5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I suggest that a new customs union might take a little bit of time—maybe just a day or two. The hon. Lady asked a perfectly legitimate question: how do I know? In direct response to her party’s motion, I raised the issue directly with representatives of the European Union, and the answer was, “No, thank you.” That is what I know. I was not speculating; it was knowledge.
Let us take a look at the amendment which Mr Speaker has selected in the name of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s amendment tells us that he “welcomes the policy paper” on “the plan for small and medium sized businesses, which sets out”— wait for it— “a comprehensive vision for productivity and success”. [Interruption.] “Wow” indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) says from a sedentary position—she is less well trained in keeping her excitement levels under control. After 14 years of opposition and 18 months in government: a policy paper, a plan, a comprehensive vision—that is the sum of the contribution from the Treasury Bench towards these important and vital parts of the sector. The Government need to learn, I suggest, a key and important lesson: policy papers, plans and comprehensive visions deliver of themselves nothing. They create no jobs. They give no certainty. They provide no confidence to employees, employers, investors, entrepreneurs, innovators or consumers. Strategy and policy are not the same things. Vision and delivery are not two sides of the same coin. The Government tell us in their amendment that their Employment Rights Bill “will help season workers by bringing the UK’s outdated employment laws into the 21st century”. Well, I would dispute first and foremost the idea that our employment laws are outdated; I think they have been organic and iterative over the decades, as one would expect. But the Government will not help seasonal workers if they cannot become seasonal workers because putative employers have neither the confidence to employ nor the headroom to create jobs and pay salaries. We are in fantasy land, with a fantasy idea about how to run an economy: we just legislate and, hey presto—pantomime-like—it happens. A strategy is published and—bingo!—it is all resolved. That is not the case. This first example will, I am sure, be of enormous interest to the Labour party. Mark Fulton, a constituent of mine in Tolpuddle, is the landlord of the Martyrs Inn.
It is a lovely pub. The hon. Lady has been and has not been barred yet. Anybody who knows their trade union history, as I know she does, will know about the Tolpuddle martyrs in 1834. The pub is named after them.
The pub was bought by the village for £500,000. It is a community asset-type pub. One significant stakeholder is the TUC itself, which decided that thirsty trade unionists might, after the martyrs memorial, enjoy a pint and, indeed, one of the excellent sandwiches that the hon. Lady has referenced. After the Budget, Mark Fulton wrote to me: “With the impact of this Budget, we risk losing these vital community hubs that are so important to our local life and economy.” He, like others in all our constituencies, has been arguing for—and this freedom exists now we are outside the European Union—a bespoke reduction of VAT on pub sales, including the wet trade. We are asking publicans, who provide far more in the community hubs that Mark talks about, to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, when in essence they are paying a VAT rate of 20% compared with the 2% paid by supermarkets. Business rates are clearly going to go up. That is, again, the fantasy world of this Government. One sector representative group after another tells the Government that, by the Government’s own figures and calculations, business rates will rise. “Oh no,” says the Minister. “Everybody else is wrong. I am right, because I am a Minister of the Crown.” This is the politics of the emperor’s new clothes. It is about time that one or two people on the Government Benches stood up and told the Treasury team that many of their policies leave the Government naked as they try to garner and foster a small, entrepreneurial business sector. On employer national insurance and increases in the minimum wages, I quote Mark Fulton again: “The latest rise risks opportunities for young people to be employed in our sector.” He goes on to remind us that “40% of young people begin their careers in hospitality—the sector plays a crucial role in training, upskilling and supporting social mobility.” All that is put at risk. Surely, irrespective of geography or party affiliation, we should all be worried if a cogent argument is deployed about social mobility being reduced as a direct result of Government policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said in his excellent speech, many of the harmful decisions taken in the recent Budget were not of the Government’s choosing. They were, in essence, a fulfilment of what the Chancellor rightly said to rebellious Back Benchers on welfare: “Rebel if you like, and we’ll abandon if we have to, but there’ll be a cost that will have to be paid. That cost will be taxed, and there will be a concomitant diminution in confidence among employers and customers.” I could quote several publicans, but Barbara Cossins, who owns and runs the Langton Arms in Tarrant Monkton, would have my guts for garters if I did not take this opportunity to mention her. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) knows it well and says what a good pub it is. Barbara Cossins replicates many of the points made by Mark Fulton, but adds that rural pubs in tourist areas are particularly reliant on seasonal summer trade. They have to pay business rates, but their major competitor in those small rural settings, Airbnb, pays no business rates at all. It is an un-level playing field. The Government had an opportunity—and they possibly still do, as the Finance Bill progresses—to try to level that playing field. We are asking these important sectors of our economy to go into bat for UK plc—to create the jobs that create the tax that funds our public services—but at every step and turn, this Government seem hellbent on hobbling and hamstringing them and tying their hands behind their backs. The Government have the laudable aim of seeing housebuilding increase. Who does not? Again, that is an important part of social mobility—we know that a lot of seasonal jobs are created in the construction sector. However, Travis Perkins sent out a customer email just today that said that, from 1 January, supplier increases in prices will come in across the industry.
