Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I would not want to incur wrath by accusing anybody of misleading the House, but that is exactly the same story that I have heard from the Bridge Inn in Amberley, the Star and Garter in East Dean, the Bricklayers Arms in Midhurst and the Black Horse Inn in Byworth. That surely cannot be a coincidence; these cannot be isolated examples of those “permanently lower” business rates—
Of course I will give way. I look forward to hearing about how one should understand that statement about the “permanently lower” business rates that this Government have introduced, of which we cannot seem to find an example.
I hear the hon. Lady’s point, and I am glad she has found some examples—I note that neither in her intervention nor in her earlier remarks did she go so far as naming any of them, and I will happily take another intervention if she would like to do so. I have named many examples. The revaluation exercise on pubs is not some long-delayed exercise; it is a routine, frequent timeframe that the Valuation Office Agency goes through. This is not something that has been pent up for many years; it is just the process of revaluation. When it comes to the rubber hitting the road of how much business rates are being levied on pubs, and how much cash will leave those stretched businesses that are struggling with all the different costs, what matters is the net effect of revaluation, this Government’s removal of the retail, hospitality and leisure relief that the Conservative Government put in, and of course the ongoing rate multiplier. Every pub and hotel that I have spoken to in my rural constituency bears out precisely the figures from UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association —we have heard about that many times today, and I know that they ran drop-ins earlier today for Members across the House. Tom Richardson at the Three Moles in Selham explained to me how the turnover basis of assessing rateable values has combined with the cost headwinds that this Government have amplified—I will be so kind as to imply that they did not all happen from 1 July 2024. Nevertheless, the choices that the Government have made, in particular the change in the national insurance rates and the changes to thresholds on national insurance, have enormously pushed up the cost of employment. On top of that, businesses are still waiting for the promised reduction in energy prices, whether for electricity or heating oil, because those prices have more than doubled in some cases. Tottington Manor Hotel in Henfield has to find nearly £50,000 extra due to the changes that this Government have made to employment costs. It is no surprise—we heard this again and again from colleagues this afternoon—that pub and hotel owners are at the end of their tether. Nobody should want to preside over such a series of choices. One landlord told me that they have not been able to draw a wage from their pub for the last six months. Another told me how she was working seven days a week, 16 or 17 hours a day, just trying to keep the pub open. As we heard from many colleagues, the cost of hiring staff has become so prohibitive that owners are having to cut back. They are not able to hire, support or sustain staff, and they are taking more and more upon themselves, stretching their working day and taking on more tasks, creating one of the doom loops in which, it is sad to say, this Chancellor so specialises. We heard that from many colleagues who made contributions this afternoon, including my hon. Friend and near neighbour the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who spoke about the challenges on the island, particularly with seasonal work, and about how young people are hurting and how that is costing all of us in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said that this Government are awash with policies, plans and visions, but words butter no parsnips and they do not provide the jobs that we need—least of all the Employment Rights Bill, which, as it comes down the line, will really hurt and disincentivise family businesses, with which the sector is replete. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) talked, as did others, about the cumulative effect of measures—tax rises, national insurance increases, higher energy costs and more red tape—rather than there being one single axe falling on the heads of businesses. We should listen to small enterprises when they say that it feels like the Government are not on their side. It is no surprise that pub after pub, hostelry after hostelry, is erecting a sign on the door saying, “No Labour MPs here”. I remember that the Minister said that he had not seen one of those signs, so I trust that people in his constituency will take that as a personal challenge to ensure that one such sign is brought to his attention in the very near future. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said that this Government are doing that most terrible of things: preventing young people from getting on the job ladder through their first chance of work. The Government weigh down precisely the sorts of businesses that do such a good job of providing those opportunities, and that is difficult. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), talked about the tourism economy. To all the challenges and headwinds that have come about because of the Chancellor’s choices, we can add the bed tax, which will increase the cost for anyone holidaying in the UK. It will deter people from enjoying the wonderful vistas of Bognor Regis, Littlehampton or the South Downs, and simply encourage people to go to other countries on holiday, following in the wake of the many young people mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, who are leaving this country, such is the dearth of opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) talked about the degree to which the hospitality and pub sector is already over-taxed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) made the really important point that all the burdens of family businesses fall back on families. I am afraid to say that we are seeing nothing less than a full-frontal attack on seasonal work, and we see that no more so than in the unemployment Bill that was before the House this week. Like King Canute, this Government are legislating to outlaw seasonality and the rhythms of the tides. If a seaside café hires a student to wait on outside tables in the glorious sunshine, Labour wants the café to be forced to offer the student the same hours once the shutters come down in the autumn. It will mean the demise of strawberries and cream sellers in Wimbledon fortnight. The Government’s plans will even mean the death of Father Christmases and assistant elf helpers in shopping centres across the nation, because there is little demand for a Christmas elf in January, February or March. This is bureaucratic madness, yet Ministers press on, deaf to the cries of those who would most benefit from the choice—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like what I am saying, but they do not have an answer. They should know by now that you do not protect workers by bankrupting employers; you do not support our high streets, communities, pubs and restaurants by taxing them into submission. We Conservatives understand business. Unlike those in the current Cabinet, many of us have worked in businesses and enterprises ourselves. We stand with the risk takers in this country who create wealth, not the bureaucrats who seek to destroy it. That is why our motion supports seasonal, flexible and part-time working. We will take 250,000 high street businesses and pubs out of business rates entirely, paid for by the welfare reforms that the Government does not have the backbone to push through, and we will repeal all of the job-destroying measures in Labour’s unemployment Bill. We back the engines of growth in our economy—the providers of jobs. This Government seek to push them to the wall. I commend this motion to the House.
On the tourism tax, which will come on top of the increase in business rates, I spoke last week to Catherine, from the Navigator hotel, who is in despair at these additional costs. She fears for the future of her hotel and, indeed, for the 10 employees who work in that hotel. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give her?
Will the Minister give way?
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I invite him to visit the hairdressers in Aldwick, in my constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, where the owner will tell him that he spends hours upon hours working to ensure that he can even stay profitable. The Government might be withdrawing some aspects of small business paperwork, but that does not change the fact that the maths do not add up. Unless the owner spends hours dotting every i, crossing every t and cutting costs where he can, his employees will not have jobs and be able then to spend more money.
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I would just like to tell him about Charlie Cockaday, who runs the Fox Inn in Felpham, who tells me that with the new business rates reform introduced by this Government, he will be paying £1,600 a month more in business rates going forward, which is the equivalent of 35p for each pint that he sells. How does that equate to putting more money in people’s pockets?
Will the Minister give way?
Will the Minister give way?
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
To reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about risk, employers are taking personal risk when they set up businesses and employ people. When they have so much cost piled on them, that risk-benefit equation evaporates, and with it the jobs that they deliver to other people in their communities.
In constituencies like mine, seasonal, flexible and part-time working are central to the local economy. Seaside towns such as Bognor Regis and Littlehampton thrive on the cafés and attractions along the seafront and the pubs and shops on the high street. During the booming summer season, those businesses rely on seasonal workers to meet the demands of the tourists who flock to enjoy our wonderful stretch of Sussex coastline. Many seasonal workers are young people taking their first step on the career ladder during school, college or university holidays or long-term unemployed people looking for a route back into work, and even parents and pensioners who benefit from being able to work when it suits them to do so. When writing this speech, I cast my mind back to my early jobs: chopping vegetables in my local Harvester; waitressing in every imaginable kind of environment on a part-time basis when restaurants needed me; and earning double or sometimes triple my wages if I was prepared to work on Christmas day or new year’s eve, which, as a student, I welcomed. Then there were the pubs which employed me during my university career. All those roles are probably unviable now. It is the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, which provide such vital jobs, that are bearing the brunt of the Government’s damaging economic policies. After the Chancellor’s first Budget last October, more than 89,000 hospitality workers lost their jobs—over 50% of all jobs lost in that time. The Government tell us that the Employment Rights Bill, the darling of the trade unions, will make life better for working people. They are wrong. The Institute of Directors warns that the Bill is already undermining job creation, and research by FTI Consulting finds that 59% of SMEs will have to cut jobs. But do not take it from me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Listen to Ash, who co-owns Harbour Park, a seaside amusement park in Littlehampton. From ensuring the rides run smoothly to keeping visitors well fed and hydrated, local attractions such as Harbour Park rely on seasonal workers to open their doors every summer. After the Chancellor’s disastrous second Budget a fortnight ago, Harbour Park will see its business rates rise by 72.6% despite the so-called transitional discount. In 2026-27, that will increase by a further 97.5%.
