Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme
Order. When entering the Chamber, hon. Members must be aware that there is a debate taking place.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Digital ID
Order. I assume that the Minister is about to come to a conclusion as he has overrun his two minutes.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
Someone’s had their Weetabix.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
Order. I have not just said anything.
- Hansard source
New Towns
Order. I will not introduce a formal time limit, but if Members keep their speeches to under eight minutes, that will help everybody else.
- Hansard source
New Towns
With a speaking limit of seven minutes, I call Chris Curtis.
- Hansard source
New Towns
That sounded more like a maiden speech.
- Hansard source
New Towns
The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) mentioned that it is his mother’s birthday. I have been given an update: she is called Yvonne Bonavia. Happy birthday, Yvonne.
- Hansard source
New Towns
I call Sam Rushworth.
- Hansard source
New Towns
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
New Towns
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Gambling Harms: Children and Young People
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. For full transparency, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for securing this important debate. The protection of children and young people should unite every Member of this House. We all recognise that under-18s should not be gambling, and it is right that the law is strict on that point. Young people are still developing, as others have argued; they are more exposed to online influence and less equipped to assess long-term risks and consequences. That is why it is somewhat difficult to square claims that even limited exposure to gambling advertising is intolerable with the arguments made by some on the Government Benches for 16-year-olds to have the vote—but I will move on, because that is not the purpose of today’s debate. If we are to make real progress in protecting children, we must be clear about where harm and exposure actually arise, particularly in the online world, as we have heard, and ensure that our response is based on the best possible evidence. Crucially, as we have heard, harm to children does not come only from direct participation. Many children experience gambling harm indirectly—from parents or loved ones who themselves struggle with addiction. That can mean financial instability, stress at home, relationship breakdowns and wider impacts on a child’s wellbeing, education and mental health. Those knock-on effects are real and deserve serious attention from Government. That is why prevention, early intervention and family support matter so much. To that end, I would appreciate the Minister telling me or trying to work out why I have yet to receive a response to the letter that I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) sent to the Secretary of State on 6 November regarding the impending cliff edge on funding that fantastic charities such as Gordon Moody, Betknowmore UK, Deal Me Out, Ygam and GamCare are all facing. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has raised the issue, and the Minister will be aware that I raised it with him personally before Christmas, because we do need to ensure that Government understand the unnecessary worry that has been caused to charities that have real expertise in this space. I understand that there may be interim grants to cover the next financial year, but that information is only just starting to come to light. I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government have left these essential charities in the dark over the future of the services that they provide, and whether the Government will finally—hopefully—get their act together and engage with the sector, so that a real, working solution can be put in place for the long term and we do not have this ongoing situation in which gambling harm seems to fall between the DCMS and the Department of Health and Social Care. That is a real issue and concern. As a shadow Minister, I have visited a number of these charities to see the work that is happening on the ground. They do incredible work and have incredible expertise in helping people across the country, so we must ensure that gambling harm does not fall between the cracks any more. Much of the debate has focused so far on advertising. There is no question but that children should not be targeted, and within the regulated sector they are not permitted to be. But at the same time, as we have heard, we cannot ignore the wider online environment in which children now live. Evidence shows that when young people encounter gambling-related content, it is most often through social media, streaming platforms and online influencers—the places where enforcement is hardest and protections are weakest. This is the area that I have most concern about as a shadow Minister, and I have spoken about it before, particularly in relation to some of the crypto scams that we see online. Someone mentioned doomscrolling, and I sometimes come across this content when doomscrolling. Illegal and unlicensed operators are exploiting this space and exploiting young people. They use influencers and celebrities in ways that licensed operators are explicitly banned from doing, and they operate in overseas jurisdictions, which means that age checks can be bypassed entirely. Once a child enters this space, there are no safeguards at all—no limits, no interventions and no support. We must be honest about unintended consequences. When policy decisions, including sharp tax rises, weaken the legal, regulated market—I have said openly before that I do not mind bashing the bookies, but I am worried about the growth of this—the activity does not stop, but moves to the illegal market. I have made that point before in the House. Evidence from abroad shows such displacement to the black market, where there are no age checks, safeguards or accountability. In my opinion, that environment is far more dangerous for children and adults alike. Of course, we know that gambling harms exist, and every case involving a child is one too many, but they do not exist in isolation. They are closely linked, as we have heard, to mental health, family circumstances, financial stress and patterns of online behaviour. That is why education, parental engagement and digital literacy must sit at the heart of the Government’s response. Children need a clear understanding of risk and probability, a resilience to online marketing and the confidence to question what they see online. Parents need support, information and early help when problems arise. If Government Members want to do what is best for children and completely remove their exposure to unregulated, predatory advertisements from black market sites, I kindly encourage them to back the Conservatives’ plan to raise the age of consent for social media to 16 years old to support children and parents. It is a bold policy that, as we have heard, has cross-party support, and I urge the Government to get on with it. I think it is the bold action that is needed to tackle online harms, including gambling harms. Moreover, the statutory levy provides an opportunity to fund evidence-based education, treatment and prevention, including support for families affected by gambling addiction. That funding must be targeted, evaluated and focused on what works. Would the Minister outline what he is doing to step up work on this issue to ensure that charities have the funding certainty they require to continue their operations across the country? What are the Government doing to ensure that the Gambling Commission has the resources and the right approach to tackle the illegal black market and the targeting of young people on social media, particularly in relation to crypto?
