Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Immigration

    I did say that it was under successive Governments. The reason for that is that the liberal elite of this country—I do not count the hon. Gentleman among its number—that controls far too much of the Establishment and wields too much power is at odds with the understanding which prevails in his constituency and mine of ordinary, everyday working people, who recognised what I have just said long ago but were told by people who should have known better that net migration at that level was not only tolerable but desirable. It is a complete nonsense to pretend so, and every piece of analysis justifies that.

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Immigration

    I of course agree with my right hon. Friend, who as usual has brought a particular insight based on his long experience to our considerations, and let us just take one example of that. Some 647,000 migrants received health and care visas from 2021 to June 2024; 270,000 of them were workers and an extraordinary, outrageous 377,000 were dependants. Even—[Interruption.] Even, I say to those on the Liberal Democrats Benches, those remaining members of the liberal elite who still perpetuate the conspiracy of silence about these matters must understand that everyone who comes to the country brings an economic value and an economic cost, and many of those dependants will not have brought economic value. That is not to disparage them in any way—they are perfectly nice people, I am sure—but they are not adding to the economy and certainly not adding to the per capita productivity or growth in the economy. In fact, they are detracting from it.

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Immigration

    Of course Brexit and particularly free movement led to a massive influx of people. When David Blunkett, now Lord Blunkett in the other place, was Home Secretary, he estimated that as a result of free movement 13,000 people would arrive in this country. In fact, the figure was in the hundreds of thousands and when settled status was granted it turned out to be millions. So the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the effects of Brexit.

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Immigration

    I will not because I know others want to get in and I am already testing the Deputy Speaker’s patience. The truth of the matter is that we need to address migration not only for the reasons I have given about population growth and the damage to social cohesion and the economy, but because unless we do so the British people will assume, and rightly so, that people here just do not get it. Well, I do, and I hope those on my Front Bench now do, and the Government need to wake up and smell the coffee pretty soon.

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Immigration

    I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have not changed my mind about this; I have believed it forever. I only change my mind about anything about once a decade. The truth of the matter is that he must know that, according to the ONS, the scale of population growth will be equivalent to the population of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Peterborough, Belfast, Cardiff, Manchester, Ipswich, Norwich, Luton and Bradford added together. That cannot be reconciled with the quality of life and standard of living that his constituents and mine expect.

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Immigration

    I take the hon. Member’s point. As I did say, successive Governments are to blame for this, beginning with the Blair Government or perhaps even earlier. Would he, however, acknowledge that we cannot increase the population on the scale we have been doing without putting unbearable pressure on demand for housing, access to GPs and health services, and other public services?

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Immigration

    We should deport the approximately 1 million people who are here illegally. We also need, as I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge, to look at the indefinite right to remain. All kinds of people—with extremely dubious pasts, presents and possibly futures—have been granted that status. Will she commit the Opposition to relook at that, because indefinite does not mean permanent?

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentSir Gavin Williamson

    Business and the Economy

    I am sure Members across the House agree on the need and desire to promote growth and business investment. However, small and mid-sized businesses in my constituency—especially those in the hospitality sector—have been particularly squeezed, not just through the change of rate of national insurance, but with the threshold lowering, as they employ a lot of younger people on sometimes part-time wages. Will he make representations to the Treasury for those hospitality businesses to be included in future fiscal considerations?

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentSir Gavin Williamson

  10. ParliamentSir Gavin Williamson

    Business and the Economy

    Could the Minister set out to the House how much his Government actually raised through additional taxes in the Budget, and how much the Government set out in terms of additional spending?

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne

    Interim Custody Orders: Compensation

    1. If he will take steps to ensure that compensation is not paid to people detained using interim custody orders during the troubles in Northern Ireland.

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne

    Interim Custody Orders: Compensation

    Will the Secretary of State withhold the remedial order until he is certain that he can deliver the Prime Minister’s pledge to prevent Gerry Adams from receiving compensation?

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentSir Desmond Swayne

    Business and the Economy

    May I tell my hon. Friend why I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) is wrong? Since the very inception of our negotiations to join what was then the common market—now the European Union—it has attached huge importance to fishing. We have just handed over the enormous leverage of an annual negotiation, and for what? Absolutely nothing.

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this important legislation. Farming plays an important role in my constituency. Livestock worrying can cause serious injury, immense suffering and, in the worst cases, death to farm animals. These incidents are not only traumatic for farmers but result in significant financial losses. According to data from NFU Mutual, insurance claims for dog attacks on farm animals exceeded £1.8 million in 2023. This Bill makes several improvements to the existing law. First, it creates a distinction between worrying and attacking livestock. That is important, because it allows the strengthening of police powers to respond more effectively to actual attacks. Currently, it is difficult for the police to collect evidence following an alleged attack. It is too easy for an owner to prevent police from collecting evidence, such as by taking samples of blood on fur. The Bill fixes that, ensuring that officers can act to collect evidence so long as they have reasonable grounds to believe an attack has happened. The Bill will also allow officers to seize and detain a dog that is believed to have caused an attack. Unfortunately, too many dogs that worry livestock are what we might refer to as repeat offenders. This measure makes it easier to prevent the most dangerous dogs from causing further harm to livestock. Perhaps the most important element of the Bill is the inclusion of roads and public paths within the scope of the existing legislation. As anyone who has ever tried to drive down a country lane will know, it is not uncommon for livestock to cross the lanes between fields. At the moment, if an animal is attacked when it is not in one of the farm fields, the responsibility falls on the farmer, rather than the owner of the dog, to prevent the worrying. Including roads and paths in this legislation is a simple measure to close this loophole and ensure that dog owners have to control their dogs around livestock at all times. Lastly, I support the move to include camelids within the definition of livestock, which will protect the llamas and alpacas at the Animal Farm Adventure Park in Berrow in my constituency. I am delighted to support the Bill and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing it forward.

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    Business and the Economy

    Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the cumulative effect of all the Government’s measures over the past 12 months—a £25 billion jobs tax, the £5 billion burden of the Employment Rights Bill, the removal of business property relief, which is reducing the incentive to be an entrepreneur—will be to drive unemployment higher?

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    Business and the Economy

    Could the hon. Member tell us whether A1 Bacon—indeed, any business in Harlow—believes that the Employment Rights Bill will enable it to employ more people?

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    Business and the Economy

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will raise relatively small amounts for the Treasury, but they will have a devastating effect on those businesses, and the reason they are being brought in is that Government Ministers have no idea how small businesses and farmers operate?

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentSir Ashley Fox

    Business and the Economy

    This Government were elected on a promise to go for growth. They said that they had a costed programme and that everything else they wanted to spend money on could be paid for by increasing growth. Despite those promises, almost every single action that Labour has taken since entering office has been to stifle growth, not to improve it. Before the election, many businesses backed the new Government. They believed their promises on tax, stability and growth. Many of those businesses have now lost confidence in the Government, and who can blame them? The impact of the hikes in national insurance contributions and business rates, combined with the red tape of the Employment Rights Bill and the removal of business property relief, has totally undermined business. I had the pleasure of serving on the Employment Rights Public Bill Committee for more than 20 sittings to go through the legislation line by line. It is 300 pages of additional regulations and costs on our businesses. It is a pay-off to the trade unions for giving their support to the Labour party before the election. That is why the Bill was introduced within 100 days, basically unfinished, and why so many amendments had to be made to it in Committee and on Report. The Bill was written by the trade unions, which explains why the Government show no willingness to compromise on its most damaging parts. The Deputy Prime Minister is using the Bill to burnish her credentials with the left of her party, for the same reason that she and her team briefed the press yesterday on why she wants another £4 billion of tax rises: it is all in order to be ready for a tilt at the top job. That is why one part of the Government are not listening to businesses when they say how badly they will be impacted by this legislation. However, there is another significant contingent: those who simply do not understand business at all. Vanishingly few Labour Members have experience in small businesses, and practically nobody in the Cabinet has any experience of business at all. Who is going to be hit the hardest by the cumulative effect of this Government’s punitive attack on business? It will not be Amazon, Tesco or Shell; it will be the people at the margins—those who are looking for a job in their local family-run business. The real impact will be on those who are looking for work, because everything that this Government have done is an attack on jobs. Members must ask themselves: why would a small business, as an employer, take a risk on taking on an additional member of staff in this environment? It will be taxed more and it will be opened up to litigation from day one if it fails to follow the complicated legal processes in dismissing them. Day one rights will have a disproportionate effect on those people who we most want to help into work: young people without qualifications, those who have taken long-term sick leave, those with disabilities who need reasonable adjustments, and former criminals. Right now, if a small business gives someone a chance, it can let them go easily if it does not work out for either the employee or the business. Why on earth would it take that risk in future? It is deeply regrettable that unemployment is already on the rise. We know that every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they started. It is regrettable that business confidence is at an all-time low after this Government have been in office for only 10 months. That is all caused by their disastrous business policies. I urge the Minister that it is not too late to change course, but if the Government do not do so, they will create a whole new generation of people who are locked out of the job market altogether.

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentPaul Holmes

    Engagements

    Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming my six-year-old constituent, Teddy, and his mum, Laura, to Prime Minister’s questions? Teddy is a self-professed eco-warrior, on a mission to change the world. He started out by saving thousands of plastic chocolate and sweet tubs from landfill, because they are not currently recyclable. Will the Prime Minister commit to asking the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution to meet Teddy and me to discuss how we can make those tubs recyclable? Does he agree with me that no matter how small you are, you are never too little to make a big difference?

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentPaul Holmes

  21. ParliamentNick Timothy

    Immigration

    The hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) has just said, from a sedentary position, that my right hon. Friend was “race-baiting”. My right hon. Friend was simply reading out official statistics in contributing to an important debate about the future of our country. Does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Gentleman should stand up and put his views on the record, and tell his constituents what he thinks about their legitimate concerns?

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentNick Timothy

  23. ParliamentNick Timothy

  24. ParliamentNick Timothy

  25. ParliamentNick Timothy

    Immigration

    Nobody ever voted for mass immigration. The country has repeatedly said that it wants border security, very little immigration and deportations for those who break the law, yet successive Governments have imposed mass immigration on our country. Human rights laws that render border security and immigration control almost impossible are treated like untouchable and unchangeable holy scripture. The justifications for mass immigration have changed over the years. First, people were told that the numbers were small and that nothing much would change. Next, people were told that immigrants would integrate and that there was nothing for them to worry about. People were then told that multiculturalism was a gift and that things such as foreign foods made it all worthwhile. More recently, as the numbers became unimaginable and communal intimidation, violence and sectarian politics, and even terrorism, became, in the words of Labour’s London Mayor, “part and parcel of living in a big city”, people have been told to keep their views to themselves and parrot the official line instead. However, diversity is not our strength: it is a very serious and difficult challenge that we have to manage, thanks to policies imposed on the public by politicians who chose—arrogantly and callously—to ignore what the people of their country wanted. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) wants to intervene, he can do so. Britain’s true strengths are our long stability, our legal inheritance, our institutions, our language, our shared identity forged through the triumphs and tragedies of history, the places we have in common, our literature, our culture and even our food. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is entitled to intervene, but he has continued to abuse from a sedentary position—as, indeed, have various Members on the Government Benches. This is supposed to be a debate.

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentNick Timothy

    Immigration

    When I worked in the Home Office, for the first couple of years net migration fell—after that, it rose. The Conservatives, like the Labour party, have failed the public on immigration. I am happy to accept that, but Members on the Government Benches show no sign of any contrition or of learning anything from experience. While politicians have talked vague nonsense for years about British values, sometimes values that could equally be said to be French or Dutch or whatever, and sometimes values not even shared by many British people, the constituent pieces that add up to our shared identity and culture are precious. Without our shared identity, there is less social trust, little solidarity and less willingness to compromise and make sacrifices for one another. It is undeniable that mass immigration and the radical diversity it has brought have undermined that shared national identity. What of the justifications for this massive social change? We have been told for years that it is vital for our economy, but mass immigration has displaced British workers from their jobs and undercut wages. The zealots who still support mass immigration will no doubt scoff that I am guilty of the lump of labour fallacy. If I am, so is the Migration Advisory Committee and various immigration experts. The only fallacy is believing that importing millions of fiscally negative immigrants will make us richer.

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentNick Timothy

    Immigration

    I will in a moment. That fallacy is now enshrined in Whitehall policy through the Office for Budget Responsibility, which insists that immigration creates fiscal headroom without calculating, as the Danish Ministry of Finance does, the true long-term fiscal cost of immigration by national background of migrants. I will now give way, unlike the Immigration Minister when she was going on.

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentNick Timothy

    Immigration

    Indeed. I remember when Dominic Raab was the Housing Minister and he made that point. The response from the Labour party was one of sheer hysteria, with accusations of bigotry. My hon. Friend is completely right. Mass immigration has also killed labour market pressures for employers to invest in skills and training, labour-saving technology and the pay and conditions of their workers. Then there is the capital stock of the country. When our population increases at the kind of speed we have experienced, what do we expect to happen? There are fewer hospitals and surgeries, less space on trains and the road, and fewer flats and houses and police officers and prison spaces per person than before. Let us dwell for a moment on the social problems that we have created for ourselves. According to the census, there were six London boroughs where a majority of people were born abroad. In towns and cities across the country, the census shows that we can draw a line where on one side the white British population lives and on the other lives an Asian Muslim population. The reasons that should alarm us ought not to need spelling out. We are importing many of the world’s hatreds. Just look at the Saturday marches against Israel and the intimidation of Jewish communities, or the riots we saw in Leicester three years ago. When the Prime Minister referred to an island of strangers, he was not wrong, even if the Immigration Minister did not back him up in using that language in her speech. The pity is that the policy response is risible. From Tony Blair to Boris Johnson, we have seen successive Governments talk things up, only to deliver ultra-liberal immigration policies. [Interruption.] Yes, this is the point, and Labour still will not learn. This Government are pursuing the same cynical path. Their policies are pathetic. They cannot even tell us if indefinite leave to remain changes will apply to immigrants already in the country. We know that Labour lacks what it takes to drastically cut the number of people coming into the country or to remove all the people who are here who break the law, claim benefits or take out more than they put in. I hope, and I believe that my party has rediscovered the necessary steel. The future of our country will depend on it.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

  30. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

  31. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

    Business and the Economy

    The hon. Member talks about deindustrialisation. Can he remind me what happened to the manufacturing share of the economy under the previous Labour Government? Did it go up?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

  33. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

    Business and the Economy

    I want to continue on the subject of deindustrialisation. Is it not the case that the manufacturing share of the economy dramatically fell under the previous Labour Government and then stayed the same under the last Conservative Government?

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

    Business and the Economy

    The outlook for business and the economy is really not good, to be brutally honest. We learned today that inflation has gone shooting up to 3.5% in a surprise increase. The Chancellor said she is disappointed by that, but it is entirely the result of her own policies. She was warned by the OBR, among others, that if she increased taxation to record levels and increased borrowing to record levels, it would have an inflationary impact. We are now seeing that, and normal people are literally paying the price through higher inflation. That is more alarming because it is against a backdrop in which unemployment is up by 150,000 people and growth is stagnant, with the IMF downgrading its forecast for growth for both this year and the next. Business confidence is down at levels last seen during the pandemic, when the entire world economy was brought to a stop. Businesses are clearly very anxious, and that is apparent from talking to businesses in my constituency. When business suffers, ultimately it is living standards that suffer. The brilliant Minister, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), produced loads of good work when he was a think-tanker for the Resolution Foundation. He used to produce lots of wonderful charts—I am a great enjoyer of charts—about real household disposable income, and he was worried about that. Now the Government have come in, and the measures they took in their first Budget reduced the forecast for household disposable income. The post-measures forecast, in technical terms, was lower than the pre-measures forecast. The outlook for living standards in terms of disposable income is one of the worst for many decades, as shown in the OBR’s forecast for living standards; growth is a tiny fraction of what we have considered to be normal since 1945. The outlook is bad, and it is not difficult to explain how we got here. The Government have taken the tax burden up to an all-time record high, and in lots of different ways. They increased national insurance and they cut agricultural property relief and business property relief. It is interesting to see how that is percolating out across the rural economy. People often think of the family farm tax as something that just hits farmers, but I have been struck by the multiplier effect. When I met local businesses, there was a whole group of people there—farmers, sure, but also suppliers of tractors, insurers, vets and those from the whole wider rural economy. It is all being dragged down. We have already heard from Welsh colleagues about the massive reduction in investment in their rural economies as a result of that unfair tax. As has been noted by various Members, the family farm tax has been floated many times. It was certainly put in front of us when I was at the Treasury, and we said no. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said the same thing. This terrible idea has been produced many times, and I am afraid that there has been a mugging on Great George Street; naive, totally innocent young Ministers have come in and been mugged by wily civil servants, who have finally been able to have their way. We have all had that piece of paper on the winter fuel payment put in front of us, but we chose not to do it. Civil servants must not have believed their luck when these Ministers agreed to do it. The Government are now hastily trying to do a bit of a U-turn, but let us see what comes forth.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

    Business and the Economy

    One of the things that happened during our time in government was a massive global pandemic that brought the entire world economy to a complete halt, but memories are short. Perhaps more importantly, every single thing that this Government are doing is bad for growth. That is the bottom line.

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

    Business and the Economy

    Labour Members who were not in the House at the time—it is before their time—will not remember that the deficit we inherited in 2010 was twice the size of the one that Labour has inherited, and the structural deficit was twice as big. Indeed, we went into the global recession—the financial crisis—with the largest structural deficit in our peacetime history. That is the record of the last Labour Government. We had had a recession that was the size of the 1980s recession and the 1990s recession put together, and when I say we were cleaning up the mess—I am afraid I am going to use a generation X metaphor—I mean it was like one of those enormous brontosaurus poops in the film “Jurassic Park”. We were cleaning up a big mess, and it took us a long time. We had to make some difficult decisions, particularly during the coalition years, to clean that up. Members have referred to my peroration, but I am afraid I am only getting started. [Interruption.] The House groans at the prospect.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

    Business and the Economy

    We inherited a situation where unemployment had doubled. One of the great achievements of that Government was to halve it again. This is confidential, but the first time I met Nick Clegg, I was accompanied by a gentleman wearing a chicken suit—this is the kind of serious economic analysis I am famed for—but I have to say that Nick Clegg was not a chicken when it came to making difficult decisions to clean up that huge mess; the Liberal Democrats made some difficult decisions along with us to try to do that. I have talked about the increase to national insurance contributions, and I will return to that in a little more detail. We have also talked about APR and BPR. One of the most striking developments in my constituency, though, has been the effect of the doubling of business rates for the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors through the ending of the relief that we introduced—an effect that is very visible, particularly in the high streets such as the Parade in Oadby, and in Wigston and South Wigston. The situation is also bad in Market Harborough. The problem is compounded by some local decisions—the council has increased parking charges, which was a big mistake—but it is the ending of those reliefs and the huge increase in national insurance contributions that have been especially bad for our local high streets, and for pubs in particular. When I was talking to a brilliant pub landlady who owns several pubs in my area, she said, “We hoped so much that this new Government would be a morale-lifter and there would be a boost and a feel-good factor, but now we have a feel-bad factor.” I often drive past a number of pubs that have recently closed because of the confluence of the ending of the reliefs, the higher energy costs, and a number of the tax measures that the Government have introduced. It is desperately sad to see all those closed pubs that used to be huge centres of community life. When people lose their local pub, they lose a piece of their social fabric as well. Pubs are important local businesses, especially in rural areas. We have had the tax increases, and we have also had the increase in energy costs as a result of everything that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing. We were promised a £300 reduction in our energy bills but instead we have seen a £281 increase, and that can only rise as the Government do all sorts of ill-advised things to hit their ill-advised target of fully decarbonising electricity by the end of the Parliament—something that will massively increase the costs of going green in comparison with the counterfactual. At the same time, we have seen a massive increase in employment red tape. One of the bright spots in the UK economy over the last 30 years has been a relatively liberal labour market, but there has now been an extraordinary moment when all the big five business groups in the country came together for the first time—they have never done this before—to criticise the Employment Rights Bill. A Member on the Government Benches said earlier that it was all right because some Cambridge professor had said it was fine; on the other hand, every single business in the UK is saying it is a disaster. The fact that Members are accepting that kind of donnish approach to managing the economy, rather than listening to the views of the people who actually create jobs and drive our economy, really says something about the contemporary Labour party. This is no joking matter, though; it is a serious issue and a major economic detriment. At a higher level, the wealth creators have been affected: the non-dom changes, some of which have already been rowed back on and more of which may be rowed back on in future, have driven away people who have a great deal to give to our economy. There are plenty of reasons for this picture of economic underperformance and gloom. I would not mind so much if all the tax increases, leading to a record tax burden, had been imposed against a backdrop where the Government were bringing our debt and deficit under control. Perhaps the Minister will be able to correct me, as his knowledge of fiscal factors may be greater than mine, but I cannot recall any fiscal event when the Government have presented a Budget and at the end of the forecast period, public sector net debt was still rising. There have been plenty of fiscal events when debt has risen, because of events such as the pandemic or the war in Ukraine, but they have all shown a path towards falling debt. This is the first time I have seen a chart—I think it is chart 7.3 in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook—that shows debt still ceaselessly rising even at the end of the forecast period. I cannot remember another Budget like that. We are seeing the confluence of a stalling, stagnating economy, rising unemployment, increasing tax and, as a result of all that, debt rising and storing up major problems for the future. I want to go into a bit more detail about a couple of matters, the first of which is that national insurance increase. Labour in opposition promised that there would be no tax increase for working people, so I was stunned—jaw on the floor—when the biggest tax increase that they introduced fell squarely not just on working people, but on low-income working people. It is like a laser-guided, heat-seeking precision missile, targeting those low-income workers, particularly women, who graft hard and are not paid a lot. I find it incredible that a Labour Government—a Labour Government!—should have chosen, as their big tax increase, to lower the threshold for national insurance while increasing the rate. It hammers those on the lowest incomes. That is amazing. Why was that option chosen? It was chosen for all the wrong reasons. It was chosen because the Labour party hoped that it could say, “This isn’t a tax on the workers; this is a tax on businesses.” Of course, everyone can see through that. The problem for the Government is that the Office for Budget Responsibility immediately popped up and said, “No, three quarters of this will be passed through to people’s wages.” The OBR says that people on £13,000 a year will lose £500, which is a lot to lose for someone who is on only £13,000. People earning £9,000 a year are the biggest losers proportionately. According to the OBR, they will lose 5% of their income as a result of the huge tax increase being passed through into their wages. It is amazing that Labour Members are not up in arms about the fact that the Government have just implemented one of the biggest tax increases ever and have targeted it at lower-income workers. That is incredible for the Labour party—absolutely unbelievable. On the other side of the ledger, what has happened to public services? Of course, they are all hit by the national insurance increase. We were promised in the autumn Budget that they would be looked after, but that is not what has happened in practice. First, we found out that lots of bits of the NHS would not be compensated, including primary care—that GPs, opticians and dentists were all going to have to suck up the increase in tax. We also found out that social care would not be protected and would have to suck it up. Intriguingly, and as I pointed out at the time, there was a difference between the Budget document and the OBR’s EFO, which I am sure the Minister will remember. The EFO cited a different number for the cost of protection and it mentioned that social care would be included. One of the joys of having the OBR—although it is not a joy for those in the Treasury—is being able to see the Government’s handwriting and the last-minute changes; in this case, we can see that they were thinking very seriously about exempting social care from the big increase in tax, but that they chose not to do so at the last minute. That was the wrong decision.

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

    Business and the Economy

    The hon. Member was probably not here at the time, but I was actually Social Care Minister. He says I have been converted to the cause of social care, but I am quite passionate about it. In addition to the professionalisation of the profession and the investment in skills and technology, one of the things we chose to do—particularly in the wake of the pandemic—was to prioritise money going to the frontline, rather than towards the protection of people’s property income. I am not a social democrat, but occasionally we have to make tough choices; rather than protecting people’s property income, our choice was to protect and put money into the frontline of social care.

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

    Business and the Economy

    In one moment. I want to talk about some other public services that have been affected by the national insurance increase. There are a lot of examples in education. Nurseries have lost out, and they are screaming right now; they are in real difficulty. Lots will close and lots will fail to deliver the places that parents have been promised. If Ministers meet representatives of nurseries, they will hear a tale of incredible woe, because nurseries are caught by both the large increase in national insurance, which squarely hits their workforce, and the increase in the national living wage. I am not against the national living wage—in fact, I helped to give it its name—and I believe in fair pay for fair work, but we have to be conscious about what we are doing with tax, because we cannot have a big increase in the national living wage and then wallop those exact people with a massive tax increase. That way lies disaster for our public services and for our small businesses. Nurseries have lost out, and schools are losing out. Schools were promised that they would be fully compensated. It is not us saying this; it is the Association of School and College Leaders, which is a trade union, and the Confederation of School Trusts. They have discovered that schools are losing out by up to 35%—that is how much they have been shortchanged by this Government. The Government have deliberately obfuscated the funding and they are not even attempting to compensate each individual school for however much money they are losing. The result is that schools might sack about 13,000 teachers. In fact, I have been meeting representatives of schools and school trusts in recent weeks, and they are currently sacking teachers. The Harris Federation—one of the best trusts in the entire country, with an amazing and proud record of turning around London schools—is sacking people. The Synergy multi-academy trust is sacking people. Sir Jon Coles, who runs the largest school trust in the entire country, has said that schools are obviously going to have to sack people, because schools have been shortchanged over national insurance. It is pretty poor that they were promised something that has not been delivered. It is the same for our universities, and I have to say that this was a masterclass in un-joined-up government. First, the Government broke their promise on fees. They said graduates would pay less, and they increased tuition fees instead. That was the first broken promise. Secondly, the universities did not even get the money; it was entirely wiped out by the increase in the national insurance rate. Thirdly, with industrial action looming across the sector because they had taken away all the money they had put in, the Government made it easier to strike through the Employment Rights Bill. It is now rumoured that the Office for Students are to bring in a new mechanism to make it easier for students to sue universities if there are strikes. This is a case of left hand, right hand—or of arse and elbow, if I am completely honest—and a masterclass in totally chaotic government. The same is true in lots of other bits of our public services—public transport, culture, housing and local government. According to the Local Government Association, local authorities have been short-changed by £1.8 billion, which is an enormous hit. They were promised they would be compensated, but they have not been compensated. However, the worst example for me is our charity and voluntary sector. As the Minister knows, at least 7,000 charity and voluntary sector leaders have written to the Chancellor asking her to change her mind and reverse the massive increase in national insurance on these small, vulnerable organisations. When I talk to charities and voluntary groups in my constituency, they tell me some pretty disturbing things about what they are having to do to their staff because of those big increases. I pay tribute to organisations such as Helping Hands up in South Wigston, Voluntary Action South Leicestershire, Loros and Rainbows. I am afraid we were recently forced to use one of our brilliant local hospices, Loros, to help look after my mother-in-law, and it provided wonderful care. However, its job is not made easier by the fact that it has been hit by this enormous tax increase. If the Minister wants a really good measure for the next Budget, he should reverse that. It would be hugely popular, but more importantly, it would be the right thing to do. Public services have been short-changed, and low-income workers have been the hardest hit, which is a pretty bad combination. I want to mention something that has not been much explored in recent days, which is a tax increase—a stealth tax increase—that has gone unrecognised. By linking the UK emissions trading scheme with the EU scheme, the Government have increased the tax on energy that firms face, because the ETS is of course a tax, albeit a traded one. Prices in the UK ETS have been driven upwards for the last couple of months not just by the final deal announced the other day, but by the prospect of a deal and the prospect of connecting those two different markets. Two different things have become a bit muddled in the public discussion—one is about trading electricity and the other is about the actual ETS as a tax. In January, UK allowances were trading at about £36 a tonne for December 2025 delivery, and EU allowances were about £25 a tonne more expensive, so £36 plus £25. As of today, the UK ETS is £54 a tonne and the EU ETS is only £4 a tonne above that. We have seen a tremendous price convergence, with the UK tax rate—the UK carbon price—shooting up to match the EU one. Although the price had been ticking up on the prospect of connection to the EU scheme, it went shooting up on the announcement of the deal: it is up by a further 10% since Monday’s reset announcement. That is increasing the cost to businesses, and it will ultimately pass through to the wider economy and to the rest of us. Looking at the EU ETS price movement so far, it seems to me that the UK Treasury will accrue about £1.2 billion extra as a result of these increased ETS costs, which would certainly outweigh the supposed benefits from the carbon border adjustment mechanism—not that that tax is necessarily paid by firms in the UK, because it is paid by importers in the EU—so the wider cost of this stealth tax could be more than that. I mentioned that the potential increase to the Exchequer is about £1.2 billion, but the overall cost could be higher at more like £2 billion or so. That is an immediate result of the deal announced on Monday, and it is in effect a stealth tax, because it has given us a higher carbon price immediately. I thought it was ironic that the Draghi report—the EU’s own report into how it can become more competitive—was quite critical of the EU’s ETS. It said it had given the EU one of the highest carbon prices in the world—a high and volatile price. The Government were telling us what a wonderful benefit it was to be part of it, even as senior people in the EU were saying that it is a problematic scheme. That part of the deal has been a bit underappreciated so far.

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentNeil O'Brien

    Business and the Economy

    I had not realised I had spoken so long. Even I, at 23 minutes, have probably had enough O’Brien at this point, never mind the rest of you poor souls! The hon. Lady talks about police. In the last Parliament, the previous Government added 20,000 extra police officers to our streets. I was not going to raise it, but national insurance hits the police as well. I see TV footage of prisoners released from jail by this Government popping champagne corks. I am not going to widen this out into a debate about criminal justice, but if I did so it would be more enjoyable for Conservative Members than for the current Government. We have a pretty bleak picture: inflation up, unemployment up, growth stagnant and being revised down by international bodies such as the IMF, business confidence at its lowest level since the global pandemic, and an outlook for living standards that is absolutely miserable. Something has to change, and I hope the Government are having a rethink on the economy, as well as on other subjects such as migration. The Prime Minister used to be madly in favour of it, signing letters saying, “Don’t deport anybody.” I do not really think the policy has changed hugely, but at least the rhetoric has changed. On the winter fuel payment, let us see how far the policy goes. What we really need, above all else, is a change in economic policy to one that is more about getting growth moving. Until we do that, we will not get anywhere. The Minister, being brilliant, will remember the economist who said: “Once you start thinking about”— economic— “growth, it is difficult to think about anything else.” I am sure he is thinking about economic growth, but we need to move from the wonking and the thinking to the changing of policy in a more growth-oriented direction if we are to get unemployment down and give people a chance of having better living standards and a better future.

    Hansard source