UK politics live: Rachel Reeves says she was ‘clearly upset’ but it was her job to support government at PMQs

Rachel Reeves appeared to reject suggestions that her tears at Prime Minister’s Questions were related to a conversation with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle or another member of Government.

Asked whether this was the case, the Chancellor told broadcasters: “No, it was a personal issue, and I’m not going into the details of that.

“It wouldn’t be right or fair. People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday. today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job.

“My job as Chancellor is to return the stability to the economy, bring investment into Britain, but most importantly to improve the lives of ordinary working people, which is why I’m so pleased that in this first year interest rates have come down four times, saving money for people with mortgages, I’ve been the Chancellor who’s increased the national living wage… so I’m proud of what we’ve done this last year.

“But is there more to do as a Government? Absolutely there is, and I’m going to get on with that job.”

Chancellor Rachel Reeves declined to give the reason behind her tears.

She told broadcasters: “Clearly I was upset yesterday and everyone could see that. It was a personal issue and I’m not going to go into the details of that.

“My job as Chancellor at 12 o’clock on a Wednesday is to be at PMQs next to the Prime Minister, supporting the Government and that’s what I tried to do.

“I guess the thing that maybe is a bit different between my job and many of your viewers’ is that when I’m having a tough day it’s on the telly and most people don’t have to deal with that.”

Rachel Reeves has said “clearly I was upset” in the Commons but it was her job to be at Prime Minister’s Questions “supporting the government and that’s what I tried to do”.

The Alcohol Health Alliance UK (AHA), a coalition of more than 60 health organisations and charities, has accused the government of squandering a major opportunity to tackle alcohol-related harm in its 10-year NHS plan.

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, Chair of the AHA, said the final version of the plan failed to include “the most evidence-based policies” to reduce alcohol harm – despite earlier drafts reportedly containing stronger proposals.

“The NHS 10-Year Plan was a unique opportunity to move from simply treating illness to genuinely preventing it – to build a healthier nation and ease pressure on our overstretched health service,” he said.

“Alcohol harm, one of the UK’s biggest preventable killers, was rightly identified as a key area for action. For a moment, it looked as though the government might finally be ready to confront the toll alcohol takes on our society. Instead, that opportunity has been squandered.”

He added: “This is not just a missed opportunity – it is a dereliction of duty.”

Alcohol deaths are currently at record highs and the AHA said it was “staggering” that proven measures like Minimum Unit Pricing were reportedly dropped from the final plan.

Our Health Correspondent Rebecca Thomas and Political Correspondent Archie Mitchell report:

Sir Keir Starmer said he was “not interested” in arguments about the “nanny state” if the price was children losing their teeth before they were 10.

Answering questions at the launch of the Government’s 10-year NHS plan, the Prime Minister said: “When I learned at Alder Hey that children of that age, eight to 12, were coming in to have their teeth taken out and that was the highest cause of admission – I’m not interested in arguing about ‘nanny state’.

“If the price of not doing it is a child losing his or her teeth before they’re 10 years old, I’ll take those measures any day of the week and I’ll defend them any day of the week.”

Sir Keir Starmer refused to rule out future tax hikes but insisted the “heavy lifting” to repair the public finances had already been done.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has previously promised she would not need to repeat the £40 billion tax raid she set out in October.

Asked if he would repeat that commitment, Sir Keir said: “No prime minister or chancellor is going to write a budget in advance, but we did really tough stuff in that budget last year.

“We made sure that we stabilised the economy and we took the big and heavy decisions early on.

“And that’s what we meant by what we said when the Chancellor said that before, it’s what I mean and say again today.

“We’ve done a lot of the heavy lifting, we’ve done a lot of the hard yards.

“As a result of that turning our economy around: the fastest growth in the G7 in the first quarter of this year, business confidence at a nine-year high and record investment.”

The prime minister was asked by the Times what is different about his 10-year plan to the ones that went before it.

The reporter said it is basically the same as its predecessors, so why will it work.

As he was asking, the chancellor said: ‘oh, come on.’ Clearly she believes there is something special about it.

Lord Maurice Glasman – the architect of blue Labour – has suggested the prime minister has just six months to prove whether he has a clear vision.

He also said Sir Keir should conduct a reshuffle of his Cabinet, calling for a “fundamental reset” in government.

Asked whether the prime minister has a “strategic vision”, Lord Glasman said: “This is the whole issue. We’ll find out in the next six months if that is the case.”

Speaking to Times Radio, he also said he is arguing for a “big structural change in government”.

Asked whether he thinks the PM should reshuffle his Cabinet, the Labour peer said: “Yeah, there’s lots of talent in the PLP, actually. I think there’s got to be a fundamental reset, but that can only follow from a strategic outlining of what’s been done. It cannot be the case that a government is stymied from governing constantly by a backbench rebellion.