- Hansard source
Access to Sports Facilities
This Labour Government have announced that they intend to remove Sport England—alongside the Gardens Trust and the Theatres Trust—as a statutory consultee in planning decisions, putting playing fields across the country at risk. The Conservatives oppose this move. Can the Minister explain how first scrapping the £57 million opening school facilities fund and now allowing developers to concrete over playing fields will increase access to sports facilities?
- Hansard source
Access to Sports Facilities
Not much of an answer there, but hopefully another U-turn will be coming soon. Over the previous Parliament, the Conservative Government invested more than £1 billion in grassroots and school sports. On this side of the House, we are also absolutely clear that girls’ and women’s sports must be protected to ensure fairness, competition and safety. Will the Sport Minister confirm today what action she is taking to ensure the Supreme Court’s ruling on biological sex is applied in leisure and sports facilities across the UK?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Ofwat has thankfully moved from being “concerned” about repeated and widespread water outages in Sussex and Kent to taking action. Once again, this has significantly affected my constituents for the last five days in East Grinstead, Ashurst Wood and many Wealden villages. My constituents have seen this repeated failing, shambolic performance from South East Water previously. They want action and accountability. I respectfully ask the Leader of the House to make Government time available to discuss the impacts on the community, business, vulnerable people and livestock, as well as the challenges around compensation and performance for those affected. Some 2.3 million customers are “served” by this atrocious organisation.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on mandatory digital ID.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
The Minister read his speech beautifully, and with a straight face. In September, the Prime Minister tossed this mandatory digital ID on to the table as a classic dead cat distraction, purely to keep Andy Burnham off the front pages as the Labour party conference started. Now it is left to a junior Minister to come to Parliament to explain why the policy that the Prime Minister spent months saying was absolutely vital is being hollowed out. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his new position last Friday, but I suspect he is quickly learning that the price of his red box is to have to go out on a very thin limb and put his own credibility on the line, only for those higher up in Government to rev the chainsaw, leaving him exposed, with only the flimsiest of pretences to protect his dignity—the pretence that this policy is still a going concern. In less than four months, the policy has gone from dead cat to dead parrot. Like Monty Python’s pet shop owner, the Minister is asking us all to deny what we can see clearly with our own eyes. He does everything short of inviting us to admire its beautiful plumage, but this policy has passed on. My questions for the Minister are: do the Government still expect digital ID, in this new form, to cost £1.8 billion? Is it going to be mandatory or not? What on earth does the taxpayer get for that money if people do not even have to have it? Above all, when is he going to finally face facts, stop spending billions on this zombie boondoggle that is wandering aimlessly in search of a problem to solve, and save taxpayers’ money? This is a dead policy.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
He didn’t come here voluntarily!
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Yesterday, Open Doors held its annual event here in Westminster and published its world watch list. Thanks to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in particular, we have often had debates about religious persecution, but can the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time in the Chamber to consider the latest Open Doors list and the persecution that exists across the world?
