North Sea Oil and Gas Licences: Economic Growth
4. 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.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
North Sea Oil and Gas Licences: Economic Growth
If the UK achieves net zero in 2050, we will still consume about 14 billion barrels of oil and gas a year. We are currently on track to produce 4 billion barrels a year. Will the Secretary of State explain why he prefers to import our energy, rather than produce it ourselves?
- Hansard source
Sewage
I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for bringing the motion. It is important that we improve the quality of our rivers and seas. Does he share my concern that in the Water (Special Measures) Act the Government refused to allow local areas to retain the money fined from water companies to improve the environment in that area? Were they able to do that, that would lead to a real improvement in the quality of our environment.
- Hansard source
Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) for securing this most important debate. When thinking about the debate, I looked up some quotes on hair. My favourite was, “Invest in your hair: it is the crown you never take off.” That is a very true sentiment, although I apologise to the men among us who are perhaps lacking in the hirsute department. Naming no names—they are kings in their own right. Hair is such an integral part of our being and our confidence, and we can appreciate how traumatic it is when people lose their hair while undergoing cancer treatment or suffering from alopecia. We often expect to walk on to our high streets and find a hair and beauty salon that can help to tame our locks or restore our nails, but we cannot take the sector for granted. According to the British Beauty Council and Oxford Economics, the sector contributed £8.541 billion to the UK economy in 2023, supporting the direct employment of more than 224,000 people. I have many excellent hair and beauty salons in South Northamptonshire, but it really pained me when Defern Beauty in Brackley and The Beauty Works in Towcester met me and explained how desperate the position is for the industry. It was heartbreaking to see them explain how their life-long work is being eroded by this Chancellor. After NICs increases and business rate relief changes, they desperately need help. One of their asks is for a review of the VAT position, which would help not only to save businesses and raise revenues for the Exchequer, but also to save apprenticeships. The British Hair Consortium’s February 2025 report explains that as VAT is applied evenly across goods and services, it has a disproportionate burden on labour-intensive industries such as hairdressing and beauty, where 60% of the costs are wages. When they are unable to reclaim the VAT on their primary cost, which is people, there is a distorted market with competition between VAT-registered and non-registered businesses, which incentivises VAT avoidance tactics such as bunching, disaggregation and disguised employment. We should not be surprised by the rise in cash-only salons, and should think carefully about what that means in practice. The consortium is also calling for a mandatory register of all hairdressing professionals. Without a register, VAT avoidance and disguised employment will continue unchecked, costing the Treasury billions while putting responsible businesses at a disadvantage. My businesses pride themselves on taking apprentices and bringing the next generation along, but my fear is that, as the British Hair Consortium believes, apprenticeship starts are set to reach zero by 2027, which contravenes the Government’s objective of reducing inactivity among 18 to 21-year-olds. These businesses simply cannot afford to take on the next generation, which will stifle the industry in the long term. I implore the Government to engage with the industry and take immediate action. Hair is a beautiful form of self-expression. Where will we be left without it?
- Hansard source
Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) not just for securing the debate, but for making eloquent arguments about the hair and beauty industry and the broader impact of the Chancellor’s damaging Budget last year, such as the impact on nurseries and its knock-on effects. Almost a quarter of a million people are employed in the industry, and it is a disproportionate employer of women and young people. In the short time I have in which to speak, I will limit my comments, because a lot has already been said by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. I had the pleasure of visiting the award-winning Aesthetics Hair and Sarah Bowron in Solihull and she eloquently put a lot of the arguments to me. This industry—these businesses—might have never contacted their MP before, because they have never felt the need to do so. Like many small businesses, they just get on with the job in front of them. I am sure that the Minister recognises this, but I am not sure that his colleagues in the Treasury do, so the very first message I would share with him is that small businesses are not there to be squeezed till the pips squeak. There is real concern that the rise in NICs, the reduction in the tax threshold, the impact on part-time workers, the reduction in rates relief and the impending Employment Rights Bill, as well as, of course, the highly competitive market in which the industry operates, will have huge impacts. We have already heard about the impact on the hiring of apprentices. When there are disincentives on business, such as higher taxation, a much more competitive business environment or higher regulation, it is inevitable that businesses will have to look at where they can cut costs. Young people who come into apprentice positions, who have less training and are yet to learn the skills of the trade, so to speak, are the easiest ones to cut, because the businesses have to be able to continue to operate. I make no comments about his hairstyle or anything like that, but I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that they are skilled people who do skilled work, and an apprentice cannot just be trained overnight. It takes time to do so. Hearing from my constituent was certainly eye-opening and helped me to understand the impacts on their businesses. The fundamental point is that businesses in that competitive environment are being forced into a situation where hairdressers go for self-employment status, which means that they are below the VAT threshold, with less return for the Exchequer. That cannot be what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended when she made her statement. I have some thoughts about what the Chancellor was trying to do—basically, taxing everyone to appease some of the trade unions—but we will not get into all that right now. The reality, however, is that small businesses are the ones suffering. The impact has been huge. I also share the concern about the impact on high streets and the extended impact on tax avoidance and tax evasion, which of course we are very worried about.
