Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The Government have said throughout the passage of this legislation that it is not about the European Union, yet as the hon. and learned Member makes clear, it is only the European Union that we can align with through regulations made under it. Does that not fundamentally undermine the Government’s entire argument, and show why these amendments are so vital to protect this House?
The hon. Member and I served on the Bill Committee together. I think he misses a slightly important point that this is not about international alignment, as is put forward in the amendments tabled by the Opposition, but alignment with the EU, and that is why there is such concern from the Opposition parties.
As the hon. Lady appreciates, we come at this Bill from different angles. We have tabled some amendments, including amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to come to this House and make a statement. As the hon. Lady says, small businesses are seeing regulatory change happen so swiftly that they cannot keep up. One issue with the Bill is the fact that it will be possible for regulations to be changed even more quickly, at the stroke of a Minister’s pen. That could lead to small and medium-sized enterprises being disadvantaged compared with very large businesses, which can align much more quickly.
Will the hon. Lady give way?
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but on the broader issue of dynamic alignment, are there not some issues—for example, animal welfare, which is not covered by the Bill—on which, if we want to maintain higher standards, we will want to go further than our EU allies, not dynamically align with them?
Thank you, Ms Jardine—excellently chaired, as always. I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this important debate. We have had some excellent contributions across the Chamber. He spoke passionately about the case for more investment in swimming facilities across England. He also had brilliant contributions from colleagues in Scotland about important safety issues, particularly in open water swimming. I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of the arguments that have been made. I thank Swim England and those in the Swimming Alliance who are here today for their ongoing engagement with us as the official Opposition. Swimming, as we have heard already, is a valuable life skill. Going for a swim can keep people of all ages fit and healthy, both physically and mentally. Knowing how to swim can save your life or someone else’s. That is why it is rightly part of the national curriculum. But, worryingly, we have seen a decline in young people’s swimming capabilities following the pandemic. According to Swim England, nearly a third of children leaving primary school cannot swim confidently, safely and unaided over 25 metres. As the sports body warns, there is a risk that many in this generation will simply not learn to swim. The complex causes of that are often seen in London, where swimming facilities are actually a lot better than other parts of the country.
Sadly, it does. Parts of the Swimming Alliance are looking very closely at the open swimming element because of the tragic examples where people lose their lives. We have to be conscious of that as we go into the summer months across Great Britain, when people are more likely to swim in open water. We have sadly seen the closure of too many swimming pools in recent years, with the number of new pools opening being only half that of those that have closed. It is a trend that the previous Conservative Government fought hard against. In 2020, we launched the £100 million national leisure recovery fund to keep leisure centres open in more than 260 local authorities. More recently, in 2023, when rising energy prices threatened to close more swimming pools, we launched the £80 million swimming pool support fund. That crucial funding helped 102 local authorities to cover the spiralling costs that threatened to reduce and close even more facilities. Importantly, it funded nearly 550 projects across almost 350 leisure facilities to help them to reduce their energy bills. Those facilities included two in my home borough, the London borough of Bexley, where swimming remains very popular among my constituents. It is also where I learnt to swim, at the Crook Log leisure centre—not very well, I must say, although that is not a comment on their swimming lessons. We invested to protect swimming facilities, but I now fear that, sadly, the trend of closure could accelerate under this new Government without new proposals coming forward. Schools struggling with the cost of the Labour Government’s national insurance increase might not be able to afford travel costs to local swimming pools. I am worried that the school tax will impact the areas of the country where the private pool in a school is the only swimming facility available, and about how that may impact local clubs looking to use it. Councils are also braced for more spending pressures as inflation rises again and will struggle to keep public facilities afloat under Labour. My council has been hit with a £5 million extra cost this year just because of national insurance. Leisure facility costs are still rising, as we have heard, thanks in no small part to similar tax hikes. We have only to look at the letter from a number of providers that was made public yesterday to see their concern about the Government’s inaction. While I appreciate that some of those matters are