- Hansard source
Food Inflation
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing the debate. For many people across the country, rising food prices are one of the most concrete ways in which the cost of living crisis impacts their lives. Thanks to rising costs, many families simply do not have enough money left at the end of the month to save for a home, plan a holiday or even send their children on a school trip. In general, prices rise because of three things. First, they can rise because too many people want too few goods. If the demand for something grows faster than the supply, the price will of course rise. We saw that in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The supply of Ukrainian wheat fell, demand stayed the same and global food prices rose. Secondly, prices can rise because it becomes more expensive to produce goods in the first place. To keep earning enough to survive, the people who produce those goods will need to increase their prices to cover their growing costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned, we see that today, as this Government’s energy policies create the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. Higher energy prices for businesses mean higher production costs, causing prices to rise. The same is true of higher taxes or greater regulatory costs, both of which this Government have imposed on businesses of all kinds. Thirdly, prices can rise because of external factors, which can also be in response to Government policy. If the Government increase the supply of money, say, or keep interest rates too low, people will be more likely to spend, reducing the relative value of the pound in their pocket and, again, causing prices to rise. If we talk to anybody involved in producing food in this country, we will hear a lot about the second cause. Costs are rising and prices are rising with them. As I mentioned, that is due partly to energy costs, but also partly to the vast sums food producers must spend to comply with the regulations they need to navigate if they ever want to sell their products. Let us take dairy farms as just one example. What hurdles must a dairy farmer in Kent, in my constituency, clear if they want to sell milk, cheese or butter? To even begin the process, all dairy farmers must register with the Food Standards Agency as a dairy producer. If they want to turn some of their milk into cheese or butter, they must also get a separate approval as a food business establishment. Cows must be kept according to regulations set out under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, which include rules on space, housing and veterinary care. The herd must be regularly tested by the Animal and Plant Health Agency for tuberculosis and brucellosis. They must be specifically protected to minimise contact with badgers, with the construction of specific fences and feeding facilities. Farmers must also create and implement a hazard analysis and critical contact point plan identifying all potential contamination hazards and setting out plans to minimise them. They must test for certain bacteria and must be prepared for unannounced inspections by the Food Standards Agency. If farmers want to sell milk, they must comply with the Drinking Milk (England) Regulations 2008, which define the appropriate fat content for different sorts of milk and sets out specific rules on pasteurisation. If they want to turn the milk into cheese, they must comply with certain compositional standards, including rules on protected designations for specific regional varieties. If they want to turn the milk into butter, they must comply with the Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) and the Milk Products (Protection of Designations) (England) Regulations 2008, including rules on additives and fat percentage. Then there are rules on labelling and marketing, on mandatory written contracts on milk sales to regulate pricing, and on manure spreading and waste management. If farmers want to adapt their buildings or extend them, they need to navigate the labyrinth of our planning system. Then and only then are they allowed to sell their milk, butter or cheese, and the price in the shops will need to reflect all the costs I have just mentioned if they want to keep the farm running.
- Hansard source
Food Inflation
What is important here, and what I am trying to set out, is how many costs farmers have to meet even just to get their produce out of the door. When we talk about food prices, it is inevitable that we will talk about why those prices rise, what the costs are and how they might be going up. Many of my farmers work incredibly hard to put food on people’s tables, and my aim is to talk through the costs they face even just to be able legally to sell their produce. It is important for constituents who are listening to this debate to understand what goes into the pint of milk that they buy. Dairy farmers live an extremely difficult lifestyle. They work long hours and can never afford to take a day off—the cows will, after all, always need milking. Thanks to farmers’ hard work, we are able to enjoy some of the finest dairy products anywhere in the world. Given the difficulties they face, we should not be making their lives harder by forcing them to navigate mountains of paperwork and endless regulatory compliance. It is bad for them and bad for those who want to buy their products at an affordable price.
- Hansard source
Food Inflation
I am so sorry; I am running out of time. The same is true across every other type of farming or food production, from vegetables to vineyards. For the sake of those who put food on our plates and of families working hard to make ends meet, will the Minister—who I notice is wearing our favourite suit jacket again today, as am I—please explain what steps the Government are taking to reduce costs for food producers and, in turn, for producers across this country? Finally, those Government hurdles are due not just to legislation. Peter Hall at Little Mill Farm in Marden in my constituency does incredible work with the Felix Project. He gives away thousands of apples and pears from his orchards to be eaten by children who would otherwise not be able to eat them. He would happily sell them to local schools at cost price or lower, but the tangled bureaucracy of procurement makes that impossible. Addressing that issue would be a win for everyone. It would mean healthier food being provided cheaply for local children, supporting our farmers, tackling food waste, and preventing orchards from having to be grubbed up, which releases a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. Will the Minister please set out any plans she might have to make it easier for local farmers to sell their produce to state institutions nearby?