My hon. Friend is right. The Business and Trade Committee had a number of businesses come to Parliament to tell us about the stasis that the leaks in the run-up to the Budget caused to their businesses. As he says, that feeds through to the general population, who know the costs businesses are having to incur and that they are getting to the point where they can no longer sustain them. People are concerned for their jobs. They know that, if they do not have a job, having more employment rights are no use whatsoever. He makes a valid and important point. The increase in Harbour Park’s costs amount to an extra £40,000, seriously impacting its ability to employ young people and give them a start in the job market. Last weekend, I met Kathleen, who runs the Navigator hotel in Bognor Regis. She employs young people in the town to work when she needs them during the busy summer months, when tourists fill the hotel rooms, drink in the bar and eat in the restaurant. Kathleen told me that she started her business full of hope, but now, after the imposition of so many additional costs and taxes, she works a full-time second job just to keep her business afloat, and to ensure that her 10 employees still have jobs to go to.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which takes me back to the conversation I had with Catherine this weekend. I hope she will not mind me saying this: she was so emotional that she was almost in tears at the prospect of a tourist tax being imposed by a Sussex mayor, who will come in next year—actually, that has been delayed into another year as well, hasn’t it? The rapid roll-out is not going quite so well. The emotion and fear that I heard in Catherine’s voice when we talked about that tax will not leave me for a long time. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising what a pernicious tax that could be.
I am delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, because there is a very important difference. Right now in the UK, the tourist economy is being hammered by the increased minimum wage, the Employment Rights Bill and high energy costs—I could go on. Businesses on our high streets are suffering, in particular seasonal businesses, which are having to bear the brunt of the Employment Rights Bill. If you had met the hotel owner in Bognor Regis—a tourist town—I think you would really be questioning what you are saying.
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that if it was one single tax instead of multiple taxes, it is quite possible that the tourist tax would be a good idea. However, in the current context of multiple taxes drowning our businesses into oblivion, it is not a good idea. If the unemployment rights Bill passes, Ash and Catherine will have to offer guaranteed hours to their flexible seasonal workers even during off-season troughs. With increased employer national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage rising again, these fixed schedules will make hiring people unviable. Far from protecting people who work seasonably and flexibly, by forcing businesses to provide guaranteed hours throughout the year the Employment Rights Bill will threaten their jobs. The Government should be supporting businesses such as Harbour Park and the Navigator Hotel, which give young people their first job and keep coastal towns like Bognor Regis and Littlehampton alive. Instead, the Government are putting them in a vice. Ministers must change course and withdraw the Employment Rights Bill, reverse the tax hikes and back the flexible seasonal jobs that our communities rely on—before more businesses close and more workers lose their jobs.
Harbour Park in my constituency would be required to pay people, rain or shine, at times when it receives no income from visitors. Does my hon. Friend agree that this measure will cause many businesses acute hardship?
