The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones) With your
permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement
to the House about the action the Chancellor will take this week to
fix the foundations and rebuild Britain. Economic growth and modern
public services can only be built on strong foundations. That is
why this Government have brought political and economic stability
back to Britain. After years of chaos from the Conservative
party—chaos that...Request free trial
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury ()
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make
a statement to the House about the action the Chancellor will
take this week to fix the foundations and rebuild Britain.
Economic growth and modern public services can only be built on
strong foundations. That is why this Government have brought
political and economic stability back to Britain. After years of
chaos from the Conservative party—chaos that cost families,
businesses and public services dear—the British people are now
rightly looking to this new Labour Government to clear up the
mess from the last Government, fix the foundations and rebuild
Britain. That is the change that my party promised the country,
and it is the change that we will deliver.
To deliver that change, the fiscal rules that the Chancellor will
set out this week will establish the basis for stable fiscal
policy, meaning careful management of day-to-day spending and
responsible long-term plans to invest and grow the economy.
As we committed to in our manifesto, the Government will have two
robust fiscal rules that will guide the decisions we take. The
first is our stability rule: we will pay for all day-to-day
spending on public services from receipts. The budget was last in
surplus under the last Labour Government, and this Labour
Government will return the public finances to that position. The
second is our investment rule, which will get debt falling as a
proportion of our economy. It will ensure that we can secure the
investment that our economy needs to grow, and to generate jobs
and opportunities for people across the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, while maintaining a strong fiscal
anchor and ensuring that our debt burden falls over time.
The plans that we inherited from the last Government would have
seen public sector investment decline to the lowest level in more
than 10 years. The path of declining investment is the path of a
declining nation, and we refuse to follow it. Instead, we will
seize the huge opportunities of the future to support the
enterprise and talent that this country creates.
The Government recognise that sustained public investment is a
crucial driver of long-term economic growth, giving the private
sector the confidence to invest too, but our ambitions for public
sector investment must be balanced against the need to maintain
debt on a sustainable trajectory and ensure that we invest every
pound of taxpayers' money responsibly. That is why I will deliver
a 10-year national infrastructure strategy next spring, working
with colleagues across Government, the nations and regions, and
with our mayors and the private sector, to set out a robust
long-term strategy for sound investment. That is also why our new
approach to overlapping multi-year spending reviews will improve
the way that we allocate and spend capital, and why the
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I will lead the new
national infrastructure and service transformation authority,
which will drive better delivery of major projects and
infrastructure across the country. In addition, there will be the
work of the new office for value for money and the National Audit
Office. Those robust guardrails will ensure that our capital
spending is value for money, and that our financial investments
deliver a positive return for the Exchequer.
Finally, the Chancellor has been listening to the views of
institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, and to
expert economists. As she has set out, that is why the Treasury
has been reviewing the right measure of debt to target in the
fiscal rules ahead of the upcoming Budget. The details of that
policy will be announced to the House in the Chancellor's
statement on Wednesday, alongside an economic and fiscal forecast
produced by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. In
the usual way, the fiscal rules will be published in a draft
charter for budget responsibility, on which Members will vote in
due course. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker ()
I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
5.32pm
(Grantham and Bourne)
(Con)
I wondered whether the Chancellor's announcement of changes to
the fiscal rules would survive the weekend, given the five
fictitious freeports that came and went. It was a cautionary tale
about the uncertainty and confusion that can be created when
policy is not announced in the proper way in Parliament. I
welcome the delayed statement by the Chief Secretary to the
Treasury, and I am grateful for advance sight of it.
Making a £50-billion announcement at an overseas conference, and
not at a fiscal event in this House, has understandably and
notably moved markets, creating further uncertainty for an
already nervous business community. Although the Chancellor
announced change last week, she did not provide any details about
what that change would be—a common approach by Labour that is now
coming back to bite them as the realities of government set in.
The Prime Minister has admitted as much in recent days, speaking
of the need to “embrace…fiscal reality” by adopting measures that
were never listed in Labour's manifesto. In fact, the Chancellor
explicitly said before the election that she would not change the
fiscal rules because that would be “to fiddle the figures”. By
going ahead with this latest U-turn and broken promise, she has
compromised trust and credibility ahead of her first Budget.