I will, but let me finish this point. Roofing prices are up 7%, bricks 8%, blocks 9%, landscaping 8%, drainage 8%, and plaster, plasterboard and cladding 7%. Costs can be increased, and companies can absorb as much as they can, but at some point, as Travis Perkins points out, those increased costs can no longer be self-absorbed and must be passported off to the consumer. When the consumer’s costs go up, their margins of profit decrease, and their likelihood, potential and appetite for creating additional jobs disappears, like an early spring frost, arguably never to return.
Over the next 10 years—another “wow” moment. Jam tomorrow—well, we don’t even know if it is jam tomorrow; it is a promise of something that might materialise, but these sectors need support now. Let me conclude my remarks by highlighting what I fear will be a terrible downward-pulling spiral in confidence from investors, employers and consumers. I am not an economist, but it seems to me self-evident that if we increase the costs of employing people, we are likely to see fewer people employed. Someone might not expand their business; they might not create that new job. General elections create a lack of confidence in the sector. This Government were returned with a massive majority, which should be giving stability and confidence to the marketplace. In fact—it is the greatest perversity that we have seen since July 2024—the complete reverse is taking place. Why is that? Last year, the Chancellor created in her own mind a black hole. She decided to fill it by additional taxes, and she assured the House and country that it was a one-off. Growth was going to do everything else, spending was going to be looked at, and everything would be hunky-dory. Well, that did not come to pass. The Government changed the environment, and we had the Budget just a few weeks ago—fabrication, being economical with the actualité. That is saying to potential investors and job creators, “Well we thought we might have believed them on year one, but year two transpired not to be the case.” How many more acts that would make the Artful Dodger blush will they be dipping into our pockets next time, next time, and the next time? We will have a rebellion on that, or on that, and that rebellion will have to be funded not by a recalibration of where Government spending is allocated, but by increasing the pot that the Government have to spend by increasing taxes. I took the advice of our Clerks, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether I should conclude with a certain word or not. The advice was that I would be better to slightly spell it out, so I will take that advice. North Dorset is not a constituency of large firms. They are family businesses, most will be micro, some will be small, and precious few will be medium-sized. A small business owner in my constituency has a family business that he has grown and he was seeking to employ. He wanted his kids to get involved with it as well. He said to me, “Simon, you can tell that Rachel Reeves”—because he said “Rachel Reeves”, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Lady— “to describe this Budget, in a few easy words for the media headline, as ‘The why the eff should I bother Budget’” Why the eff should he bother to invest, to create, and to provide opportunity for our young to then pay the taxes to deliver the public services that we require? But if the Government do not give an eff, Opposition Members certainly do. There is an alternative Conservative vision for this, and I look forward with colleagues to presenting that to the country over the coming months.
I am afraid that I do not know anything about Mr Williams, so I cannot add to the lovefest. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has reflected, as I have, that in households that have been workless for quite a long period of time, temporary seasonal intro-jobs often show our young people the value, importance and benefit of work and what it can do for their families and communities. When those opportunities are reduced, so the opportunity and potential for social mobility is curtailed.
