5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
When I was Economic Secretary, against the advice of officials I advanced something called the no interest loan scheme. I am given to believe that one of the Minister’s two predecessors since the general election may have suspended that valuable attempt to support the most vulnerable in society. Will she look at that again in advance of the Budget in three weeks? There really was wide cross-party support for it.
When I visited Salisbury chamber of commerce on Friday, it gave me the example of a single mother doing 30 hours a week on the national living wage. As a result of the combination of the increase in the national living wage, the threshold changes and the rate changes on national insurance, that individual costs a business 11% more than they did last year. As a consequence, they cannot take on anyone else. What does my hon. Friend think about the impact that has on the economy?
16. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions on levels of employment.
According to the British Retail Consortium, the Chancellor’s last Budget caused a £7 billion cost to retail, leading to shop closures, declining high streets and job losses. If the Chancellor will not acknowledge the damage she has caused, how will she go about rectifying it? Can I recommend that she starts with the 100% business rate relief put forward by the shadow Chancellor?
My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about pubs. Does she agree that one of the best ways to support pubs is to give them a fair excise regime, and that that falls on the Government?
The British Retail Consortium has warned that £7 billion of costs have been put on to businesses because of national insurance contributions levied by this Government, and the Chancellor’s attitude was to say, “Well, the NHS is working.” Does she really think that the hospital budget should rest on the entrepreneurs in our constituencies?
Economists have told the Chancellor that stamp duty is a terrible tax because it damages growth. The Government’s response is to double stamp duty on a £300,000 house. Why?
The Minister talks about perverse disincentives and aspiring to be classified as sick. Does he accept that, with sickness benefits, someone will get £2,500 more than if they are on the national living wage full time? If that is the case, which it is, what is his plan to reverse that perverse disincentive?
The Minister for Social Security and Disability, who is no longer in his place, was in the extraordinary position of starting a debate arguing that he needed to save £4.5 billion and ending the debate saying he needed to spend an additional £300 million. Was that not a bit odd?
This morning the Chancellor failed to take responsibility for her poor choices in a Budget that whacked up taxes, borrowing and spending, and made it clear that she would once again break her promises on tax. The farmers whom I have met have been in tears about the family farm tax, not because they are worried about losing their jobs but because the Chancellor is putting generations of farming at risk. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Chancellor has actually met any farmers, the NFU or other farming organisations to understand the impact of her policy and why she should scrap the family farm tax?
When the Chancellor imposed £40 billion of tax rises, she chose to double business rates for leisure, retail and hospital businesses—and she is going to come back for more. It may be in vain, but perhaps I can offer her a policy suggestion: scrap business rates for 250,000 shops, pubs and restaurants. Rather than hike taxes, will she adopt Conservative policy and control welfare spending so that we can back our small businesses?
