Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must have overstayed oral questions to the Chancellor, because what we are doing in the Chamber now is celebrating, cherishing and supporting our high streets, not accusing businesses in our constituencies of tax evasion. However, I am sure he has impressed his Treasury colleagues, who are never shy about trying to transfer wealth from the private sector to the less productive public sector.
Again, that is an excellent point. It is something that the Chancellor, who is spreading uncertainty and consternation again this morning, should think about in relation to the conduct of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. While businesses absolutely understand that part of their role is to contribute to society—to the communities in which they exist—it seems that HMRC so often goes out of the way to make it hard for our businesses. This is an organisation that literally sought to turn its telephone lines off for six months of the year, until the previous Government refused to allow it to do so. Hospitality venues, which we have talked about, are really suffering. They are at the apex of those affected by the changes to employment law, taxes and business rates.
I will make some progress. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the Queen’s Head in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), which brought home to me the challenges that that business is facing. Of course, all hon. Members in this Chamber represent constituencies, and traders on high streets in places like Arundel, Midhurst, Petworth, Pulborough, Storrington and Henfield have worked tirelessly throughout history to make our high streets and our communities what they are today, but—from the unacceptable time it has taken to fix the fire-damaged Angel Inn in Midhurst to the imposition of higher parking charges by Liberal Democrat councillors—government is too often a headwind, rather than a tailwind.
I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish to take that matter up with Ministers through the appropriate channels, but there will not be many fun factories on our high streets when they feel the burden of Labour’s further changes. Running a business—something that Conservative Members understand—is not easy at the best of times, but thanks to this Chancellor and this Government, these are far from the best of times. For the average pub, business rates have soared from £4,000 per year to over £9,000, and this morning, we have learned that the Chancellor is coming back for more. A year ago, she promised that she was done—that her tax raid on business was the end of it. She is leading us down the garden path. Spending is out of control, and she expects taxpayers, including businesses, to clean up her mess.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One only has to look at the wording of the motion we are debating and that of the Government amendment. We Conservatives talk about lifting burdens, removing business rates, cutting red tape, and taking more action to address crime on our high streets. The Labour party talks about compulsory purchase, more grants and more subsidies—it is not interested in lifting the burden on business.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the choices that businesses face are enormously difficult. Every single day, they have to ask themselves whether they should put up prices to try to claw back some of the damage—some of that £25 billion cost—thereby increasing inflation and keeping interest rates higher for longer, pushing up the cost of living. Do they reduce the number of employees or the hours per employee, or do they simply fold in the face of disincentives, a lack of support and headwinds rather than tailwinds? Do they shut up shop before the Chancellor’s next intervention heaps on more and more burdens?
Rather than giving away our fishing for 12 years and getting nothing in return because of a dogma, or spending time on international affairs—giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory and paying for the privilege—the Government should be prioritising the needs of business and focusing on the specific barriers mentioned by the hon. Member. Doing so would make a huge difference to businesses in her constituency. It is not just the Chancellor. The Business Secretary seems to be doing his bit too, creating more small businesses by shrinking existing large ones. His 330-page unemployment Bill, which is due to come back before the House tomorrow, will make life a nightmare for every employer on our high streets. It will make flexible and seasonal working impossible, and will prevent employers from taking a risk on young people and work returners—some of the most vulnerable people in society—for fear of joining the backlog of 490,000 claims to employment tribunals.
If the hon. Lady wants to talk about what the Government are doing to help employment, I would love to hear her intervention.
You do not improve workers’ rights by making them unemployed, creating a generation of jobless young people who cannot find their way into gainful employment. And do you know what? It is not just the Conservatives who are saying that. Even that finishing school for socialists, the Resolution Foundation, opposes Labour’s Bill because of the unemployment that it will yield. What this shows us is that the Government are simply not serious about business. We Conservatives get it. Many of us have worked in business ourselves, and we understand that businesses take risks, create wealth and employ millions. That is why we introduced business rates relief before this Labour Government cut it, and it is why we will introduce a 100% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, taking 250,000 high street premises out of business rates entirely.
I am enormously concerned. I was concerned when I woke up this morning, and I am even more concerned after hearing the intervention from our Chancellor: no certainty, confidence plummeting, and the promise of more taxes to follow.
To coin a phrase, we are not going to balance the books of local government on the back of entrepreneurial businesses that are keeping our high streets alive, providing services for the community and allowing our economy to grow.
I am not sure that we were in charge in the particular area that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I am pleased to know that, like so many of us, he had his first experience of work—his first leg-up, his first work opportunity—in the retail and hospitality sector. It is hugely important, and gives people great opportunities in life. I have talked about our promises—[Interruption.] I do not want to get too deflected by stories about the Animal store, of which the hon. Gentleman clearly has enormously fond recollections, and where he spent many a happy hour.
