Dr Jeevun Sandher
MP for Loughborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“What does that mean for us at home? It means higher prices and less affordable lives, but more than all that, it means more anger and fury on our streets. As people become unable to afford decent lives, they get angry at the system and angrier at us in this place.”
“It is a day of sad farewells, and I will add to them by saying a very sad farewell from all of us across the House to Margaret and Godfrey in the Tea Room, who are leaving soon. I did not expect to be so emotional, but here we are. I want to say something very clear and simple about what the Iran war means for us.”
“First, I would like to thank the hon. Member for calling me an esteemed economist while the Whips are sitting on the Front Bench. He will appreciate that I am not going to annoy any Chancellor by putting forward any kind of tax rises today, but there is a clear commitment on the Labour Benches to fund the defence investment plan.”
“I have every confidence that we will prevent war by preparing for it, and that we are going to fund that, but beyond the funding, which is important, how do we ensure that we can achieve the scale-up that we need? How do we show that we can defend this country? The hon.”
“For us, there is clearly a path forward, with two sets of policies: first, make life affordable; secondly, defend our nation. In terms of making life affordable, there is an immediate challenge. We are seeing higher fossil fuel prices leading to higher energy costs at home, and food and fertiliser getting more expensive.”
“I think we have to explain it to the public, although they also saw the attack on Jaguar Land Rover and they understand the attack on sea cables. They are seeing it on the news more and more often. They understand that Russia is a threat, and they see the prices at the pump.”
The complete record
Every one of 290 lines we hold for Dr Jeevun Sandher, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 6.
“We must prepare for a financial world without lend-lease. Those are the preparations that the Treasury should be making. We could not foresee the financial crisis or the pandemic, but we can foresee a greater war in Europe. These are the times in which we live. In the darkest days of our struggle against fascism, John Maynard Keynes wrote: “A reluctance to face the full magnitude of our task and overcome it is a coward’s part. Yet the nation is not in this mood and only asks to be told what is necessary.” That is where the British people are—a nation that remembers its finest hour—but where are we in this House? Are we preparing for the worst, so that we can prevent it? Are we showing that we will convert our far greater resources in order to protect Europe and ourselves? Are we ready to do what we must? Those are the questions before us.”
“If we do face war, we must be prepared for it. Fighting a total war—converting an entire nation’s production to maximise fighting forces—is a problem that none of us has ever known, but that could be the economic problem before us: maximising the production of war, guns, tanks, drones. The rough outline of the answer is this: we must figure out national income, decide the maximum portion that can be allocated to war matériel production, and use taxes from those who can most afford them to transfer what is needed to the Government. If demand runs ahead of supply, it will lead to inflation. That means rationing consumption for more investment. Investment will have to go towards war matériel, so capital controls must be in place. We need import controls, and quotas to ensure that inputs such as steel are going towards war matériel.”
“Secondly, we must strengthen the oil price cap by making London insurance for foreign ports dependent on the proper verification of attestation documents. Thirdly, we need stronger export controls to stop western goods ending up in Russian tanks. That is what we can do right now. Deterring Putin and defeating Putin are one and the same. Our economic power is greater: NATO’s GDP in Europe is 12 times greater than Putin’s in Russia. Converting that economic power into fighting forces is what we must do next. Prosperity means nothing if we do not have the forces to defend it, so, yes, this is about the percentage that we spend on defence, but for Europe as a whole it is also about so much more than that: long-term orders to build production capacity, securing strategic inputs such as steel, and the ability to scale rapidly if we must.”
“Putin’s demand for war matériel is outstripping the ability of his economy to supply it; the official inflation rate stands at 10%, and we may possibly be talking about double that; three quarters of Russian firms face staff shortages; Putin is losing tanks three times more quickly than he can replace them; and his national wealth fund has been halved. However, Russia is still out-producing us in shells and fighting forces, and its armed forces will reach 1.5 million personnel. Russia can rebuild, and Putin will rebuild and come back, so we can and must do more to reduce Russia’s resources. First, we must seize central bank assets, rather than allowing Putin to use them to rebuild his fighting forces.”
“Keeping our nation safe and preserving Ukraine for the future means showing Putin that we and our European allies have the resolve and the resources to defeat him. Showing him that we would win any war is the best way to prevent a wider conflict. Winning wars is a matter of resources being converted to fighting forces. We lost the first battles of world war two, but we won by converting our greater resources; Lincoln did the same during the American civil war. So it is now; we must reduce Russian resources and prepare ourselves. Russia’s economy is straining at the seams.”