A few hon. Members in this debate have mentioned the record of the last Government, so it is worth putting on the record that, under the last Government, 4 million jobs were created, youth unemployment was halved and a million more disabled people moved into work. Sadly, under this Government, we have already seen unemployment rise every single month that they have been in office. They are going to have the record that every Labour Government have had—of leaving unemployment higher than they inherited. The number of people on health and sickness benefits is also increasing significantly. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed on to long-term sickness benefits every day, which is double the rate pre covid. Simply put, our welfare system is not sustainable, nor fair. It is not fair for taxpayers and it is not fair for people who are left on benefits, without the support that they need. Yet Labour Members have blocked welfare reforms, and the Prime Minister and Chancellor clearly lack the backbone to get on with this urgent work. The Chancellor’s panicked speech this morning underlined that serious welfare reform is not any part of their agenda. It should be common cause across the House that we understand the value and dignity of work. The moral case for change mentioned in our motion could not be clearer: we must protect the vulnerable and help those who can work to get the support to do so, because work is not just about pay; it is about pride, personal responsibility and the health benefits that come from it. Yet this Government are failing to help people who want work to find it. A welfare system worthy of the name should help people up, not hold them down. We will judge this Government by their record. Unemployment, as I have said, is increasing, and sickness claims are going up. Helping people is why, when we were in government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) introduced universal credit to simplify welfare and reward work, which halved unemployment between 2010 and the pandemic. We were making real progress. Of course, the pandemic created a real challenge for us and we saw a rise in claims, particularly for mental health. The shadow Chancellor, whose name has been taken in vain, actually put in place a number of reforms that were going to drive down the claims that were coming through. He put in place universal support to help people. He put in place WorkWell, a great scheme that has been effective in Norfolk. The big point is that welfare spending on health and disability benefits is set to hit £100 billion by the end of this Parliament—a point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst)—which is twice what we spend on defence. Yet what do we see? We see a Government with no serious intent to bring the total down. Indeed, the PIP review that has been announced, which will not report for ages, specifically excludes savings from its terms of reference. Despite increasing taxes, the Government are apparently going to lift the two-child policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) has already made a good argument for why that should not happen, so I will not repeat it, but it prompts the question of why the Government, despite critiquing the last Government for apparently spending too much on welfare, do not have a plan to do anything. They could look at the plan that the shadow Secretary of State has set out, which would deliver £23 billion across the board. We should be guided by Conservative principles: living within our means, protecting the most vulnerable, and making sure that work always pays and that those who can work do so. We have a duty to ensure that the system is fair and sustainable. From the moment that Labour Members blocked their own reforms, we have seen a Government with no ideas and a Chancellor who is clear that spending restraint does not form any part of her plans. Taxes are going up and welfare spending is going up, but there is an alternative: back our motion and build a welfare system that truly works for Britain.
Both Ascot and Royal Windsor racecourses are incredibly important to my constituency. I have visited both, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On this issue, I urge the Minister to heed warnings from across the House and, more importantly, the industry. I cautiously welcome the briefing to The Telegraph at the weekend. Racing should be treated very differently from online casinos and gaming. Can he assure the House that taxes on horse and greyhound race flutters will not increase?
Every MP in this place thinks that they have the best constituency in the United Kingdom, but I am afraid that only one of us can be correct. Perhaps with the exception of Romsey and Southampton North, Madam Deputy Speaker, the best constituency must be Windsor, with its beautiful towns and villages. As well as our green spaces, including the Great Park, which has been in the news slightly more than we might like of late, and our heritage, we also have our high streets, our small businesses and our hospitality crown jewels, which range from Ascot racecourse, Royal Windsor racecourse and Legoland to smaller attractions, such as the Windsor Museum, French Brothers boat trips along the Thames, and Windsor Carriages. Because of the Windsor constituency’s exceptional features, it has some of the greatest high streets anywhere in the country. Our hospitality businesses turn over £600 million every year—one of the highest figures outside London—and the industry employs over 10,000 people locally. A huge part of that is down to tourism. People come from all over the world to walk through our town, and to enjoy refreshments after exploring Windsor castle or working up a thirst on a long walk. The most recent statistics from the excellent Visit Windsor team highlight that 12.2% of the borough’s population are employed as a result of tourism. It is no surprise that one in 10 people in Windsor rely on the industry to make a living. There is a whole ecosystem of retail, hospitality and hotels that makes up the economic background of my town. All that stimulates the brilliant high streets and venues that make up our towns and villages. They are the subject of the debate, and I am afraid that all of them are feeling the pinch under this Labour Government. My constituency goes well beyond its namesake town. That was evidenced in my most recent “best pub” competition. Over 32 pubs were put forward from across the constituency, and hundreds of my constituents voted. It is only right to give special mention to the winner, The Swan in Clewer village, which is a great example of a community-led pub. I will not have time to talk about everything that makes The Swan special, but it has the Green Room school for special needs pupils, the Windsor cycle hub, a “chatter and natter” to tackle loneliness and social isolation, board games, the Stitch Gang for knitters, and a dog walkers’ group. However, the landlord, Mickey Foden-Andrews, whom I have met multiple times, stressed that while The Swan is well loved and used by the whole community, it is feeling all the pressures on our treasured pub industry, including from increased VAT, beer duty, business rates and now the extended producer responsibility tax. I am sure that we have all been guilty of complaining about the cost of a pint, but we must recognise the huge overheads that pubs face just to keep their doors open, which include paying their staff, soaring electricity prices and alcohol duties. The increase in national insurance in last year’s Budget compounded all those pressures and hit the hospitality sector hard. The sector has suffered more than half—85,000—of all British job losses since the last Budget. Pubs like The Swan provide a public service by bringing people together, letting neighbours check in on one another, hosting events and being a place to hash out ideas or discuss the politics of the day. On all my visits to pubs, hospitality and other high-street businesses, I hear that they are struggling, and Windsor is a relatively prosperous place with a clear unique selling point, so I am sure that such businesses will be struggling everywhere. That should come as no surprise. The increase in the minimum wage and national insurance, and the so-called new workers’ rights that are being brought in, are all incompatible with thriving high streets.