On my hon. Friend’s point, how can businesses be expected to plan, having been told in the 2024 Budget that the tax rate was a one-off, and in 2025 that there was an unforeseen second tax rate but with no further plans? That is not a promise that one can necessarily rely upon. The presumption is that there will be more next year. How can businesses, whether they are agricultural, industrial or whatever, be expected to plan for growth, investment and job creation when they have absolutely no idea of the trajectory of the tax take that the Treasury is hellbent on introducing?
Q14. This Government are always talking about the fair choices that they have made, but is it a fair choice to balloon the benefits bill? Is it a fair choice to introduce an unfunded and unwanted digital ID that will cost the public billions of pounds? And is it a fair choice to increase taxes on working people when the promise was not to? The answer is no. Can I ask the Prime Minister to consider one final fair choice? Thinking about food security and avoiding devastation for families across the country, will his Government reverse the family farm tax?
As the late great Andy Williams sang, “It’s the most wonderful time of the year” but I am afraid that is not true for farmers, business owners or those in retail, hospitality or leisure. Following the Chancellor’s Budget just two weeks ago, there are only two lines in that song that resonate—“scary ghost stories” caused by the Chancellor’s announcements, and memories of “tales of the glories of Christmases long, long ago” before Labour got in. One of the many problems with the Government’s approach to working is that they start with the premise that any flexible or part-time working, including zero-hour contracts, is by nature wrong and unfair. In actuality, it simply reflects the needs of the market and businesses at any given moment, as well as personal preference. Take food production as an example; it should be obvious, but that work in that sector is often seasonal and cyclical. The labour demands of farming and horticultural businesses are variable and difficult to forecast with 100% accuracy. Crop conditions, weather conditions and customer demand all contribute to the inherent unpredictability in food production. On Monday night, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs voted against an amendment from the other place to insert a proper definition of “seasonal work” into the Employment Rights Bill, and Reform did not even bother to show up. The Government have instead proposed an amendment to “consult”. This is another issue that the Government hope they can just kick into the long grass and hope we will forget about. That difficulty with forecasting also spills into the hospitality sector, as has been acknowledged. With benefits ballooning and the tax bill for the working man increasing day by day, everyone is feeling the pinch. They are all tightening their belts, so it becomes incredibly hard to forecast the current level of need. I was speaking to one of my local hospitality businesses, which has already been hit by a £900,000 NICs bill this year alone. The business was explaining the impact of NICs and what it means in reality. I think we throw around large numbers but do not actually understand the intricacies of them. The Chancellor said to the Treasury Committee that she does not see the link between the NICs increases and unemployment. I fail to see how she cannot see that link. Let’s do a NICs 101: NICs are paid on a month-by-month basis, and are triggered when someone earns £417 a month. If a student or anyone else worked for just one month and did more than 35 hours in the month at minimum wage, the business would then have to pay an additional 15% of national insurance on every pound above £417. Cash is king, and if that is to be rolled out, it is no wonder that businesses are questioning whether they can take on any other employees.
My hon. Friend makes a valid and correct point. We have started to see a rise in unemployment in South Northamptonshire among 16 to 25-year-olds exactly because of that. The business owner I spoke to said that the problem is that the business starts paying at a certain level, but that increase pushes up across all wages across all levels of the business. Suddenly businesses are finding themselves drowning in the amount of money they are having to pay. That will stifle the market. We even talked to some of my hairdressers—they have been mentioned numerous times to the Minister—who said that the impact of NICs means that, according to the British Hair Consortium, there will be no new apprentice starts in 2027. That is staggering and appalling, when the Government are talking about all the opportunities for the young.
As always, my right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Andy Williams is getting a lot more airtime today than any of us imagined.
Absolutely. We need to encourage that next generation through to the workforce, and I cannot see that they are getting any of those opportunities at the moment. The Government are so proudly trying to promote that, but let us look at the impact and the figures. There can be no denying that they are achieving none of what they hope to achieve in future.
At least the hon. Member has acknowledged that we have to repay debt, unlike the Green party, which suddenly believes that repaying debt interest is not a viable or true alternative in this world. The hon. Gentleman denies talk of welfare, but it is a fundamental element. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that he agrees with that, but there is so much more. Why is the Labour party increasing the welfare bill? The Government have to grow the economy and that means supporting businesses, giving them opportunities, reducing tax and putting money in our pockets to do that. Unfortunately, we can see from everything that has come from the Government so far that the economy is not growing. Watch this space, but that is a problem that we will struggle with. South Northamptonshire has 95 pubs, which are crucial to our rural community and to our economy. They are a great example of a place where young people can start their first jobs. At The White Hart in Hackleton, a young girl with Down’s syndrome, who could not get a job outside the village because of transport issues, took her first job. That job will be threatened by all the measures from this Government.