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I congratulate the Minister on his new position, or poisoned chalice, whatever the case may be. Given that the Government have now realised that mandatory ID cards were never going to stop small boat crossings, as they claimed, will the Minister confirm when the Prime Minister will complete his U-turn and abandon this pointless and costly project that the British people do not want?
- Hansard source
Food Inflation
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She is right to highlight the issue of inflation, especially food inflation, but does she also recognise that although the price of food is going up, the food producers, predominantly farmers, are not seeing a similar rise in the income they get for producing that valuable food?
- Hansard source
Food Inflation
During this debate, much discussion has been about food banks. It is important that we also recognise food larders—I have a number in my constituency —where large shops and supermarkets donate their food at the end of the day or before the sell-by date. They minimise food waste and enable people to access low-cost or free food that they would otherwise have to pay for.
- Hansard source
New Palace Yard Project
7. What assessment the Commission has made of whether the New Palace Yard project will be completed within its budget.
- Hansard source
New Palace Yard Project
Frankly, a cost of £62 million for the New Palace Yard project is eye-watering. Most of our constituents will find that outrageous, particularly given that it is not fit for purpose—staff are having to queue for long times when leaving Parliament at the end of the day. What was the original budget for the project, who approved it and who designed it? Does the hon. Member think that there has been sufficient political oversight of that project and similar work in Parliament?
- Hansard source
Digital ID
Oh! Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. We do not want digital ID. It will cost billions of pounds and it should be scrapped completely. Despite what the Minister said, I am concerned that digital ID will not be technically compulsory, but people will be blocked from accessing services if they do not have it. In response to other questions, the Minister alluded to childcare. Can he confirm whether accessing childcare will be dependent on having a digital ID card?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Scottish Borders are being inundated with new energy infrastructure projects. SNP Ministers in Edinburgh blame the Labour Government here, and the Labour Government here blame the SNP Government in Scotland—frankly, it has become ridiculous. Ultimately, responsibility rests with the Scottish Government’s planning framework, which allows those energy projects to be imposed on local communities, even if there are concerns about grid capacity or the local council strongly objects. I would be very grateful to the Leader of the House if he facilitated a meeting between the UK Government Energy Minister, the Scottish Government and me, so that we can provide local communities and the environment the protection that they deserve.
- Hansard source
New Towns
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech about the importance of new towns. I was brought up just outside Kilwinning, which is part of the Irvine new town in Ayrshire. She and I are probably of a similar age, so does she remember the campaign—the iconic campaign—in the 1980s: “What’s it called? Cumbernauld”? In her view, how successful was that campaign in bringing people to the town and new employers to the area?
- Hansard source
Food Inflation
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve not only under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, but on the Treasury Committee with you and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West)? I first became engaged in this subject during my first Parliament, when I joined the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food poverty with the late Frank Field. He taught me a great deal, and we worked together on a cross-party basis to produce a report on hunger and food poverty. I was drawn to this topic by the fact that the Trussell Trust was founded in Salisbury by Paddy and Carol Henderson, who were taking food into Bulgaria at the time. In 2000, the first food bank was opened in Salisbury, and we now see food banks across the country. While I will address what the hon. Lady spoke about, it is also important that we reflect on some of the deeper challenges that exist with food inflation, which is running at a much higher rate than the prevailing level of inflation. In preparing for this debate, I examined the facts carefully and read briefings from UKHospitality, the Food and Drink Federation, the National Farmers Union and the Trussell Trust, all of which provide helpful analysis. Over the five-year period up to August 2025, food inflation was about 10% higher than the prevailing general level of inflation. As the hon. Lady set out, that has had a massive impact on the poorest in our communities, who in different ways spend a higher proportion of their income on food. We in this Chamber can all attribute different weightings to different aspects of this issue, including international global agricultural prices and the clearly significant disruption to the supply chain after the invasion of Ukraine. The Bank of England would assert that domestic labour costs and high pay growth is a key factor, particularly in sectors such as horticulture, where there is a degree of mechanisation. However, we are never going to remove the reliance—I speak as the son of a horticulturalist—on the hard work of people being paid to do a manual job. In a written answer published just last week, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury spoke about the Government’s intention to set out the food inflation gateway to examine all the different drivers of inflation. I acknowledge the work the Government are doing, and I am sure the Minister will follow up on that to reset somewhat the relationship with the EU. Business rates are also a factor, but if we look across milk, sugar, cheese and flour—some of the most basic staple foodstuffs—we see significant increases over the last five years, which range from 19% for flour up to 56% for sugar and 46% for milk. We have to be honest about all the different regulations and obligations that we put on those who supply our food and prepare it for us in restaurants. The input-cost pressures need to be carefully weighed against one another. I mentioned the significant increases in labour costs, and the agricultural sector’s reliance on labour, but it is also about energy costs. Our energy costs are 45% higher at this point in time than those in France and Germany. That is a cost that many of the food processing industries just cannot avoid. The Government will assert that they are on a transformational journey, but until that we reach the destination, the costs are incredibly high and difficult to bear. Animal welfare is an important issue for many in the Chamber and across the House. If we look at how farming works, we see that there is actually a lower density of poultry and beef, which leads to different costs for producing some of those things. We want to have it all, including the extended producer responsibility—a whole life-cycle responsibility for packaging. When we take all these things together, simultaneously, in a five-year period of global disruption, the outcome is very worrying. It would be remiss not to mention the impact of climate change on crops such as coffee, cocoa and palm oil. The net effect is that food is too expensive for the most vulnerable and the poorest in our communities. That has really difficult consequences. It is a massive part of our economy. UKHospitality covers, I think, 123,000 venues, and 10% of all UK jobs. The sector generates £54 billion in tax receipts, so the changes that we make to its input costs will have enormous consequences. We have to be honest about which changes we are prepared to prioritise and which changes we cannot afford at this point in time, because they will have an impact. I want to make a few observations about food poverty. Just last week I visited Maria Stevenson, who manages the Salisbury food bank, which used to be a Trussell Trust food bank and is now independent. She does an amazing job of analysing those who use the food bank—those who go occasionally or on a recurring basis—to try to give them additional support and make interventions, such as supporting them to secure the right benefits or helping them with other things in their lives. We have to grasp that. None of us want to see food banks grow. We should have pride in what Paddy and Carol Henderson did all those years ago, but not in seeing food banks grow as they have over the last 25 years. We have to be honest about the situations people are in. Next Monday, we will have a financial wellbeing workshop in our guildhall in Salisbury, where the Money and Pensions Service is inviting people to open up and talk about cost of living pressures, so that we can find solutions. I do not expect the Minister to be able to go through all the input costs today and give an analysis of how they are going to be reduced—although I recognise that there were some hopeful signs at the end of last year on both food inflation and general inflation, albeit from a higher base than I would have liked to have seen. We must also look into people’s wider financial wellbeing and the circumstances they find themselves in. Inflation is insidious. It removes the buying power of our constituents. One of the wealthiest countries in the world has people who do not have enough food to eat. We must all redouble our efforts to tackle that, so that we can be proud of what we have achieved by the end of our time in Parliament. My experience is that, given their complicated circumstances, those experiencing food poverty need more than just a handout.
- Hansard source
Food Inflation
I hear what the Minister says, but does she not recognise that if the prevailing increase in the national living wage is 6.7% and inflation is about half that, and given the other costs mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), many employers will not be able to take on any casual extra staff? They may even need to release some members of staff, which surely does not help anyone.
- Hansard source
Town of Culture and City of Culture Competitions
I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting the town of culture competition to happen. I was briefly Arts Minister nine years ago, and Sir Phil Redmond did an amazing job then of setting out the distinction between city of culture and town of culture. I seek the Secretary of State’s advice about Salisbury. As it is really a town with a cathedral, should it bid for town of culture or the city of culture competition, as it celebrates its 800th year since its charter?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Duncan Grocock, a frequent commuter from Salisbury to London, came to see me about the short-forming of South Western Railway trains along the line through Andover and Basingstoke. Passengers can be compensated when trains are late, but not when they must stand for commutes of an hour and a half. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement from one of his Department for Transport colleagues on whether compensation can be paid to commuters on that line who have to stand on three-carriage trains into London?