“I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I think the entire House agrees that our safety and that of our allies depends on showing Putin that we have the resolve and resources to defeat him. We are far more prosperous than he is: European NATO’s GDP is $24.5 trillion, and Russia’s is only $2 trillion. Clearly, the matter before us is converting those resources into fighting forces and matériel in the years ahead. Can the Prime Minister assure me that the strategic defence review and our defence industrial strategy will ensure that we have long-term orders that give us the capacity that we need, as well as secure supply chains, inputs such as steel and, of course, the ability to scale rapidly if we need to rearm?”
“May I welcome the Minister’s announcement around the expansion of the warm home discount scheme? About 160,000 homes in my region will get £150 more help with their energy bills, but, clearly, the root cause of higher prices is higher natural gas prices, which have doubled since the election in July 2024. We know that natural gas is 50% to 75% more expensive than wind and solar, because the sun and the wind are free, and natural gas is not. Can the Minister assure me that we will get into clean energy by 2030, so that we can get our energy bills down for good?”
“Keeping ourselves safe here means showing Putin that we have the resolve and the resources to defeat him, as indeed we have. In European NATO our combined GDP is about $24.5 trillion, and the GDP of the United States is $27 trillion, while Russia’s is just $2 trillion. We have more resources, and converting them into more fighting forces, tanks, guns and drones is key, but we can go further. Russian central bank assets held by ourselves and our allies amount to more than £200 billion, including £170 billion in Belgium and £26 billion here, and Putin could use those reserves in the future to rebuild his armed forces. Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that he is doing everything he can to convince our allies of the need to seize those assets to keep us safe and to fund Ukraine?”
“We can end extreme poverty in the years to come by changing British law to end this debt crisis. We can live up to and indeed continue the legacy of the former Members for Sedgefield and for Dunfermline East, who helped to cancel £30 billion of debt in 2005. Giving African nations the ability to use their own revenues, build their own Governments and create nations can end poverty. By making sure that private lenders can and must participate in debt renegotiations, we in this place can help to end extreme poverty for free.”
“A state that could end extreme poverty was and is in the making in Somaliland. That nation saw its economy grow by 16% in real terms between 2012 and 2020, despite a global pandemic. That reduction in poverty is about more than numbers—it is fewer people scratching around in the dirt desperately hoping that something will grow so that they can feed their children. That is what ending extreme poverty means. We can end extreme poverty. When my father was born into rural poverty in India, he had a one in four chance of dying before his fifth birthday, while 70% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. Today, a child born in the same place is 10 times less likely to die, and only one in 10 of the world’s people now live in extreme poverty.”
“If that were true, it should have happened after we passed the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010. It did not. Nations lend here and seek to have their borrowing issued here not because we have weak legal protections, but because we have the strongest and deepest legal system in the world, with centuries of case law. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) pointed out this week, 95% of African bonds are issued in England and Wales. This solution can work, and that is why the IMF and the World Bank support it. I was an economist working in one of the poorest nations on earth during its worst drought in living memory. Yes, I saw people starve, but I also saw a nation being built from its own revenues, making budgets and implementing policies.”
“We can help to end the debt crisis without spending a penny by changing British law so that private lenders have to abide by the outcome of debt negotiations. Where before, private lenders were trapped, damned if they did forgive and damned if they did not, they would be free to implement sensible debt renegotiations. I know that some will disagree, and I will take their arguments head on. Some will say that the status quo—things like collective action clauses—is sufficient. That view is wrong. Ghana and Zambia have been waiting 12 months for private lenders to come to the table. They are still waiting. Chadian private debt is not owed in bonds, which means it is not governed by CACs. The current system is not fit for purpose. Others will say that the proposed reforms would mean that debt would no longer be issued in London.”
“Debt repayments are up by 30% since 2019, and have more than tripled since 2010. African nations, like any debtor, need to renegotiate their debt. If that debt was owed solely to other nations, that would be relatively simple, but it is not; it is owed to an unknown multitude of private creditors. Each of those creditors has a fiduciary duty to gain the highest return for its shareholders. Each individual private lender is trapped. They have to hold out, let others take the haircut and try to get the full amount for themselves. They are not bad people and they are not evil, but they are trapped within a system that no individual has the power to break out of. Today, we can give them that power, because 90% of African debt governed by the common framework is issued under England’s legal jurisdiction.”