Great British Railways is not an entirely new concept, but what the Government present as a “modernisation of our railways” is, when we strip away the glossy language, a centralising piece of legislation that advances Labour’s drive towards nationalisation. It risks creating a structure that is powerful, sprawling and unaccountable. In Aldridge, in my constituency, we had secured funding to deliver a railway station under the former mayor, Andy Street, and residents were told, after decades of waiting, that the project would finally go ahead. However, the new Labour mayor chose to withdraw the funding in favour of his own pet projects. When questions are put to Ministers, every answer points back to the combined authority, with the vague suggestion that there would be funding “if the region chooses”. Well, Aldridge and the West Midlands Combined Authority did choose, and the funding was in place, but Labour removed it. Nothing in the Bill prevents such a unilateral political decision from being made again. It provides no guarantee of transparency, and no duty to consult affected communities. As a former Rail Minister, I am very aware that we on this side of the House have long recognised that the old model needed updating. That is why, in government, we began the work for Great British Railways, through the Williams-Shapps plan. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but we set out the case for bringing track and train closer together, improving accountability, and delivering a more unified, passenger-focused system. We recognised the need for renewal of our railways, grounded in practicality and not in politics. What we have before us today, however, is something very different. This Bill offers too little detail, too little accountability, and far too many unanswered questions. It replaces a pragmatic, balanced approach with an ideological blueprint for nationalisation. Passengers across the country deserve better. The Bill promises integration, but it delivers centralisation. It speaks of clarity, yet it blurs responsibilities. Great British Railways will control timetables, fares, access decisions, infrastructure planning and data, a concentration of authority that should concern anyone who believes in genuine public accountability.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is worse is that time after time I cannot get a straight answer out of Ministers as to whether they will support open access. The Bill also weakens the independence of the ORR. When a body that runs services also shapes the rules against which those services are judged, the House should be deeply concerned. The Bill puts competition and innovation at risk, alongside the future of open access, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) has highlighted, is incredibly uncertain. A railway that cannot accommodate competition is a railway that is destined to stagnate. There is also the unresolved question of how GBR will interact with the Department for Transport. The Bill creates overlapping duties that risk friction and confusion. GBR will be required to consult, to produce strategies and to respond to ministerial direction, yet its operational independence is undefined. Will political priorities override operational judgment? Will GBR operate as an arm’s length body, or as an extension of the Department? How will we, as elected Members, hold Great British Rail, Ministers and mayors to account? Local decision making will not be stronger under the Bill. Ministers may talk the talk about devolution, but the Bill provides little evidence of it. Requiring GBR merely to “have regard to” local transport plans is a notably weak obligation. The Bill does not require GBR to follow them, and offers no protection to communities, such as Aldridge, where projects risk simply being cast aside when the political wind changes. If the Government are serious about devolving power to local leaders, they must allow us, the elected Members, to hold them to account. The House should not mistake this railway reorganisation for renewal—far from it. The Bill simply rearranges structures while failing to address the issues that matter most to passengers: cancelled trains, inconsistent performance, reduced competition and decisions made far away from the communities they affect. This is a Bill that gives Labour more control, not passengers better railways. It is not a credible plan for the future of our railways and the Government should think again.
I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. On the specific point of answering our questions, can he give us clarity on accountability? Where does accountability lie? Where will we as Members of Parliament see accountability for the actions of Ministers and mayors?
To be clear on accountability, how and where can a Member of Parliament hold a directly elected mayor to account for his or her decisions when it comes to railways?
I very much welcome the statement that the Chancellor has just made. Can I take that as an assurance that she will speak to her right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and make sure that rail fares in Tonbridge do not increase when a second peak-time service is introduced when contactless is rolled out as far as Tonbridge? That, of course, would be a sleight of hand, and she would never want to do that.
The Office for Budget Responsibility shows that welfare spending will be £32 billion a year more at the end of this Parliament, just as a result of decisions in the last Budget. Why was the Chancellor not more honest in the Labour party manifesto about the choices she wanted to make?
In east Kent, an entrepreneurial chain of 25 coffee bars employs young people who otherwise would probably be unemployable. The profit margin on those 25 coffee bars for the last year was £12. The hospitality industry is on its knees. Will the Chancellor recognise the need to cut VAT on hospitality to 10%?
The process surrounding the Budget was utterly chaotic. We had months of damaging speculation, fuelled by briefings and leaks from the Treasury itself. They included briefings on 14 November that moved markets and gave the appearance, at least, of being deliberately inaccurate, which is why we need the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate. May I ask the Chancellor a simple question? Did she at any point authorise or allow confidential details of the Budget or the forecast to be briefed to the press—yes or no?
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s own guidance states: “The interim rounds are transmitted to the Chancellor in confidence”. Yet the Chancellor repeatedly stated before the Budget that the OBR had downgraded its productivity forecast. In her statement in Downing Street on 4 November, she said in relation to the OBR’s forecast that “it is already clear that the productivity performance…is weaker than previously thought.” Why did the Chancellor breach the confidentiality of the OBR?
6. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to business rates on the hospitality sector.