I will, but I suspect that I should then make a bit more progress.
I absolutely agree. We are all here individually today representing our fantastic constituencies, our wonderful high streets and our entrepreneurial businesses—those residents and constituents who seek to be employed and contribute to a growing part of our economy. That is why we in the Opposition are here to talk about our plan to save the high street, not to make the sort of partisan points that we are hearing from Labour Members.
So many family businesses will be devastated by the family business death tax introduced by the Labour party. We often hear about the plight of farmers and food producers, but family businesses are even more numerous. If you have survived Labour’s job tax, if you have survived Labour’s more than doubling of business rates, if you have survived the red tape— so much more of it—that Labour is imposing, all that awaits you when you seek to pass your business or your family farm on to the next generation is Labour’s family business death tax. That is why, as part of our plan for the high street, we will repeal those damaging measures.
I hope that the hon. Lady is rising to commit herself to repealing them too.
That was a valiant attempt to return to past history, but on this side of the House we are looking forward. Our plan for the high street would remedy the damage that has been done not over past years but over past months, and even again this morning—the collapse in confidence caused by our Chancellor.
My right hon. Friend has made exactly the right point. It is genuinely bewildering—and we will see this again tomorrow—that when every single major business group in the country urges the Government not to proceed with their damaging unemployment Bill, when Labour think-tanks urge them not to proceed with that Bill, and when not a single business in favour of that Bill can be named by a Labour Minister—other than the Co-op and one that is overseas—they still seek to proceed with it.
I will make some progress. We have talked about the damage being done by the Chancellor, and we have talked about business rates and our plan to reform them and give the high street a chance, but there is more. Our cheap power plan will cut energy bills by 20%, with the average restaurant saving a very real £5,000 and the average pub saving £1,100. Perhaps Labour Members would like to emulate that energy plan. We will save the high street from the scourge of crime and shoplifting, and early release of prisoners, by hiring a further 10,000 police officers, tripling the use of stop and search and reversing Labour’s release of criminals to make our high streets safer. We will repeal those most damaging elements of the Employment Rights Bill, and rather than paying lip service to cutting red tape, we will take a chainsaw to bureaucracy and blockages to business, from planning to licensing to IR35, and so much more. We stand with the makers, not the takers: the people who put their time, energy and money on the line to make our communities a better place. We know that one cannot build prosperity by punishing those who create it, that one cannot revive our high streets by taxing them into submission, and that one cannot protect a worker by bankrupting their employer. Our message to the Government today is simple: give businesses the confidence they need; remove the threat of taxes hanging over their head; listen to the voice of business; and support our plans to support our brilliant high streets.
Our high streets are not just places to shop; they are the hearts of our communities. Yet every business I speak to in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tells me the same thing: they are unsure if they can survive another year of this Labour Government. Families are under pressure too, worried about keeping their jobs, paying their mortgages and affording the food shop. They are reining in spending: fewer coffees or pints, fewer meals out and fewer days out in venues like the brilliant Harbour Park in Littlehampton. Last Friday, I sat down with the owner of Richard Pearce Hairdressing in Aldwick. He has worked for years to train the next generation, giving young people their start in life, but the constant hammering on his overheads is relentless. He tells me that the current Government have lost all touch with local businesses and the impact of their policies. Under Labour: employer national insurance—up; cost of hiring—up; and energy bills—up. Let us be clear about what is driving this. First, it is business rates. For shops, cafés and pubs, like the William Hardwicke in Bognor Regis and the Beresford in Middleton-on-Sea, business rates are a tax on just showing up. They punish the visible, but leave online giants untouched. The Conservatives would abolish business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure; Labour will not.
I am going to keep making some progress. Secondly, let me turn to energy costs. Too many small businesses are paying bills far higher than they were just a few years ago. Green levies are a political choice and the result of the Government’s ideological pursuit of net zero by 2030. While big manufacturers get relief, high streets are footing the bill. The third factor is retail crime. There is more shoplifting and more harassment, leaving more staff feeling unsafe at work. Behind every incident—like Clarkes Estates in Bognor Regis having its windows smashed—is a real cost to the bottom line in stolen stock, lost hours and rising insurance. We have plans to crack down on retail crime with tougher penalties and real consequences. Finally, there is the family business tax and the Employment Rights Bill that will come back before the House tomorrow. These place unfair costs and uncertainty on the very employers, like Reynolds Furniture in Bognor Regis, that hold our high streets together. They are already under pressure, and we should be helping those who create jobs, not frightening them off. Yes, of course, workers must be protected, but those protections must not undermine the small businesses that provide the jobs in the first place. Today I join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in urging Ministers to abolish business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, to cut energy bills for all small businesses, to tackle retail crime with tough consequences, and to scrap the unemployment rights Bill. Do these things and we can begin to restore confidence in high streets. Fail to do them and we will watch shutters fall, more shops disappear and more communities lose the places that make them feel like home.