“Before being elected to this place, I worked as an economist in the Finance Ministry of Somaliland, one of the poorest places on Earth. I helped to write its budgets, its economic policy and its national development plan, and I saw that ending extreme poverty requires an effective Government, as we have seen in India and South Korea. A Government who raise their own revenue are far more effective than a Government who receive it in international aid, because with taxation comes representation. African nations are stuck, unable to reduce poverty because they are spending one fifth of their revenue—more than they spend on healthcare—paying down debts. They are trapped in that debt because of global factors: post-covid supply shocks, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and rising global interest rates.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate. African nations face a debt crisis caused by global factors—a debt crisis that is leading to more poverty, more hunger and war. They cannot renegotiate the debt, because it is held by private lenders, each of whom, through no fault of their own, has only one incentive: to hold out for a better deal in their fiduciary duty to their shareholders. As the debt is issued in London, we can help private lenders break out of that trap by mandating that all of them must accept the outcome of debt negotiations. That will help us to end the African debt crisis, build functioning states and reduce extreme poverty, all without spending a penny.”
“Investment is what makes us more prosperous; it produces more work, it gets wages rising and it creates good jobs. I am an East Midlands MP, and we have some of the lowest investment rates in the country, the least transport infrastructure and some of the lowest private investment. That is why I welcome the announcement today of £1 billion going to the manufacturing and logistics hub at East Midlands airport. I especially welcome the 2,000 extra jobs that will benefit my constituents in Loughborough, Shepshed and Hathern. Will the Chief Secretary assure me that this is just the beginning of the investment we can expect in the region and for my constituents?”
“That is why we will breach the cap by £8.6 billion this year, rather than impose devastating and swingeing cuts on those who already cannot afford to eat. We on the Labour Benches know that food banks are not an integral part of our welfare system; they are a symbol of failure. These are the things that we must change in the future. We need changes not simply to policy but in attitudes. For 14 years it was said that every person who was failing to earn enough was somehow a skiver. That was wrong, and it drove those who needed to engage with the social security system not to engage with it at all. I used to work at the Department for Work and Pensions and I can tell the House that people on both sides—those who wanted to work and those who wanted to help people into work—were good people who were let down by a bad system.”
“When people could not see their GP, could not earn enough to live a decent life and were too scared to go to the jobcentre, they stopped working altogether. That has led us in this country into a toxic doom loop, with sicker people having less money in their pockets and becoming too sick to work, leading to higher social security payments. The amount we are spending on social security is a sign not of the former Conservative Government’s generosity, but of their failure. That is what we will be addressing in the year ahead. The amount that we are spending on sickness and disability benefits has risen from £42 billion in 2010 to £65 billion today, and that is in real terms, not nominal terms. That is an increase of around 40% to 50%.”
“Secondly, we must transform our low-pay, low-training economy, which does not provide enough good jobs or pay enough to live. Thousands of people are unable to turn on the heating because they cannot afford it, and thousands are unable to eat; nurses are forced to go to food banks. Around 70% of children in poverty are in working families, and being cold and hungry makes people sicker. Too many people in this country go straight from school into sickness; the number of young people in this nation who are too sick to be active in the labour market has almost doubled since 2013. Those are the problems that we will be fixing in the years ahead. The third thing that needs to change, of course, is the punitive social security system that pushed people to the brink.”
“I am proud that we will get people who want to work into work, and that we will change the system for the future to ensure that people are not left as they have been for the past 14 years. I am proud that this Government will ensure that every person has the support they need when they need it. Our nation is sick, and things need to change—specifically, three things. First, our NHS needs to shift. After 14 years of mismanagement and the disastrous Lansley reforms, we have almost 3 million people out of work. We were the only G7 nation to see sickness rise during the pandemic and after it as well. Every single one of us sees that degradation and damage when we try to get an appointment with our local GP. That is what we need to fix in the years ahead.”