- Hansard source
Planning and Development: Bedfordshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He has rightly pointed to the fact that Bedfordshire has been doing more than its fair share of growth for two decades. We are growing at two and a half times the national average, which has put pressure on public services, particularly GP services. Biggleswade in my constituency has been waiting years for a health hub to deal with the growing population. Does my hon. Friend, like me, want to hear a bit more clarity from the Minister today about new towns? The potential for new towns comes on top of the pressure we have from organic growth. Tempsford in my constituency has been highlighted for one of those new towns. We do not know whether the Government plan for that to be a community of 15,000 or 30,000; there are some reports of 250,000. We have no clue whether this Government are committed to infrastructure first, either. What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on what the Government should be saying now about new towns such as the potential one in Tempsford?
- Hansard source
Planning and Development: Bedfordshire
Honourable.
- Hansard source
Planning and Development: Bedfordshire
I am very grateful for the Minister’s thoughtful speech. One of the problems with the provision of public services in Bedfordshire—and, I am sure, some other high-growth areas—is that we are dealing with a backlog, due to the fact that for many years the population has grown too fast for us to provide the additional services. If the Government come forward with a new town in Tempsford, it is important that the Minister addresses the legacy issue—the backlog—as well as the provision for the additional houses that will come with the new town.
- Hansard source
Hospitals
I am grateful for the chance to speak in today’s debate and to be able to give voice to so many of my constituents’ frustrations about how their right to access quality healthcare has been deprioritised by this Labour Government. Many of my constituents, especially those in the north of my constituency, are served by the Epsom and St Helier university hospitals NHS trust. To be blunt, the situation at the trust today is simply not sustainable—clinically, financially or structurally. The trust currently operates two acute hospitals, in Epsom and St Helier, with duplicate services spread across both sites. The arrangement, while a product of historical necessity, today places considerable pressure on clinical teams. Allocation of staff members between sites is challenging and service delivery is stretched. No matter how committed the staff—their dedication is beyond question—they are constantly being asked to do more with less, in buildings that are often quite literally falling apart around them. To give just one brief example, earlier this year St Helier was forced to cancel scheduled blood tests because of widespread flooding in the phlebotomy section. We simply cannot go on like this. Indeed, time is not a luxury we have, with the estate now deteriorating faster than it can be fixed. The trust is spending millions every year simply to keep the most urgent problems at bay: patching leaks, coping with flooding, and addressing the worst outbreaks of damp and mould. I think we all agree that these are not the conditions in which 21st-century healthcare should be delivered. That is why it was so disappointing to learn earlier this year that the planned specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton—a long-standing scheme under the new hospital programme that was carefully conceived to address the very issues I have mentioned—has been delayed to the point that work will now not even begin until 2030 to 2035, with opening coming in 2037 at the earliest. The new hospital will consolidate emergency care into one state-of-the-art facility, delivering world-class treatment, faster access to care, and safer outcomes. At the same time, it will allow for major investment at Epsom and St Helier hospitals, helping to modernise crumbling buildings, improve planned care pathways and ensure that most services remain close to home. Under the trust’s plans, 85% of services would remain on the Epsom and St Helier sites, including out-patient care and diagnostic appointments. Local people would continue to receive the vast majority of their care where they always have done, but would benefit from shorter waiting times and access to better facilities, particularly for surgery. I passionately believe that the new hospital at Sutton is a once- in-a-generation chance to overhaul healthcare provision and ensure that my constituents receive the high-quality care they deserve in a timely fashion.