I agree entirely, and I am devastated to hear that, because that is exactly not what we need for society and for the young generation. Research from the Taxpayers’ Alliance showed that in 2024 the average pub paid almost £100,000 per year in taxes on the sale of alcoholic drinks alone. When we add to that the coming changes to business property relief and the recent increase to employer NICs, we see that hospitality is really being smothered. But there is a way out. There is no need for an enforced and permanent dry January. The Conservatives have a plan, and it includes the abolition of business rates for hundreds of thousands of high street businesses. The Government often deny it, but pubs and shops have seen their business rates bills more than double under this Government. We say that what is needed to bring back the festive cheer to our high streets is not more Government, but Government getting out of the way and allowing businesses and entrepreneurs to flourish. There is a big difference between business and the Government. Businesses, as has been mentioned, take risks with their own money. They provide jobs and they grow the economy. They are brave, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said earlier, but this Government just risk taxpayers’ money, destroy jobs and contract the economy. Particularly, I look to my farming community. I have 550 farms, and they are the driver and the lifeblood of South Northamptonshire. One of their biggest issues, alongside things like NICs, is the inability to plan. A lot of discussion has been had about helping our companies grow for the future, but part of that growth requires the ability to make long-term plans. Under this Government, we have seen the removal of the sustainable farming incentive, and capital grants have gone on and off. There is also the double cab pick-up tax and the fertiliser tax. When we add in the employer national insurance tax and the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, we have to ask how farmers are possibly supposed to plan or invest in the future.
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The importance of the construction industry was mentioned earlier, along with the plan to give more construction apprenticeships and jobs to young people, but for those jobs to be offered, we need people to be investing in the first place. Companies are not doing that, because they cannot make those decisions. They do not know where the money is coming from. They do not know when the money will next be taken from them. We are not creating an environment in which they can grow. I do not see anyone on the Government Benches disagreeing with me on that, so I think my hon. Friend’s point is well made.
Absolutely. In Prime Minister’s questions earlier, I asked about the fair choices that this Government say they have made. I think those choices are fundamentally unfair. The Government are trying to introduce a digital ID scheme, unfunded by the Government, that could cost at least £1.8 billion, yet most of the public do not want it, given that 3 million people signed the petition against it. The Government then talk about inflicting tax hits on all our businesses. It is just madness. There is absolutely no sense of direction from this Government. This is not a pro-growth Chancellor but a no-growth Chancellor. That will be the legacy. I never thought that a Christmas song could sum up a Government’s economic approach, but if we look at “We wish you a Merry Christmas”, it appears that we are in the “we won’t go until we’ve got some,” phase from this Government, whether they are demanding figgy pudding or, in this instance, tax. I am really hoping, though, that they will see the light and eventually help businesses to unlock, to reach their potential and to have a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Q2. Over the coming weeks, millions of people from across the country will be visiting their local church. Churches are custodians of our history and they do enormous good, but in January the Government announced a £19 million cut to the listed places of worship grant, and put a cap on repair costs. The cut put thousands of local churches at risk. If we lose our churches, we lose the very soul and essence of our communities. There are 10 at-risk churches in the Prime Minister’s constituency. As we go into Christmas, will he do the right thing and reconsider that policy so that we can save our churches?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I bring to the House an issue of grave concern. At Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister how many more teachers there were since the Education Secretary came into office in 2024. The Prime Minister replied that there were “More than when the Conservatives left office”. The Department for Education’s website makes it clear that the Prime Minister was wrong: there are 400 fewer teachers under Labour. This is more than an inaccuracy, and it is exactly why the public lose faith in our parliamentary democracy. Can you advise on how the Prime Minister can come to the House and correct the record?