Pension providers play a key role in helping Britain’s tech start-ups turn into world-leading scale-ups, but around £3 trillion in pension funds sits idle. That money should be used to support our tech sector. Will the Minister commit to accelerating the Mansion House reforms successfully introduced by the last Conservative Government?
May I join in with the tributes of my fellow Cambridgeshire MPs? In her statement, the Home Secretary indicated that she was receptive to the deployment of facial recognition at railway stations. Can she clarify, on the current timeline, the earliest date on which that would be deployed more widely? Given some of the early lessons coming out of this case, what scope is there for the Government to accelerate that timeline?
I echo tributes to the train staff and emergency services, and to the Home Secretary and her team, who I am sure were working flat out all weekend. The case is being investigated, but given the events of Saturday and in the run-up to Saturday night, can I urge her to bring together police chiefs to talk about information sharing and any further resource that they require? I am happy to admit that we should not have diluted stop and search, but can I urge her to look again at that? Northern Ireland is much more permissive, and section 60 needs to be reviewed.
As we build up towards Remembrance Sunday, does the Secretary of State agree that it is appropriate for us to remember the circumstances in which two world wars began, when democracies were relatively weak in the face of armed autocracies? Therefore, does he agree that the help we give to Ukraine is the best possible guarantee that aggressors will not be emboldened to attack other countries as well?
Does the Secretary of State envisage any circumstances in which an IRA terrorist could be prosecuted after he had received a letter of comfort, and if so, what are those circumstances?
I will be very brief. When the Home Secretary undertakes lessons learned and recommendations for the future, will she look into the question of whether there is any protective equipment, or even disabling equipment of a non-lethal nature, that could be issued to staff for use in such an emergency?
I recognise the strength of the case that the Prime Minister is making. He will understand the interest that the Intelligence and Security Committee has in clause 6 of the Bill, which provides for certain exemptions for those who work for the intelligence agencies. It then says that those people should report internally within their organisation any information that may be of use to an inquiry or investigation. Will he give some thought to how the Government might develop a concept of what then happens to that information, about which the Bill is broadly silent? He will understand that many will be concerned to ensure that when information is reported internally within the intelligence agencies, it none the less finds its way to those who should have it, in order to give reassurance about what the Government are seeking to achieve more broadly in this Bill.
As the Secretary of State knows, I have brought a company over from Ukraine to show us what it can do with drones. Us getting hold of that technology from Ukraine helps us to supply Ukraine, as well as ourselves. However, the key issue I want to ask about is that of rare earth minerals. They are normally discussed in a business context, but they are critical to the defence of the United Kingdom, and having a supply here in this country, directly owned by us, must surely be a critical issue. Has the Secretary of State looked at this issue, talked to his colleagues in Government and said, “We need a supply that we produce in our own country and use here”?
As someone who served in Northern Ireland, I just remind the House that this was the most peculiar operation that we could ever expect soldiers to do—patrolling streets in this United Kingdom, defending people against terrorists here in the UK, against a very strict rules of engagement booklet. They had to make complex decisions in a split second. Some of them were 18 years old, on the streets, petrified. In that context, I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he talks of equivalence, but more than 700 British soldiers in Northern Ireland were killed by paramilitaries. Not one single paramilitary has been arraigned and taken to court for any of those murders that were committed against the British Army and the British forces. The Secretary of State talks of equivalence, but this is not equivalence, because it is those soldiers who will be persecuted for the rest of time, and not one single member of the paramilitaries, who kept no records, will ever go in front of a court. That is not fair.
The Minister has heard what an amazing set of mid-sized and large businesses we have in the west midlands supporting defence, but we also have some amazing research universities. What more is the MOD looking at doing to work more closely with our universities, getting them geared towards supporting our move to rearming this country?
Whatever the wrongs committed on that day, does the Secretary of State understand that it beggars belief that a former IRA man can, in his old age, be lolling on a sofa, despite all his torturing, kneecapping and executions? I am thinking of Captain Nairac, who was abducted, tortured and killed; his perpetrators were never brought to justice. Does the Secretary of State realise that this whole process is deeply wounding to the morale of the British Army? He can take refuge in independent prosecution, but he can give his own opinion and say that it is surely time that Northern Ireland moves on into a better age.
I rise as Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I am pleased to report that this statutory instrument passed our scrutiny. We checked the legal drafting and whether the instrument is intra vires and going through the proper legislative procedure. We deal with 1,200 or 1,500 instruments a year, but this one passed with flying colours. Measures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs do not always pass with flying colours. We produced a report last month showing DEFRA had produced 69 such regulations; 9% required further explanation, and three of them—4%—required us to request changes in drafting, which shows that this very obscure and unsung Committee does very important work to make sure that regulations such as these are properly elucidated. I support the hon. Member for Putney and her injunction that people should stop flushing wet wipes down toilets. Unfortunately, this statutory instrument does not address that. I think the Minister could have taken the opportunity to impress upon the public that they must stop flushing wet wipes down into the sewage system. They cause incredible blockages, which cost millions of pounds to clear, put our water bills up, and pollute the environment. Even if there are no plastics in them, they will continue to cause that nuisance. We must not let it get into the consumer’s mind, “Oh, these are plastic-free, so I can flush them down the loo.” I put it to the Minister that that is a great danger.
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. They say that in Parliament you should never ask a question to which you do not know the answer, but I am going to ask one. I notice that the EU is also moving towards this kind of ban, although I do not know whether it is the same. In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government have already introduced a ban. Would we have been allowed to do this without the EU’s permission? Would it have been regarded as a restriction on the free movement of wet wipes if we had introduced it while we were still in the EU? I hope that moving forward with this measure, for which I commend this Government and the previous Government, in this country will encourage the rest of the EU to follow suit. I do not suppose that this falls under the definition of “reset” or “alignment” or anything complicated like that, but could the Minister explain whether we could have done this if we were still in the EU?
She always gets excited when I mention the European Union.
Can the Minister describe what he is doing within his own Department so that his own officials actually reward, recognise and engage with innovation? The acquisitions system in the MOD is notoriously bureaucratic, incredibly risk-averse and makes it impossible for small companies, in particular, to engage with innovative projects in the Department. What is he doing to get a wholesale transformation of the culture within his Department? Otherwise, all this money will just be wasted.
I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and the whole premise of his case is that it is somehow in the public interest for people in that community to carry on trying to find people to blame and prosecute on both sides of the argument. Is the real case here not that it is not only an extraordinary injustice for people to be prosecuted for having done their duty as members of Her Majesty’s armed forces, but it does not serve the interests of peace and reconciliation to allow and encourage people to carry on reopening wounds, when so much time and money has already been spent on trying to explain what happened to their loved ones? Nothing must detract from that sympathy, but it is a monstrous injustice that people in the line of duty who bear the scars of that conflict are paying the price for this almost politically correct process, instead of drawing a line.
EKA Ltd in my constituency is a supplier to Ministry of Defence service recovery vehicles that have to be deployed with our tanks, but an issue that it and other service personnel have highlighted is the absence of the provision of robust spare parts in the event of a breakdown or damage. The Government are spending millions on these assets but leaving them completely unprotected. Is the MOD reviewing the provision of spares as part of its procurement, and would the Minister meet me and EKA Ltd to discuss the matter further?
The Minister rightly promotes our world-class maritime sector in the south-west, where considerable private investment is being made, including a new resilience factory opening in my constituency next week. Such innovative young companies live or die on the pace of Government contracting, but we continue to wait for the latest defence investment plan. How will the Minister reassure the new tech companies in my constituency that the pace of their private investments is matched by the urgency of MOD contracting to ensure that economic growth through defence becomes a reality?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and everyone who has intervened. I will keep my remarks even briefer than I said I would. We have already heard a huge amount about supported lodgings, and that is what I wanted to speak about briefly, as much as anything to highlight the cross-party support for what they represent, and the role that they can play for our care-experienced young people. Supported lodgings—a family-based form of supported accommodation for young people aged 16 or over—play a vital role. They accommodate predominately care leavers, but also young people at risk of homelessness. In supported lodgings, a young person lives in the home of a host who offers not only a room but guidance, encouragement and belonging. According to research from Home for Good, which runs the supported lodgings national network, 84% of young people say that supported lodgings feel like home, 89% had a positive relationship with their host, and 90% feel more confident about living independently as a result. As one young person put it, “Being in supported lodgings allowed me to take the college course I wanted to take and ultimately the career path I wanted to follow.” Supported lodgings can make a transformative difference. Further research from Home for Good found that when young people live in supported lodgings for six months or more, we see an average 44% decrease in the number of those not in education, employment or training. Supported lodgings also cost only a tenth of what residential provision costs, while delivering far stronger long-term outcomes for young people. However, despite what we have heard this evening, awareness remains low. Only 30% of the public have even heard of supported lodgings, and most local authorities report difficulties in recruiting new hosts. That is why I am proud to support the launch of the first National Supported Lodgings Week, which takes place next week, during Care Leavers Month; over 60 local authorities and independent schemes are taking part. My asks of the Minister are simple: I ask him to allocate dedicated funding to expanding supported lodgings; to reduce reliance on high-cost residential placements; and to improve national data collection, so that we can properly evidence the scale and impact of this vital provision. We are all agreed this evening that every young person, whether in care, leaving care or facing homelessness, deserves not just a place to stay, but a home where they belong.