It is because of the choices that I have made to keep our public finances stable and restore our credibility that we can invest in the priorities of working people. That means investment in our communities with Pride in Place; investment in our schools to fix crumbling classrooms and give every child the education that they deserve; and investment in our NHS, to bring waiting lists down and with a record cash settlement.

I have never accepted that we have to choose between social justice and fiscal responsibility, because there is nothing progressive, nothing Labour, about spending £100 billion a year—that is £1 in every £10 of what the Government spend—just paying the interest of the debt racked up by the Conservatives. After their disastrous mini-Budget, our debt interest rate soared towards the highest in the G7. From my Budget to this forecast, while average yields rose for the rest of the G7, yields on UK Government debt fell. The Tories squandered Britain’s credibility. My plan is rebuilding it.

Already, because of the action that I have taken, we are expected to spend nearly £4 billion less on debt interest next year than was forecast in the autumn. If we stay the course and stick to our plan, and our debt interest returns to the G7 average—where it was before the Conservatives wrecked things with Liz Truss’s mini-Budget—we will have £15 billion a year more for the priorities of working people and to make working people better off. That is the prize on offer. That is the prize within our grasp.

This is the right plan—a plan that is more necessary than ever before in a world of uncertainty. It is a plan for a stronger and more secure economy; inflation and interest rates falling; resilient public finances; and in every part of Britain working people better off. Every additional patient treated in an NHS hospital, every child lifted out of poverty, and every breakfast club in every school is because of the choices that we have taken and because I have the right plan for our country.

Let this House be in no doubt: every pound that we have invested, every pound in the pockets of working people, and every pound that we have secured in this forecast today can be wiped out by a change of course. We must reject a return to austerity, protect our public services and invest in Britain’s future. We must reject the temptation of easy answers and reckless borrowing, protect family finances and get the cost of living down. We must reject the political instability that would put at risk all the progress that we have made.

My plan is the right one. I am in no doubt about how great the rewards can be if we stay the course. The forecast today confirmed that the choices this Government have made are the right ones: stability in our public finances, interest rates and inflation falling, living standards rising, more children lifted out of poverty, more appointments in our NHS, more investment in our infrastructure, a growing economy, and more money in the pockets of working people. These are the right choices, this is the right plan, and I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Chancellor.

Is that it? What utter complacency—a Chancellor in denial. She speaks of stability, but what planet is she on? She has lurched from putting up taxes to destroying growth and headroom, and then to coming back and putting up more taxes, with more growth destroyed. Round and round we go, like a fiscal twister, ripping up everything in its path. [Interruption.]

Order. I will hear the shadow Chancellor. People need to recognise that there are two sides—let us hear the other side now.

Thank you, Mr Speaker; they just do not like the truth—that is the truth of it.

As our economy bleeds out, what does the right hon. Lady do? She comes to this House with nothing to say and with no plan—unless, of course, doing nothing is a cunning plan to avoid those U-turns further down the line. She is weak. She has even stripped the OBR of its ability to assess whether she is meeting her fiscal targets. Let it be remembered that at this time in this Chamber, this weak and chaotic Government gave up on the British people.

The right hon. Lady has nothing to say to us today. This is not a spring statement—

More!

Order. Mr Gardiner, I expect better. We have to listen to you on a Thursday night; I do not need to hear you now.

No, they do not like it, Mr Speaker; they do not like the truth.

This is not a spring statement. It is a surrender statement. The Chancellor has the temerity to suggest that she is creating the conditions for renewed growth. She is rather like a dodgy estate agent standing in a crumbling building with the roof gone, the windows gone and the floor gone, saying, “Just think of the potential.” But that potential has been undermined by the terrible state of our public finances.

When it comes to the deficit, the right hon. Lady knows that borrowing this year is almost double that which was forecast at the time of the general election. She knows that the forecasts are predicated on the numbers that she has given to the OBR, which it has to accept. That includes squeezing spending at the end of the Parliament, and raising taxes and energy bills at the same time. We know that is unrealistic, and the reason we know it is because she and the Prime Minister have no backbone when it comes to taking difficult decisions. That is what we saw before the Budget: winter fuel payment—U-turn; welfare reform—U-turn; two-child benefit cap—U-turn. It is what we saw in a short period after the Budget: farm tax—U-turn; family business tax—U-turn; public houses—U-turn.

On the deficit, when the right hon. Lady rises again, will she tell the House how she will fill the £6 billion black hole in the special educational needs and disabilities budget? She mentions, quite rightly, the Iran war and the greater threats that our country faces, but could she explain how she is going to fund what we have been urging: 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament? How will she fund that—[Interruption.]

Order. Seriously, we need to hear this—[Interruption.] Oh, I can help hon Members if they do not want to hear it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The right hon. Lady says the cost of borrowing is coming down, but does she not know that the cost of borrowing in this country has been the highest in the G7 —[Interruption.]

Order. Somebody needs to switch their phone off; this is not acceptable.

Our borrowing is even higher than Greece’s. Indeed, if debt were a Department, it would be the third largest spending Department in Whitehall. That is money not going on the people’s priorities, but simply being flushed down the drain. The right hon. Lady puts great store in the latest forecasts on debt and says that it is coming down, compared with the forecasts back in the autumn, but if we strip away her dodgy definition of debt, we can see that it will be going up in just about every year of the forecast period.

The right hon. Lady has the audacity to praise her own performance. She points to growth, but does she not know that, only last month, the Bank of England downgraded growth for both this year and next year? A moment ago, she said that the Government had beaten the forecasts for growth from last year. The forecast at the beginning of last year was for 2% growth, but the growth outcome at the end of last year was 1.3%. By my mathematics, that is not an improvement. It should be of considerable concern to the entire House that the right hon. Lady clearly thinks that it is.

The right hon. Lady points to interest rates coming down, but does she not know that her ruinous inflationary policies have seen interest rates higher for longer, meaning more expensive mortgages for hundreds of thousands of people across our country? She was slightly coy about unemployment—because, of course, we know that it now stands at a five-year high. Under every single Labour Government in history, unemployment has risen, and this Government are no exception.

The right hon. Lady is fond of saying that she is simply asking people to pay a little more tax. Well, I do not remember the taxman phoning me up and asking me if I would awfully mind paying a little more tax. And what does it mean? It means workers struggling, employers laying off staff, and tens of thousands of the most talented people in our country going to other places, where they believe the opportunities are greater. That is what a little more tax means. And what has that tax done? It has destroyed and deeply damaged entire sectors of our economy. Hospitality has seen almost 100,000 job losses since this Government came to office, and that has particularly impacted our youngest people.

Youth unemployment is the highest in Europe for the first time in a quarter of a century. The dreams, aspirations and hopes of young people—of all those bright young faces—have been smashed on the altar of the right hon. Lady’s incompetence. What is her message to young people today? Her message today has been that her so-called plan is working, but what is the reality? Inflation? Up. Borrowing? Up. Spending? Up. Tax? Up. Welfare? Up. Unemployment? Up. All this speaks to the weakness and chaos of this Government. Is it any wonder that her so-called plan is not working? Our energy costs are among the highest in the world, and yet she is doubling down on net zero. Given where we are, the first thing that the right hon. Lady should do is get rid of those taxes on North sea oil and allow us to start exploiting those opportunities.

We have a welfare bill that is spiralling ever upwards, but what does the right hon. Lady do? She removes the two-child benefit cap. We have taxes heading to the highest level in history because of her choices, destroying the futures of men, women and children right up and down our country—and there is no contrition, no apology and no plan to do anything about it.

It does not have to be this way. At our conference, we set out how we can control public spending with £47 billion of savings, especially on the welfare bill, with some £23 billion of savings. We are a party that believes in work, rather than benefits. We are a party that will do something about it. We are a party of work; Labour is the party of “Benefits Street”. We will bring taxes down to kick-start the economy, abolish stamp duty, scrap business rates for businesses on our high streets, and give our young people a £5,000 tax cut. We have a cheap power plan. We will fix student loans and invest in apprenticeships. Though our golden rule, we will get on top of the deficit and, by doing that, grow the economy.

That is our plan. What is the right hon. Lady’s plan? The truth is that she has no plan, or, as her Health Secretary said, there is

“no growth strategy at all”.

Even if she did have a plan, she would be too weak to deliver it, given the psychodramas swirling around No. 10, the almost daily scandals visiting the door of the Prime Minister, the sight of a person once at the highest level in the diplomatic service being carted away in a car by the police, and Back Benchers calling the shots. The Chancellor’s credibility has gone. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff has gone. His Cabinet Secretary has gone. But somehow the Chancellor hangs on.