beyond the brief of the Minister for Sport, they are a consequence of her Government’s decisions. It is against that backdrop that she needs to lay out the Government’s plans to not only prevent more closures but open more swimming facilities, particularly in underserved communities around the country. What representations has the Minister made to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the potential impact of council finances on swimming facilities? Will the Department for Culture, Media and Sport continue to provide capital funding to improve energy efficiency at our leisure centres and pools? What is her plan to reverse the trend of swimming pools closing, and promote open swimming because of the safety aspects that we have discussed, so that every generation has a chance to learn to swim? This is an important issue for not only people’s health and wellbeing, but Britain’s sporting prowess. We all know the amazing British Paralympic and Olympic athletes and the representations they have made at the elite end of the sport. This is something that this Government must address to ensure that everyone can swim safely, and we will hold them to account to ensure that that happens in the years to come.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this really important debate. I have previously spoken in the House about my background as a small business owner—specifically, a furniture retailer—and I know that business rates represent a massive percentage of the cost of running a small business. For many years, I have thought that we should get rid of business rates. It is a very outdated model, preferred by the Treasury because it is an easy model for collection, but it is destroying our high streets. When I was a retailer, we had an online presence. Post pandemic, more and more people are used to buying online, which means the heart and soul of our communities is being hollowed out. What was once a vibrant high street where people came to do their weekly shop and interact with one another is now somewhere to make a quick trip for necessities. I have spoken before about my views on parking charges, which differ from those of the Lib Dem-run councils in my constituency. Parking charges are part of the formula for a successful high street. I will continue to feed in my view that we need to incentivise the best behaviour possible, with free parking for an hour for the high street, so that people can have their coffee or tea, pick up their dry cleaning, speak to their friends and pop into the library to return books. Those are the intangible things that we risk losing from our communities. Taxes have been discussed. I will be a little bit political, because I know the Minister is well versed in politics in support of high streets. When we are discouraging entrepreneurs from creating businesses, we are fundamentally damaging the structure of the tax base. It is all well and good supporting employees, but we are still waiting for the definition of an employee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge said, business owners are employees as much as employers. We should support them by saying, “We want you to take the risk of setting up a business with your life savings,” to employ people and give someone that first job, and I fear this Government are failing in that. We all look forward to the spending review and future Budgets that will hopefully not U-turn but nudge policy positions in a way that supports wealth creation. I am lucky enough to represent the great constituency of South West Hertfordshire. I have some really amazing high streets, such as Rickmansworth, Kings Langley, Chorleywood, Croxley Green, Leavesden, South Oxhey, Moor Park, Abbots Langley and many more. But what I have seen over the past five years, especially post pandemic, is an increase in vacancies, and it is taking longer for those vacancies to be occupied. That deters shoppers in my community from going to their local high street, and instead they click and buy from online retailers for convenience, which I am as guilty of doing as anyone else. My plea to the Minister is to create the policies that incentivise great and best behaviour. He will have support from across the House for being brave. With the majority that this Government command, they can start the tax system again with a blank sheet of paper and ask, “What is it that we are trying to achieve?” One of the frustrations that I had when I first got elected in 2019 with our 80-seat majority was that we could have carried out a once-in-a-generation reform of our tax system, especially business rates. If the Minister works closely with the Chancellor to do that, he will have my support.
One of the likely consequences of the Minister’s proposals is that tenants will look to change their rateable value. Can he assure the House that the Valuation Office Agency will have sufficient resources to ensure that any appeals are done as quickly as possible to give the certainty that our high street retailers and hospitality deserve?
I recognise the importance of assisting the city regions to boost the economy, but my Brigg and Immingham constituency covers the south bank of the Humber, which is home to a cluster of energy businesses that are of particular importance to the renewables sector. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury outline what resources will be made available for that area to support improvements both in rail connections and also to the A180, which provides access to the major port of Immingham?
