debates/debates2025-12-10b conversation_23
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-12-10)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-12-10b conversation_23

Sarah Bool:This Government are always talking about the fair choices that they have made, but is it a fair choice to balloon the benefits bill? Is it a fair choice to introduce an unfunded and unwanted digital ID that will cost the public billions of pounds? And is it a fair choice to increase taxes on working people when the promise was not to? The answer is no. Can I ask the Prime Minister to consider one final fair choice? Thinking about food security and avoiding devastation for families across the country, will his Government reverse the family farm tax? \p Keir Starmer: Welfare ballooned on the Conservatives’ watch. When the shadow Chancellor was responsible for welfare, it ballooned by £33 billion. They left a £22 billion black hole—the Office for Budget Responsibility reviewed it and added £16 billion to that—so we will take no lecture from the Conservatives on the economy. \p Karl Turner: There is no denying that this Government inherited a crisis in our criminal courts, with the number of cases waiting to be tried growing every single day. If the Justice Secretary’s plan to do away with jury trials in some cases, although not all, is really about addressing the backlog and getting the position to something manageable, then why will there not be a sunset clause? Why has that been ruled out? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the crisis in our courts—[Hon. Members: “Yes.”] I hear “yes” from the Opposition Benches. Sir Brian Leveson is one of our most respected senior judges. He did an independent report and made it clear that we risk “total collapse” of the criminal justice system without change—[Interruption.] The Conservatives are chuntering along, but they left a system near total collapse, where victims of sexual violence and rape wait years to get justice. That is not justice—that is victims failed. I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this matter, and I can reassure him that juries will remain a cornerstone of our justice system for the most serious cases. [Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Robertson, I do not want shouting like that again. Do we understand each other? \p Dave Robertson: indicated assent. \p Rachel Blake: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), has visited my constituency to make a political video for social media. He has undertaken videoed interviews with apparently no reference to the services available to tackle the issues that he is seeking to highlight. I cannot accept his attempt to use the communities in Westminster and the City as a political football. Since before I was elected, I have campaigned for more local police officers and specialist outreach workers to tackle the very specific issues that we are facing locally. Following my campaigning, the Government have invested an additional £12 million into Westminster and— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think we have got the message. You are absolutely right to raise the point of order, but you do not need to go into the full detail. The point of order is about somebody coming into another person’s constituency and the answer is clear: whichever party a Member might represent, if visiting another constituency, they have to give notice to the Member of Parliament who represents that constituency. We have had it happen before and we do not need it. We are a quite a long way off a general election. I am disappointed. Every Member should always be informed of somebody coming into their constituency. Please respect each other. \p John Martin McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not like doing this, but I have to. On behalf of several Members, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice last Wednesday in relation to the hunger strike taking place in our prisons by Palestine Action prisoners, some of whom have now been hospitalised. We wrote simply asking for a meeting with the Secretary of State, but we have not received any response. I informed his office yesterday that I would be raising a point of order. We gave it another day, but we still have not had a response to that letter. This is a matter of urgency, and I expect at least the courtesy of some response, even if the Secretary of State is not willing to meet us. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the right hon. Member for raising that point. I always expect Ministers to take seriously correspondence from Members, whichever side of the House they are on. This is totally unacceptable. I cannot make a meeting happen, but I do expect people’s correspondence to be dealt with quickly and effectively. I hope those on the Treasury Bench will be listening very carefully and will make contact with the right hon. Member. As I said, this is not acceptable; I am getting more and more people complaining about ministerial correspondence—we have even heard of one case that took 12 months. It is not good enough. The ministerial teams need to get their act together and make sure that Members of Parliament, quite rightly, get a reply timely. \p Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for what you just said in response to the point of order from the  right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Is there any way you can ensure that a Minister comes to this House to give a statement about the hunger strikers in the prison? I visited one of them yesterday, and I am deeply concerned about what is going on in our prisons: people are being held for an inordinate length of time on remand, and their access to justice is being delayed. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I cannot guarantee that. I am not responsible for what goes on within this Chamber; I am here to keep good order. With another senior Member quite rightly raising a point of order on this issue, I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the message again. Who knows? It might be that there are different ways to ensure that the matter is brought to the attention of the Chamber. Both of you know how to do that, so I will leave it with you. Given the experience between you—I would hate to add up how many years—I think you know the answer to the question. \p Bob Blackman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have looked through the agenda up until Christmas, and it appears that there is no opportunity for Members to question either the police settlement or the local government settlement. Normally there is a debate held about both of these matters, or at least a statement given on the Floor of the House, so that Members are able to ask questions on the settlements. I understand it seems to be the Government’s intention to put out a written ministerial statement on the last day of Parliament and not to give us an opportunity to challenge. Local authorities are at the moment finalising their budgets for next year, so they need to know how much funding they are going to get from the Government. Could you use your good offices to encourage the Government to come forward with at least a statement? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Quite rightly, the point has been raised, and once again I expect those on the Treasury Bench to have taken it on board. As I said previously, there are other mechanisms that the hon. Member may wish to consider. I could see the shock and horror of the Opposition Chief Whip when the hon. Member made his point of order—I was absolutely overwhelmed by the shock! Allowing that to rest, I do take this matter seriously, and the House should hear that. A WMS is not the answer on matters so serious, and those on the Treasury Bench should have heard that point. We should not shy away from this House; in fact, we should always come to the House first—I cannot say it more than I do. Once again, I suggest that at some point the ministerial code needs to be changed if people are not going to take it seriously. We will leave it at that. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sarah Dyke presented a Bill to provide that, for the purposes of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, domesticated reindeer are not wild animals; to make further provision about licensing in respect of the keeping or training of reindeer for exhibition; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 347). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Katie Lam: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the collection and publication of data on immigration status, nationality and country of birth of certain persons, including relating to users of certain public services, claimants of certain benefits, the prison population, and arrests; to require that such data is published at least once per calendar year; to require the Secretary of State to review the quality and consistency of any such data collected and published; and for connected purposes.