The point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) that there are people who benefit from the minimum wage and new rights, but thousands of jobs will never exist as a result of the measures. We have to be cognisant of that in this House. All those measures are incompatible with a thriving high street and any aspiration to bring down welfare spending, as they are all job killers.
My right hon. Friend is right, as always. The best way to back workers in this country is to back our small businesses, and our hospitality businesses in particular, which provide so many jobs to our constituents.
I absolutely agree. It goes beyond that, because a lot of hospitality jobs are the first jobs that people do. We talk about youth unemployment; we need to get people into the pattern of earning a living, and to enable them to gain the softer skills of serving customers and getting up on time. As we all know, that is so important to young people’s development. That is a problem not only now but for the future. What do my landlords, hotel managers and businesses on the high street tell me their biggest problem is? Business rates. That is why I welcome my party’s commitment to permanently scrapping business rates for all retail, leisure and hospitality businesses up to a £110,000 cap.
I am afraid that I do not have time. That would lift 250,000 businesses out of business rates altogether, and it would provide essential relief to keep businesses afloat and money flowing through the local economy. The proposal is fully costed and follows our new golden economic rule.
I beg to move, That this House regrets the failure of the Government to get people off welfare and into work; believes that reforming the welfare system is a moral mission; and therefore calls on the Government to take urgent action to fix Britain’s welfare system by restricting welfare for non-UK citizens, stopping benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions, increasing the number of face-to-face assessments, reforming the Motability Scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle, and retaining the two-child benefit cap, to get people into employment and build a stronger economy. All of us surely remember our first job and the moment we got our first paycheque. I was 16, I got paid £40 and I bought myself a pair of shoes. They were nothing fancy, but I remember that feeling. It was the first time I had money in my pocket that I had earned to spend how I pleased. It was a moment of liberation from which there was no going back. Of course, as we get older, it is not so simple. We have more obligations and bills to pay, but the basic fact is the same. Having a job and paying our own way is how we get independence, freedom and agency. We can make our own choices and have a chance to build up our financial security. Not every job takes us on a path paved with gold, but if we are not in work, we do not even have a chance of changing our fortune. Millions of people up and down the country know what I am talking about. They are the people who get up each morning and go to work, or the people who go to work every evening if they are doing a night shift, while some people are doing both to make ends meet. However, it is not everyone: in fact, it is not a lot of people. Let us look at the numbers. There are 6.5 million people of working age on out-of-work benefits, nearly 1 million young people are not in any form of employment, education or training, and every single day 5,000 people are signing on to long-term sickness benefits with no requirement to work. Those numbers should worry all of us in this place. They are not just statistics; we are talking about people—mums, dads, women in their 50s, young men in their 20s—who are missing out, sat at home rather than at work, and waiting for the handout to drop into their bank account rather than out there putting their shoulder to the wheel. For every person on benefits and out of work, there are many more who suffer the consequences of worklessness, such as the increasing number of children who are growing up in workless households. More than 1 million children across our country have neither the income nor the culture of work, so worklessness gets passed from one generation to the next, stunting life chances—opportunities, prosperity and longevity—in every sense of the word. This applies to entire communities: there are large parts of our country where being on benefits is not a rarity, it has become the norm. From our great cities such as Birmingham and Liverpool to historic seaside towns such as Blackpool, around a quarter of the population are in out-of-work benefits. Drop into some of the poorest areas of those cities