The Minister says he hears the frustration of the House, but do the Government hear the cries of Gaza’s orphaned children and the cries of the children who have had their loved ones literally blown to bits in front of them, who will be maimed for life? I have been at many of these statements before. I am grateful for what the Minister said, and I also put on the record that I am grateful for what the shadow Foreign Secretary said, but the reality is that aid is not getting through. There were 400 UN stations before, but there are now only a handful. They are in combat zones, and people are unable to access the aid. Every single day, men, women and children are being impacted through a lack of food, access to aid, access to medical supplies, and access to fuel so that they can actually cook some of the food—some very practical issues. I do not support the new way of delivering aid—it should be done by the UN—but if that is going to be the case, what more can the Minister do with the Americans to ensure that there are more aid stations in more places so that more people can access aid, in order to save lives?
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. Congratulations on your tennis match this morning; I am glad it went well. Lawn tennis—you can’t beat it. This SI started its life in the previous Government and has come through more or less untouched. It is almost as if the general election never happened—it is extraordinary; we seem to have swapped sides somehow. On the basis that the SI was started in the previous Government, the Opposition will support the new rules. It is absolutely right that people and businesses have access to bank accounts. While the Farage-NatWest scandal brought the issue of debanking into the national spotlight, the statistics show that the scale of the problem is far wider. Nearly 400,000 bank accounts were closed last year, according to figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph via a freedom of information request. Many of those closures will of course have been for legitimate reasons such as financial crime, fraud or dormant accounts. For people and businesses that are impacted, often unfairly, the new rules will be very helpful. These are sensible steps that will improve transparency and give customers more time to find alternatives if their accounts are closed. However, the deal does not include a statutory review clause, which is possibly a mistake, and there has rightly been feedback. David Hamilton, a partner at Howard Kennedy, warns: “If customer exits are more onerous in terms of disclosures and potential FOS challenges, it may give banks pause to consider whether they want to onboard certain types of customers at all.” In other words, there is a real risk that the banks will simply become more cautious at the account opening stage, and they could make it harder for those perceived as higher risk, such as politically exposed persons—everybody in this room—or certain business sectors, to access basic banking services at all, which brings me on to my next point. The new rules on politically exposed persons have not yet been publicised. The Financial Conduct Authority’s consultation on the issue closed in October 2024. Its initial findings asked banks and financial institutions to do more to ensure that UK lawmakers and their families are not treated unfairly. It is essential that the new rules on debanking and PEPs are aligned and implemented at the same time to give both customers and banks clarity and consistency. Although we support the new rules, I would like the Minister to address the following key questions. First, why has the statutory review clause not been included in this SI, given the risk of unintended consequences for account holders? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the impact on people who may now find it harder to open a bank account in the first place? Thirdly, when will the new rules on politically exposed persons be published? Will the Government commit to aligning their implementation with the debanking reforms? Also, how will the Government monitor the impact of the changes, particularly on small businesses and vulnerable customers, and what steps will be taken if there is evidence that banks are becoming more risk-averse and excluding legitimate customers from the banking system? As I said, access to bank accounts is a basic necessity in modern Britain. Under the previous—might I say brilliant?—Government, we made it a fundamental right to have access to basic banking services. These rules are a step forward, but it is vital that we remain alert to making sure that they do not become another barrier put in place to stop businesses and consumers accessing banking services. The Minister might not have enough time to get an answer to my questions, but if she could perhaps write me a letter, that would be fantastic. As I said, we will support this measure.
Not mine, perhaps.
It was to do with the assessment being done of the impact on politically exposed persons. When can we expect that report to come out?
Q8. The Prime Minister told us during the general election that he is a socialist. What has been more surprising is to find out in the last couple of weeks that the leader of the Reform party might be one too. As the Chancellor locks down the spending review, will the Prime Minister please remind her of Mrs Thatcher’s all-too-pertinent observation that the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money?