“Every person in this country should be able to live a decent life, but too many of us are unable to earn a decent wage. That is what is pushing up social security spending, leading to the motions that we are debating today. Too many people are forced to claim sickness benefits because the NHS has failed them; there are not enough well-paid jobs; and people do not engage with the social security system that the Conservative party left us, because it demonised and attacked them. That left us as an incoming Labour Government with a choice between massive implementing cuts to social security this year and technically breaching the welfare cap. I am proud that this Government have chosen to breach that cap rather than drive people into destitution.”
“That is what we seek to change in this House and, indeed, in this country. That is the choice before us, and it is why we are making these decisions: a technical breach of the welfare cap this year and a more accurate welfare cap in the years ahead, so that we can begin to provide the support that people need.”
“It is not easy to put forward these changes and it will not take a short time, but by starting that work today and by changing the relationship between those who are seeking to give help and those who are receiving that help, we can ensure that those who need help will actually receive it. This is not just about those on the ground who are doing great work, or indeed about my former brilliant colleagues at the DWP. It is also about how we in this House speak about those who need help, who are in poverty or who receive social security payments. We must understand that every single person in this country wants to work and wants the dignity that comes with it, but they are too often let down because of a lack of well-paid jobs, a lack of support and a lack of dignity afforded to them by a party that sought only to demonise.”
“I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Ten minutes is nowhere near enough time for people to get the job support they need. It is not enough for those who are seeking help or for those seeking to give that help, especially as the economy is changing and getting a well-paid job requires more training. The country changed before with the automative revolution, and it is now changing with the artificial intelligence revolution. Those people need support and help in order to get security, but they are not guaranteed it or given it at the moment, and that is the precise intention of the changes we are putting forward.”
“The fundamental reforms the Chancellor set out in her speech today are also about supporting people into work so they can contribute to our economy, and do what they need to do to get a decent life for themselves and their family. Having a decent job and earning enough to live is about more than the pound in a person’s pocket; it is about a sense of contentment and something to talk about with their mates. It gives meaning to each day.”
“First and foremost, there is our action on the NHS and through the Darzi review, because we should not live a country where almost 3 million people are too sick to work. We have offered thousands more appointments to get waiting lists down, because people who cannot see a GP today are far more likely to end up out of work tomorrow. Secondly, we are helping people get into work. There are the 16 trailblazer programmes to join up work skills and health support, and the £115 million to help those with complex needs get back into work. Thirdly, we are creating good jobs for young people with the youth guarantee, so that every single young person in this country can access the training they need and the apprenticeships they require.”
“There is a lot we have to change in this country, and I am sure we will do so in the years ahead. The choice before us today is simple. The technical breach this year and the change in the years to come are the right choices, and we are making them for the right reasons. Many in work today cannot make it pay, and that is why we will make sure that people who are in work get the training they need. That is not just about the training they need to get a better job; it is about the support they need to ensure that their healthcare, and indeed their health, is good enough to continue working. More broadly, we must ensure that every single person in the country can have a decent job that pays enough, and we are taking action in three areas to do that.”
“I do not believe that the hon. Member is correct. The welfare cap does not define future decisions; the welfare cap in future years defines the total amount that will be spent at that time. We should be clear what the welfare cap refers to. She mentioned the two-child limit in particular, and Government Members have been clear that choices have to be made in straitened times. We know that children are driven into poverty and that no child deserves to be born into such circumstances. Indeed, we know about the huge and shocking rise in child poverty and child hunger in this country. I know that Members across the House are shocked by that, but the truth is that we cannot make every such decision in this House because these are straitened times. However, I appreciate the intervention and, indeed, the good faith in which it was made.”
“It is that Labour tradition to which I speak. That Labour tradition is why I am proud to stand here today, and that is why I am proud to vote in favour of these motions.”
“I thank the hon. Member for that point. Indeed, that is the entire reason why we are changing the system today. Yes, it is about practical changes and providing more support, but it is also about a change of tone, a change of attitude and treating people like human beings. That is exactly what Labour Members believe. These reforms and support, at their core, are about ensuring that every single person has a decent job, which gives them meaning and something to talk about with their mates. A previous Labour Government did that so well, and that is how we got poverty down. A previous Member for Sedgefield, who is a shining light for us on the Labour Benches, promised to end child poverty in a generation, and a previous Member for Dunfermline, who is a hero to us, put that into practice and reduced child poverty by almost a million.”
“To insulate our homes and build the 1.5 million we need, we will need far more construction workers—about 1 million over the next decade. What steps are we taking on apprenticeships and training to ensure that we have the construction workers we need?”