I firmly believe that for nearly three decades, migration to this country has been too high, and it remains so. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration, yet since 1997, with the unsurprising exception of 2020, net migration has run at more than 100,000 people per year. Like Governments before them, the last Government promised to reduce migration; as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, they failed to do so. To paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), mass migration is the single biggest broken promise in British politics, and the single biggest reason that trust in our politics is in such short supply.

Whatever we believe, though, it is an objective fact that our national conversation about immigration is often hampered by shockingly poor data—when that data even exists at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) has worked for years to highlight this problem. As the Migration Observatory, a group of academics at the University of Oxford, noted just last week, migration data is plagued by

“gaps and quality issues which reflect structural and long-term problems with data siloes, disorganised databases and failures to keep complete records”.

All in all, the Migration Observatory identified 10 areas of public policy that are being undermined by a lack of high-quality migration data.

All of this starts with the fundamental question: how many people are in this country, and who are they? The truth is that we do not know. Remarkably, the United Kingdom does not have a proper system of entry and exit checks; we do not record the number of people arriving in the country, or the number of people leaving it. The migration figures that are published every year are just best guesses. When people do arrive here, we do not have comprehensive data on exactly where they have come from, or where in the country they might be moving to. Our best guess comes once a decade, at the census, but given the scale and pace of migration since the last census in 2021, that information will now almost certainly be hopelessly out of date.

Recently, the Office for National Statistics issued new figures on net migration for 2024. Using those new methods, the ONS now thinks that emigration of British nationals had been underestimated by two thirds of a million people between 2021 and 2024. For years, policy in this country was made on the basis of the old guess, which showed British national emigration running at below average. The new figures invite serious questions  about why so many British nationals—the vast majority of them young—are leaving this country, yet for years the official data showed that there was no such problem, so the conversation in this place never proceeded beyond the level of anecdote.

When people do arrive here, we know far too little about them. We do not know the number of foreign criminals who have been awarded visas since 2021, or where they have come from. We do not have the full information on how many people move between the asylum system and the formal legal migration system. In the case of EU migrants, we do not know why these people are coming here, or how many of them already have EU settled status.

All of this concerns the flow of migrants coming to this country, not those who are already here. When it comes to assessing the contribution of migrants who are already here, our understanding is even worse. In 2020, data about income tax and national insurance contributions broken down by nationality was discontinued. We have no such data by visa type, and following the collapse of the labour force survey, we have little data on the earnings or employment rate of migrants by immigration status, visa type or nationality. We do not know the immigration status of benefits claimants for benefits other than universal credit, which makes up about half of our working-age benefit spend, and when it comes to universal credit, we do not have detailed nationality data on claimants. We do not know how much migrants are costing this country in legal aid or in translation services, and we do not know what proportion of eligible foreign nationals are receiving pension benefits. We do not know the total cost, in any given year, to the NHS or to state education of migrants, pre and post having been given indefinite leave to remain. We do not have full official figures on the total number of foreign nationals in social housing, or where those in social housing were born. Without data on what migrants are contributing to the public purse, and what they might be costing, we cannot possibly have a full and informed conversation about the relative impact of migration on the taxpayer, and we cannot, in turn, make fully informed decisions about who should come here, from where, and under what conditions.

Fiscal contributions are not the only important measure. When it comes to data on migrant crime, the picture is just as patchy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has repeatedly highlighted. While we do have figures, albeit outdated, on the prison population by nationality, we still do not have full official data on the number of people arrested by nationality, the immigration status of prisoners or the number of people by nationality sentenced, but not imprisoned. The indicative data that we do have about migrant crime has been obtained via freedom of information requests, and it is often incomplete or disputed. It is also hard to assess over time, because it is not released on a consistent basis. In the absence of any alternative, however, it is the basis on which we must conduct the debate. We have no information at all on the nationality or immigration status of those referred to Prevent, which is a glaring gap in our ability to combat extremism.

All this—everything I have said—relates only to the UK’s legal population. We do not have, and have not had for some time, a credible estimate of the number of people who are in this country illegally. There has been  no official attempt to combine datasets that we could use—such as utility usage, health registrations, census data and grocery purchases—to establish the number, so we cannot know what pressure this might be putting on public services and infrastructure, and we cannot properly assess how much money needs to be invested in our Border Force and immigration enforcement.

We do not have any information about internal deportation targets in immigration enforcement and Border Force, or what proportion of those targets are being met. We do not know what happens to asylum seekers who have been refused asylum, but who have not been returned to their home country. We do not know how often, and in what context, human rights-based claims are made to thwart removal, and how often those claims are successful, particularly as we do not yet have access to the judgments of the first-tier immigration tribunal. How can we possibly have a well informed conversation about illegal migration without a full understanding of the facts?

Those of us who wish to end the era of mass migration are often the loudest voices calling for more data, yet those who believe that this period of mass migration has been a good thing for our country should be the biggest supporters of more comprehensive and accurate data on the impact of migration. We are often told, including in this House, that the British people have been misled, or misinformed, about the true impact of immigration on our country, and that mass migration has in fact been better for this country than many believe. If that is the case, let us see it in the data. If, as many Members of other parties claim, the majority of migrants are a net fiscal positive, let us see it in the data. If, in fact, migrants are no more likely to commit crime than British nationals, let us see it in the data. Based on the indicative data that we do have, I believe that to be exceedingly unlikely, but until we have access to the full facts, the conversation about migration in this place and across our country will necessarily fall short.

There is no good reason to oppose a better-informed national conversation around immigration. More data and evidence would allow us to make better decisions about who should be allowed to come to and stay in our country, and in what numbers. It would allow us to truthfully assess the impact of different migrant groups,  moving us on from generalisations about the whole of migration, towards a more productive conversation about the relative contributions of specific migrant groups by nationality and visa type. Most importantly, it would provide transparency for the British people and enable more detailed scrutiny of any Government’s policy on migration.

In countries such as Denmark, where migrant contribution data is published regularly, the Government trust their citizens to consider the data, consider their policies and, in turn, to make up their own mind about whether they support the action being taken. After decades of broken promises, the very least the British people deserve is the right and ability to scrutinise, in full, the migration policy of their elected Government. I sincerely hope that Ministers in the Home Office and across Government will recognise that and work with the Office for National Statistics to produce a more comprehensive and accurate dataset in the years ahead.

Immigration policy cannot be set in isolation. The people living in this country are this country, so the flow of people coming here necessarily has an impact on every area of our lives. Governments do not exist independently of the nations that they govern, and nations do not exist independently of the people who constitute them. They are, wholly and entirely, a result of those people, their collective contributions and their collective failings. Immigration policy, therefore, is upstream of our public finances, the health of our public services, the cost of housing, the quality of our schools, the population of our prisons, the cohesion of our communities, and the strength of our democracy. The very least that we can do, when discussing an issue of such enormous importance, is ensure that public policy is properly informed by the full facts.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Katie Lam, Neil O’Brien, Chris Philp, Claire Coutinho, Matt Vickers, Sarah Bool, Lewis Cocking, Jack Rankin, Harriet Cross, Mr Peter Bedford, Mr Andrew Snowden and Bradley Thomas bring in the Bill.

Katie Lam accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 348). \p Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the Opposition spokesperson to move the motion. \p Nigel Huddleston: I beg to move,

That this House regrets Government policies that are making seasonal, flexible and part-time work more difficult; notes that these policies particularly impact young people who are likely to start their first job in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors, and specifically regrets Government policy to increase business rates on the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors; further regrets the Employment Rights Bill, with its provisions on guaranteed hours, and late notice cancellation of shifts, which will effectively destroy seasonal, flexible and part-time work; also regrets raising the rate of employer National Insurance contributions; regrets that 84,000 jobs in the hospitality sector have therefore been lost; and calls on the Government to cut public expenditure in order to abolish business rates for thousands of high street businesses, and not to proceed with the Employment Rights Bill so that it is easier for young people to get their first job, and easier for people to move from receiving welfare into work.

Last year’s Budget, with its increases in national insurance contributions, increases in business rates and inflation-busting pay rises, led to more than 180,000 job losses, because it increased the cost of labour. Most economists, and indeed most sensible people, understand that when you increase the price of something, there is less demand for it. By increasing the cost of jobs, Labour caused unemployment—yet this year, fully aware of rising unemployment, the Chancellor remarkably came back for more. Along with her colleagues in the Cabinet, she is imposing even more costs on business through the unemployment Bill, with more regulations and a whole new set of taxes, like the tourism tax. These decisions will do even more damage, snatching the opportunity of a first job, a seasonal job or an entire career from young people—and, indeed, people of all ages. \p Luke Evans: On the tourism tax, only a couple of months ago, in response to a question that I had posed, the then Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said, “We think they have been taxed enough.” Is it a surprise to Opposition Members to see a tourism tax being brought forward? \p Nigel Huddleston: Yes, indeed; my hon. Friend makes an important point. I was here when the Minister said that. He said that there were “no plans” to bring in a tax—although clearly there were, because a few weeks later, one was brought in—and that the sector had been “taxed enough”. Well, I agree with that Minister, and I therefore do not agree with the Chancellor.

Not content with the damage to businesses and jobs done in last year’s Budget, this year the Chancellor decided to go even further in her latest Budget, and went for the pockets of working people directly by making them pay more tax. That was a clear manifesto breach. Working people are paying the price for this  Government’s inability to tackle the ballooning welfare bill, and to control the unions and their own Back Benchers. The Budget was not about the economy; it was all about internal party management. It is appalling that we have a Chancellor who appears to be willing to see thousands of our constituents lose their jobs, as long as she saves hers. In short, the Budget was a £26 billion tax hike on working people to pay for Labour's welfare spending. Last year’s Budget destroyed jobs; this latest one disincentivised work. It takes a special kind of incompetence to destabilise both the demand and the supply of labour simultaneously, but this Government have somehow managed to do just that. \p Wendy Morton: Is not the truth that we have a Government with no business experience who think that they can simply push the costs down to businesses, squeeze and squeeze them, and they will pass the price on to customers? They will have no customers. There will be no businesses. There will be no jobs. \p Nigel Huddleston: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. It is quite remarkable, following the Budget, to hear Labour MPs say to their constituents, “We have helped you out. We have reduced costs.” If they talk to their constituents, they will find that the very opposite happened. \p Paul Holmes: Like me, the shadow Secretary of State will have been out in the constituency speaking to small businesses, and I am sure that Labour MPs will have been doing the same over the weekend. A local publican told me that that she would have to lay off staff in January because of the extra taxes that the Chancellor had come back for—more taxes, though she said at the last Budget that she would not introduce more. I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State has had the same experience when talking to hospitality businesses, which particularly employ young people. \p Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The hospitality sector has been particularly hard-hit by Labour’s damaging economic policies. Many of us who were out on small business Saturday spoke to a number of those businesses, and unfortunately, UKHospitality fears that there could be a further 100,000 job losses because of Labour’s policies. \p Bernard Jenkin: Matt Allum, who runs the Cricketers and two other pubs in my constituency, is devastated by this Budget, having been clobbered last year with the NIC increases, but thinks that our policy of relieving smaller businesses and high street businesses of business rates would make all the difference. Could my hon. Friend persuade the Government to adopt that policy during this debate? \p Nigel Huddleston: I suspect that during the debate we will hear many names of great pubs, and I will try to visit as many of them as I can, as long as they still survive—but my hon. Friend is right: there is an alternative course of action here. There is a Conservative, pro-business economic policy that we can advocate. Later in my speech, I will mention some of the numbers to show the appalling impact on pubs in particular. \p Anna Dixon: Like many of my Labour colleagues, I was out talking to small high-street businesses at the weekend, specifically in Saltaire, in my constituency. For many of them, the permanent reduction in business rates announced by the Chancellor is very welcome. They are not being hit by property re-evaluations and they will be getting those business rate reductions, and they welcome the levelling of the playing field with the online giants. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to pay for his party’s unfunded proposals? \p Nigel Huddleston: I suggest that the hon. Lady talk to those constituents again. I do not think one has to be a sparkling economist to work out that when something has gone up, it is higher, not lower. Those people are not getting a permanent reduction in business rates. The numbers are going up. That is basic economics and facts.

It is part-time seasonal and temporary workers, young workers and people in sectors such as food production, tourism, retail and hospitality who are being hit particularly hard, but perhaps that should not surprise us. As many Members have already pointed out, Labour just does not understand economics, business, or incentives. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for introducing this incredibly important debate. I must say, with respect, that the Government will have a lot to answer.

In the Northern Ireland agrifood sector, the licensing process is so laborious that it is putting people off, which means that when we need workers in the sector, we do not get them. The hon. Gentleman is right to put forward the case for hospitality, but may I put forward the case for those in the Northern Ireland agrifood sector, who are also under great pressure, and who will be disadvantaged by the Government’s system? \p Nigel Huddleston: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. We see that the hospitality sector is hard-hit, because numbers for the sector are easily available, and there have been a great many reports about the job losses there, but multiple sectors will be hit by these changes. As he points out, the problem is not just the tax hit but the regulatory burden, and that reinforces my point that the Government do not understand business. \p Scott Arthur: In 2023, just under 4,600 licensed premises closed down across the UK. Was the 2024 Labour Budget to blame for that? \p Nigel Huddleston: No, the pandemic was largely to blame for that, but to ensure that we recovered from the pandemic, and to help save lives and livelihoods, which included supporting the hospitality sector, the Government spent £400 billion, so I am afraid I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Of course, few members of the Cabinet have ever worked in the private sector, and I do not think any of them have actually run their own business—maybe one. \p Christopher Vince: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Nigel Huddleston: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can correct me. \p Christopher Vince: Conservative Members will know my background and work career, because I mention that I used to be a teacher every time I speak. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that many in his party talk about education but have not been teachers. Does he not recognise that, as Members of Parliament, we bring the experience of the people we speak to? He spoke about Conservative Members getting out and talking to businesses. Does he not recognise that we bring to this House the experiences of the people we represent? The argument that we cannot talk about business because we have not worked in business is a nonsense. \p Nigel Huddleston: Members of Parliament may not have to work in business, but I expect every one to come to this House and advocate for business. \p Thomas Tugendhat: As my hon. Friend will remember, it was wonderful to see the King and the President of the United States sit down at Windsor recently. What was particularly striking was that, on the British side, only the King had run a business—he ran the Duchy of Cornwall. Nobody else had run a business. On the American side, everybody had run a business. Is that not quite a stark contrast? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I was there, and I have run a business! \p Nigel Huddleston: My right hon. Friend is correct: having people who have run a business is good for Government. I am sorry to hear that Labour Members do not believe that their Cabinet would be better if there were a few more pro-business people in it. I can assure him that most of his constituents agree. \p Gareth Snell: I have some affection for the hon. Gentleman, and he has a lovely smile. Can he tell me how many members of the shadow Cabinet—or Conservative Members who serve on the Opposition Front Bench—have ever had to sustain a long-term position on low-paid, insecure work while raising a family? Those voices are equally important in this debate. \p Nigel Huddleston: I, too, have a great deal of affection for the hon. Gentleman; we go back quite a long way from when we were elected. We need to recognise that there are Members on both sides of the House who come from poor or modest backgrounds, and it is simply not true to say that the Conservative Benches are full of posh people and the Labour Benches are not. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the House in trying to give an alternative impression. \p Simon Hoare: From one state school boy to another state school boy—we were also the first in our families to go to university—does my hon. Friend agree that we all have gaps in our knowledge, understanding and experience, but that the way you fill them is by asking the people who practise in a sector and listening to what they have to say? You should not just tell them that they are wrong and you are right because you are the Government, and you should change when the facts urge a change upon you. \p Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. As I say, the onus is on all of us in this place to make sure that we listen, learn and advocate on others’ behalf. \p Antonia Bance: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Nigel Huddleston: I will give way one more time, and then I will make a bit of progress. \p Antonia Bance: While we are being nice to the hon. Gentleman, I think with affection of the times we have sat together on the “Politics Midlands” sofa. For the benefit of the House, will he tell us how many zero-hours workers he has spoken to in preparation for his speech today? \p Nigel Huddleston: I have spoken to a few zero-hours workers, and many of them are not happy with the Government’s policy, because it is going to make some of them unemployed.

Of course, the one thing that we do know about Labour Governments is that they know how to spend other people’s money. They have no idea how wealth is created and how the money that pays for our public services is generated in the first place, but they certainly know how to tax and spend. We have seen tax increases of £66 billion in just two Budgets, and tens of billions of pounds in additional debt. As Margaret Thatcher said,

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” \p John Slinger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Hon. Members— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Hoare, your voice is carrying and I do not need to hear it. \p John Slinger: It did not carry all the way to me. \p Lindsay Hoyle: It carried to me. That is why I am defending you. \p John Slinger: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Conservative Members often talk about wealth creators. Of course business people and entrepreneurs are wealth creators, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that wealth is also created by the public services and infrastructure that we need, which has to be paid for? \p Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman’s final words are key: how are public services paid for? The top 1% of income tax payers in this country pay 29% of all income tax. It is estimated that the Labour Government’s policies have led to 16,000 of the wealthiest people in this country leaving—equivalent to a third of a million to half a million average taxpayers. The burden, therefore, is spread on the others. Instead of demonising some of the wealthiest people, who make an incredible contribution to our public services, maybe the Government should thank them. \p Luke Evans: It is not just wealthy people who have left. We know from the Office for National Statistics data that 257,000 Brits have gone—it had been estimated at 70,000—of whom about two thirds to three quarters   are under the age of 35. We are losing young people to the rest of the world because of the implications of not being able to get a job in this country. \p Nigel Huddleston: Yet more common sense is coming from those on this side of the Chamber, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, it is young people in particular who do not have confidence in this Government and are fleeing.