I have an issue in my constituency down White Stubbs Lane, where we have raw sewage going over the road. The Environment Agency is unaccountable, hardly wanting to meet with MPs or engage. It told me during the purdah period, “We can’t meet with you, because there is a local election going on,” which is absolute nonsense. It should engage with MPs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is completely unaccountable and needs fundamental reform and change?
The Minister speaks warmly about having meetings with the Environment Agency. It is all well and good having a meeting, but I do not want to go into a talking shop. I feel like the Environment Agency uses the meetings to say, “We’ve ticked that box and we’ve met that MP; that issue is done,” but it does not action anything. We want to see real action for our constituents because they are really fed up with these issues, which take a terribly long time to solve.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing the debate. There are 1,400 small businesses with a rateable value of less than £50,000 across my constituency. Today, we are discussing only the changes in business rates, but a lot of other Government decisions—particularly on employers’ national insurance and on energy costs not coming down—will affect our high streets as well. The cumulative impact of all that is devastating for our high streets. Lots of businesses I speak to in my constituency are horrified that rates relief dropped from 75% to 40%. When I go out and about across Broxbourne and speak to business owners, a lot of them now say, “What’s the point? What’s the point in me coming to work, trying to run a small business in the town centre, creating growth and employing people?” A Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that it is the Government that create growth. Well, let me tell the Government that it is not the Government that create growth; the Government’s job is to create the right environment for entrepreneurs and businesses to create growth. Business owners go to work day in, day out, and work incredibly long hours. The Government should try to derisk that process. If we want people to open shops on our high streets, the Government should cushion them from some of the risks. When someone starts their own business at home—from a desk, garage or whatever—upscaling that business is incredibly difficult, and lots of risks are involved. Given that the Government are changing business rates relief and slapping more taxes on businesses, particularly in our town centres, why would someone do that? A couple of weeks ago, I went to a secondary school in my constituency to speak to A-level students who are doing a business T-level. They all want to become entrepreneurs and create businesses, but we are not creating the right environment for people to become entrepreneurs. In the general election campaign, we heard a lot about how Labour would be the most pro-business Government ever to take power in the United Kingdom, but every decision the Government have made since being in office has slammed down growth and made it harder for businesses. My constituency has the business improvement districts Love Hoddesdon, Love Cheshunt and Love Waltham Cross, and business owners constantly tell me that, whichever way they turn, things are incredibly difficult and the Government are not making them easy. Even when they go through the business rates appeals process, they have to pay the higher bills while the process takes place, and that process takes months. They do not get any response from the Treasury, and it is difficult for them to appeal and submit information. That is simply not good enough. As I said, lots of people are starting to wonder, “What is the point in me doing this?” We should be pro-growth in this country. The best form of welfare is a well-paid job, but we are not allowing entrepreneurs to go out there, invest in their businesses, create job opportunities and keep our high streets afloat. We all want to see successful high streets up and down the United Kingdom, but this Government’s policies are killing the high street. They are absolutely killing it.
The SNP needs to come up with some relief, because things are hard enough in England, even without what the hon. Gentleman has just outlined in Scotland. The OECD has today downgraded its growth predictions for the United Kingdom. The Government need to start acting on their rhetoric from before the general election. They said they would be pro-growth, but no policies have come forward to support our high streets or promote growth. The Government really should stop trying to kill our high streets.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) indicated, we are all frankly getting a bit fed up with the theatrics in this Chamber, and if I am honest with the Minister, it feels like the whole House is being played. He shows up and mouths the words, full of condemnation and saying he is appalled, and very occasionally the Government leak out just enough sanctions in order, frankly—I am afraid to say this, colleagues—to keep the Labour Benches from open revolt. And yet, since the Minister last appeared here, as others have mentioned, 22 new settlements have been announced, and the Israeli Government have replaced the United Nations Relief and Works Agency distribution system with a shooting gallery—an abattoir, where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at. If the situation were reversed, we would now, quite rightly, be mobilising the British armed forces as part of an international protection force, so here is my question: what is the difference?