and you will find communities where the majority of people are on benefits. Think what that means in practice along a street, door after door. And watch out if you are the odd one out actually trying to go to work, as I heard on one of my visits recently. A whole family were yelling at their son, who was trying to break the cycle of worklessness, because his 7 am alarm clock was disturbing their sleep. As shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I travel the country talking to people and finding out the facts on the ground. One story that stuck with me is about a young man in his 20s from Bridgend in Wales. He is on benefits, but he got a place on a course at the local college—the exact course he wanted to do. It had the potential to give him skills and transform his life. It could have got him off benefits and into work at the job he really wanted to do, but it did not happen. Why? Because he was terrified of being worse off—that he would lose his personal independence payment and end up broke. That is wrong. And let us be frank: his story is not a one-off. It is going on all around the country. Everywhere, every day, people are deciding they are better off on benefits. Our welfare system should be a safety net but it has become a welfare trap, condemning people to live off the state rather than off their elbow grease. Of course, help should be there for people who are unable to work or who need a lot of support to do so. In fact, if the system worked better, it might be able to help some people—those who really need it—more. Instead, we have many thousands of people making rational decisions to claim benefits rather than work, the benefits bill rocketing, and still people who are disabled facing a struggle to get help and make ends meet.
Of course I know that, but if the hon. Lady had talked to as many people who receive PIP as I have, she would know that many people worry that if they go into training or work, they will then, when they are reassessed, lose their PIP. Even though in theory, yes, you can work if you can while you are getting PIP, people worry that because they are working it will be then be seen as them not actually needing it and that they do not actually have that level of health problem. That is why at the moment it is acting, in the way in works, as a barrier and a disincentive to work, and that is why it needs reform. Reforming welfare is not cruel to people on benefits—quite the opposite. What is cruel is ducking the challenge, accepting the status quo and continuing to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on keeping people on benefits, but that is exactly what the Labour party is doing. Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister and the former Work and Pensions Secretary did have a go at doing something about it. They set out some welfare cuts—rushed and poorly thought-through, as I said at the time—but their Back Benchers were having none of it. We have never seen anything like it. It was the very definition of shambles in this Chamber. Right in the middle of the debate, their savings Bill became a spending Bill, with the Government frantically making concessions that we still live with, such as the Timms review into PIP. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), but what hope can we have for his review when it was conceived as a bargaining chip to buy off angry Back Benchers? It has taken months to even kick off the review and months to come up with the terms of reference. Now we have them, we see that welfare savings are off the table. And yes, I said “savings”, a word the Secretary of State was careful to steer clear of in questions last week. What a situation this is. The Chancellor keeps talking about welfare savings; she did so again this morning. However, the review by the Minister for Social Security and Disability ruled out making any savings. The Secretary of State will not even utter the word. Who will win this argument? Will it be the hapless Chancellor with her back against the wall or the wily Welfare Secretary playing a longer game? While Ministers spar behind the political scenes, the clock is ticking and the benefits bill keeps heading up and up towards £100 billion, with no prospect of the Government slowing that trajectory, let alone actually getting it down. Instead, as the Chancellor as good as told us this morning, the Government will turn to tax rises to fund welfare and more job-destroying, growth-killing policies, reducing opportunities and saddling future generations with the bill, leaving them to pay it off for decades to come. The Government have not only given up on saving money; they have given up on millions of people across Britain.