“I think both sides of the House can agree that our peace and security are founded on strong armed forces. Will the Minister therefore welcome the fact that we are spending £3 billion more on defence this year, as well as our firm commitment to get to 2.5% of GDP?”
“Keeping ourselves safer at home means ensuring that Putin loses abroad, because when Putin is finished in Ukraine—whenever that may be—he will come for more. Defeating him means showing him that we have the resolve and the resource to defeat him in the future. Can the Secretary of State assure me that, as part of the SDR, we will have a way to combat, prevent and protect ourselves from Russia?”
“This is indeed an exciting year to help improve our economic growth and our trading relationship with India. We are two nations with an intertwined history and common democratic ideals, and we face the risks of a dangerous world and a warming planet. I co-chair the India all-party parliamentary group, and one of my priorities is to strengthen our economic and strategic relationship. Can the Secretary of State outline what he will do to help get a good UK-India trade deal over the line, including the exchange of green technologies to help prevent and reduce the warming of our planet?”
“First, may I remind Conservative Members that UK bond yields are rising for the same reason that German and French bond yields are—because they are tracking the US rate? They never were very good at numbers. The Chancellor has set out her economic philosophy that our prosperity is built upon secure foundations in a more uncertain world. Will she set out how she is building that economic security here, particularly with reference to having domestic energy, rather than being dependent on foreign fossil fuel dictators?”
“US bond rates are rising as well as those in the UK, with higher than expected inflation and interest rates. I note that Conservative Members have not mentioned that; perhaps they have not looked. The best way to make our debt sustainable is to invest to get growth growing, and to get expected inflation down by investing in clean energy. Does the Minister agree that our plans to invest in growth and in lower-price, cleaner energy is exactly the way to make our debt sustainable?”
“One year and one day ago, the Prime Minister visited my constituency to see the flood damage. Over the past weeks, properties in my constituency have once again been ruined by flooding. When the Prime Minister came a year ago, he met Jacob. Jacob spent the last year fixing up his house. It was finished last month, and now it is ruined again. Can the Leader of the House assure me that this Government will do everything they can to protect my community, including with some of the £2.4 billion of flood defence money?”
“Over the past 24 hours, heavy rainfall has led to flooding in my constituency in Loughborough, Quorn and Hathern. A year ago, the Prime Minister visited Loughborough when that bout of flooding ruined homes—we were both deeply moved. The Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), has also visited those homes. I am grateful that the Minister has strengthened flood defences since she was appointed. I am incredibly grateful that this time the flood has left less damage, but heavier rainfall will come due to climate change. Will the Minister set out how this Government will protect homes in my community, and will she meet me to discuss how we can do everything we can to protect our homes?”
“One of our nation’s greatest Prime Ministers stands outside this Chamber, his hands atop his hips. He warned Members in this Chamber and lamented the time wasted without preparing. He spoke of the “years which the locust hath eaten” —[ Official Report , 12 November 1936; Vol. 317, c. 1101.] but he was ignored. Members on these Benches were too complacent; let us not be complacent. Members on these Benches failed; let us not fail. Members on these Benches saw oceans of blood spilled by the youth of this nation; let us not be the generation that sees oceans of blood wash over this continent once more. Let us be the generation that keeps the peace by showing Putin we have the resolve and resources to defeat him.”
“We must convince our European allies to do as the Canadians and Americans have done in seizing those assets. On the why, seized assets are useful only if we convert them into defence production. The bit-by-bit approach that has characterised support to Ukraine must end; a large and sustained increase is needed. Putin wants to rebuild a greater Russia and to swallow his neighbours whole. He will attempt to take more of Europe. Defeating him means defeating our own complacency. The history of nations is a history of war. That history changed only when the calculation of peace changed—through military strength, through sacrosanct borders and through democracy. If we do not show that we have the resolve and resources to defeat Putin, we will make the same mistake that Members made from these Benches almost a century ago.”
“I am pleased that the Office of Financial Sanctions agreed to look into that when it gave evidence to the Treasury Committee. Secondly, we must stop Russia converting its output into munitions and materials. Too many of our western components are finding their way to Russian frontlines. Thirdly, we must do more to convert the resources that we need into fighting forces. That is where our industrial defence strategy comes in. Seizing the $300 billion can help with that. As an economist, I should make clear to the House that seizing those assets would not damage our economy or reduce financial stability. However, we must be clear on the how and the why. On the how, we cannot seize those assets unilaterally. We hold only about 10% of them here, while around two thirds are held in Europe.”