Last week, Skipton was voted the happiest town in Britain to live in. One of the reasons for that—[Hon. Members: “Is you!”]—is its hospitality sector. Through covid, energy cost rises, national insurance rises and other challenges, that hospitality sector is facing massive challenges. I urge the Government to look again at reliefs and multipliers. Over the weekend, so many pubs and hotels raised with me the fact that they are not going to invest. We need the growth and we need the jobs. Will the Government look at how they can make things easier for the pub and hospitality industry?
I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that running any double agent inside a murderous organisation is bound to be a moral nightmare. The justification for such action is always—as it should be—that many more lives will be saved as a result, even if the agent is implicated in illegal and, indeed, murderous activities. What is unusual about this case is that it appears that more lives were not saved by this particular operation. Can the Secretary of State say whether the agencies accept that this particular operation was counterproductive, even in its own terms, and if he cannot share that with us openly, could it at least be shared confidentially with the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament?
Few of us here today were present in 2003 when the then MP for Keighley, Mrs Ann Cryer—a courageous Labour Member on the left of her party—spoke out about the grooming gangs. For her troubles, she was smeared as a racist, she was shunned and she was threatened to the point at which she had to have safety devices and emergency alarms installed in her home. Will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to her courage belatedly—it has never received any recognition, of which I am aware? Does she not think that Ann Cryer might even now have some insights to share with an inquiry as to what it is like when those who are supposed to be protecting people close ranks to protect the offenders instead?
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—I did give him notice that I was going to intervene. It is inconceivable, is it not, that Home Office Ministers would not know the answer to that question? When I was a Home Office Minister, I would ask my officials for exactly that kind of information. It is not just that the hon. Gentleman did not know; it seems that Ministers did not either. I cannot believe that. It is inconceivable.
My experience in this House over almost 30 years is that most people here—indeed, the overwhelming majority—want to do the right thing, irrespective of party, and I make that perfectly clear through you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But in that spirit, I know that you will take the view that it is critically important that parliamentary answers be full and accurate. That is something that I conjured with as a Minister, answering many, many written questions in a variety of Government Departments. Will the Minister address the specific issue raised about the accuracy and completeness of answers to questions?
The Home Secretary knows that I admire her personally. She is a devout Muslim lady, and I share many of her values. I think she is uniquely well placed to comment on this, explain and give us confidence. What is it about these Muslim men that meant that they felt that they could behave in this way, and can she explain that this is—if it is—a very small minority? Can she see what I am trying to get at? She can approach this, and explain this, in a way that some of us cannot, because nobody can ever accuse her of being racist, and nobody can ever accuse her of not wanting to get to the truth.
A direct train to London on this line is vital. Grimsby and Cleethorpes form a huge conurbation—probably much the biggest conurbation in the country not to be served by a direct train to London. We have been campaigning for this for so long, and I call on the Minister to just get moving with it. We do not need the Bill: we need action on a direct train from Grimsby and Cleethorpes, through Market Rasen and Lincoln, to London, in order to revive the whole area.
Will my hon. Friend write to the Procedure Committee with his file on this case? The Procedure Committee is at the moment inquiring into the quality of answers to written questions, and is very concerned about the lack of quality. I am also concerned about receiving answers, in my case from the Treasury recently, that suggest there was an attempt to deliberately mislead, which has been exposed only as a result of supplementary answers.
18. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of extending freezes on income tax and national insurance thresholds on working people.
Extending the freeze on income tax thresholds will cost working families £900 a year. It will also drag many pensioners into paying income tax for the first time. Why is the Minister hitting these low-income families to pay more for welfare?
T2. Unemployment is higher today than it was on the day the Chancellor took office. Will she tell the House why that is the case?
One of the first acts of this Labour Government was to hose money at striking train drivers to buy them off. Does my right hon. Friend share my fear that we will see the cost of a publicly run railway increase dramatically at the cost of taxpayers, and that we will also see services get worse?
In the hope that the Government had listened to the National Farmers’ Union and others, a North Dorset farming family sat to watch the Chancellor’s Budget statement, in expectation. They were disappointed with the announcement on the family farm tax. The farmer withdrew from his medical treatment, and three days later he died. That is how determined he was to keep the farm in his family. He knew the struggle that they would have had in meeting the tax bill after 1 April. I share that not to be inflammatory, but to ensure that Members on the Treasury Bench know that their decision on the family farm tax has direct consequences for people up and down the country.