The hon. Gentleman thinks he is so clever, but I am sorry to say this is a whole lot more serious than that. [Interruption.] I am glad Labour Members liked that. The fact is, if the hon. Gentleman looked a little further than his time in politics, back to 2010, he would know that the welfare bill and unemployment figures came down, and that we had the huge reform of universal credit, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which made a huge difference. [Interruption.] As has been chuntered by those on the Government Front Bench, yes, of course, the pandemic made a difference. We had a set of reforms going on, and then those on the Front Bench and some of their predecessors—there has been a certain amount of turnover—came in and gave up on those reforms. Where are we now? There are no savings and no plans to get people off welfare and into work. However, it does not have to be this way. The country knows that this is not working, and people want change. They want a fairer system: one where people who do the right thing are rewarded; where work does pay; where people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their family makes sense; where there is help for those who need it, but not for just anyone who might fancy it; and where welfare is a safety net, not a way of life. It might be hard for Members on the Government Benches to hear, but this is what people out there want. They want it now—let us get on with it. The Conservatives have set out our common-sense proposals to start fixing the welfare system. We would stop sickness benefits for people with lower-level mental health conditions like anxiety and reform Motability, putting an end to taxpayer-funded cars for people who have conditions like ADHD and tennis elbow. We would bring back face-to-face assessments, which are going down under this Labour Government, and change the sick note system so that it does not just funnel people out of the office and on to benefits. We would prioritise Brits in our welfare system, stopping people with indefinite and limited leave to remain claiming benefits. Of course, we also believe in retaining the two-child benefit cap, because it is fiscally responsible and fair. Removing the cap would cost more than £3 billion and would be deeply unfair on families who are not on benefits—the couples who decide they cannot afford another child, but would pay taxes for someone else to do just that. The Conservatives are the only party fully committed to the two-child benefit cap—no ifs, no buts.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. As he says, we have earmarked potential savings of £23 billion, and housing benefit is one area. There is the other set of savings that I have just gone through. I am very happy to go through some of our sums and how we have got to those figures with him. As I have said to him, I believe that this Government should be picking up on our suggestions, because that is how they could bring down the welfare bill and avoid what we saw the Chancellor clearly rolling the pitch for this morning: tax rises at the Budget. Times are hard. I do not want the Government to put up taxes. I do not want them to keep spending other people’s money on welfare, because we all know that one day it will run out. I do not want them to keep people living a life on benefits rather than being in work. That is why I have been so clear about what they could and should do. I have heard Labour Back Benchers say in this Chamber, “I didn’t come here to cut benefits”, and that is why we have offered to help. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and I have made a big offer to the Government. We will help them make welfare savings, and we will work with them in good faith to get the welfare bill down and get people off welfare and into work. Labour Back Benchers do not want to make the tough decisions on welfare, but our door is open. We will work with the Government in the national interest. It is not too late to make those bold decisions and make serious savings. A vote for our motion is a vote to get Britain’s welfare system back on track, to get the welfare bill under control, and to set out on a moral mission to get millions off welfare and into work.
Family businesses are crucial to our high streets, including mine in Inverurie, Ellon, Turriff and Huntly. Indeed, they are the backbone of our high streets, yet this Government’s national insurance contributions changes and Employment Rights Bill, and their slashing of business property relief, will have a huge impact on them and employment in them. What does the shadow Minister think of that, and what can we do to help our high streets and, in particular, family businesses in them?
I have listened to the hon. Member’s speech very carefully, but I think I missed him mentioning the £19.5 million of levelling-up funding that Weymouth got in 2023 under the last Conservative Government.
I have a similar problem in Farnham. We are being hit by the headwinds of what is going on nationally, but the Farnham infrastructure programme means there is disruption locally. Now, we all welcome the outcome, but what we have a problem with is Lib Dem-run Waverley council whacking up car parking charges, which is deterring people. Can the hon. Gentleman have a word with his colleagues in Waverley to stop that?