That joins the long list of promises already broken by the Labour
Government in such a short time: the promise to cut energy bills
by £300—broken; the promise that their manifesto was fully
costed—broken; the promise to be on the side of pensioners—so
obviously broken; and we know that their promise not to raise
taxes on working people is about to be broken, too. Try as they
might to sell a different story, just like Government bonds right
now, people ain't buying it.
We are left in the ludicrous position in which the UK—the
sixth-largest economy in the world—does not have an operative
definition of public debt. Quite understandably, markets have
responded to this latest uncertainty by applying a premium to UK
sovereign debt at a time when they have been discounting the
sovereign debt of our international peers. The markets are also
perplexed as to why these changes were announced without an
accompanying OBR report. In the words of the Chancellor,
“Never have a Government borrowed so much and explained so
little.”[—[Official Report, 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c.
941.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=719&ColumnNumber=941&House=1&ExternalId=330B21E1-9EB4-458A-9161-39F033AB54CD)
The Government may think that this will all go unnoticed, and
that most people do not know enough about the fiscal rules to
know what is really going on here, but let me be very clear: the
people will know about this. They will know it and feel it when
interest rates stay higher for longer. Treasury advice to us was
consistently clear: interest rates would stay higher if the rules
were changed. What advice did Treasury officials give the Chief
Secretary to the Treasury about the impact on interest rates?
Does he agree with Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal
Studies, who said that the change will mean
“more debt, more debt interest”,
and that it is “no free lunch”?
Of course, we all want to see investment in our public services
and infrastructure. We oversaw the largest ever increase in
funding for the NHS, we increased defence spending to the highest
levels since the cold war, and we attracted the second-greatest
foreign direct investment in the world, but we sought that
investment with a view to boosting productivity by investing in
technology—that approach has now been scrapped by Labour—and
spreading opportunity around this country through freeports and
investment zones. This Labour Government are quick to spend but
unwilling to explain.
Finally, on behalf of the British people, and the markets, which
are watching this statement so very nervously, I ask the Chief
Secretary to the Treasury: what definition of public debt is the
UK offering to lenders today, and how much do the Government plan
to borrow under an expanded definition? He will say that we have
to wait for the Budget, but the Chancellor did not wait last
week, so why should we?
I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but he has some brass neck
to stand up in this House and tell this Government how to behave
after his party's maladministration over the last 14 years. May I
politely point out that he might be getting slightly ahead of
himself? The Chancellor has not set out the detail of the fiscal
rules in advance of the Budget; she will do it in this House, in
the Budget on Wednesday, and I encourage him to wait for that
information. He painted a picture of the country performing so
well under his party's leadership, but he may want to reflect on
why he lost the last election so badly.
Dame (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As Chair of the Treasury Committee, which has responsibility for
scrutinising the Budget, I find the timing of this statement a
bit frustrating, as we will have questions that presumably cannot
be answered until Wednesday. Will the Chief Secretary explain how
the guardrails will work? There is the national infrastructure
and service transformation authority, the office for value for
money and the National Audit Office. What role will each play in
reassuring the markets, so that an autumn “sniffle”—that is
PSNFL, or public sector net financial liabilities—does not become
a winter cold?