Not a single thing has changed—nothing! They are ignoring you now. I am sorry, but they are killing dozens every day—
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and he is being very generous with his time. My constituency has six swimming pools. Much has been made of the health benefits, but does my hon. Friend agree that, for those of us who represent coastal communities or constituencies with large rivers, being able to swim is an important life skill?
The previous Conservative Government had a dedicated Minister of State for veterans sitting at the Cabinet table, but that job was taken away by the new Administration. How are the interests of veterans in Scotland being raised in Cabinet under the new Government?
I should declare an interest: I learned to swim in Seamill in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Does she agree that there is a particular challenge in Scotland because the Scottish Government are underfunding local authorities, which makes it much harder for councils to support swimming pools in the way they might want to?
1. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of not issuing new North sea oil and gas licences on levels of economic growth in Scotland.
Ministers across various Departments have repeatedly said that oil and gas is here to stay for many years. Issuing new North sea oil and gas licences would support tens of thousands of jobs, return millions in tax revenue to the Treasury and help to grow the Scottish economy. Why are the Government refusing to issue any new licences?
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for swimming facilities. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am very pleased to have secured this important debate on Government support for swimming facilities. I will start with the importance of swimming and public facilities, and then move on to the responsibility for maintaining those facilities, as well as some of the challenges faced by providers and operators. I will then finish with the support that has been received historically, and with my asks and considerations for the Government. Swimming remains one of the most popular activities in England, with around 12.5 million adults going swimming each year—that is around 27% of the population. Participation levels are higher than for hockey, football, rugby and tennis combined. Seventy-two per cent of schools use public pools to deliver their statutory responsibility for learning to swim, and 85% of young people learn to swim in a public pool, with almost 2 million children learning to swim outside school through Swim England’s “Learn to Swim” programme each year. Seventy-five per cent of grassroots sports clubs use leisure facilities to deliver social and sporting opportunities to communities. And 66% of NHS cancer rehabilitation services take place in leisure facilities. Swimming helps to save our NHS around £357 million a year. The number of people with a limiting health condition or disability taking to the pool has grown from 15% two years ago to 24% more recently.
I agree that swimming is hugely important for young people and for the mental and physical health of the nation, for all these different reasons. We rely heavily on local authorities for ensuring that these facilities remain open to the public and, crucially, accessible to less well-off people.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sadly, his town will not be the only town in the United Kingdom with a pool unavailable for a period of time or possibly forever. I agree that local authorities across the United Kingdom have responsibility, but I also believe the Government have some responsibility to support local councils.
Absolutely. I also have a coastal constituency, and swimming is a life skill that, one day, someone may rely on to save a life. I agree with my hon. Friend on that. Councils are generally responsible for supporting the provision of both formal and informal opportunities for communities to be active. They spend £1.4 billion a year on sport, leisure, green spaces, parks and playgrounds, making local government the biggest public funder of sport and leisure services. Local government is directly responsible for 2,727 public leisure facilities, including almost 900 swimming pools. There are 4,000 more pools in England controlled or provided by other operators. The sport and leisure infrastructure provided by councils is relied on by residents, schools and voluntary sector organisations, none of which could provide their assistance without public swimming facilities. I acknowledge the work of the Swimming Alliance, which is a collaborative group of more than 25 leading national organisations united to address the urgent and systemic challenges facing swimming participation. I will come on to the challenges that swimming facilities are facing.