“First, we must limit Russia’s earnings and output; secondly, we must limit Russia’s ability to convert its earnings into fighting forces; and thirdly, we must gain and convert our own resources into fighting forces. Seizing the $300 billion will help with the third point only if we convert those resources into fighting forces. First, on limiting Russia’s output and earnings, Russia’s earnings from oil are still far too high: $150 billion a year. Urals oil is trading at $67 above the price cap. Russia is circumventing that by padding out costs for its shadow fleet in attestation documents. Maximilian Hess, the esteemed foreign policy expert, has shown that we can strengthen our price cap by making London insurance for foreign ports dependent on the proper verification of costs in attestation documents.”
“Across the House, we agree that we must show Putin that we have the resolve and resources to defeat him. If we do not, a great power war more terrible that we can imagine will come. A century ago, politicians on these Benches failed, and what followed was the most destructive war in the history of humankind. Stopping that horror being repeated depends on us winning at war economics, as the motion rightly identifies. War economics is simple: whichever side can command greater resources and convert them into fighting forces will win. Winning a single battle means nothing if the other side can keep throwing in resources to win the next one. Amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. Winning at war economics means doing three things.”
“We are raising £23 billion—investment that every business, family and young person will benefit from—and 75% of the revenue is from the largest 2% of businesses. We are raising that money while protecting the smallest businesses by increasing the employment allowance; the Federation of Small Businesses has said that that is a huge help as we bring in this revenue raiser. Half of all businesses will pay the same or less, and a quarter of a million will see their tax bill fall.”
“This Labour Government will invest to rebuild our broken nation. Investment in our future will be paid for by tax revenue, and today we are debating the largest revenue-raising policy in our Budget. I am proud that revenue will be raised from the largest businesses to fund the homes, jobs and skills that we need to create a good, affordable life for us all. For those of us in our nation who cannot afford a decent life, the picture has become increasingly bleak: non-graduates and the young are locked out of the opportunities that previous generations had, and there are not enough homes, good jobs or skills. We are raising the money for investment in homes, jobs and skills from those who are most able to afford it.”
“We are also using this money to create good jobs. The idea that someone could leave school and get a decent wage left our nation long ago. There are low-paid and insecure service jobs for some, but many are unable to get a job at all. Today, around 15% of young people are not in education, employment or training. Our warm homes plan, which will upgrade 300,000 homes, will also create tens of thousands of good jobs.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for his incredibly kind words. For me, this is actually rather simple. I follow the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, which goes through the Treasury policy costing and gets signed off. Those are the numbers I look at, and that is the money that will come in. We are raising the money, as set out in those forecasts, in a fair way to invest in our future prosperity. We are using that money to build the homes that we need. In the mid-1990s, it took a young person around three years to save for a deposit. Now it is over 14 years, and in London it is nearly 30. That is why nearly half of young people are living at home with their parents, and why we are investing the tax revenue from the measures that we are discussing in the affordable homes programme. That means more homes for young people.”
“The young and the lowest paid work in the smallest businesses. Some analysis, including that from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, does not include these measures, and does not have matched employer-employee datasets. Indeed, Paul Johnson admitted as much when he came before the Treasury Committee.”
“I direct the hon. Gentleman to today’s labour market statistics. Employment is still high; unemployment is about the same as it was; and I think inactivity is falling. In the official statistics, the picture looks good. More broadly, vacancies are not the measure that we want to look at. Instead, we want to look at the number of people in jobs. The revenue that we are raising today will be invested in actions that directly create those good jobs. The warm homes plan will upgrade 300,000 homes, which is tens of thousands of good jobs. The expansion of early years childcare is tens of thousands of good jobs. Businesses need to know that they have the healthy workforce that they need, and more people who are available to work. This is a Budget for growth and for jobs.”
“We are building a country that gets better, rather than worse; where every person can get a good job; where every person can afford a decent home; and where every person can get the skills that they need, so that we can all live once again in a country where working hard means a decent life. That is what we are investing in, and that is why we are proud to raise revenue through the measure that we are debating today.”