I know that the Chancellor looks forward to giving evidence to
the Treasury Committee following the Budget in the normal way. To
answer the question, the national infrastructure strategy will,
for the first time, bring together all the infrastructure and
major project asks of Whitehall Departments into one place
alongside the economic infrastructure assessments. This will
inform the multi-year spending reviews, which will now overlap,
so that when an election comes up, we do not again end up with a
Government making no spending plans whatsoever, or announcing a
load of projects when there is no money to pay for them. We are
confident that this better approach to allocating capital will
mean that investment under this Government will improve the
productivity of our public services and the growth of our
economy, and mean a better return for British taxpayers across
the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker ()
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
(St Albans) (LD)
Under the Conservatives, the fiscal rules changed five times in
seven years, so a change to fiscal rules is not that unusual in
and of itself. However, does the Minister agree that what would
be completely unforgivable is a repeat of the Conservatives'
disastrous mini-Budget, in which they tried to pursue £40 billion
of unfunded tax cuts, and which left a long shadow on our public
finances? Will he assure us that any additional borrowing that
the Government seek will only be for productive investment that
will generate growth and fix our crumbling hospitals and
schools?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and share her continued
anger about the behaviour of the last Conservative Government,
because as she and the whole House will know, our constituents
are still paying the price of that Government's chaos and
failure. That is why the first Act of this Labour Government— the
first Act that I took through this House—was the Budget
Responsibility Act 2024, which locked in the power of the Office
for Budget Responsibility to hold this Government and future
Governments to account. If we ever again ended up in a position
where Conservative Ministers decided to ignore independent checks
and balances, the OBR would be able to report its view to this
House independently, so that Parliament could hold that future
Government to account. I end by pointing to our first fiscal
rule, which is that we will pay for day-to-day spending with
receipts. Again, that means that we will not end up in the
situation that we were in under the last Government, when month
after month, borrowing just paid the bills for which they did not
put money aside.
Dr (Loughborough) (Lab)
Fiscal rules are a tool for responsibility, and we should all
welcome rules that help us to act responsibly and invest
responsibly. The rules and the accounting definitions that
underlie them are not matters of faith, preordained by the
Almighty and passed to us on stone tablets; they are there to
help us make responsible decisions. Does my right hon. Friend
agree with me, and with the former chief economist of the Bank of
England, the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and George
Osborne's former Treasury Minister, that we should welcome
changes to the fiscal rules that promote investment?
I will avoid the suggestion that we might go back to putting
things on stone tablets if I may, but I will accept the
invitation in my hon. Friend's question, and say that after 14
years, we have seen the failure of the approach taken by the last
Government. I noted in my statement that public sector investment
would now have been at its lowest in 10 years, under the plans of
the now Opposition. That has been a failure for the economy and
for the British people, and this Government will rectify it.
(Harborough, Oadby and
Wigston) (Con)
Before the election, the Chancellor said that she would not
change the measure of debt in order to borrow more, but now she
is talking about doing exactly that. Before the election, she
said that she would not increase national insurance, but now she
is talking about doing exactly that. Before the election, Labour
steered people away from the idea that the Government would cut
the winter fuel payment, but they have already done exactly that.
They said, before the election, that they would not increase
taxes on working people, but now they are planning to do exactly
that. Does the Minister understand why so many of my constituents
feel that they were misled?
The hon. Member's constituents will note at the Budget on
Wednesday that this party honours its promises—the promises, set
out in its manifesto, to protect working people. He might want to
reflect on the way that his party failed his constituents at the
last election before trying to lecture this Government.
Mr (Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
I welcome measures that allow for more long-term investment to
improve our economic performance and public services, but I would
like my right hon. Friend to address two issues. Is housing one
of the areas where more investment might be allowed, to help us
achieve our target of 1.5 million more homes in this Parliament?
Secondly, will he ensure that where there is public investment,
we try to make that investment produce orders for UK companies,
rather than many of the orders going abroad? That is the way to
create real growth in our economy.
We made a commitment to delivering 1.5 million homes, and we will
do just that. On the second part of the question, the whole
purpose of the national infrastructure strategy and the
overlapping multi-year spending reviews is to give investors and
suppliers confidence that when the Government say something will
be delivered, it will, so they can invest and plan on that basis,
to help improve the British economy. Frankly, they are starting
from a position of complete dismay because of the failed promises
of the last Government; we will rectify that.
Sir (North Cotswolds)
(Con)
If we could stick with the here and now, what the Chancellor
announced caused the bond markets to move almost immediately by
almost 0.5%. That means that interest rates will stay higher for
longer. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that will
cause hardship to today's mortgage payers and tomorrow's
generation of taxpayers, because they will have to repay this
extra debt?
What I can confirm is that what affected interest rates and
mortgage payments so severely was the chaotic behaviour of the
hon. Gentleman's party in government before the last election.
That is why we have had to legislate to make sure that if they
ever returned to Government, they could not behave in similar
ways. We are taking a responsible approach to public spending, as
I have set out today, and we will never return to the activities
of his party in government.