Picture this: Downing Street, a hub of activity, alive with purpose, people moving with intent, heated debate and entrepreneurship at every turn. You look confused, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not talking about the Downing Street here in SW1, but Downing Street in Farnham, where the high street starts and where the most heated debate is over whether the Farnham infrastructure project will ever end and the concerns about the local Lib Dems whacking up car parking charges at the same time. The other big debate is about how high streets will survive the headwinds of tax rises that this Government have thrown against them time and again. From hospitality to leisure and retail, the high streets of Farnham, Haslemere, Liphook and the new town centre in Bordon are hives of business activity. Some 98% of the businesses across my constituency are small or medium-sized enterprises, providing the backbone of our local economy and the foundation of community life.
I entirely agree. The truth is that Labour does not have the backing of small and medium-sized businesses because it is stifling growth with its costly net zero commitments, layers of red tape, changes to the living wage, cuts to business rate relief, the Employment Rights Bill and higher national insurance contributions. That is a toxic cocktail designed to choke off enterprise and ambition. The Conservatives have a very good record on supporting local businesses. Just think back to the pandemic, when we delivered 100% business rates relief for many businesses. Indeed, when we left office last year, business rates relief was at 75%. Yet what did Labour do? As soon as it came in, it slashed that relief to just 40%, which is absolutely crippling for small businesses in my constituency. That is why I am proud and pleased that we have announced the abolition of business rates altogether, meaning that nearly a quarter of a million businesses will benefit. Financed by the golden rule, that is responsible, sustainable and, most importantly, pro-growth. An hon. Member on the Government Benches argued that removing the rates will let landlords raise rents, but that assumes a balanced market. The reality is oversupply, with retail space outstripping demand. Abolishing business rates will therefore not drive up rents, but will make high streets more sustainable. The Brightwells development in Farnham, in my constituency, proves the point. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited my constituency last week, we met Steve at Hamilton’s, Mario at Serina, and Julian at The Castle pub. All three said the same thing: business rates are crippling, HMRC’s red tape is growing and energy bills are too high. That is why I am delighted that we have a plan to scrap business rates and cut energy bills for those small businesses. In Bordon, in my constituency, we are working intensely to ensure that the new high street and town centre can thrive. We are making progress, but that progress will be undermined by this Government’s attack on business. These are not just businesses; they are the heartbeat of our community. They train young people, they create jobs and they invest in the place they call home. I am also afraid that the disconnect that Labour shows nationally is echoed by the Liberal Democrats in my area. They simply do not understand the struggles that our high streets face under this Government and therefore have no empathy for our local businesses. High streets are not just the commercial zones; they are social, and the social and economic soul of our towns. Supporting them requires a Government willing to protect essential services, invest in rural areas and cut through the bureaucracy that holds small businesses back. Conservatives understand that if we back ambition, we build prosperity. If we bury it in bureaucracy, we destroy it. Our high streets and the communities that they serve deserve better than that.