- Hansard source
Hospitals
I can confirm to the hon. Member that if the Conservatives were in power, we would be delivering that hospital. I want to be clear: the trust is ready to move forward, and clinical consensus has been secured; what is now urgently needed is commitment from the Government to drive the programme forward. After all, patients and staff alike deserve better than to spend another decade or more in facilities that are not fit for modern healthcare delivery. They deserve to know that promises made through the new hospital programme will be honoured, not quietly shelved or endlessly deferred by this Government. I urge Ministers in the strongest possible terms to look again at the decision to delay Sutton emergency care hospital and to provide the long-term certainty the trust needs to proceed—not in 2035, but now.
- Hansard source
Sewage
The Secretary of State is right to outline the legislation he is bringing forward, but on the ground there is still frustration about pollution in rivers, such as in Botley in my constituency. We are still seeing overflows—not from sewage but from development pollutants going into the river—and parish councils are identifying them quickly and coming to me, but the accountability structures behind water companies such as Southern Water will not answer to elected Members like me. We are still not seeing the improvement that the Secretary of State is advocating at the Dispatch Box. Will he agree to meet me and my parish council to hear our concerns? Can he outline briefly how the sewage legislation that he has just brought forward will add to that accountability for parish councils and local residents?
- Hansard source
Hospitals
Picturing the hon. Member in a rabbit outfit has woken us all up.
- Hansard source
Hospitals
I call Danny Chambers to wind up the debate for the Liberal Democrats.
- Hansard source
Hospitals
The point of order is most definitely on the record. It is a point of courtesy to be here for the close of a debate if you are here for the opening. No doubt, Opposition Front Benchers will make that very clear to the Member.
- Hansard source
Sewage
I inform the House that the Speaker has selected amendment (a) tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.
- Hansard source
Sewage
Order. Before you get back to your feet, Mr Farron, I remind you that you can speak as long as you want, but the longer you speak, the less likely it is that colleagues will be able to contribute.
- Hansard source
Sewage
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I would like him to consider the fact that more than 30 colleagues wish to contribute. The longer he speaks, the less likely it is that they will all get in.
- Hansard source
Sewage
Order. Because the Front-Bench contributions have been so substantial, Back Benchers will now be on a time limit of three minutes. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
Engagements
I, too, wish everyone a happy St George’s day. Can I also associate myself with the remarks about the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis on Easter Monday? Being married to a Catholic, I know the profound loss for millions in Britain and across the world. Does the Prime Minister now accept that when he said that it was the law that trans women were women, he was wrong?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister cannot bring himself to admit that he was wrong; that was the question. He spoke about respect and dignity, compassion and lowering the temperature, so will he now apologise to the very brave hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for hounding her out of the Labour party simply for telling the truth?
- Hansard source
Engagements
There was no apology to the hon. Member for Canterbury. There is no taking of responsibility. The Prime Minister talks about political football; he practically kicked her out of his party—constructive dismissal. He talks about my predecessor. What about the abuse I faced from his MPs, who called me a transphobe for supporting what the Supreme Court has now clarified, to use his words? And where was he? He hid for six days without commenting on the Supreme Court judgment. Why did it take him so long to respond? Is it not because he was scared?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I will tell the Prime Minister what I did. I stopped the gender—[Interruption.] I will, I will. When his Labour leader in Scotland was whipping his MSPs to get male rapists into women’s prisons, I stopped that gender recognition Bill. I helped commission the Cass review. I replaced the guidance on single-sex toilets. I made sure that the puberty blockers issue was resolved, while he was sitting there cheering on the ideology that was taking away safe spaces. And when the Prime Minister stayed silent last week, presumably waiting to hear what Morgan McSweeney thinks, on his WhatsApp groups some of his closest Ministers were plotting to overturn the Supreme Court decision. Labour MP after Labour MP stood up yesterday and challenged the ruling. How can we take his Government seriously on this?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Who is playing political football now? The Prime Minister has no answers. Yesterday, Labour MP after Labour MP challenged the ruling. He should be more worried about his Back Benchers than my Front Benchers. His Labour Ministers called the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission “appalling”. Baroness Falkner’s role is critical to enforcing the Court’s judgment. She has had to put up with relentless abuse, not just from his Front Bench but from activists and ideologues. Reappointing her would be a clear sign that he is taking this issue seriously, so will he commit to reappointing Baroness Falkner when her term expires this year?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister is clearly so uncomfortable talking about this subject. This is a choice between a Conservative party that stood up for common sense and a Labour party that bends the knee to every passing fad. This is a question about moral courage, and doing the right thing even when it is difficult. The truth is he doesn’t have the balls. The Prime Minister only tells people what they want to hear. He is a weathervane; he twists in the wind. He cheered an ideology that denied safe spaces to women and girls, because he thought it was cool to do so. He hounded a brave female MP out of his party for telling the truth he accepts now. And now, he is hiding behind the Supreme Court judgment. Is that not because he does not know what he actually believes?