(St Austell and Newquay)
(Lab)
There appears to be some confusion among those on the Opposition
Benches when talking about their track record and about the
records they have broken on the relationship between the nominal
and the real. On the point about being realistic, does the
Minister agree that in our reform of the fiscal rules, we must,
unlike the last Government, provide that realism and stability
and ensure that wild unfunded commitments, such as the abolition
of national insurance, do not occur?
My hon. Friend points rightly to the £22 billion black hole that
we are having to clear up after the Tory party. In the Budget on
Wednesday, the Chancellor will set out how we are resetting
public finances and fixing the foundations, so that we can get on
and deliver our manifesto.
(Angus and Perthshire Glens)
(SNP)
In outline terms, we welcome what the Government are seeking to
do. It is important to raise the ability to generate capital
infrastructure investment. Scotland invests 42% more than the UK
average, and the UK average is 50% lower than the OECD average.
That issue is a priority, but the Government's move will fall on
stony ground if on Wednesday the Chancellor continues with her
priority to not lift people out of poverty and to go by exception
after small businesses that take an income from that business by
raising the cost of employment. With the four signal capital
investment projects all being in England, I am moved to ask:
what's in this for Scotland?
I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman tell the House that he
welcomes the positive change that this Labour Government in
Westminster are delivering to the Scottish people. I agree with
him. On early announcements, I can point to GB Energy and the
huge commitments we have made on energy infrastructure, which we
know will be important to the Scottish people. We absolutely
recognise that the Scottish economy has a huge contribution to
make to the whole economy of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
and we look forward to working with the Scottish people to make
that a reality.
(Reading Central) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend on his work on stability and
investment. Would he like to say a little more about the
challenging inheritance he has received from the previous
Government, and just how dreadful that has actually been?
I welcome my hon. Friend's question. [Interruption.] I know that
Opposition Members find it uncomfortable, but it is a matter of
fact that we will return to time and time again, because the
sheer truth of it is that the last Government made promise after
promise to the British people, knowing that they did not have the
money to pay the bills. It is shameful, and the sooner they come
to the House and apologise for their behaviour, the better it
might be for them in the long run.
(West Suffolk) (Con)
If the Minister is so confident in his fiscal rules, will he take
this opportunity to commit to the House that the 10-year gilt
yield in this Parliament will not exceed the maximum it was over
the past 10 years?
The hon. Gentleman is trying to be clever, but he is inviting me
to speculate on the Budget. He will have to wait until
Wednesday.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that sustainable growth cannot come from
short-termism and that the falls in public sector investment
planned under the last Government would have exacerbated, rather
than ameliorated, the economic chaos they got us into?
My hon. Friend is right. We have a choice at this Budget either
to continue with the failed policies of the previous Government
or to change them. The British people will not be surprised that
our decision is to change them, reflecting on the fact that the
cut in investment under the previous Government has led to poor
productivity in public services and a lack of growth in the
economy. That serves nobody.
(North Antrim) (TUV)
This statement speaks of giving the private sector the confidence
to invest. Can the Minister explain to the small businesses in my
constituency how it will give them confidence if the first act of
this Government is to soak them with further national insurance
increases? Will that not dent confidence, rather than increase
it, along with sustained high interest rates? When he speaks
about multi-year spending reviews, does that mean that he now
expects the devolved Governments to produce multi-year budgets,
which is something that the Stormont Government have been
reluctant to do?
I obviously cannot speculate on the Budget, so I invite the hon.
Gentleman to come back to the House on Wednesday for the answer
to the first part of his question. On the second part, he might
know that I lead for the Government on our relationship with the
devolved Governments. I have met Finance Ministers from Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland, most recently in Belfast, where we
had a productive meeting. They were all very clear that the reset
in the relationship between them and the Westminster Government
was positive, given the failed relationships of the past. We made
some progress in that meeting, and we will make further such
progress in the Budget.
(Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
Is it not clear that the ruling economic orthodoxy has let this
country down over many years? How else can we explain the fact
that in 24 of the last 30 years, the UK spent less on investment
than any other G7 country? In particular, in post-industrial
areas like mine, the investment simply did not come. I encourage
the Minister to break with the prevailing orthodoxy and ensure
that we achieve the appropriate investment levels and direct that
investment particularly to the north, the midlands and
elsewhere.
My hon. Friend has invited me to answer the question, “Why wasn't
there investment over the last decade or so?” Quite frankly, it
is because of the choices of the Conservative party. This Labour
party in government is taking a different set of decisions and we
will set out the detail on Wednesday.
(Wokingham) (LD)
First, I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire
hospital, and I have a family member who is a shareholder in a
health company. As Lord Darzi said, the Conservatives have failed
to provide proper capital funding for our NHS. I thank the
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Minister
for Secondary Care for their engagement with me and other MPs on
the review of the new hospital programme. Will the Chief
Secretary to the Treasury guarantee that the changes to the
fiscal rules will mean that my constituents can see new and
immediate funding for the Royal Berkshire hospital?
The hon. Member asks me so politely, but he will know that I
cannot guarantee anything in advance of the Budget. However, it
sounds as though he has already experienced the positive way in
which this Government are approaching how we will repair the NHS
and get it back on its feet, both by getting junior doctors off
the strike line and back into wards and by investing in hospitals
for the future. I know that he will look forward to the
announcements in the Budget on Wednesday.
(Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Before I became an MP, I led services for very vulnerable people
and, unfortunately, came into close contact with gaslighting. As
a new MP, I am afraid that my contact with gaslighting is not
diminishing, and I slightly despair at what I am seeing from
Opposition Members. While I was out canvassing over the weekend
and talking with residents on Ken Road in Southbourne, I met a
constituent who said, “We knew it wasn't going to be pretty and
you were going to inherit a mess, and we knew that it would be a
long haul to get things right. But we were sick and tired of
politicians who weren't taking the big decisions and investing in
the long term.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should
listen to more of our constituents, like the person I just
mentioned, who happened to vote Labour on 4 July for the first
time in her life?
I thank my hon. Friend, and I thank his constituent for putting
her trust in this Labour Government. As the Prime Minister said
today, this Government will “run towards” the problems, as
opposed to running away from them, as the Conservative party did.
That will mean difficult decisions at the Budget on Wednesday to
deal with the mess that we inherited, to reset public finances
and to be able to start to deliver our manifesto. But this
Government will take those decisions and we will announce the
detail on Wednesday.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I want to ask what the
legacy of this will be. Will he further outline how the change to
the fiscal rules to allow for more efficient borrowing will not
simply pass more debt on to, for example, my six lovely
grandchildren and everybody else's grandchildren, who already
face a scaled-back welfare system and increased costs of living
before they even earn their first pay cheque? How will the
Minister's so-called guardrails not simply be barriers to future
generations owning their own homes and making ends meet? I am
thinking of the ones who come after.
I thank the hon. Member for his question. He and his constituents
will know, as much as mine do, that the problem for this country
before the election was that the last Government had to borrow
each month to pay for bills that they did not have the money to
pay for, and that they made a whole list of promises across the
country that they knew they could not pay for. That is why we
have the £22 billion black hole, and why our first fiscal rule is
that day-to-day spending will be paid for from tax receipts by
the Exchequer. We will put the public budget back into surplus so
that we are not in a doom loop of borrowing and borrowing just to
keep ahead of ourselves each month. Where the Government do
borrow, we will do so for productive investment to modernise our
public services and to get growth back into our economy.
(Coventry South) (Ind)
New research published this month by the Institute for Fiscal
Studies shows that reversing the two-child benefit cap would lift
540,000 children above the absolute poverty line. There are no
fiscal rules, only fiscal choices. While taskforces meet, more
and more children in Coventry South and across the country are
consigned to avoidable poverty. Will the Government acknowledge
that, prioritise ending child poverty and finally scrap the
pernicious two-child benefit cap?
I share my hon. Friend's commitment to wanting to tackle child
poverty in this country—this party had a proud record on that
when we were in government previously. That is why we have set up
the child poverty taskforce, which reported last week, and our
ambition is to reduce child poverty over the course of this
Parliament. We will set out further measures in the Budget on
Wednesday on how we intend to deliver that.