My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the problems facing high streets. One of my constituents, a publican, told me that things were worse than during covid, because at least there was financial support during covid. Now, pubs and other hospitality businesses are being hung out to dry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Lewell. His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the urgent need for transparency in the fuel market, something the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), took significant steps towards under the previous Government through the introduction of Pumpwatch—now called Fuel Finder—which received Royal Assent in 2024. That went alongside the work of Howard Cox from FairFuelUK, whose persistence has been instrumental in pushing for progress through 15 years of research into fuel pricing. The regulations require every fuel station to register with the Government’s appointed data aggregator and report any change in pump prices within 30 minutes. That data must then be made openly available, free of charge, for use by third-party apps, navigation systems and consumer groups. The aim, as the previous Conservative Government set out, is to allow motorists to see in real time who is offering the best price in their area, enabling genuine competition across the fuel market. Fuel Finder is not a bold new idea from the Labour Benches. It is a continuation, albeit a delayed and diluted one, of the Conservative commitment to ensure that motorists can finally see in real time who is charging what and where. This is a rebrand, not a positive policy change. It was the Conservatives who commissioned the Competition and Markets Authority’s landmark investigation into road fuel pricing, which revealed that retailers were increasing margins at the expense of consumers. The study showed that average supermarket fuel margins had risen by around 6p per litre since 2019 and that a typical family driving a car could save up to £4.50 a tank by driving just a few minutes further to a cheaper station. It exposed a market that was not functioning as it should—one where falling wholesale costs were not being passed on to consumers and where, in some cases, motorists on motorways were paying 20p plus more per litre than they needed to. There are several areas where the Government fall short, starting with margin transparency. Motorists will see today’s prices, but not how they have changed over time, nor whether any increase reflects market forces or simply wider retailer margins. The CMA’s evidence shows that it is precisely those margins that have driven up prices in recent years. Without addressing margin transparency, the real cause of the problem remains hidden. Across Europe, in Austria, Germany, France, Italy and Spain, Governments publish not only live pump prices, but also historical and margin data, allowing drivers and regulators to see whether retailers are passing on savings or quietly padding profit. By comparison, this Government’s fuel finder offers only partial transparency. It tells motorists where fuel is cheapest today, but not whether the price is fair. The Opposition also object to the lack of a legal requirement for fuel stations to report when a fuel type is unavailable. Drivers need to know not only the cost of a litre of petrol or diesel, but whether diesel or petrol will actually be available when they get there. Making that optional undermines the very purpose of transparency. Enforcement is also left vague. The CMA has powers to issue civil penalties and pursue criminal sanctions, but the Government have not set clear thresholds or standards for when those powers will apply. Nor have they addressed the risk that some operators may plead technical failure or poor connectivity as an excuse for not reporting prices promptly. That kind of leniency invites abuse. If the Government truly want transparency, they must ensure that IT issues cannot be used as a standing excuse for non-compliance. The same potential penalties—up to 1% of global turnover or 5% of daily turnover per day—apply to all data reporting obligations under this legislation. While sanctions for non-compliance in price reporting were anticipated, it is notable that the same provisions extend to non-price data. The Association of Convenience Stores, for example, has raised concerns that this could include reporting on the availability of coffee machines, baby changing facilities and even microwaves. I am sure people do want to know if such things are available, but we believe that level of reporting goes beyond the original policy intent and imposes unnecessary burdens on retailers already facing significant compliance pressures. Furthermore, there has been no formal engagement with industry ahead of publishing the non-price data requirements. With the obligation to report on 30 additional categories, that introduces unnecessary cost and complexity for retailers, not only during the initial registration window which runs from 18 December to 2 February, but also on an ongoing basis, given the requirement under the regulations to update information within three days. That directly contradicts the Government’s own target of reducing the regulatory burden by 25%, penalising businesses that are already operating in a challenging economy and diverting resources away from delivering value and service to consumers. Then there is the question of smaller, rural fuel stations like those in constituencies like, to pick one at random, mine of Mid-Buckinghamshire. The regulations are set out to apply universally but there is little evidence the Government have considered the burden on low volume operators, or how those will be supported to comply. Transparency should not come at the cost of driving independent rural stations out of business. Finally, we must look at timing. The Government intend to launch Fuel Finder by the end of this year, two years after the CMA’s recommendation and a year later than originally planned under the previous Conservative Government. For motorists already struggling with record living costs and high fuel prices under this Government, progress has been far too slow. Every month of delay means that families continue to overpay at the pump and competition remains weaker than it should be. The Opposition do support the principle of open data for fuel prices. We welcome the continuation of a Conservative policy that sought to bring transparency for drivers, encourage competition and deliver accountability in a sector that too often escapes scrutiny. But we will not let the Government claim credit for a policy that they did not originate, nor overlook that its implementation has been slow, cautious and incomplete. Conservatives began this work and in opposition we will continue to press for its full and timely delivery for fuel, with stronger enforcement, real transparency and genuine competition for every motorist in Britain. I hope that when the Minister concludes this debate he can address some of the shortcomings I have highlighted this afternoon.