The Government’s dithering on grooming gangs has gone on for so long that it is now unlikely that any report into what has happened will be published before the next general election. Does the Minister think that is acceptable, and will she commit to publishing interim findings before the next general election?
The Health Secretary’s puberty blocker trial will stop the natural puberty of many young lesbians, putting them on a pathway to irreversible changes and a lifetime of medicalisation. What are the Minister’s plans to stop this state-sanctioned conversion therapy?
Like me, the shadow Secretary of State will have been out in the constituency speaking to small businesses, and I am sure that Labour MPs will have been doing the same over the weekend. A local publican told me that that she would have to lay off staff in January because of the extra taxes that the Chancellor had come back for—more taxes, though she said at the last Budget that she would not introduce more. I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State has had the same experience when talking to hospitality businesses, which particularly employ young people.
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being characteristically courteous. She is entirely correct in outlining the choices and some of the policies that her Government have made, but does she not agree that those choices and policies will be delivered on the back of higher taxation? As a result, employers have less money to employ people, so the proceeds of growth do not mean that there will be better public services. The hon. Lady is right that her Government are spending more money, but that is on the basis of taxation, because of the policies that her Government are advancing, and not on the basis of growth or entrepreneurship.
As usual, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is out here defending the Chancellor. I feel quite sorry for him. He has reeled off a number of policies that his Chancellor and his Government have made a choice about, but before the election, the Chancellor said that those choices would be on the back of a fully costed manifesto. Instead, taxes have gone up to pay for those choices, and that means that the manifesto was not fully costed. The motion therefore is correct, is it not, that the Chancellor misled the country before the election and in this Budget?
I beg to move, That this House regrets Government policies that are making seasonal, flexible and part-time work more difficult; notes that these policies particularly impact young people who are likely to start their first job in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors, and specifically regrets Government policy to increase business rates on the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors; further regrets the Employment Rights Bill, with its provisions on guaranteed hours, and late notice cancellation of shifts, which will effectively destroy seasonal, flexible and part-time work; also regrets raising the rate of employer National Insurance contributions; regrets that 84,000 jobs in the hospitality sector have therefore been lost; and calls on the Government to cut public expenditure in order to abolish business rates for thousands of high street businesses, and not to proceed with the Employment Rights Bill so that it is easier for young people to get their first job, and easier for people to move from receiving welfare into work. Last year’s Budget, with its increases in national insurance contributions, increases in business rates and inflation-busting pay rises, led to more than 180,000 job losses, because it increased the cost of labour. Most economists, and indeed most sensible people, understand that when you increase the price of something, there is less demand for it. By increasing the cost of jobs, Labour caused unemployment—yet this year, fully aware of rising unemployment, the Chancellor remarkably came back for more. Along with her colleagues in the Cabinet, she is imposing even more costs on business through the unemployment Bill, with more regulations and a whole new set of taxes, like the tourism tax. These decisions will do even more damage, snatching the opportunity of a first job, a seasonal job or an entire career from young people—and, indeed, people of all ages.
Yes, indeed; my hon. Friend makes an important point. I was here when the Minister said that. He said that there were “no plans” to bring in a tax—although clearly there were, because a few weeks later, one was brought in—and that the sector had been “taxed enough”. Well, I agree with that Minister, and I therefore do not agree with the Chancellor. Not content with the damage to businesses and jobs done in last year’s Budget, this year the Chancellor decided to go even further in her latest Budget, and went for the pockets of working people directly by making them pay more tax. That was a clear manifesto breach. Working people are paying the price for this Government’s inability to tackle the ballooning welfare bill, and to control the unions and their own Back Benchers. The Budget was not about the economy; it was all about internal party management. It is appalling that we have a Chancellor who appears to be willing to see thousands of our constituents lose their jobs, as long as she saves hers. In short, the Budget was a £26 billion tax hike on working people to pay for Labour's welfare spending. Last year’s Budget destroyed jobs; this latest one disincentivised work. It takes a special kind of incompetence to destabilise both the demand and the supply of labour simultaneously, but this Government have somehow managed to do just that.
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. It is quite remarkable, following the Budget, to hear Labour MPs say to their constituents, “We have helped you out. We have reduced costs.” If they talk to their constituents, they will find that the very opposite happened.