- Hansard source
Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this incredibly important debate. Just up the road from her in Essex, in Basildon and Billericay, well-groomed men and women are facing the same issues. I thought this was a poignant moment to intervene, because it is precisely part-time workers, many of them women, who are affected, often in female-run businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the combination of all these things—the increase in national insurance, the issues around business rates relief on the high street—is really hitting? But there is also concern about some of the legislation coming forward in the so-called Employment Rights Bill, which local businesses tell me is an unemployment Bill and which, rather than protecting workers, is causing more problems, because businesses just do not want people on their payrolls.
- Hansard source
Hospitals
The hon. Lady is talking about the day-to-day budgets of the NHS, in particular the costs of paying off previous debts. She talked about the work that needed to be done during the coalition years and in the decade and a half since then, in response to interventions from Labour Members. Does she agree that one of the biggest messes that needed to be cleared up then, which is still being felt in NHS budgets, is the disastrous private finance initiatives of the Blair and Brown years?
- Hansard source
Hospitals
Has the hon. Lady had any feedback, in conversations with her GPs, about what the increased employer national insurance contributions will do to their growth of provision?
- Hansard source
Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy
I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of Government policy on the hair and beauty sectors. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. This debate is about giving a voice to the thousands of small business owners crushed by the weight of tax demands. They are frustrated and exhausted —penalised, it seems, for doing everything by the book. They are expected to keep taking personal risks, to employ others and to pour all they have into building businesses and serving customers, even as the rewards for doing so shrink year after year. Those assumptions have bred a troubling complacency in Whitehall that these businesses will always just be there to tap up, and the crisis now gripping the hair and beauty sector is a stark example of the consequences. High street hairdressing and beauty salons offer jobs and training to thousands of young people. These businesses are disproportionately led or staffed by women, many of whom need flexible hours to balance their caring responsibilities. We all know these people, because we have been served by them—even counselled by them—sometimes over many years. However, today salons are under threat. The combination of the pressures they face is turning into a crisis, and the result will not just be a loss of revenue to the Treasury.
- Hansard source
Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy
That is precisely one of the issues I wish to highlight in today’s debate. This avenue of employment is being closed down for too many young people, because hiring apprentices has become far too expensive. I am sure other hon. Members are seeing apprentices being shed across their constituencies because the sheer cost of employing them makes it too difficult for salons to retain them. That is a terrible loss for those young people and for salons that need those skills and that skills pipeline. As I was saying, the result of salons closing will not just be a loss of revenue to the Treasury: it will be young people without an apprenticeship; high streets where the empty units left behind are filled with front businesses—perhaps a dodgy nail bar, a vape shop or a barber that may not be playing by the rules; customers who lose a service that they loved and that gave them a sense of place; and entrepreneurs who wonder why on earth they bothered to do the right thing and who now question whether this country is the right place to put their energies. I will set out the challenges facing these businesses, explain why we should all care and, finally, share with the Minister the asks from my local salons, so that we can keep these vital businesses alive, with the benefits that flow to us all. Let me start by setting out some of the pressures on high street salons. Salons have weathered some extraordinarily difficult years with the pandemic. Take Wyndham Hair in Hornchurch, a business that has been operating since the late 1970s. Owners Johnpaul and Jane returned from covid burdened with debt due to the stop-start nature of operating restrictions. They restructured and streamlined, and are now debt-free and at their most efficient, but the business offers little more than a wage. Why? Well, VAT is a major factor. Johnpaul and Jane chose to employ staff rather than rely on self-employed workers. That offers better security for their employees and quality control for them, but it comes with a financial penalty: as an employer, they pay VAT on services. Meanwhile, mobile or home-based businesses, or salons staffed entirely by self-employed workers, often avoid that. Those operating outside premises also duck regulatory costs such as those for trade waste, music licensing and more. That creates an unfair playing field. It is a bizarre situation, because we can effectively have two businesses, identical to all intents and purposes, operating under two different tax systems. Hair and beauty is a labour-intensive sector, and around 60% of costs are wages. As I heard from Toby from the Salon Employers Association, salons trade in skill, not goods, and cannot reclaim VAT on their biggest cost, which is people. That pushes legitimate businesses to the brink and rewards those operating in the grey market. Self-employment is a legitimate business choice, but employment tribunal case law demonstrates that it is increasingly being used as a means of avoiding tax and employment laws. Without VAT reform, the British Hair Consortium forecasts that there will be a 93% drop in direct employment in the sector by 2030. That is not a typo; that is an emergency. The long tail of covid and VAT were existing challenges. Rent and utilities increases also created pressure. Let us now add into that mix Labour’s disastrous October Budget, starting with the withdrawal of business rates relief. During covid, Conservatives supported high street businesses with grants and rates relief but, as of April, those have gone. Coal House Cuts in Upminster now faces a rates bill of £2,000, up from zero. The Vanilla Room in Hornchurch saw its rates bill rise from £7,500 to more than £18,000. Those are not minor figures; they are bills that keep people up at night. Let us add in the increase in employer national insurance contributions. There is something pernicious about what the Chancellor has done here. Because of the change to thresholds, the NICs hike is hitting the types of business that employ a large number of lower-paid or part-time workers. For the Utopia beauty salon in Hornchurch that means a rise in employer NICs from £750 to £1,000 a worker. Many of its workers are single mums providing for their families, and it has already had to let go one of its tight-knit team. Because Utopia’s suppliers are facing exactly the same pressures, it is seeing cost increases of 5%, and energy and utility bills have trebled. I am seeing an unmistakable theme in my constituency work: female business owners, with many female employees, are approaching me for the first time. I have been an MP for nearly eight years, and these are the types of people who never get in touch with their MP. To put some numbers on it, over 80% of the workforce in hair and beauty are women; 86% of businesses are female-owned; 40% of the workforce is part time, compared with 25% in the wider economy; almost one in three workers is under 30, so it is a young workforce; and 45% of the sector’s jobs are in areas with the highest levels of unemployment. I want to say something that does not come easily to me because I loathe identity politics: it is hard to ignore the impact, let alone the irony, of a Chancellor celebrating herself for being the first woman to hold that office, while simultaneously hammering sectors that employ, serve and are often led by women.
- Hansard source
Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is about a series of things hitting these businesses. It is about new legislation, new taxes and the withdrawal of reliefs that had been supporting businesses. I am glad my right hon. Friend intervened, because I was in Hornchurch yesterday speaking to staff at Wyndham Hair. Johnpaul, who runs that business, is one of my right hon. Friend’s constituents, and he told me how supportive my right hon. Friend has been of his local high street, so I appreciate the support he is giving me in the debate. As my right hon. Friend said, this is about a whole range of people sectors. It is not just about salons being hit with these staggering tax bills; it is also about the early years sector. That sector supports many other businesses that require good workers. When I talk to nurseries in my constituency, some of the bills they talk about are just unbelievable. In fact, they are so unbelievable that when I tell people about them, they do not believe it—they think the nurseries must have got their sums wrong, but that is absolutely not true. One after-school and holiday club provider has seen her annual NICs bill go from £10,851 to £26,040. That is a small business, and it is being absolutely hammered. One nursery provider told me that the combined impact of NICs and the minimum wage is adding £30,000 to her payroll costs every month. Those are unbelievable numbers, which risk driving many nurseries to closure. That will dismantle the support network that allows many other women to go into the workplace. The minimum wage is right in principle, but when we force a small salon with razor-thin margins to meet that extra cost on top of everything else, it becomes untenable. When we add to that the looming Employment Rights Bill, many salons are telling staff to go self-employed just to survive. That is not giving people more protections but ripping up the ones they already have. That brings me to apprentices. Salons are letting them go very fast. For decades, this industry has opened doors for young people to learn skills and earn a living, and that ladder is being kicked away. At Coal House Cuts, the owners once proudly trained apprentices; now they cannot afford to. Wyndham Hair used to employ four apprentices; now they have one. The Vanilla Room is getting daily calls from laid-off apprentices, but it too has had to cut learner hours. Its owner, Kerry, told me: “For the first time in 30 years, we just can’t afford to run apprenticeships. Our costs are up £28,000 on apprenticeships a year. How much does the government think salons make?” After I put in for this debate, more stories poured in from across the country. This crisis goes beyond hair and beauty, because I am hearing the same from construction firms—another traditional route for working-class youth. Two vital pathways into work for working-class girls and boys are collapsing. Is this the future that Labour promised—a generation of young people priced out of skilled trades because Westminster could not design a Budget with small businesses in mind? That is surely the very opposite of what this Government say they want, and it is utterly incompatible with their drive to get people off welfare. Because beauty salons are facing so many different costs, they are also cutting back on training, in a sector where customers demand that they are up on the latest technologies. So what will happen? First, there will be job losses and price hikes. One of the challenges for many salons is that their customers face the same economic headwinds, so they are spending less and visiting less often. Then there is the ultimate risk of closures. Every time a salon closes, it leaves more than just an empty unit; it leaves a void in the community—a place of connection, conversation and confidence gone. Speaking to Wyndham Hair yesterday, I heard not only about the services it offers but the support it gave its long-standing clients through covid. Those are the kinds of businesses that these people run. Utopia has clients aged 10 to 97; the 97-year-old goes to the beauty salon because it is her place of sanctuary. When legitimate businesses vanish, they are replaced by shady operations that are often fronts for illegal or exploitative practices. The rest of the high street struggles, apprenticeship routes collapse and tax receipts fall—they will not rise.
- Hansard source
Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. As I was preparing for the debate, I read about some of the police operations in Manchester, where they have been cracking down on this kind of activity. The frequency with which they found that these were fronts for illegal businesses—often with links to international crime gangs—is deeply worrying. That is one reason why I want to raise the profile of this issue. We cannot lose legitimate businesses from our high streets, because what fills the void is something that none of us wants in our communities. What can be done? I know how this works: the Minister sits in the Department for Business and Trade, not His Majesty’s Treasury, so he cannot give any substantive answers on the fundamental mistakes being made on tax policy. However, like any Business Minister worth his salt, he will probably share my concerns and wonder how best to get the Treasury to change course. He might even find this debate quite helpful to his own lobbying, just as the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), and his officials did when I gave him evidence about the crisis now engulfing the early years. Here are some practical asks that my salons would like the Minister to make of the Chancellor: VAT reform, with a reduced rate for labour-intensive services; the restoration of business rates relief and the overhaul of the outdated business rates system, particularly for high street premises; the revival of apprenticeship incentives; and revisiting the measures in the October Budget. Look, the Government should use global market turmoil as an excuse to mask Labour’s mistakes if that is what it takes, but let us get a U-turn on these economy-shrinking tax takes. They are not working. Confidence and employment are down. Growth projections have been halved. The tax take is going to shrink, and that will translate into a smaller pot for public services. Members do not need to take my word for it; the International Monetary Fund said so just yesterday, confirming its view that the UK’s growth prospects have been cut because of domestic factors. To conclude, this debate must serve as a reminder that Government do not create growth—businesses and people do. Those businesses are now often paying increased rent, utility bills, professional fees, VAT and covid debt interest and, since April, giant hikes in business rates and the cost of employing people. It is just too much. People work to incentives, and right now the incentive to start a business such as a hair and beauty salon, grow it, take on staff with full employment rights and train apprentices is simply not there. The Government say they care about growth, communities and employee rights, but their actions—I hope by accident rather than design—are crippling the very people who grow things, give heart to communities and employ people. I say to the Minister: use this debate and take these real stories, these stark warnings and the sector’s clear-eyed solutions straight to the Treasury—before it is too late.
- Hansard source
Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy
I thank every colleague who has spoken so passionately on behalf of their local businesses and the local people who run them. I hope I have done justice to the local business in my patch for the challenges it is facing. I appreciate all those who supported me in preparing for this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). She was courageous in admitting that national insurance has become a problem for some of her local businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) raised the importance of hair to the sense of self. I neglected to mention a very important business in my Hornchurch constituency: Bear with the Hair, which helps women who are going through hair loss in relation to cancer treatment. These are the kinds of businesses that are being affected by these challenges. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) raised the important issue of rogue operators. My real fear is that if we drive some of the legitimate operators out of business in the salons that are regulated, we will simply see more of this kind of activity proliferate. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) is always a strong voice on small businesses, and I appreciated his support today. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) luck with her hair and beauty roundtable. She made the point very well that these taxes are fundamentally counterproductive. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is always very sound on security and economic issues. He raised the important issue of some businesses being fronts for international crime gangs, a concern that I share deeply. Finally, I would like to say that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is beautiful inside and out—and I finish by saying that this measure is against Labour’s fundamental aims.
- Hansard source
Sewage
On the subject of the Act, it is wonderful to hear the Secretary of State say that he wants to take criminal action against water companies and water bosses, but I tabled an amendment to do just that that was rejected by the Government. Now that the Act has passed, it is interesting that the Government are so keen. Why did they not just accept my amendment, or a similar one? The Act does not mention criminal charges or what they will do, as my amendment did, but it passed without that measure being put in place. The Government are now saying from a point of retrospective gleefulness at the Dispatch Box that they would like to put that in. Is that actually going to happen?
- Hansard source
Sewage
It is wonderful to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who is my parliamentary twin, as it were. Our names are so similar that we often get confusing correspondence. He must love that as much as I do. The sewage in our rivers is of great concern to my constituents in Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages, as well as to my parliamentary twin on the Government Benches. In my constituency, I have worked closely with local action groups in Little Marlow and Farnham Common to secure a planned sewage upgrade for the Little Marlow sewage treatment works, through persistent lobbying of former Conservative Ministers and current Labour Ministers. I have repeatedly called for criminal sanctions against water company executives for breaches of their duties, but I have always said that more needs to be done; in particular, I urge the Minister to look again at strengthening the protection for water sports. Earlier this year, I tabled two amendments to the Water (Special Measures) Bill: one to introduce criminal sanctions for water company bosses who fail to report discharges and another to extend protections for water sports to match those for swimming waters. These are serious, meaningful changes needed to further strengthen our oversight of water companies and our waterways. In my constituency, we are rich in water sports along the Thames. We have Marlow Rowing Club, Marlow Canoe Club and the Upper Thames Sailing Club, to name just three wonderful examples, and our local schools regularly use the river for water sports. My secondary schools are out on the Thames on a daily basis, including rowing and using the river, and it would be wonderful to have to protect aquatic sports in legislation.
- Hansard source
Sewage
I have been lobbying for these changes for many years, and now that I am in opposition I have been able to table my own amendments, Lib Dem style! I was happy that the Lib Dem spokesperson spoke in support of my amendment during the Bill Committee. I love that cross-party support and am learning from their wonderful example of taking amendments forward when not in power; that is fun and enjoyable for us all. I did not table as many as their 42 amendments, but I did put forward two so I am working my way there. I want to see the provisions I have mentioned move forward in any way possible, because they are so important for aquatic sports and for the rivers that we all benefit from and use. I want the same protections for water sports as those proposed for bathing waters, and I would like discharge from emergency overflows blocked within a 1-mile radius of areas used for aquatic sports, particularly by secondary schools and by children.
- Hansard source
Sewage
Angling is a very important sport that we should be protecting, including by making sure our waterways are clean. A key way to know if our waterways are clean is that the aquatic life comes back. Clubs in my constituency would really benefit from the changes and protections I have mentioned. I would like to see them introduced and I hope that the Secretary of State will change his mind and adopt something similar to my amendment. The Government can feel free to take credit and pretend it is their amendment or change, but I would really like to see those changes brought forward. Unfortunately, my two amendments were not accepted, but I will continue to press for them, Lib Dem style, at any opportunity I can possibly find, because I believe that they would be good for the UK and for our waterways. I hope the Government will look seriously again at protecting water sports. I would be delighted to work with them or any party to practically develop the legislative steps needed for that to happen.
- Hansard source
Sewage
I’m right here!
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q13. Through the ages, an innovative and vibrant City of London has underpinned investment and growth in the wider economy, but the main challenge the City currently faces is how to get more capital into capital markets. Like many, I believe that London could gain new momentum if the Government took bold action to challenge and empower those who steward our pension assets to do things in new ways. Following the Chancellor’s decision to offer continuity of leadership at the Financial Conduct Authority, will the Prime Minister convene an urgent No. 10 summit with City leaders and the regulators to provide a reset and to maximise the chances that the City can lead economic growth and recovery in these times of grave uncertainty and turmoil?
- Hansard source
Hospitals
My local hospital, the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn, is one of the seven RAAC hospitals. I have campaigned for a new hospital since I was first elected in 2019. The QEH has had the dubious honour of being the most propped hospital in the country. Today, steel and timber supports hold up the roof to keep the hospital safe. Staff and patients should not have to put up with that. Initially, QEH was not part of the new hospital programme, but through campaigning in Parliament and strong local support, it was added to the scheme as a priority by the last Conservative Government—part of a fully funded scheme that is being funded in the same way as this programme: through future spending reviews. After the election, this Government’s review of the new hospital programme cast doubt on our new hospital, but I am glad that, after pressure, RAAC schemes were removed from that review and restored as the priorities they should be. That was warmly welcomed by patients, staff and my constituents. The clock is ticking, however, and the Government’s decision to delay the timetable for a new hospital opening from 2030 to 2032-33 is unwelcome and, I would argue, unnecessary. It also means spending money propping up the roof, wasting millions of pounds that could be spent getting on with the new scheme. The trust has well-developed plans and an experienced team in place. The Health Secretary has said that if we can go faster than the 2027-28 start date for construction, he will pursue that. When I went with the Minister to the hospital trust, she repeated that commitment, which I welcomed. There are concerns that the NHS England reorganisation could cause issues with approvals, but the Health Secretary told me in the House that we would use it to take an axe to the multi-layered approvals process. I am not sure that he has swung it yet, but I hope he does, because the savings in business cases, consultant costs, other costs and time are considerable. There has been much talk across the House of the need for action. I was at QEH last week with the chief executive. My ask is that the business case for the multi-storey car park is approved as rapidly as possible, so that work can start next year at the latest. That is the key enabling scheme to free up the existing car park so that we can get on and build the new QEH. The recent confirmation of the available funding was welcome and I thank the Minister—it will be a major investment in my constituency. Let us now get on with the new QEH that the staff, patients and the community it serves across Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire deserve.
- Hansard source
Windsor Post Office
Further to my online petition, which received 1,594 signatures, I rise to present this paper petition on behalf of the residents of Windsor. I thank everybody who signed my petition to save Windsor post office, and in particular my constituent Sue Pendry for her help and campaigning on this issue. While progress on a franchising deal is promising, it is subject to Government funding and may yet see the branch moved up to a mile away. Windsor cannot afford to lose this busy branch when the town centre already faces jacked-up parking charges, increased business taxes and, frankly, the poor state of the public realm. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the Post Office to ensure that the Peascod Street branch of the Post Office in central Windsor remains open. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Windsor, Declares that the popular Peascod Street branch of the Post Office in central Windsor has been earmarked for potential closure, which would take away vital mail, travel, driving, identity and money services from the town centre; notes that this is at a time when the town centre faces multiple challenges, including increased car parking charges, the state of the public realm and increased business taxes; and further notes that 1,402 people have signed an online petition on this matter. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the Post Office to ensure that the Peascod Street branch of the Post Office in central Windsor remains open. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003063]