Through the chaotic fog, the drums are drawing ever closer. The British people deserve so much better. So, for the hard-working people in our country crushed by taxes, for those denied employment, for the farmers and the family business owners who have suffered in fear for too long, for every hollowed-out high street, for every young person robbed of their future, for every elderly person struggling to survive and for the generations yet to come, we say: go!

I know that the OBR did not publish the forecast until I sat down, but I still think the shadow Chancellor could have done a little bit better than that. To be honest, I was hoping that the Leader of the Opposition was going to respond today; after that performance, I expect she does, too! [Hon. Members: “More!”] Don’t worry; I’ve got more.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives set out their economic policy at their conference a few weeks ago. Well, they had 14 years to set out their economic policy, and it is because of their economic policy that they are now sitting on the Opposition Benches. Today’s performance is yet another reminder of how irrelevant the Conservative party now is. I hate to break it to the shadow Chancellor, but people stopped listening to the Conservatives a long while ago. And we can see why: because whether it is in office or in opposition, the right hon. Gentleman’s party and his leader have been wrong about the economy time and time again. They opposed economic responsibility and backed Liz Truss—wrong. They opposed closer ties to Europe and backed Brexit—wrong. They opposed cuts in child poverty and want to repeat austerity: wrong values, wrong economics—they are just plain wrong.

After last year’s Budget, the right hon. Gentleman’s leader predicted with characteristic foresight that borrowing would increase every year. She was wrong: borrowing is now coming down faster. That is faster than under the Tories—well, that is not difficult, because under them it went up—it is faster than forecast in the autumn and it is faster than in any other G7 economy. Last year, the Leader of the Opposition told us that energy bills would rise. She was wrong; they are coming down by £117 next month. She also told us that there would be no more Tory defections to Reform. How is that one going?

Let me let me return to the substance of the shadow Chancellor’s remarks—although I have had to reduce this section somewhat! He mentioned student loans, but he neglected to mention that he was in the Government who tripled university tuition fees, froze thresholds and oversaw higher interest rates, which led to the problems we are in today. On special educational needs, the Conservatives left a system in utter crisis, as every parent, every child and every school will tell you, so we will take no lessons from them. But in terms of where the money is coming from, that is set out today in the documents. Of course, the shadow Chancellor does not know that because he did not even bother listening to my statement.

The shadow Chancellor mentioned defence, but he neglected to mention that it was his Government who left office without any plan to fund their pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. It is this Government, with me as Chancellor, who are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war.

The shadow Chancellor mentioned the welfare bill. I have to say that that was a little bit rich, because he neglected to mention that the welfare bill rose twice as fast in the last Parliament and that he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. His Government broke the welfare system, and it is this Government who are fixing it.

The shadow Chancellor mentioned youth unemployment. As I said, there is more that needs to be done, after the Conservatives increased the number of young people not in education, employment or training by 113,000 and slashed the number of young people starting apprenticeships by 40%. We will take no lessons from them. They are the arsonists, not the fire brigade, and if they cannot be honest about the mess they made, no wonder they cannot recognise that we are fixing it.

Today’s forecast shows that debt is down, borrowing is down, inflation is down, and interest rates are down from 5.25%, where the Conservatives left them, to 3.75% today. And what about investment, living standards and growth? They are all up. Let me break it to the shadow Chancellor and to his leader: there is no blank page for the Tory party—no year zero. They gave us chaos and instability; Labour is fixing it. They gave us austerity; Labour is investing in Britain. They gave us 14 years of barely managed decline, and we are reversing it. We know that if they ever get the chance, they will do all of the same again: more chaos, more kids in poverty, and more and deeper cuts. It would be terrifying if there was any prospect at all that they would ever win an election again.

The Leader of the Opposition can keep turning up every week, but it is a total waste of time. Her party is the past and not the future. I do not know what is more pathetic: the culprits who jumped ship and joined Reform and its Russian mates, or the culprits who stayed in the Conservative party and pretended that the last 14 years never happened. Either way, the choices are clear: investment with Labour or austerity with the Conservatives; stability with Labour, or more chaos with the Conservatives—wrong leader, wrong choices, wrong plan. Only Labour has the right plan for our economy and for our country.

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

I have to say that the sound and fury from the shadow Chancellor is extraordinary, given that it was his Government who ran the country and its citizens into chaos, with interest rate and inflation increases under the Truss mini-Budget. I welcome today’s forecast partly because there has been so little speculation along the way, which I am sure the Chancellor, the markets, the public and businesses welcome. That is the stability and confidence that we need to see. The Chancellor laid out her three choices to promote growth. She will be appearing in front of the Select Committee next week, when we hope to probe her further. In the meantime, can she tell us which of those three areas to grow the British economy she is most excited about?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The biggest change that we can make is ensuring that growth takes place in all parts of our country, rather than just for a few people in a few parts of Britain. The changes to economic geography that we have started by changing the Green Book to give every part of our country the fair chance to get the investment and opportunity that they deserve mean that growth will benefit everybody, not just a small few.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The country is paying the price for two anti-growth Labour Budgets. Growth has flatlined, youth unemployment is up, and the cost of living crisis grinds on, pushing people and businesses to the brink. So we plead with the Chancellor: please, for the sake of our country, put a laser-like focus on getting a better trade and defence deal with Europe so that we can protect our country, get Britain growing again and end the cost of living crisis.

The Chancellor said that she will make an announcement about trade relationships in a couple of weeks, but the Government are already 18 months in. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to announce the Government’s intention to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union to kick-start growth, cut red tape for business and build ties with our reliable allies in the face of Trump’s chaos. Why didn’t she?

The spring statement comes at a critical time for our national and economic security. OBR projections will soon be out of date. Trump’s illegal actions in Iran this weekend will be felt in people’s pockets right here in Britain, with the cost of fuel and food set to rise. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to scrap the fuel duty hike, which is due this September. Why didn’t she?

Young people are angry and fed up. The next generation of young people could always expect that they would have a better life than the generation before, but that promise for today’s young people has been ripped away. Almost 1 million young people—the highest in more than 10 years—are now unemployed. We are facing a youth unemployment crisis. The Chancellor’s youth guarantee is simply a sticking plaster for the damage that has been done by the jobs tax. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to reverse the jobs tax changes that have undermined job opportunities for young people and part-time workers. Why didn’t she?

Graduates are being ripped off. They have studied hard—[Interruption.] Graduates are being ripped off—[Interruption.] They have studied hard, they have done everything they were told to do, but they are facing eye-watering repayment costs and they are struggling to get on in life. On this issue, it is a plague on all our houses—partisan point scoring does no favours to those young people. We have set out what we would do. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to end the repayment threshold freeze, putting £100 back in graduates’ pockets in the first year, rising to £210 in the third. Why didn’t she?

With great instability and conflict around the world and a move away from the rules-based system to great power politics, we must look urgently at building our national energy, defence and food security. In so doing, we can and must turn the necessity of building national resilience into strategic opportunities for economic growth. We welcome the fact that the Government have done a deal for helicopters with Leonardo, as a result of the calls from these Liberal Democrat Benches, especially hon. Friends from the south-west, who have raised this issue week in, week out. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to launch a new defence bonds programme as part of a plan to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. Why didn’t she?

Finally, I will come full circle. I said that the country has paid the price for two anti-growth Labour budgets. The OBR today is clear: the downgrade in growth in 2026 is bigger than the upgrade in the next two years combined. We have to stop the cycle of short-term Treasury tax grabs over long-term growth. Our United Kingdom is an amazing country and has enormous potential, but we cannot take that for granted. We must accept that we are stuck in a rut, in a doom loop of low economic growth, and that is a big problem. I urge the Chancellor to take the measures that I have outlined to protect our country, to get Britain growing again and to end the cost of living crisis.

The hon. Member gives less an economic programme and more a wish list of things that she would like to see, without any means at all of paying for them. She seems oblivious to the things that the Government are doing. She says that we should have a closer relationship with Europe, and I agree—I said it in my speech—yet she omitted to mention that that is exactly what the Government are doing. We have taken action, as the hon. Lady knows, with a sanitary and phytosanitary deal to back British agriculture and on Erasmus, and it is this Labour Government who are working with our EU neighbours to tackle illegal gangs and to improve our security.