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The hospitality sector has been particularly hard-hit by Labour’s damaging economic policies. Many of us who were out on small business Saturday spoke to a number of those businesses, and unfortunately, UKHospitality fears that there could be a further 100,000 job losses because of Labour’s policies.
I suspect that during the debate we will hear many names of great pubs, and I will try to visit as many of them as I can, as long as they still survive—but my hon. Friend is right: there is an alternative course of action here. There is a Conservative, pro-business economic policy that we can advocate. Later in my speech, I will mention some of the numbers to show the appalling impact on pubs in particular.
I suggest that the hon. Lady talk to those constituents again. I do not think one has to be a sparkling economist to work out that when something has gone up, it is higher, not lower. Those people are not getting a permanent reduction in business rates. The numbers are going up. That is basic economics and facts. It is part-time seasonal and temporary workers, young workers and people in sectors such as food production, tourism, retail and hospitality who are being hit particularly hard, but perhaps that should not surprise us. As many Members have already pointed out, Labour just does not understand economics, business, or incentives.
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. We see that the hospitality sector is hard-hit, because numbers for the sector are easily available, and there have been a great many reports about the job losses there, but multiple sectors will be hit by these changes. As he points out, the problem is not just the tax hit but the regulatory burden, and that reinforces my point that the Government do not understand business.
No, the pandemic was largely to blame for that, but to ensure that we recovered from the pandemic, and to help save lives and livelihoods, which included supporting the hospitality sector, the Government spent £400 billion, so I am afraid I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Of course, few members of the Cabinet have ever worked in the private sector, and I do not think any of them have actually run their own business—maybe one.
Members of Parliament may not have to work in business, but I expect every one to come to this House and advocate for business.
My right hon. Friend is correct: having people who have run a business is good for Government. I am sorry to hear that Labour Members do not believe that their Cabinet would be better if there were a few more pro-business people in it. I can assure him that most of his constituents agree.
I, too, have a great deal of affection for the hon. Gentleman; we go back quite a long way from when we were elected. We need to recognise that there are Members on both sides of the House who come from poor or modest backgrounds, and it is simply not true to say that the Conservative Benches are full of posh people and the Labour Benches are not. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the House in trying to give an alternative impression.
My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. As I say, the onus is on all of us in this place to make sure that we listen, learn and advocate on others’ behalf.
I will give way one more time, and then I will make a bit of progress.
I have spoken to a few zero-hours workers, and many of them are not happy with the Government’s policy, because it is going to make some of them unemployed. Of course, the one thing that we do know about Labour Governments is that they know how to spend other people’s money. They have no idea how wealth is created and how the money that pays for our public services is generated in the first place, but they certainly know how to tax and spend. We have seen tax increases of £66 billion in just two Budgets, and tens of billions of pounds in additional debt. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
The hon. Gentleman’s final words are key: how are public services paid for? The top 1% of income tax payers in this country pay 29% of all income tax. It is estimated that the Labour Government’s policies have led to 16,000 of the wealthiest people in this country leaving—equivalent to a third of a million to half a million average taxpayers. The burden, therefore, is spread on the others. Instead of demonising some of the wealthiest people, who make an incredible contribution to our public services, maybe the Government should thank them.
Yet more common sense is coming from those on this side of the Chamber, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, it is young people in particular who do not have confidence in this Government and are fleeing. It is clear that I do not have particularly high regard for Labour’s economic competence, but even I did not expect the Government to be running out of money quite so quickly. I expected them to be bad, but I did not expect them to be this bad. It does not give me any political joy to say that, because my constituents and their constituents are paying the price for Labour’s incompetence through higher taxes and, in many cases, with their jobs and livelihoods. I genuinely wish that they were better at government, but that is wishful thinking, because here is another hard truth about Labour: despite the party’s name and the false advocacy for working people, every Labour Government since the second world war have left office with unemployment higher than when they started, leaving the Conservatives to clear up their mess. We Conservatives know that the best thing we can do for working people, and to lift people out of poverty, is to help them get a job, and we have a far better record than Labour in doing that. Between 2010 and 2024, Conservative-led Governments oversaw the creation of 4 million jobs—an average of 800 a day. This Government are destroying jobs by the tune of hundreds per day.