The Minister has said that there needs to be proportionality, but he supports some of the other amenities being reported on. If it is possible for any fuel retailer to say whether they have a current working coffee machine or microwave, how is it not possible to report on whether they have any petrol or diesel in the tanks?
T9. With reports that the Chancellor is eyeing up doubling council tax for bands G and H, can she tell me whether she really considers the family who wrote to me yesterday—both have mid-range salaries, are fully eligible for child benefit and bought a home for just shy of £500,000 in 2013—rich enough to see their council tax double to £800 a month?
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. Hospitality is fundamental to social mobility. I would have thought that Government Members would be ashamed of a policy that means that those furthest away from the labour market—young people—are put off from trying to get their first job. Hospitality is essential to enabling them to join the labour market, and the Government have put blocks in the way of people who want a better life.
Does the Minister regret the fact that unemployment has gone up every single month since Labour came to power, whereas, over the 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800 more people a day—4 million in total—came into work? Surely she must recognise those facts, away from her—albeit rather brilliant and fiery—rhetoric.
Does the hon. Lady understand the immediacy of the problem facing companies in the high street? She has mentioned energy costs, and she is quite right to do so, but why does the Liberal Democrat amendment suggest that changes should be made to reduce them “within a decade”?
I would fascinated to hear from the hon. Lady precisely how the energy market can separate gas from electricity prices. If she has a plan to do so, it would be lovely to hear it.
The previous Conservative Government had a national guarantee of 11,500 post offices, which this Labour Front Bench has put under review. That means that there is a threat to post offices across this country. That was highlighted. If anyone has gone further than that about a specific post office, that would obviously be wrong. The truth is that there is a threat to the post office network, and it is one instituted by the Labour Front Bench. Can the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that?
We should be mindful that the last Labour Government, though they did not mean any ill, increased youth unemployment by 45%. That is the worst time for unemployment in life; at that point in life, it has a long-term, scarring, negative effect on people’s outcomes and opportunities, but the Government are doing the same again in the name of protecting workers. The people on the outside are the ones who pay the price.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), whose passion I always admire, even if I rarely follow or agree with her arguments. From the day you start your business until the day you pass it on, Labour simply sees a target to tax. Labour Members have shown that today. By contrast, Conservatives see a dream to back. Labour makes it harder to start a business, takes more from you as you grow, and leaves a tax bill for your children when you are gone. We on this side of the House back entrepreneurs. We give them the freedom to build, the tools to invest, and the chance to pass their success to the next generation. That is what our plan will deliver to get Britain working again. Starting a business is a leap of faith, taken by someone with an idea and the determination to make it work. Conservatives understand that, because many of us have started and run our own businesses. Sadly, just one Cabinet Minister can say the same. I do not think that Labour Members detest enterprise and business; they just do not understand it, and see it as something that they must relentlessly tap. In 14 years under the Conservatives, the number of businesses grew by 1.1 million. We have built businesses, so we know what it takes to make them grow. This Government have not, and it shows. I am sure that Members across the House love going into schools in their constituencies. The ones in Beverley and Holderness are brimming with budding entrepreneurs —young people full of ideas but lacking the tools to turn them into reality. Research by the Federation of Small Businesses found that, while 60% of young people want to own a business, only 16% ever will.
We see it in speech after speech from Labour Members. Perhaps it is because of the careers they have had. They think the key to unlocking the high street, or indeed the wider economy, is public investment. It is not; it is about government getting out of the way. Of course we need a facilitating local and national government, but here are the fundamentals: it is not their money—the money of government—which businesses are allowed to have; and it is not their space, which businesses are allowed to occupy. It is our space—the people’s space—and government is there to facilitate and support, humbly. But humility is something that the Labour party never seems to display when it comes to dealing with business. All it ever does is seek to tax it.
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect.