Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
436
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
0
As currently published
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | MP | Kingswinford and South Staffordshire | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
Not yet retrieved from the register. Parliament's register page
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a key part of the deficit reduction strategy—according to the Red Book—is a reduction of 2% a year in the annual spend on mainstream schools after 2028-29. Will he go into the next general election promising that in his manifesto?
The disappointment of today’s Budget is that, having put on his running shoes for the media earlier this week, the Chancellor spent his statement running away from the big challenges facing the country and ducking each difficult decision. The first big challenge that he ducked was getting a proper grip on the public finances, so that we do not have to leave our children and grandchildren with spiralling national debt. He tells us that everything is under control because the OBR says that his fiscal rules have technically been met, but the public are not fooled by Treasury scorecards, and neither are the markets. Just like his predecessor, the Chancellor promises to bring borrowing down right at the end of the period covered by his fiscal rules, in this case with the hidden promise of 2.6% annual spending cuts, which includes those 2% a year cuts from mainstream schools every year, after the next general election. Those steep cuts will clearly never happen, and the markets know it. In the meantime, he did not say that he was increasing borrowing from 2.9% to 3.4% next year, and from 2.5% to 2.9% the year after—billions in extra borrowing. Like his predecessor, the Chancellor seems to take his inspiration from St Augustine: “Oh Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet.” Every year, the date for that fiscal restraint is pushed back another 12 months and borrowing revised up in the meantime. He speaks of fiscal discipline, but this is fiscal policy on the never-never. Nowhere is the reason for that fiscal timidity clearer than on welfare. All hon. Members know that public spending cannot be controlled and Britain cannot get back to work without proper structural reform to a ballooning welfare bill, but where we needed action, all we got were yet more taskforces, reviews and procrastination. That failure on welfare leads directly to the most sorrowful failure in the Chancellor’s entire Budget: national defence. The Chancellor knows the urgent need for an immediate plan to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 better than anyone; it is why he said he resigned as Defence Secretary earlier in the year. He knew the Government were playing Treasury accounting tricks—tucking MI5, pensions, the Chagos Islands bills and even £200 million for doing up Barrow-in-Furness high street under the badge of “defence spending” to pad out a press release—but when we strip out those tricks, our armed forces are facing a real-terms cut in their day-to-day running costs over the next three years. Finally, the Chancellor had the chance today to undo the terrible damage done by his predecessor and inject real, sustainable growth into our economy. Business distress is at a 20 year high. High street names like Poundland are collapsing, and young people have paid the heaviest price of all, with surging numbers of NEETs and a genuine youth jobs crisis. Nowhere feels the triple whammy of high employment costs, punitive business <span id="393" class="column-number" data-column-number="393"></span>rates and relentless regulation more acutely than our hospitality sector. Our pubs, bars and restaurants are the heart and soul of communities like mine in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire—
No, we are coming to the end of the debate. Those pubs, bars and restaurants are the No.1 place where young people get their first foot on the jobs ladder. The Chancellor’s announcement on small business relief will clearly be welcomed by those firms that qualify, but the truth is that it will do little to help most hospitality businesses. Fewer than one in 10 restaurants and licensed premises are set to benefit, with the rest continuing to suffer from Labour’s business rates bill hike. The Chancellor had a simple, practical lever right in front of him today—a meaningful increase in the alcohol duty differential for draught beer and cider pulled across the bar in a well-run local pub or restaurant, compared with cheap bottles and cans stacked high in supermarket aisles. It would have helped our British breweries, helped save community pubs and protected hospitality jobs for young people. Again, the Chancellor knows that: in opposition, he called for cuts in beer duty, but in the Treasury he is hiking the main beer duty rate. He ignores the cross-party pleas for big reductions in draught beer duty, and instead hammers publicans and brewers once again, with another hike in the beer duty he used to say should be cut. The Chancellor needed to step up and take the decision needed to help pubs and hospitality. Instead, just like on debt, on welfare and on defence, he ducked it. Our businesses, our young people and our armed forces cannot afford to wait in a holding pattern until this Government discover their courage.
I congratulate my Staffordshire colleague, the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), on introducing this important debate so effectively. Five years ago, when I was chairman of the all-party parliamentary beer group, I chaired an inquiry examining the importance of cask ale to British pub culture and how to revive real ale. We took evidence from more than 30 witnesses for our May 2021 report, “Caskenomics”. Five years on, rather than celebrating a renaissance, cask ale is facing an arguably even worse situation than in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic. Nothing illustrates that more starkly than the recent announcements that Molson Coors will close Sharp’s brewery in Cornwall and Carlsberg will close the historic Marston’s brewery in Burton upon Trent, having already closed the famous Banks’s brewery right on my doorstep in Wolverhampton last year. Losing Banks’s, Marston’s and Sharp’s should set alarm bells ringing across Whitehall. Cask beer is a uniquely British product, and the handpump at the bar defines the British pub. Cask ale has a proud history, and having a proper pint in a British pub is consistently one of the top three things that overseas tourists say they want to do while they are in the United Kingdom. Pre-pandemic, cask ale was worth £577 million, directly supported 72,500 jobs and accounted for one in nine on-trade pints while providing up to 70% of output for small and regional brewers. Delivered live for the publican to condition in the cellar, its freshness makes it uniquely vulnerable when footfall falters. Once tapped, a cask must sell within two to three days, averaging 23 pints daily, or it spoils. Without thriving pubs, cask has no route to market as it cannot be properly reproduced at home. Conversely, without real ale, pub footfall suffers. That can be either a virtuous or a vicious cycle, depending on the decisions we take. During the pandemic, cask volumes understandably plummeted, with 87 million pints, worth over £300 million, having to be poured away, and more than 2,000 pubs closed for good. As “Caskenomics” warned five years ago, uncertain trade forces publicans to rationalise handpumps in favour of longer-life kegged lagers, as the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter said. That reduces the variety that draws drinkers into our pubs. Five years later, mounting cost pressures, some of which are the direct result of decisions taken by this Government, have turned the pandemic shock into a structural crisis for cask ale.<span id="58WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="58WH"></span> Why does it matter so profoundly? First, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is an “umbilical cord” that links cask ale to community pubs. Three quarters of British Institute of Innkeeping members view cask as vital to their pub, and cask drinkers spend twice as much on average as other adult drinkers, while typically choosing a venue for mixed groups. It is a genuine heritage product and should be recognised as such. Secondly, cask underpins the social service that pubs informally provide in tackling loneliness and bolstering wellbeing. Professor Robin Dunbar’s Oxford University study for CAMRA, “Friends on Tap”, proved that regulars at a local pub have more close friends, higher life satisfaction and greater community trust. They socialise in conversation-sized groups of three to four, unlike in large city venues where bigger groups fragment conversation and encourage heavier drinking. Thirdly, at typically between 3.5% and 4.8%, cask ale served in pubs is tailor-made for responsible consumption. Fourthly, brewed with domestic Maris Otter barley and British hops in casks that are reused thousands of times, it is a near zero-waste, low-food-mile product that sustains a British hop industry dating back to the 14th century. To protect this important heritage asset, the Government must act on three core lessons that we found in “Caskenomics”. First, they must reform taxes and widen draught duty relief. The Treasury takes about a third of every pub pint, and pubs massively overpay business rates compared with other businesses with similar profit profiles. Brewers such as Black Sheep see about 60% of their turnover taken in taxes. Lowering business rates and building on a reduced duty for draught beer are vital for shifting sales from supermarkets back to cask ale in our local pubs, so widening the draught beer duty differential introduced by the previous Government should be a no-brainer tomorrow. Secondly, we need to back British agriculture. Following New Zealand’s $8 million hop sector investment, we need targeted support for British hop growers and maltsters, who are so important to British cask ale. Thirdly, we need fair market access to champion and celebrate British cask ale as a heritage product. With multinationals closing, independent cask brewers need fair access to pub cellars. Alongside that, cask ale deserves official heritage designation to celebrate it as uniquely British, just as champagne is French, chianti is Italian and port is Portuguese. Cask ale is the lifeblood of our brewing heritage. It is important to the local identity of so many of our communities, and it is the anchor of our community pubs.
The investment that successive Governments have given to Pub is the Hub could not be better spent, so I certainly welcome additional investment. As the hon. Lady says, John Longden has done a formidable job with Pub is the Hub. I remember going around Cornwall with him to see pubs that were not only the last pub standing in a village but the job club, the post office and the village store. In one case it was even the hairdresser, and I think there is a photo of John pretending to cut my hair in the saloon lounge.<span id="59WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="59WH"></span> Cask ale needs these protections, and there is action that the Government can take starting tomorrow. I urge the Minister, and more importantly the Chancellor, to give our brewers and publicans the fighting chance they deserve.
I thank the Minister for the briefing she gave last week to me and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and for early sight of her statement. I note that it arrived in unusually good time and hope that other ministerial offices will learn from her good example. The latest figures in the Government’s 5 October update are deeply concerning. As of the end of last month, more than 1,900 cases in four priority categories were more than 100 days old. Of those, just over 1,500 were labelled non-workable, with a further two death-in-service cases in data triage. That includes 1,049 bereavement cases and eight ill-health retirement cases, all classified as non-workable. That is not acceptable. Recent reporting also raised the prospect of bereaved families facing severe tax consequences because of delays to death-in-service benefits. Reports have suggested that the Government plan to make those bereaved families claw back this money via the Pensions Ombudsman, rather than preventing His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs from taxing delayed claims. To make matters worse, the Pensions Ombudsman itself estimates an 18-month wait to resolve cases. Will the Minister reassure the House and all those watching outside that this is not the case and that bereaved families will not have to proactively claw back that tax?<span id="32" class="column-number" data-column-number="32"></span> The Minister mentioned the delivery of surgeries to many Members of this House. Last month, my casework team had a surgery with a member of Capita staff. They were expecting to come away with updates to pass on to affected constituents, but for all the cases that were discussed, there were no updates whatsoever, leaving them feeling that the surgery was a total waste of time. I know that other hon. Members have reported similar experiences. What hope do affected constituents have when reaching out to Capita if it is prepared to tell our teams that nothing has been done on their cases? The warnings about Capita were there in black and white, and not only from earlier this year, as the Minister suggested. The contract of Capita’s predecessor, MyCSP, was extended to December 2025 to allow a two-year transition nearly 18 months of which was under the current Government. There were several milestones during those 18 months that Capita failed, but the new Government chose not to act. The National Audit Office’s June 2025 report identified many missed milestones and risks around operational readiness and data transfer. The Public Accounts Committee subsequently warned of further missed milestones and the need for contingency plans, but still the new Government chose to allow the new contract to go ahead and gave it that final go-ahead. Issues with Capita have been reported across several Government contracts. Under the new provisions in the Procurement Act 2023, the Government could refer Capita to the Debarment Review Service for investigation to prevent it from winning further similar contracts. Does the Minister plan to do so? The people affected by these failings did everything asked of them. They paid into the scheme, and they served this country as civil servants. They should not have to chase their own pensions, borrow for basic bills or wait months for basic updates. I ask the Minister to give the House clear deadlines and to set out how every affected member will receive their payments, and to explain why she is so confident that the assurances that Capita now gives her will deliver results when the assurances of improvements so repeatedly given to this House by her predecessor have amounted to so very little for those retired public servants, who cannot wait any longer. Finally, I agree with the Minister that Capita should be made to put things right. Cancelling the contract would result in more disruption, but surely there is only so long for which she will put up with failed targets and broken promises of improvements, so what preparations and contingencies will her Department put in place if it is necessary to cancel this contract, and what criteria will she use for deciding when we reach that point?
I think that all Members will support these proposals and hope that they succeed, but in order for new plans to be successful, it helps to understand why previous schemes might not have been. Given that last year the national homelessness strategy promised to halve rough sleeping over the course of this Parliament, with an uplift in funding, why does the Minister think that in the year to June this year homelessness was up compared to the previous year, and why is she confident that her plan will do better?
My hon. Friend refers to significant penalties. Ofcom has levied fines over the past few years, but that is clearly not leading to improvements in the service. Does my hon. Friend agree that it feels as though Royal Mail is treating these fines as part of the cost of doing business, and seeing it as cheaper to pay the fine than to address the problem?
Let me be clear from the outset that His Majesty’s official Opposition welcome the Government’s recognition that this anomaly needs correcting, and we will not oppose the Bill. We fully support the principle that no Prime Minister should be legally prevented from discharging all their constitutional duties because of their faith. The restrictions in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 are, as the Minister said, plainly outdated and have no place in a modern democratic society. The idea that someone should be prevented from exercising the full responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister simply because of their religious belief is clearly not fit for the 21st century. Indeed, it is remarkable that almost two centuries after those Acts were passed, provisions remain on our statute book that distinguish between those who are permitted to advise the sovereign on Church appointments and those who are not, purely on the grounds of their faith. When one looks at the provisions that the Bill repeals, both their severity and their inconsistency are striking. The law as it stands prevents persons of the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths from being involved, directly or indirectly, in advising the Crown on appointments in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland. Moreover, the punishments written into those laws are severe. Under the Roman Catholic Relief Act, a Catholic advising the sovereign on a Church appointment is “deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown.” The Jews Relief Act contains a similar threat.<span id="1172" class="column-number" data-column-number="1172"></span> As the existing laws discriminate against Jewish people and Roman Catholics only, they have created the glaring inconsistency that the Minister referred to: my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the former Prime Minister, a practising Hindu, and his successor Keir Starmer, an atheist, were not legally prevented from advising on Church of England appointments, as the current Prime Minister, who is a Catholic, has been. At a time when we rightly celebrate religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law, it cannot be right that the holder of the highest political office in our country should face a legislative bar if they are Roman Catholic or Jewish. Though we agree with the Prime Minister that these laws are an “archaic anomaly”, as shadow Minister I cannot let the occasion pass without a gentle reminder of the Government’s rather sudden conversion to treating the Bill as an urgent priority. On 5 March last year, the Lord Privy Seal wrote to Members of the other House, stating that the Government were considering how to address historical restrictions on Roman Catholics and Jews advising the Crown on appointments in the Anglican Church, but when asked about progress in parliamentary questions last autumn, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), said that though the Government would keep the matter under review, “given other pressing issues, this is not a current priority.” It is hard not to notice that removing this statutory bar remained “not a current priority” for the Cabinet Office right up until a Roman Catholic Prime Minister took office. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) observed last week, some people looking at the challenges facing the country today may well feel that there are more important things for the Government to do, although when he rose to make his point of order at the start of this debate, I wondered whether he was going to declare an interest—an ambition for No. 10 that might be affected by this legislation. However, the Bill is rightly before us today, and on this issue, as on any issue of constitutional change, it is important that the Government proceed with clarity and care. In the interests of scrutinising the legislation constructively, could the Minister clarify three points for the House? First, can he confirm that the Bill is strictly and narrowly focused on removing these discriminatory restrictions, and that there are no unintended knock-on effects elsewhere in statute? Secondly, after becoming Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) transferred responsibility for Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor to ensure that such appointments could continue. Can the Minister confirm that this arrangement is temporary, and will remain in place only until this legislation has received Royal Assent and come into force? Thirdly, can the Minister reassure the House that this legislation will not alter the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the established Church? Finally, while we support removing the statutory bar, we also believe that it is important to maintain sensible constitutional practice, so it is the Opposition’s clear recommendation that it would be sensible for Prime Ministers who do not consider themselves to be part of the congregation of the Church of England to delegate the active decision-making on appointments to others, <span id="1173" class="column-number" data-column-number="1173"></span>as recent prime Ministers have done, while retaining their formal constitutional role in advising the monarch. His Majesty’s official Opposition look forward to scrutinising the Bill in Committee and in its later stages, but we will support its Second Reading.