- Hansard source
Improving Outcomes for Young People
The best thing the Government can do to support young people is to ensure they have jobs, but in the three months to October last year, unemployment for 18 to 24-year-olds rose by 85,000. What does the Secretary of State have to say to the Chancellor, who is over-taxing jobs, including for young people?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I thank the Leader of the House for the clarity he has given us on the business of the House, and in particular for the rescheduling of the Diego Garcia Bill immediately after it was going to be debated, following the changes made to the Hillsborough law. I know the whole House will want to join me in expressing our continuing concern for the people of Iran in the face of the vicious repression that they have faced and apparently may continue to face. If I may, I want to raise two issues: one that is big and one that is small but, in its own way, also big. First, on defence and security, the Chief of the Defence Staff was in front of the Defence Committee this week. He revealed that the strategic defence review was not fully costed, despite all the assurances that were given to the Committee and to Parliament at the time. As a result, the defence investment plan has been repeatedly delayed—until March, as it appears—because the Treasury is apparently seeking to come to terms with the fact that we are in a pre-war situation and that the actual cash spending power of many of our armed forces will barely grow over the next two years. This is an enormously important topic for the whole House. I would be grateful for the assurance of the Leader of the House that he will speak to No. 10 and the Cabinet Office to ensure that my shadow Cabinet colleagues continue to receive the appropriate security briefings that they require to do their job. Secondly, the issue of pubs and hospitality has consumed so much of the power, concern and interest of the House. We are always apt to get lost in generalities. In a way, that is a condition of politics: we debate the laws and the general issues of the country. It is also important, however, to zero in on a particular factual situation from time to time and use that to get a wider sense of what is happening. I will put before the House the facts of a specific case relating to hospitality. In my constituency, the Bay Horse Inn is a great country pub that sits on the outskirts of Hereford. It supports local people and serves my constituents. From April, its business rates are scheduled to rise from £31,000 to over £51,000 a year—a 67% increase. The landlord Neil tells me that energy costs have also risen to £5,500 a month. Unlike households, there is no price cap for commercial energy. Indeed, pubs are charged risk premiums and are locked into prices of nearly 40p a unit, while domestic customers pay around 28p. The pub already pays above the minimum wage. Neil estimates that the rise in the national living wage will add £18,000 a year to his costs. Meanwhile, monthly national insurance contributions have risen by nearly 170%, and that is made worse because the higher employer contributions now exhaust the employment allowance more quickly. That is a direct tax on employing people, especially young people, and it lands hardest on small, labour-intensive businesses such as pubs. Neil has a few guest rooms at the Bay Horse, so he does not even know if he will be helped by the latest rumoured U-turn on rates support. That is the reality of the Government’s unwillingness or inability to join up policy in relation to a key set of sectors in the economy that affect hospitality. All those increases are the result of current ministerial decisions. Every Member of the House—including every Government Member—will have pubs and hospitality businesses in their constituency in the same situation. The Bay Horse is not just a business: it has raised over £60,000 for the Hereford Lions club; it installed a defibrillator at the landlord’s expense; it provides a place for supervised, responsible drinking; and it supports schools, the hospice and local causes year after year, yet Government policy treats it as expendable. When will Ministers start talking to each other? When will they put away the rhetoric of helping and actually get on with assisting small businesses? Can we have a debate in the House that goes into not just the specific issue of hospitality, but the generality of all the different Government policies across different Departments that make life so difficult for these hard-working, struggling local businesses?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Last year, 1,600 people were killed on our roads. May we have a debate on the Government’s road safety strategy and toughening driving offence sentences, including steps to protect horses and riders such as my constituent Emma and many others in North West Norfolk and across the country who feel increasingly frightened and unsafe due to dangerous and abusive driving on our rural roads?