The statistic provided by my right hon. Friend could get worse if the number of public swimming facilities declines any further, because of that lack of swimming skills. It seems fairly obvious that, if someone is in trouble in the water, their best chance of surviving is if there is somebody nearby who can swim. Two of the biggest costs for swimming facilities are energy and staffing, and the cost of both has increased in recent years, putting huge pressure on pools. Post-pandemic, energy is twice as expensive as it was four years ago, and according to Swim England, national insurance contribution increases in the last Budget are costing operators across the country tens of millions of pounds. Since the pandemic, 206 pools have closed either temporarily or permanently, but local authorities are generally squeezed for funding and there is no prospect of that significantly changing in the next few years as far as I can tell. They are not in a position to substantially divert funding from core services, such as social care, to swimming facilities. Operators have already had to dip into reserves, and Community Leisure UK reports that its members across England are currently in deficit.
It is very disappointing to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Yes, I do think there is a role for the Government, and I will come to that in more detail. I hope she agrees with what I am suggesting. There is also a significant problem with ageing swimming pools. Generally, they have a life expectancy of around 40 years—the average age of a pool closing due to age is 38 years—but 30% of pools in England are more than 40 years old. This means they are close to the end of their lifespan, and there is no identifiable source of funds to deal with that issue. There is considerable and growing demand for capital investment because our pools are ageing. Swim England says that, by 2030, 73% of local authorities could have a shortage of at least one swimming pool. On the importance of swimming pools for children, currently only 72% of children leave primary school able to swim 25 metres, but the figure is just 45% in the country’s most deprived areas. If our ageing pools are not upgraded or replaced, it seems obvious that those figures will only get worse.
I agree, and schools often also rely on public swimming pools. Wherever schools need those facilities, I ask the Government to provide support. There is no other obvious support, as school and council budgets are already overstretched and must be used for other statutory duties. Swim England’s “Value of Swimming” report showed that swimming generates £2.4 billion of social value each year and improves wellbeing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) said. A 2014 Department for Culture, Media and Sport study valued swimming the highest of all the sports it included. The Isle of Wight is representative of the challenges faced across England. Pricing for swimming activities has become less inclusive as there are cost pressures for providers, so some of the concessionary rates that benefited those who are less well off or older have been discontinued. On the island, we have the challenge of four ageing facilities, built in 1974, 1978, 1980 and 1993. In 2010, Isle of Wight council withdrew support for Ryde swimming pool, but thankfully the local community saved it through the formation of the Waterside community trust. That pool continues to operate today, albeit without any ongoing funding from the council. In 2023, Isle of Wight council faced a £1.2 million hole in its leisure and sports development budget, and there were concerns about the continued provision of the two remaining facilities. It is my clear view that our small unitary authority cannot be expected to fund the ongoing costs of those facilities, given that energy prices and the cost of employing staff, due to national insurance contributions, are so high, and particularly when it comes to the capital investment that is needed. Facilities on the island have benefited from Government support in recent years. I now turn to the historical funding that swimming facilities have received. The last Conservative Government created the swimming pool support fund, with £80 million of funding for swimming facilities. That was £60 million direct from the Treasury and £20 million from the national lottery. The funding was oversubscribed and has now been used—it has come to an end. On the Isle of Wight, Ryde Waterside pool and The Heights in Sandown both benefited from the support.