Dr (Edinburgh South West)
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Residents and businesses
in my constituency absolutely share our ambition to get the
country back on track, and acknowledge that the mission-led focus
of the Government and the fiscal rules are at the core of that.
They contrast that with 14 years of drift under the
Conservatives, punctuated only by 49 days of utter chaos.
However, residents and businesses in my area want to be reassured
that they can be confident about our level of ambition, so will
the Minister update us on how investors are responding to our
focus and the maturity that we bring to the debate around the
economy?
I point my hon. Friend to our very successful international
investment summit only a couple of weeks ago, when it was very
clear from investors that bringing stability back to our politics
and our economy has been long wanted. That is why we were able to
commit to £63 billion of investment in the country at the summit,
followed by another £10 billion of investment announced only a
few days after. We intend to raise much more to invest in this
country and to bring growth back to the economy.
(Milton Keynes Central)
(Lab)
Constituents in Milton Keynes voted for change because they see
the consequences of the Conservative economic policy. They are
suffering from the cost of living crisis and have seen this in
their crumbling schools, the lack of GP appointments and the use
of food banks just to make ends meet. Will the Chief Secretary
reassure me and my constituents that we will end the Conservative
use of payday loans just to keep the lights on and instead invest
in new schools, new hospitals and new infrastructure, alongside
making work pay, so that my constituents see their lives
improve?
With my hon. Friend's reference to payday loans, she points to
the behaviour of the previous Government. As I have told the
House this afternoon, this Government, with their first fiscal
rule, will take us to a place where we are not borrowing to pay
the bills each month, as had happened for years under the
Conservatives. Anyone managing their family finances at home
knows that that is the right thing to do, and they will welcome
the fact that this Government are bringing that sense of
discipline back to the national economy, too.
(Glenrothes and Mid Fife)
(Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as part of their fiscal
strategy and within the fiscal rules, the Government will utilise
the national wealth fund to lever in private investment, along
with public investment from the taxpayer, for key areas of growth
in our economy, including, for example, renewables
infrastructure, which is of such importance in Scotland?
My hon. Friend knows that the test of a good Government is
whether they can secure private sector investment to come
alongside them—something that declined under the last Government.
That is why the national wealth fund, which the Chancellor has
announced, will secure billions of pounds of private sector
investment, alongside public sector investment, in the industries
of the future.
(Bracknell) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the previous Government's failure to
invest not only damaged economic growth, but led to damage to our
public services, with a broken NHS, special educational needs in
crisis and local government on the brink?
My hon. Friend will know, from speaking to his constituents
during his campaign to be elected and since, that people's
experience of public services across the country shows the fact
of the matter: after 14 years of failure from the Conservatives,
our public services are on their knees. That is why they need a
Government who will bring stability back to our economy, invest
in public services and improve outcomes for people who rely on
them and work in them.
Mr (York Outer) (Lab)
Following the disastrous mini-Budget, the Bank of England was
forced to undertake emergency liquidity operations to reduce
volatility in markets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the
investment summit's record £63 billion shows that this Government
are creating stable conditions for long-term investment, after
years of political chaos from the Conservative party?
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question, and I agree
that £63 billion invested in this country was a sign of
confidence, because investors around the world know that Britain
is back after years of chaos.
(Swansea West) (Lab)
It is good to hear about changes to address the big problem with
our macroeconomic framework—the bias against new investment
spending. May I draw the Chief Secretary's attention to the other
problem with the system, which acts as an incentive for Ministers
not to manage well the assets that they already hold? I refer him
to the 2017 sale of £3.5 billion-worth of student loans for just
£1.7 billion. Will he reassure the House that the changes that he
is making will ensure that we get value for money for the
existing financial assets that we hold?
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance, and I point to the
Office for Value for Money, which will work for us to ensure that
we improve on behaviours of the past. I also point more broadly
to the way that we manage our current assets. People have only to
look at the state of our prisons, hospitals and schools, with
reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and roofs falling in, to
know that after 14 years of cuts to investment, we cannot carry
on like that. That is why people voted for change at the last
election, and why we will deliver it.
|