- Hansard source
Covid-19: Financial Support
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) on securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken—I think more than 10 did—about what their constituents suffered and continue to suffer. They set out some very powerful examples. It is almost six years since the first cases of covid were recorded in the UK, after two Chinese nationals travelled here from Wuhan. As has been said, these were some of the most challenging times for our nation. Some 230,000 people tragically died, and there is a very powerful memorial just across the river to remind us; we see it every day. Lockdowns and restrictions were imposed. Choices were made that no Government would want to make. As a newly elected MP, I was faced with the need to vote for and support measures restricting people’s freedom—something that I did not expect to have to do when I came into this place. Clearly, not every decision taken was right. Mistakes were made, as they would be in a pandemic, but overall this unprecedented challenge was met with unprecedented action. On the economy, the subject of this debate, the actions taken by the then Conservative Government protected millions of jobs, and supported businesses and those most in need. When the pandemic struck, the Government acted swiftly. The coronavirus job retention scheme—the furlough scheme—which protected 11 million jobs at a cost of £70 billion, was announced on 20 March. Shortly afterwards, the first lockdown was announced. At its peak, nearly 9 million people were on furlough, preventing widespread unemployment. For the self-employed, a topic covered in most contributions, the self-employment income support scheme was set up and delivered nearly £30 billion, across five rounds of grants, to nearly 3 million individuals. Those schemes provided a lifeline to those whose livelihood was threatened through no fault of their own. Beyond the employment support schemes, eight grant schemes saw £23 billion paid to small businesses. They were administered by local authorities. I pay tribute to the work they did to put in place systems and mechanisms for processing those payments rapidly and getting the support to people who needed it. Through three loan schemes, nearly £80 billion-worth of loans were approved. The bounce back loan scheme supported 1.5 million businesses with nearly £50 billion of funding. It was not only loans that provided crucial support. Some £10 billion was made available in business rates relief to nearly 370,000 premises in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, and we are now seeing the consequences of unwinding some of that support. VAT for the hospitality sector, which was particularly affected by the restrictions and rules that were put in place, was cut to 5%. I supported the campaign for that cut, as did many Members across the House. That unprecedented package supported jobs and livelihoods across the UK. The Government also acted to help certain groups who faced particular challenges. A £20-a-week uplift was put in place for people on universal credit to help those on the lowest incomes, and rules about eligibility for benefits were relaxed. Additional support for jobseekers through the kickstart and restart schemes was also rolled out. Of course, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and other hon. Members have said, the support did not reach everyone. ExcludedUK was established in May 2020 to represent individuals and small business owners who fell outside the main financial support schemes. As has been set out, the group estimates that around 3.8 million people were unable to access full financial support, despite losing their income. Those individuals included the newly self-employed, company directors paid in dividends, and those whose self-employment income was less than half their overall earnings. I know the genuine hardship faced by my constituents in that situation from my time in this House, and from raising constituents’ issues with Ministers. Hon. Members from across the House will remember the constant Teams and Zoom meetings with Ministers, in which we put forward the position of those people, as well as the debates held in the House and the reports by the Treasury Committee and others drawing attention to the situation. The response that was consistently provided was about the challenges in identifying workable solutions for HMRC’s system, which, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) said, was unable to differentiate dividends coming from an individual’s company from money from other sources. The cut-off points—the £50,000 threshold—for self-employed people also led to real difficulties and unfairness. The fraud risk, which has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, was one of the reasons given by the then permanent secretary to the Treasury as to why schemes put forward by the Federation of Small Businesses were cited as not being possible. There were changes through the five self-employment income support scheme grants. Frankly, though, the restrictions created the impact on the people to whom hon. Members have referred. The ongoing concerns raised by the campaign merit serious consideration—and the covid inquiry will give them that consideration during the module referred to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. Looking to the future, we should ensure that if and when the next pandemic strikes, we have better data, and better systems to put in place support, if needed; Making Tax Digital may help in that regard. We should ensure that rules do not exclude people unfairly. Equally, we must learn the lessons from the pandemic, particularly around the damaging impact of lockdowns, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said; if we do not put those restrictions in place, such huge financial firepower will not be needed. In the pandemic, the pressure for action to help people and businesses was incredibly intense. There were trade-offs relating to time and the checks that could be implemented on support schemes. I recall vividly the clamour for support for small businesses, which I was part of. That led to the bounce back loan scheme, which had limited checks, leading to consequences involving fraud. That scheme, however, enabled lots of businesses to survive that would not otherwise be here today. The Government could have spent months designing the perfect scheme while businesses collapsed and families struggled; instead, they acted to protect lives and livelihoods. Some £410 billion was spent on covid measures—an extraordinary sum that added greatly to our debt. However, predictions by the Bank of England that unemployment would reach 9% were prevented. Unemployment peaked at 5.2%, before falling back to 3.7% two years after the first lockdown. However, a lot of people clearly missed out on full financial support. While there will continue to be debate about the decisions taken and lessons to be learned, undoubtedly our country would be in a far worse place today were it not for the decisions taken at the time.