The hon. Member calls for a big cut in taxes, but VAT at 20% as the standard rate is the rate the Liberal Democrats introduced when they were part of the coalition Government, and it has been ever since. We have provided £4.3 billion of support in business rates and further support for pubs and live music venues. If the Liberal Democrats want to deliver on this enormous unfunded promise, perhaps the hon. Lady would like to tell us which public services they would like to cut this time. They cut enough public services when they had a chance and were in office, but they are too scared to tell us which ones they would cut today. Is it the NHS? Is it schools? Is it investment in our regional transport infrastructure? Who knows? She will not tell us.

It is quite extraordinary to hear the Liberal Democrats having the nerve to raise student finance when they trebled tuition fees when they were in government and created the plan 2 scheme. In fact, it was a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State who oversaw that policy, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), was in that Cabinet meeting when they signed off that decision. We will take no lectures from them about how to support our young people.

The hon. Lady says that they have set out what they would do on student finance. Is that a bit like what they did in 2010, when they set out what they were going to do on student finance? In 2010, what was it that they were going to do with tuition fees? I think I remember. That’s it: they were going to abolish tuition fees. But that is not what they did, is it? What did they do? Oh, they tripled them. Why should we believe a word that the hon. Lady says now on student finance?

Some of us have not forgotten that they teamed up with the Tories to cut our police, cut local government and cut our armed forces spending. We are dealing with the consequences. This is why we are investing in our public services: to fix the damage that they did with the Conservatives. What have they been doing? They are opposing our investment in the NHS, because that is what it means when they say they want to reverse the tax changes that we have brought in. The only reason we have £29 billion more a year to spend in the NHS is because of the tax changes that we made. The Liberal Democrats need to understand that they cannot have one without the other. They oppose our plans to build more homes. They oppose our plans to make work pay. They opposed VAT on private schools to help the 93% of kids in our state schools. They are simply not serious.

I thank the Chancellor for her strong statement and, in particular, for her words on deepening our alliances with our European partners. This is crucial for bringing down the cost of food and for healing the economic self-harm done by the Conservatives. The Bank of England has said that her cuts to energy bills will help bring inflation down to around its target from next month. Will she commit to going further and continue to shield our constituents from global price shocks?

The Bank of England forecast that the actions that I took in the Budget last year would reduce inflation by around 0.4 percentage points, and that inflation will be back close to target from April. That reflects not just taking £150 off energy bills, but freezing prescription charges and rail fares. The events unfolding in Iran and the middle east have resulted, over the last couple of days, in gas prices going up by more than 60% and oil prices by more than 10%. That shows why our plan to take money off energy bills and ensure that our public finances are in a stronger place mean that we are in a better place than we would have been 18 months ago, after the mess left by the Conservatives.

Given what the Chancellor has just said about gas prices going up by nearly 50% in the past week, her Budget promise to reduce household energy bills by £150 will ring hollow for many people. If the cost of living is the real concern, is the biggest mistake not to increase taxes by £66 billion, which is the equivalent of nearly £2,300 per household? If that money is needed for public services, nearly all of that—£54 billion, in fact—could be got by reducing the welfare bill to 2019 levels. Is it sustainable to keep raising taxes on people in work in order to pay ever more benefits to people not in work?

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he left a massive black hole in the public finances. There had not been a spending review for years, and during that time inflation went through the roof because the Conservatives lost control of the public finances. We had to find the money to properly fund our national health service. It is a bit rich for the Conservative party to say that we should bring welfare spending down when it presided over a huge increase in welfare spending.

On the burden of taxation, our choices ensured that those with the broadest shoulders pay higher taxes. We got rid of the non-dom tax status and we are introducing the higher value council tax, VAT on private school fees and the energy profits levy. We are ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders pay the higher prices, rather than allowing the increases in inflation and interest rates in the last Parliament, which hit working people.

The plan that the Chancellor has set out this afternoon shows that inflation, debt and bills are down, and that headroom, growth and living standards are up. That is testament to a plan for stability that is working, but that stability would be undermined if she surrendered to the idea of the £47 billion-worth of unfunded tax cuts set out by the Conservatives, so will she resist those calls? As fiscal headroom opens up, will she look again at what can be done to drive down energy costs for small business and genuinely reform business rates, so that we are backing our wealth creators, and not gambling with the public finances, as the Conservatives did?

We are backing the innovators through the reforms that we made in the Budget last year to make it easier to list in London, and easier to raise finance in the UK. We have permanently changed business rates, so that we have a lower multiplier for high-street businesses and smaller businesses, particularly in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. We did that by putting £4.3 billion into the system. All of that money would have been withdrawn by the Conservatives.

Undoubtedly, every Government deals with different challenges, and I note that the Chancellor did not mention the challenge of covid in the last period of government. When I was in the Treasury, I did everything I could to support businesses with bounce back loans, and to support our public services, but clearly, covid significantly scarred the economy. When the Chancellor last stood at the Dispatch Box, the “Economic and fiscal outlook” said that growth this year would be 1.4%. It is now 1.1% and flat over the period. The big strategic choice that this Chancellor faces, as the world is different in her tenure in office, is whether she will grip welfare spending at a time of grave insecurity in the world, because an open promise to raise defence spending some time over a five-year period will not cut it for this country’s best interests.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the work that the previous Government did on covid, and of course it was right to support people with furlough and bounce back loans, but it was not right to hand money to friends and donors to the Conservatives through covid contracts. We are getting the money back that they wasted. I say again that it is a bit rich of the Conservatives—especially as the shadow Chancellor was previously the Work and Pensions Secretary—to talk about welfare spending when they presided over a 113,000 increase in young people not in education, employment or training. We have already made reforms to universal credit to narrow the gap between the health element and the standard element. That will ensure that more people are out looking for work, and employment has increased since the start of last year.

A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is a fundamental part of the British contract, but many self-employed people, and many of those on low wages, are paying to work because His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has failed to update its mileage rates for 15 years, while the cost of petrol, road tax and the rest has increased significantly. Can the Chancellor do what the Conservatives failed to do, and ask HMRC to update its mileage rates, so that working people are not paying to go to work?

I would be happy to arrange a meeting between my hon. Friend and the responsible Minister. I recognise that this is an issue; it is being raised with me by the trade union Unison, among others. This does not just affect self-employed people; it also affects other people in work.

In the three months to December, unemployment reached 5.2%, the highest rate for nearly five years, and youth unemployment has hit a staggering 16%. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues affecting businesses of all kinds across the country. The 2024 Budget added over £5 billion of employment costs on to retailers, almost half of which came from the changes to employer national insurance contributions, with the cost of employing a full-time worker in a retail job rising by 10%, and by 13% for those working part time. One in five people’s first job is in retail, so what steps are the Government taking to tackle these unaffordably high employment costs for the businesses that provide entry for young people into our job market?

What the hon. Lady fails to mention is that the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that unemployment will come down in every year of the forecast, and will end at a lower rate than it started. It would be a bit more plausible for her to make these points if she did not oppose everything we are doing to grow the economy, whether that is constructing a third runway at Heathrow airport or building the homes that families desperately need.

The rail fare freeze benefits constituents who have seen rail fares rise by 60% since 2010. Also, the recent announcement of two new railway stations in Newport East is warmly welcomed. Can I encourage the Chancellor to continue to invest in Welsh transport infrastructure?

Constituents in my hon. Friend’s Newport constituency will benefit when they commute to work or college, or travel to meet friends in Cardiff, Swansea, Bristol and elsewhere. In addition, we are building new railway stations and investing in new transport infrastructure in Wales with the £450 million that we announced at the spending review last year.

The Chancellor’s words on defence simply do not reflect the reality, at a time when the world has never felt more unstable. Every corner of our armed forces is being asked to find cuts. People in Gosport need only look out of their window to see that all our Type 45 destroyers are laid up in Portsmouth harbour, and this is the first year since the 1980s that we have not had a ship in the Gulf, at a time when the middle east is a tinderbox. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary is on its knees, and defence companies are being tied up with bureaucracy, dither and delay. The Chancellor has mentioned a couple of contracts, but so many of them are bogged down with dither and delay from this Government. She is gaslighting the British people. This is a disaster for our defence, and for our armed forces. When will she face reality?

I am the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are spending more on defence than the previous Government were spending. That is why I was able to announce a helicopter contract worth £1 billion yesterday. It is why a new frigate came from Rosyth last week, and it is why we have been able to invest in the Typhoon jets. I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives, when we are increasing defence spending and they oversaw a cut.

I welcome the changes to the Green Book to support investment in coastal and rural areas. Can the Chancellor confirm that they will lead to investment in transport infrastructure in places like Cornwall, to support the investment being made in our industries, particularly the £50 million going into our critical minerals strategy?

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has done to promote the investment opportunities in Cornwall. The Green Book means that for the first time, different parts of the country—urban, rural and coastal communities—will all have a fair chance of getting the investment that they need. This Government’s critical minerals strategy will have a direct impact—it is already having it—on Cornwall, where the National Wealth Fund is investing in lithium and tin, as I saw at first hand when I was there last summer.

We have just heard a 40-minute, self-aggrandising monologue on how wonderful everything is in the economy. Does the Chancellor have any clue how her tone-deaf monologue will have landed in the real economy, where growth has been downgraded, unemployment is soaring and the cost of energy has just spiked? There was nothing in her statement about what she intends to do on a strategic level when energy goes to the price it was during the height of the Ukraine crisis. Rather than reading her pre-prepared SNP attack lines, will she guarantee that she will step in and protect bill payers if those prices endure?

We have taken action to reduce energy bills by £150 from next month. As I said in my speech, because of the stability that we have returned to the economy, and the cuts in interest rates, in inflation and in the cost of Government borrowing, we are in a strong position to respond to the headwinds from the middle east and Iran.

The conflict in the middle east is a reminder of the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, which set the price of our energy bills for consumers and businesses; 80% of the time, gas sets the price of electricity. The £117 reduction in bills that the Chancellor announced in the Budget is welcome, but will she recommit to giving long-term stability to our energy prices, and to bringing bills down in the long term, by supporting investment in the generation of renewables and nuclear, in the expansion of the grid, and in battery storage, which will help domestic and industrial consumers at the same time?

I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for that important question. He is absolutely right: whether through the successful auction round 7 that we have just completed for investment in new renewable energy, or through the planning reforms to make it even easier to build grid connections and wind farms, we are taking action to secure our energy supplies. Through the spending review last year, we invested in Sizewell C and small modular reactors, which will be built in Wales by Rolls-Royce.

Does the Chancellor now accept that there is a correlation between increasing national insurance contributions on employers and higher unemployment, or does she still believe that those two things are not connected in any way?

There is definitely a correlation between the number of years that the Conservatives are in office and how much worse off working people are.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and her commitment to growth in all parts of the United Kingdom. Could she set out in a little more detail what Barnett consequentials arise from her statement? Does she agree that it is increasingly important that, in May, we elect a Government who will spend that money wisely, which means electing a Labour Government in Holyrood, led by Anas Sarwar?

In last year’s spending review, we set out a record settlement for the Scottish Government, as well as for the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. I can tell the House and my hon. Friend that, because of the decisions that we are making, I am able to announce an additional £900 million in resource departmental expenditure limits spending, and £20 million in capital departmental expenditure limits spending, for the Scottish Government over the spending review period between 2026-27 and 2028-29. Like her, I very much hope that it will be Anas Sarwar and a Labour Government spending that money, rather than the SNP wasting it and presiding over longer NHS waiting lists.

The Chancellor is like a rogue landlord who keeps squeezing the tenant with higher and higher rent, and all the while, the property is going to rack and ruin. I do not know who she is speaking to, but she needs to get out and talk to hard-working people who are hard up right now—people who are worried about their bills and the lack of good jobs—rather than the extremists she cosies up to for votes. The Chancellor’s next scheme for raising taxes on working people is to hike fuel duty at the pump. Will she cancel that measure, and give some relief to care workers, white van men and other hard-working people who get up in the morning and drive to work? They are the backbone of this economy.

May I be the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new role? I know that it was not the first job that he wanted, or indeed the second, but he makes a spirited intervention none the less. I am not sure whether he shared that one with George Osborne. I can offer one piece of advice: the thing about betraying your party is that you have to stop asking your old friends for advice. Perhaps, given that the right hon. Gentleman called his new colleague “Zia Useless” a couple of months ago, he needs all the friends he can get. It might have been a couple of weeks ago, but he used to be in a party that, just three months after losing office, was going to get rid of the fuel duty support. That was in the plans that we inherited, and we scrapped them. [Interruption.] Conservatives Members say that is rubbish, but it was in their last Budget. Indeed, it was in the right hon. Gentleman’s Budget and manifesto.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I absolutely agree that this year the British public will start to feel the difference that it makes to have a Labour Government. Will she expand on what she is doing to ensure that all dimensions of inequality—inequality of income, wealth, power and health—are tackled, and that the benefits are felt in all communities across the country?

The OBR confirmed today that, by the end of this Parliament, people will be £1,000 a year better off. That is compared with the fall in living standards under the previous Government. My hon. Friend’s constituency benefits from Pride in Place funding, through which we are investing in the places that were forgotten about and left behind during 14 years of Conservative government.

I hope the Chancellor will accept that I have challenged successive Governments over inadequate defence spending. If she does, will she also accept that it is not a wise idea to keep comparing current defence spending with the levels of defence spending “since the cold war”? We are not in “since the cold war” now; we are in a hot war in Europe and an incendiary war in the middle east. Does she know what percentage of GDP Mrs Thatcher spent during the cold war years of the 1980s? I will give her a clue: it was twice what we spend now in terms of percentage of GDP.

A year and a half ago, the right hon. Gentleman stood on a manifesto that had absolutely no explanation of how his party would increase defence spending. This Government have increased defence spending. I am surprised that he criticises that, rather than welcoming it.

I thank the Chancellor for outlining how we will finally turn the corner on the 14 years of suffering felt by many of my constituents and people across the country. Many people still complain about the cost of living, and they are impatient for change. I hope that, through what the Chancellor has set out this afternoon, we will start to see that turn. Rightly, we are seeing a change in business rates, but my constituent who owns Chocolate Dino has highlighted that central London rateable values are still high, while small business rates relief thresholds have remained static. That is having such a big impact on independent and small businesses. Can the Chancellor look into other areas to ensure that such businesses, which are the backbone of UK plc, can thrive?

In my hon. Friend’s constituency, thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty from next month because this Labour Government have chosen to get rid of the two-child policy that was introduced by the Conservatives and supported by their Tory tribute act friends on the Reform Benches. On business rates, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade or a relevant Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. The changes that we have made mean that there is a permanently lower multiplier for smaller businesses and high street businesses.

Many small and medium-sized enterprises add value to our towns and villages, but I am concerned about their survival. The Community Waffle House in Axminster is a community interest company that is struggling under the pressure of last year’s national insurance increases. Waffle Axminster boasts £3.9 million in public sector cost avoidance and value created, according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport wellbeing valuation for reduced loneliness. Will the Chancellor consider VAT relief to take account of the public sector cost avoidance by that CIC and other hospitality businesses?

This Labour Government have permanently reduced the multiplier faced by small businesses and high street businesses—the business rates system that we inherited from the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman mentions VAT. When Labour left office in 2010, VAT was 17.5%, and the Conservative Government, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, increased it to 20%. It has been there for 15 years. If his party wants to cut taxes, it also has to explain which public services it is going to cut. We have increased spending on the health service by £29 billion. That was the right decision, but it was only possible because of the tax decisions we have made.

The stability the Chancellor has brought back to our economy has allowed us to allocate record levels of infrastructure investment. Alongside the Green Book review, this creates the conditions for meaningful investment in previously left-behind places like Lancashire. Yet, as the review highlights, places like Lancashire that do not yet have a mayor can lack the capacity and capability to bring forward fully investable business cases. In recent months, myself, Lancashire colleagues and leaders of Lancashire combined authority have written to the Government asking for interim capacity funding to develop fully investable proposals. The need is urgent, so will the Chancellor meet me and colleagues to discuss how we can bring forward the game-changing growth projects that Lancashire needs?

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituents in Rossendale and Darwen, and he was also a big advocate for the reforms to the Green Book that we managed to bring in at the Budget last year. Because of those changes, we will now look more favourably at investment opportunities in rural areas, coastal communities and places that have been left behind. I welcome any suggestions for specific investments in his constituency, either through the British Business Bank, UK Export Finance or the National Wealth Fund, all of which have had their budgets expanded under this Labour Government.

The Chancellor stands there and says that living standards are up and the economy is growing, but people can see the reality in their everyday lives: unemployment up month on month and energy bills higher than when Labour came to power. The latest figures in fact show that per person, our economy is shrinking, yet she stands there and says she has

“the right economic plan for our country”.

Does she have any idea how that sounds to people out there who are working harder than ever, with less and less left over at the end of every month?

It is good to see the hon. Member still on the Conservative Benches—I thought she was going to be joining her Tory tribute act friends over there with the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). What the Office for Budget Responsibility document shows today is that people are going to be £1,000 better off by the end of this Parliament, whereas under the previous Government living standards fell, and GDP per capita is set to be 5.6% higher by the end of this Parliament, whereas under the previous Conservative Government GDP per capita fell.

My right hon. Friend will hear a lot from politicians today—although it appears not from Reform Members, because they have all gone—but does she agree that the most important people to listen to are not those making the sound and fury in this room but those who lend money to the Government? They believe that her proposals are worth lending money against, and for that reason, the amount we will be spending on debt interest is falling. Unlike the Conservative party, they think the UK is a good credit risk in comparison with other G7 nations. Will she say more about how she can bring electricity prices down to support the growth that she is all about?

My hon. Friend knows that if we can improve living standards and also reduce how much we are spending on servicing the debt racked up by the Conservatives, we will have more money to spend on the priorities of people in Chesterfield and elsewhere. The numbers today confirm that we will be spending £4 billion less on debt interest next year than was forecast even in the Budget just a couple of months ago, and that is because of the stability that we have managed to return to the economy. Under the Conservative Government, before Liz Truss, we were spending the average of the G7 on our debt servicing costs. That rocketed under Liz Truss. We have already managed to reduce some of that borrowing premium, but if we continue, we have a £15 billion prize on offer, and that will be money to spend in our communities, on the priorities of working people, whereas under the previous Government, we just spent more and more on servicing debt interest costs.

The result in Gorton and Denton shows that voters want bolder action from politicians against sky-high privatised bills and rents and want no families to be left struggling in poverty. Will the Chancellor listen and scrap her dysfunctional fiscal rules, starting with scrapping the overall family benefit cap, which still means that over 200,000 children are not getting the help they need to live if not a nice life, at least one without needless grinding hardship?

I believe in fair taxes, and I believe the wealthy should pay their fair share, but I believe in bringing that about in a credible way that actually delivers for our constituents. That is why, in my two Budgets, I have ended the non-dom loophole, charged VAT and business rates on private school fees, raised capital gains tax and introduced a high-value property tax, which I believe the Green party opposes in London. The hon. Member failed to mention her party’s policy on defence and defence spending. This is important, especially now. We know that the Green party wants to leave NATO. She does not want to say it, but it is her party’s policy.

Does the Chancellor agree that sound management of the economy has provided the fiscal headroom to invest in large infrastructure projects, in contrast with Scotland, where the SNP Government cancelled the Glasgow airport rail link and sold off the land at a loss?

To be honest, when the SNP gets involved in infrastructure projects like trying to build a couple of ferries, it all seems to go horribly wrong. That is why, despite the fact that the SNP Government have had a record settlement from us, NHS waiting lists in Scotland continue to increase, while in England and Wales, under Labour Governments, they are falling.

Business has been crushed by the taxes brought in by this Chancellor. Just a year ago, in a fairly gloomy forecast by the OBR, it was suggesting 1.8% GDP growth over the forecast period. That has now been reduced to 1.5%. If the central mission of this Chancellor—and supposedly this Government—is economic growth, how can she stand there today and say it is working, when it has been marked by the OBR that she is going in exactly the wrong direction, making all our constituents poorer? Can she please explain that to the House?

That is just completely wrong. What the OBR says today is that people will be £1,000 a year better off by the end of the forecast period and that GDP per capita will increase by 5.6% after having fallen under the previous Government. Yes, productivity growth was revised down at the Budget, because of the policies of the previous Government. It has not been revised today.

I was a young person while the Tories were in power, and the reality is that they locked my generation out of home ownership, living standards were worse than those of our parents, and the public services we relied on growing up were cut because of decisions made by their Government. I remember the mini-Budget, which meant that I saw interest rates on my student loan rise—a student loan that is so high because of the plan introduced by the coalition Government and because they changed maintenance grants to loans. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the Labour party can change this country for young people, who finally have a Government that will match their ambition?

When I visited Kettering with my hon. Friend recently, it was just ahead of the capital investment in new SEND provision in her constituency, so that more young people—some of the most vulnerable—can be educated locally in Kettering, with better outcomes for them.

On student finances, the last Government lost control of inflation, and, of course, student loans under plan 2 and other schemes are linked to inflation. Because we have reduced inflation, we will be reducing how much interest people pay on their student loans. That is the best way to help them.

You froze the threshold.

I hear some shouting from the Conservative Benches. Inflation went to more than 11% when they were in government, and they froze the threshold on plan 2 student loans—which they introduced —for many years.

The Chancellor raised a laugh at the start of her statement when she said she was following the right policies for this country—policies that have resulted in lower economic growth, higher unemployment, people staggering under an increased tax burden and businesses being damaged by employment taxes, and yet she has shown no change. Why has she not addressed the issues of lowering the cost of employing people, reducing the tax burden on hard-working people to help with the cost of living crisis, and reducing energy prices, which have been driven up by the net zero policies followed by this Government? Does she realise that people will be angered and amazed at her complacency today?

GDP per capita, which is what matters in people’s everyday lives, has been revised up by 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. Unemployment is set to fall in every year of this Parliament, and to be at a lower rate at the end of the Parliament than when it started. We are taking £150 off energy bills from next month. In the spending review last year, we announced a record settlement for the Northern Ireland Executive. I can confirm today that that settlement increases further, by £318 million over three years for RDEL spending and £10 million for CDEL spending, and that money can be spent on the priorities of the people in Northern Ireland.

I commend the Chancellor on her laser-like focus on young people, including on apprenticeship starts and maintenance grants. Will she work with the Education Secretary so that by the autumn, when the exact impact of this awful war in the middle east will be clear, we will know whether any help can be given to graduates, so that they can become the next people to get mortgages and to get on to the housing ladder?

The £800 million that we are spending on the youth guarantee, together with the increase in money we are spending on further education and apprenticeships, will all benefit young people, including the 60% of young people who never go to university. We are also reintroducing maintenance grants to help the poorest students and we are reducing inflation, which will mean that people pay less back every month on their student loan. My hon. Friend rightly mentions that we set out major fiscal policy in the Budget, but with the events unfolding in the middle east and Iran, we need to ensure we can fund all the Government’s priorities and all the priorities of our constituents.

We have heard several different discussions about defence today, but may I remind the Chancellor that yesterday morning an Iranian Shahed drone struck the runway at RAF Akrotiri? It was not taken out by any counter-drone technology—technology that was due to be included in the defence investment plan that the Minister for the Armed Forces informed me would be announced in autumn 2025. It is now spring 2026 and, despite the fact that we have had a Budget and now a spring forecast since the autumn, we have still not seen the defence investment plan. Will the Chancellor assure us that all the recommendations from the strategic defence review that the Government have pledged to deliver will be delivered in the defence investment plan when it is announced?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be able to do an awful lot more because we are increasing defence spending compared with the legacy that was left by the Conservative Government, and it will be the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war because of the decisions that we have made as a Government. Because of our Prime Minister’s decisions at the weekend, we are degrading Iran’s capability to continue these attacks.

I thank the Chancellor for her statement. The thing that animates my constituents most is the cost of living and the crisis in their living standards—a crisis that came about as a result of the failed economic policies of the Conservative party, whose record on living standards in the last Parliament was the worst on record. My constituents particularly welcome the action on energy bills, rail fares and childcare, but will the Chancellor confirm that she and the Government will continue to focus on driving up the living standards of my constituents through every future policy, piece of legislation and Budget?

People in Basingstoke will benefit when they commute to work on a train, when they pay for their prescriptions and when they get their energy bills, which are coming down next month. Reducing borrowing and the cost of borrowing means that we have more money to spend on the priorities of people in Basingstoke, rather than just paying the interest on the debt racked up by the Conservative party.

The OBR’s forecast has again downgraded oil and gas revenue. From March to November last year, it was downgraded by over 41%, and from November to March this year, it has been downgraded by another 20%. By 2030, we are now expecting only £100 million in tax returns from the oil and gas industry, which used to return billions of pounds every year, because production is falling and investment is going abroad. When the Chancellor meets oil and gas companies tomorrow—I hope she has a great meeting—they will tell her that they need the energy profits levy to be taken away, because it is costing jobs, investment and energy security. Will she listen to those companies or will she keep ignoring the sector?

Our country will continue to rely on oil and gas from the North sea for many years to come, but I encourage the hon. Lady to read the documents properly. The reason why the money from the energy profits levy—just that levy, not all the other taxes paid —falls is because oil and gas prices have fallen sharply since last year’s Budget. Of course, oil and gas prices have increased hugely in the last couple of days. The increase in oil and gas prices was the reason why the Conservative Government introduced the energy profits, and they used that money to take money off people’s bills—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady needs to go back and do her homework—that is just the money from the energy profits levy and the amount reflects the lower energy prices. As some of her colleagues have mentioned, those energy prices are unlikely to persist after what Iran has done.

The OECD and the International Monetary Fund have both recognised the importance of the Government’s fiscal discipline, which is important given the increasingly volatile global economic environment. Will the Chancellor set out more actions that she has taken with others across Government to control public spending, so that the Government can prioritise the long-term investments that boost our global competitiveness and dynamism, and fulfil our defence spending requirements?

By controlling public spending, we can get the cost of borrowing down, as we saw in the most recent public finance numbers. They showed the biggest ever January surplus—in fact, the biggest ever surplus—on the Government national accounts, meaning that we have more money to spend on people’s priorities because we are controlling spending and bringing in the tax revenue that is needed. That is the first time that has happened, and it is because of the choices that we have made as a Government.

The Chancellor refers to opportunities that young people deserve. However, hundreds of college students in my North Devon constituency have spent weeks unable to travel to college due to flooding and rail closures. Will the Government confirm that they will invest in their life chances by doing more to upgrade our transport infrastructure, especially our rural railway lines, such as the Tarka line in North Devon, because that infrastructure is not working?

I am happy to ask the Secretary of State for Transport or one of her Ministers to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about that specific issue in his constituency. As he knows, as a Government we are committed to increasing capital investment by £120 billion over the course of this Parliament, because we know about the importance of infrastructure, whether it is energy infrastructure to get energy bills down, rail infrastructure to get people to work or digital infrastructure to make the most of the AI revolution.

While I recognise the wisdom of increasing budget headroom and I very much welcome the record Budget settlement the Chancellor has given to Welsh Government, so that they can fund and improve public services, can she explain how she is ensuring that those with the most wealth pay their fair share, so that our Welsh Labour aspiration of “fairness you can feel” becomes a reality for my constituents in Llanelli?

I can confirm that because of the choices in today’s spring forecast, the settlement for the Welsh Government over the next three fiscal years will mean an additional £514 million RDEL and £15 million CDEL to spend on the priorities of the Welsh people. It is important to me and to this Government that we ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share. We have introduced VAT and business rates on private schools, we have got rid of the non-dom tax status, and we are introducing a high-value council tax to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share, and that, as a result, we need to ask for less from ordinary working people.

Small businesses play a critical role in the economy of places such as Ceredigion Preseli. As the Chancellor will know, increased energy costs have put real pressure on their ability to operate in recent years. In the light of events over the weekend and the crisis in the middle east, what consideration are the Government giving to additional support to help small businesses to meet rising energy costs?

We are only a couple of days into this conflict, and it is important to see where things go in the next few days. As I said in my statement, I am in regular contact with international counterparts right across the world, including in the middle east, with the Governor of the Bank of England, and with sectors—both maritime and oil and gas—that are most affected by what is happening. However, people can see from the actions of this Government—whether that is taking £150 off domestic energy bills or the extension of the supercharger to help energy-intensive industries with their energy costs, which will come in next month—that we are determined to help people. In addition, as I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), today’s spring forecast includes an additional £540 million of RDEL spending and £15 million of CDEL spending, which the Welsh Government can spend on the priorities of the Welsh people.

Through the National Wealth Fund and the Kernow industrial growth fund, this Labour Government have invested over £100 million in Cornish critical minerals and renewables, which in turn has unlocked vast sums of private sector investment. Does the Chancellor agree that it is precisely because of this Government’s careful nurturing of the UK economy that she can help unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger, and that while Opposition parties scurry around TV studios trying to talk down the UK economy, she is just getting on with the job of fixing the mess they created?

There are huge opportunities in the Cornish economy—in defence, energy and critical minerals—as I saw when I was in Camborne and Redruth and in other parts of Cornwall last summer, including visiting the South Crofty tin mine, which has received National Wealth Fund money. That, alongside the Kernow plan, gives me great confidence that the opportunities that exist in Cornwall will be invested in, both by this Government through our public finance institutions and by the private sector.

I want to raise the issue of the freezing of thresholds and its effect on the state pension. When the Chancellor froze thresholds in the Budget, she told Martin Lewis that some people would be pulled into paying tax, but would not have to pay small amounts of tax or do a tax return. The updated forecast now says that 600,000 pensioners will be drawn into paying tax this year, and that figure will rise to 1 million by the end of this Parliament. Could the Chancellor set out what the definition of “small amounts of tax” is, and what mechanism she will use to ensure that those pensioners do not have to do a tax return?

As I said after last year’s Budget, if a person just gets the basic state pension, they will not be paying tax. We will set out more details in the coming months.

In Portsmouth North, we inherited a new reality from the previous Government. People felt that new reality in the form of a closed shipyard, stretched households and Tory food banks that kept popping up everywhere. People were struggling with higher mortgages, high street shops and pubs were closing, and there were cuts to education, SEND and apprenticeships. I know that many are desperate for rapid change, but I hope they can see from our statement today that we are on the right track, with retail sales and wages rising, six interest rate cuts, defence investment backing jobs in my city, and a renewed focus on SEND, education and apprenticeships. Does the Chancellor agree that in coastal communities like Portsmouth, stability and long-term investment, not cuts, are how we build household confidence, put more money in people’s pockets and secure a future for my residents?

Order. To support me in getting more Members in, can questions please be short?

I know that my hon. Friend’s Portsmouth constituency will benefit from Pride in Place funding to invest in those places that were forgotten by the previous Government. It will also benefit directly from the uplift in defence spending, which will ensure not only our country’s security, but good jobs that pay decent wages in Portsmouth. Our reforms to the Green Book mean that coastal communities will get their fair share, and will get an opportunity to bid for funding to help grow their economy through the £120 billion that we are putting in for capital investment.

If lifting the two-child benefit cap is such a moral imperative for this Labour Government, could the Chancellor advise the House why only 20 months ago, a commitment to do so was entirely absent from the Labour party manifesto and why, 19 days after that election, Labour withdrew the Whip from seven of its MPs for the apparent crime of voting for that moral imperative?

I have always been clear that any policies that this Government announce will always be fully costed and fully funded. It was not until last year’s Budget that I was able to guarantee that. We have set out how that policy will be funded—through the gambling tax and by cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could advise the House why he wants 500,000 children to return straight into poverty.

We have heard a lot about young people today, but in my constituency, the thing that young people really want is the chance to own their own home. For years, they have been locked out of that because of sky-high mortgage rates thanks to the policies of the Conservative party. I welcome the six interest rate cuts that this Government have overseen. Will the Chancellor elaborate on what more we are doing to help young people in West Brom get on the housing ladder and to bring down the cost of borrowing?

I know that families and young people in West Bromwich and across the country want to get on the housing ladder. That is why we have committed to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament and why we have returned stability to the economy, allowing the Bank of England to cut interest rates six times. It is also why, in my Mansion House speeches, I have announced regulatory reforms to make it easier for banks and, crucially, building societies to lend more to first-time buyers, and they are doing just that.

The Chancellor must be concerned that none of the good news she has shared with us today is being felt by people in the real world. Inflation is down, but she will know that that does not suddenly make things more affordable, and interest rates are down, but she will know that millions will lock into higher-rate deals this year when their fixed-rate terms expire. Combine that good news with higher taxes, higher unemployment and a slowdown in growth, and it is no wonder that people still feel as squeezed this year as they did last year. If the Chancellor’s plan is working, when will people actually feel the benefit?

In every month since I became Chancellor of the Exchequer wages have risen faster than inflation. We have increased the national minimum wage and the national living wage to put more money in the pockets of the poorest people, and the interest rate cuts mean that a typical family getting a fixed-rate mortgage will be paying £1,300 less a year than when I became Chancellor. The OBR confirmed today that GDP per capita will rise by 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. I recognise that the legacy of the previous Conservative Government still runs deep and that it will take a while for people to feel the impact of these policies, but I am confident that this will be the year that things start to turn around.

Does the Chancellor agree that restoring confidence and hope for families in Wolverhampton and Willenhall is achieved through a stable economy, with borrowing, debt interest and inflation falling faster than expected, moving away from the chaos of spiralling mortgage rates and towards the stability of falling rates?

I was very pleased recently to spend some time in my hon. Friend’s constituency, where we met a family who are now able to get on the housing ladder because of the reduction in interest rates. Instead of living with mum and dad, that couple and their young child are now able to get a home of their own. That is only possible because of the stability that we have returned to the economy, giving the Bank of England space to cut interest rates six times since I became Chancellor.

The Chancellor claimed to be cutting debt, but she will know that paragraph 5.9 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” says that

“Public sector net borrowing is forecast to increase”

public sector net debt

“in each year, by an average of £92 billion”.

To avoid misleading the House, will she correct the record?

The OBR has revised down the level of debt in every year of the forecast.

I thank the Chancellor for her statement, and for the decisions she has taken to ensure the stability of our public finances so that we can improve our public services. As she will know, the number of individuals in the probation system is at an all-time high, with violent reoffending perpetuating the cycle of crime and leaving the public at risk. What steps will the Treasury take to drive down the number of staffing vacancies in the Probation Service, so that those in the service can work relentlessly to reduce reoffending and ensure the safety of the communities we represent?

As Chancellor, it was my responsibility to make sure that we had fair settlements in the spending review for every Department. That included a big uplift in the settlement for the Ministry of Justice so that we can invest in probation staff, in prison officers, and indeed in prisons, which were full to bursting point when we came into government because of the legacy of the previous Government.

It is not just an uncertain period for North sea workers; it is a crisis, and it has been a crisis for years. Investment has completely disappeared, jobs are being haemorrhaged and events make it even more clear why we need a home-grown energy supply and why we cannot rely on importing from overseas. Will the Chancellor, as she meets North sea leaders tomorrow, listen to their calls on the energy profits levy, give confidence on the future of the industry and ensure that my constituency and those across the UK do not continue to haemorrhage these jobs?

I am meeting representatives of the North sea oil and gas sector tomorrow because of the huge volatility we are seeing in oil and gas prices. Since the Budget, the OBR forecasts show a sharp fall in oil and gas prices, but we have seen some of that reverse in the past few days. If that continues, it will put pressure on the bills that all our constituents pay. It is important that we get the right balance between taxing profits and making sure that our constituents can fill up their car and pay their gas and electricity bills.

I warmly welcome that the UK will now, thanks to these Labour choices, spend £3 billion less per year on debt interest up to 2030. My constituents need to feel that in their daily lives, so will the Chancellor further outline how we will unlock the ability to tackle living standards by spending less to service debt? How might that support local infrastructure?

We are spending £100 billion a year on interest payments on Government debt. That is spending not on reducing Government debt, but just on the interest on Government debt, which is £1 in every £10 of what the Government spend. I think there are better ways to spend that money, and that is why I am determined to start bringing down the debt and, crucially, to reduce the interest payments on that debt. The OBR confirmed today that next year we will spend £4 billion less on interest on Government debt, because of the decisions we have made to return stability and give confidence to investors.

The spring statement began well by outlining the desperate international situation and by praising our armed forces, but does the Chancellor agree that her remarks would have been all the more credible had she announced that the dither and delay that has plagued defence spending over the past 18 months would be brought to an end, and had she set a date for the publication of the much-delayed defence investment plan?

It is a little rich for the Conservatives to talk about dither and delay when it comes to defence spending. They had 14 years and defence spending fell as a share of GDP. We are providing the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and that is the right decision in light of the challenges we face. Frankly, if the Conservative Government had made those choices sooner, we might not be in such a position today.

I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to reducing Government debt, the 95,000 children in Scotland being lifted out of poverty and the revival of Glasgow’s military shipyards, where we will build Labour boats, which, unlike SNP boats, will work and have real windows. Does the Chancellor agree that it is a disgrace that, despite more than £11 billion extra for the Scottish Government, NHS waiting lists in Scotland are at a record level and standards in schools are falling?

Some 95,000 children in Scotland will be lifted out of poverty, and today we have been able to announce a further uplift in the budget available for the Scottish Government. We can only hope that it is a Labour Government, not an SNP Government, who have the chance to spend that money. Otherwise, I fear more increases in NHS waiting lists and worse results for kids at schools, because that is the SNP’s legacy.

The Chancellor calls this the right plan, but for whom? Is it the right plan for farmers being taxed to death, WASPI women still waiting for justice, small businesses and hospitality firms barely surviving or hard-working childminders set to lose their 10% tax allowance? The price of energy is rising excessively because of the escalating conflict involving Iran. Families and businesses are already worrying about heating their home or filling their cars, and they have been given no hope—nothing—today. What they see is soaring public spend on housing and support for asylum seekers, and unachievable and expensive net zero spend while their own bills are rising. When will this Government put hard-working British families first?

The Northern Ireland Executive came to us asking for additional money this year to fund their priorities, which we have provided. Today’s settlement includes an extra £380 million in day-to-day spending and £10 million in capital spending for the Northern Ireland Government to invest. If the hon. Lady does not want that money, I am sure other parts of the country would like it.

Derby will be the home of Great British Railways, which, with rail continuing its journey back into public ownership, will be focused on serving passengers rather than profit. Under the previous Government, rail fares rose by 60% between 2010 and 2024. Under Labour, they are frozen. Does the Chancellor agree that bold measures such as that to tackle travel costs will help bring down the cost of living?

I was pleased in the Budget last year to announce the plan for Derby, alongside my hon. Friend and her neighbour the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the Mayor of the East Midlands. Derby will benefit from hosting Great British Railways, and we will all benefit from better train services under Great British Railways. Rolls-Royce will benefit from higher defence spending and higher energy spending, including on small modular reactors, bringing more good jobs paying decent wages to Derby.

Blairite policies told 50% of my generation to go to university. Looking back at those conversations, we see that rarely did anyone ever talk about who would pay for those students to go to university, or how the jobs market would then take on that amount of graduates. It is clear that the student finance system does not work, and the goalposts keep shifting with Government policies. I think there is a cross-party view that something needs to be done. Does the Chancellor view it as a serious issue, and what does she plan to do about it?

The view of the electorate just 18 months ago was that it was time to get rid of the Conservatives, because of the broken system that they had left, whether that was student finances, the NHS, our prisons or our crumbling schools. As a result, the hon. Member is sitting on the Opposition Benches, where I expect he will be for many years to come.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we saw with the shadow Chancellor’s performance that the number of times a politician points their finger is often inversely proportionate to the number of valid points they make? The valid points that really matter to my constituents in Rugby and the surrounding villages are that there have been six interest rate cuts under my right hon. Friend’s chancellorship, inflation is coming down, we have the highest growth of European nations in the G7 and far too much more to mention.

It was a real pleasure after the Budget last year to join my hon. Friend at a community centre in Rugby, where I was able to talk to his constituents about the benefits of the £150 cut in energy bills. The conversation I remember most from my hon. Friend’s constituency was with a woman who had lost her husband just six months before. She had four children and will benefit from the changes we made by getting rid of the two-child limit. That is a conversation I will not forget, and it is the difference we are making in government.

Monkton Elm garden centre, with its 400-cover restaurant employing 120 staff, has been hit by a £70,000 increase in its business rates this year as part of £178,000 in costs put on by the last Budget. If the Government will not accept the 5% cut in VAT that the Liberal Democrats propose—we would fund that by a tax on banks, by the way, not from cutting services—those at the garden centre would like to know whether the Chancellor will none the less extend the 15% discount to pubs on their business rates to restaurants? That would give our local businesses the support they need and give everyone the boost they want to see in our economy.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are conducting a review of how the Valuation Office Agency calculates business rates, including for our hospitality sector. The last time that the Liberal Democrats were in office and they had a choice over VAT policy, they increased it from 17.5% to 20%. I am not sure why the public should believe that this time it would somehow be different.

I thank the Chancellor for acknowledging the incredible contribution of the workforce at Rosyth to the roll-out of the Type 31 frigate last week. I also thank her for the ongoing investment in energy infrastructure, particularly as we see increasing challenges in the middle east coming towards energy bills. May I ask her to ensure, as she has up to now, that we keep an eye on that situation involving energy bills and, whenever possible, that we invest both for our future energy security and to help people in the short term when that is necessary?

It was a real honour for me to be able to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see the Type 31 frigates being built there. This Government are investing in defence, and in the skills of our young people so that they can get the jobs in these expanding sectors—unlike the SNP Government in Scotland, who are not investing in our young people. Too many defence companies are having to bring in labour from abroad because of the SNP’s dislike of defence spending.

For all the Chancellor’s words about forecasts, reality bites when the real unemployment figures are examined. The figure today is 5.2%, the highest since the pandemic, and youth unemployment is at a considerable high. Instead of relying on forecasts that are never, ever right, should we not be asking how many more people need to lose their jobs, and how many more young people need to go without one, before the Chancellor accepts that it is her policies that are not working?

The previous Government presided over a 113,000 increase in the number of young people not in education, employment or training, and the number of youth apprenticeships was cut by 40%. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that unemployment among young people is a challenge? It is because of the decisions that the previous Government made. That is why we are putting more than £800 million into a youth guarantee, it is why we are putting more money into further education—which his Government failed to do—and it is why we are expanding the number of youth apprenticeships. We recognise there is a challenge. The difference between our Government and the hon. Gentleman’s is that we are doing something about it, and they never did.

I thank the Chancellor for her statement, and welcome the OBR forecast that unemployment will fall to 4.1% by the end of the current Parliament. No doubt that will have been driven by excellent policies such as the youth guarantee and the apprenticeship reforms. The NEET rate remains stubbornly high, though, so may I urge the Chancellor to target any additional headroom that may be available at helping more young people into work and training? Investing in young people is good for them, good for society and good for the UK’s finances, and it is also the best way in which to reduce our welfare bill in the long term.

This Government are investing in young people, by ending the two-child limit, investing in further education—which was neglected by the last Government—and increasing the number of young people who can go on to study or take apprenticeships, and, indeed, through the youth guarantee, which is worth more than £800 million. As I said in my statement, though, we want to do more to tackle the legacy that we inherited from the Conservative Government to ensure that more young people have the opportunity of work, training or a college place.

Given what is happening in the middle east at the moment, there is a concern that petrol and diesel prices will spiral upwards. If that happens, taxation revenue on fuel will do the same. Can the Chancellor commit today to keeping taxation revenue at its current level, thereby reducing tax on fuel to help ease any future cost pressure?

I think it can be seen from the policies that we have introduced over the past year that we are determined to address the cost of living challenges that we inherited from the Conservative party, whether by freezing rail fares, freezing prescription charges, extending the 5p cut in fuel duty until September this year or, indeed, introducing Fuel Finder to improve competition between forecourts and bring down petrol and diesel prices—but of course, as I said in my statement, we are carefully monitoring the impact of what is happening in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that working people do not pay the price for that conflict.

We know that the volatility of oil and gas prices has driven the high cost of living over the last decade. We also know that renewables cut the wholesale costs of electricity because they reduce the amount of time for which electricity prices are driven by gas. Does the Chancellor agree that, given the inevitable impact of the events in the middle east, our drive for clean energy is the right thing to do both for bills and for economic stability, and that those who are advocating continual reliance on oil and gas, and not investing in clean energy, are actually committed to higher bills and to our continued reliance on foreign instability?

Oil and gas will play an important part in our energy system for many years to come, including oil and gas from the North sea, but we do need to improve our energy security. That is the lesson from Ukraine that this Government are addressing by investing in small modular reactors at Sizewell C, but also investing in wind farms and solar farms, because we have got to wean ourselves off foreign oil and gas and prices that are dictated by international markets. That is why we are investing in clean energy, and what we are seeing unfolding in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east shows how necessary those policies are.

A large part of my constituency’s economy depends on hospitality, tourism and our independent high streets. Those who run pubs, cafés, arts venues, restaurants and hotels are telling me that they are being squeezed from every direction, by higher employer national insurance, rising energy bills, and uncertainty over business rates relief. Does the Chancellor understand the damage that this is doing to communities like mine, and will she commit today to proper business rates reform and targeted support for hospitality and leisure?

The best thing we can do to support our high streets and small businesses is ensure that more people have more of their money in their pockets to spend not on the essentials but on the things that they want to do—for instance, in local shops in the hon. Lady’s constituency. That is why we are taking £150 off people’s energy bills, have frozen prescription charges, and are freezing rail fares.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Whether by delivering a record-breaking fair funding settlement for our council or backing Team Derby, this Government are definitely turning the page on years of brutal Tory austerity. However, many in our city still feel left out and left behind because of the depth of those austerity cuts. Will the Chancellor work to give every neighbourhood the tools that it needs, so that every place is decent to live in?

My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of the issue. We have done an awful lot in the last year and a half to bring down interest rates and ensure that people have more of their own money in their pockets—and there is more of that to come, with the two-child limit going from April, the £150 off energy bills from April, and last weekend’s changes in rail fares. But all that is against a backdrop of 14 years of people being made worse off by the choices of the Conservative party. I do not expect people to feel all the benefits of the changes we have made straightaway, but I believe that the changes that will come in the next few months will start to be felt in the pockets of people in Derby and across the country.

The Government want growth—we all want growth—but surely the Chancellor can see that the carbon tax that will result from extending the marine greenhouse gas emission regulations to the ferries, which are the economic lifeline to Northern Ireland, in circumstances in which there are no zero-emission alternatives, will add hugely to the consumer costs of my constituents and will disincentivise growth. Will she look again at that imposition, especially in view of the fact that the Scottish islands, which depend equally on the ferries, have been given an exemption?

It is important that we wean ourselves off oil and gas prices that are set on international markets, but I absolutely accept the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, and I am happy to suggest that the relevant Minister meet him.

The Liz Truss Budget in September 2022 affected many homeowners, with mortgage rates shooting up and the average two-year fixed rate exceeding 6%. When I was working in the mortgage industry, I saw the impact of that on working people’s finances. That is still being felt, but does the Chancellor agree that it is because of the actions of this Labour Government in restoring economic stability that we have seen six interest rate cuts since the general election—a welcome relief for many? The Opposition parties, by contrast, have no credible plan, and would return this country to the devastating days of Liz Truss.

My hon. Friend speaks with authority about mortgage costs, given the jobs that he did before he became a Member of Parliament. It is true that, since the general election, somebody getting a fixed-rate mortgage will be paying £1,300 less a year than they were when we came into office. That means they have more money to spend on their high streets, on their families and on the things that matter, rather than just paying for the essentials, the price of which went up under the Conservatives.

Economic policies introduced by the previous Government piled more and more pressure on my generation, adding to intergenerational unfairness, and nowhere is that more clear than with plan 2 student loans; to declare my interest, I still owe more than £40,000. The policy proposed by the Conservative party will not do anything to alleviate the cost of living pressures on young people. Given the better economic outlook that we have seen today, will the Chancellor meet me and other MPs who are concerned about the plan 2 student loan system to talk about how we can make the system fairer and more sustainable?

To help the generation that my hon. Friend speaks about, we have introduced the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and we are also bringing down interest rates and inflation. That makes it easier to get on the housing ladder but also, crucially, reduces the interest rates on both plan 2 student loans and other students loans, the threshold for which was frozen for 10 years under the previous Government.

On days like this, I am particularly grateful that NHS waiting lists are falling. Although it seems a long time ago that we heard from the shadow Chancellor, I was very concerned about his blood pressure; he is no longer in his place, so I hope he has gone to get that checked.

It is important that we take a breath and look at what the economy is actually doing. Borrowing is down, inflation is down and headroom is up. I particularly welcome today’s news from the OBR that investment in housing, as part of the economy, is up. Does the Chancellor agree that we need to continue to invest in housing to make sure that people’s aspirations to buy their own home are supported by this Government?

My hon. Friend is right about the shadow Chancellor’s blood pressure—but, frankly, I am worried about his future employment prospects.

NHS waiting lists are falling because of the money that we have put in, but my hon. Friend makes a point about overall investment in the economy. After lagging behind pretty much every other advanced country in the world, since the general election we have had the fastest investment growth in the G7.

For the final question—the one we have been waiting for—I call Chris Vince.

I thank the Chancellor for her statement about two hours ago. Fortunately, my Shakespeare quote for the day is “brevity is the soul of wit”, so I will be very quick. We know that the national debt soared under the last Government, and that £1 in every £10 is spent on servicing that debt. What difference can we make to public services in Harlow if we can spend less on debt repayment and more on those services?

It is not Shakespeare, but I always say, “Save the best till last.” If we can spend less money on paying the interest on debt, we will have more money to spend on our NHS, on our defence and on keeping taxes down. That is only possible if we return stability to the economy, and the OBR forecast shows that we have the right plan. Inflation and interest rates are coming down, while Government borrowing costs, Government borrowing and Government debt are on a downward path. That compares with the situation under the previous Government, who lost control of the public finances and, as a result, lost control of family finances. In 18 months, we have begun to turn that around. Is there more to do? Absolutely—but we have started on that course. If we stick to the plan, the prize at the end is huge.