I agree; swimming does all those things. As we are talking about Olympic champions, I have a quote from five-time Olympic swimmer Mark Foster, commenting on the support that the previous Government were able to provide. He said: “Swimming pools are at the heart of communities, and there are so many reasons why this funding to keep almost 200 open in England is so important.” Indeed, 325 swimming pools and leisure centres across England received a share of that money. Investment helped keep them open, and has gone towards helping to meet the target of keeping 3.5 million more people active by 2030. The first £20 million of that money was directly delivered to facilities at risk of closure, and it built on the support from the £100 million in the national leisure centre recovery fund, which since 2019 has helped secure or reopen 1,100 pools. I have secured this debate today because that source of funds has been exhausted but so relied on, and so far, the current Government have not announced any plans to continue with it or to provide any alternatives to help keep pools open and upgrade them where needed. I have some asks from Swim England. It seeks and encourages long-term capital investment and revenue funding to support the renewal of public leisure infrastructure. It wants to see a shared vision across Government for the future of public leisure, which recognises the value and contribution of swimming, particularly to the health and wellbeing of communities, and its social value. It wants greater integration between the health and leisure sectors, particularly through the work of integrated care systems. I have some questions for the Minister, which I hope she will address towards the end of the debate. What steps is she taking to support local authorities facing increased financial pressure in maintaining and upgrading ageing swimming pool infrastructure? Does her Department have plans to set targets or a benchmark for reversing the decline in swimming pool provisions across England? If she wants to comment on the United Kingdom, so be it. Will the Minister continue to support and fund, specifically, the last Government’s swimming pool support fund? If not, why not? What alternatives will she put in place? I remind the Minister gently of a previous quote by her: “The public leisure sector plays an important role in the delivery of sport, physical activity and leisure across the country. It does so through vital community assets and infrastructure, such as swimming pools…We know that it helps to address and prevent long-term health inequalities, both mental and physical. It helps to combat loneliness, grow the local economy and provide jobs and purpose.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 75WH.] I could not agree with her more.
I am grateful to Members for attending this important debate and making so many good contributions. There is plainly unanimous agreement about the importance of swimming for the health and mental health of young people, as well as for safety and other reasons. I hope that there is general support, at least, for the Government having a role to play in ensuring public facilities are available to everyone and are affordable. I welcome the sentiment expressed by the Minister, although it is obviously disappointing that she is unable to commit to previous Government funding pots to secure swimming facilities. I hope in the coming weeks that she and her Government are able to translate that sentiment into funding promises, so that local government and other providers have the security they need to continue to provide swimming facilities for the public. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for swimming facilities.
rose—
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House and, indeed, the viewing public have just been treated to the very unfortunate spectacle of a Prime Minister who was completely unwilling to answer questions from the Leader of the Opposition—so much so that he entirely changed the subject. Instead of referring to the two-child benefit cap, he started referring to the Kremlin and Russia. I know that you, Mr Speaker, pay careful attention to the content of supplementary questions to make sure that they are within scope. Could you give us some guidance on whether you may be able to control answers when they are wildly inappropriate?
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this important debate. I would thank Members from across the House for their contributions, but one main party has failed to show up—apart from the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, of course. High street businesses are not just shops, restaurants, pubs, banks and other firms; they represent jobs and investment, but above all they represent identity and a sense of place. Business rates have long been a source of concern for retail firms. That is inherent in their nature as a fixed cost that does not flex to profitability, business cycles or sales. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) spoke of his direct experience as a retailer. There is a case for reform but, as with everything—particularly with this topic—the devil is in the detail. The action that the Government have chosen to take means that shops and others will pay higher bills this year. That comes with consequences, and hon. Members have set out what has happened in their constituencies. When we were in government, we understood the value of our high streets. That is why we doubled the small business rates relief to £15,000 and almost trebled higher-rate relief to £51,000. That took a third of properties out of business rates completely. We also provided long- term support through things such as the towns fund and the long-term plan for towns, which King’s Lynn in my constituency is benefiting from; it is making a difference. Of course, in 2021 retail relief was set at 100% to reflect the realities and extraordinary pressures of the covid restrictions. In 2022, retail, hospitality and leisure properties were eligible for a 50% discount, and that was increased in 2023 to 75%—a tax cut worth £2.4 billion, which was then extended to 2024. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge rightly said, that was to help the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors adjust and continue to recover. That approach is a far cry from the 40% discount that the Government are offering now, almost doubling bills. The Exchequer Secretary was talked up by my right hon. Friend, and if he has his backing he is sure to go far. He is a consistent man, so he will likely claim that there are no plans to extend the 75% relief. However, if people look at our track record, they will see that we consistently provided relief and backed our high streets, and we would have continued to do so—I and my hon. Friends would have made sure of that. The Government’s decision to cut relief from 75% to 40% will leave many high street businesses facing increased costs. Some 250,000 businesses will be worse off, to the tune of £925 million. According to the British Independent Retailers Association, a shop with a rateable value of £60,000 will pay nearly £20,000 this year, up from only £8,000 in 2024. The average pub will have to pay £5,500 more annually. As we have heard, pubs are at the heart of our communities. Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, has said that when Wales reduced relief to 40%, closures in Wales were a third higher than they were in England. Any Member who talks to businesses every week, as I do, will know how difficult things are out there due to the choice that this Government have made to increase costs for our high streets. Under the Government’s plans, from next year there will be higher business rates for properties over £500,000. That will not only hit online retailers. The British Retail Consortium has expressed concerns that it will hit 4,000 larger stores in England, many of which are the anchor stores on high streets that help to drive footfall and support nearby businesses—more unintended consequences from this Government. As we have heard, high streets and local businesses are indispensable to our economy. Retail alone comprises 5% of GDP, providing 3 million jobs directly and 2.7 million more in the supply chain. Hospitality is the third largest employer in the UK, with 3.5 million people working in the sector, and it contributes £93 billion annually to the economy. Beyond their economic value, high street businesses form the heart of local communities, providing accessible services and so much more.
Absolutely. That is the sort of risk taking and job creation that we want to see across all our constituencies around the country, and it is that opportunity that the Government are crushing through their decisions. The hon. Lady’s example illustrates that the impact of these changes is already being felt, but we have been warned that worse is to come. The British Property Federation has found that business rates changes could cause a £2.3 billion hit to the economy, jeopardising 20,000 jobs. When businesses face higher costs, the alternatives open to them are higher prices, job losses or closures—boarded-up shops become inevitable—and young people and, in particular, part-time workers lose out on opportunities as a result. The Local Government Association has also raised concerns about the financial impact that these reforms could have on local councils. It has urged the Government to introduce a transitional mechanism to ensure that local council services are not put at risk. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond directly to the LGA’s concerns. Sadly, these are not stand-alone reforms; they come on top of the £25 billion jobs tax; the Employment Rights Bill, which will add £5 billion a year to costs; and the family farm tax and business tax. As if it were playing a game of Buckaroo!, Labour is loading cost after cost on to businesses and there will be a reaction. Half the major retailers surveyed by the British Retail Consortium said that the Employment Rights Bill will lead to job cuts. How does the Minister expect companies to absorb these much higher costs on top of business rates and higher national insurance? Last month, the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), visited Beales, which was holding a “Rachel Reeves closing down sale” as it wound down its business after more than 140 years. That is just one of 200,000 businesses that have closed under this Government. The future of our high streets should be a priority for any Government. Policies should be designed to help them to thrive, rather than burdening entrepreneurs and job creators. Extraordinarily, the Prime Minister said earlier this week: “I don’t think you can tax your way to growth.” Yet that is precisely what the Government have done with the £25 billion jobs tax. They are choking growth, costing jobs and hitting businesses that our communities rely on. Before the election, the Labour party promised that it would scrap business rates completely. In power, it simply ditched that pledge—another broken promise. It is little wonder the British Independent Retailers Association said: “For all the government’s rhetoric about supporting small businesses and revitalising high streets, their actions do precisely the opposite.” It is time for the Government to start listening to businesses and change course.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on an issue that affects so many of our constituents. I recently gave medals to members of Larkfield swimming club in my constituency, and it was obvious that swimming is helping the health and fitness of so many young people, as well as teaching life lessons of leadership, teamwork, discipline, respect, how to win and how to lose. It was the club and the swimming—it all helped. Does my hon. Friend agree that swimming is a force for good, and that it is very important for our local authorities to be aware of the major benefits for mental health and physical health? They need to support the funding of these facilities.