It is clear that I do not have particularly high regard for Labour’s economic competence, but even I did not expect the Government to be running out of money quite so quickly. I expected them to be bad, but I did not expect them to be this bad. It does not give me any political joy to say that, because my constituents and their constituents are paying the price for Labour’s incompetence through higher taxes and, in many cases, with their jobs and livelihoods. I genuinely wish that they were better at government, but that is wishful thinking, because here is another hard truth about Labour: despite the party’s name and the false advocacy for working people, every Labour Government since the second world war have left office with unemployment higher than when they started, leaving the Conservatives to clear up their mess.

We Conservatives know that the best thing we can do for working people, and to lift people out of poverty, is to help them get a job, and we have a far better record than Labour in doing that. Between 2010 and 2024, Conservative-led Governments oversaw the creation of 4 million jobs—an average of 800 a day. This Government are destroying jobs by the tune of hundreds per day. \p Joe Robertson: We know what the Government want to do to support tourism and hospitality: they want to get those on welfare to work in that sector, despite the fact that some of those people are on welfare because the Government have taxed tourism. Does my hon. Friend think that that is socialism or incompetence? \p Nigel Huddleston: I think my hon. Friend knows my answer to that. It is ironic—it would be laughable if it was not so sad—that the Government announced over the weekend that they will introduce subsidies to create jobs, because if they did a better job at running the economy, jobs would be created anyway. I will come back to this issue in a moment.

On the record of the last Government, we took millions of people out of paying income tax. We increased the tax-free allowance from £6,475, which we inherited under Labour, to £12,570. As soon as we were in a position, following the pandemic, to start reducing taxes, that is exactly what we did. We reduced national insurance on workers from 12% to 10%, and then from 10% to 8%, with a plan to eliminate employee national insurance altogether and, of course, align the thresholds.

Labour talked about backing business when in opposition, but they are doing no such thing in government. In the Budget, the Chancellor had the brass neck to say that she was helping the hospitality industry with business rates. In reality, hotels, pubs, theme parks, restaurants, cafés are all seeing an increase in their business rates, as are the wider retail and leisure sectors. Investment in hospitality and tourism is already being paused or diverted overseas due to the UK’s rising costs and regulatory environment. \p Bradley Thomas: Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that a typical pub in my constituency is paying around £2,500 per month more than it was 12 months ago? Let me briefly put that into context. Assuming that couples go in and spend £100, pubs have to clear 25 additional sittings, just to clear their costs. How are they going to survive? \p Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. I think the increase in costs for the average pub over the next few years—I have the figures and will come to them in a minute—is equivalent to needing to serve an extra 10,000 pints. How many pubs will be able to do that? \p Neil Hudson: Epping Forest is home to some wonderful pubs and hospitality businesses, such as The Bull and the Queen Vic in Theydon Bois, the Theydon Oak, and Mila in Loughton. I hope he will join me in congratulating Mila on reaching the final of the British kebab awards next year. Does he agree that it is only through the Conservatives’ approach of scrapping business rates and supporting our high streets that these fantastic businesses will be able to survive and then thrive in the future? \p Nigel Huddleston: Absolutely. Again, my hon. Friend is a great advocate for the hospitality and leisure sector. He is absolutely right that there are alternative approaches to backing businesses and enabling them to succeed and generate taxes and employment. I add my congratulations on the British kebab awards. As a big fan of kebabs, I will have to visit at some point. \p Andrew Murrison: Does my hon. Friend agree that this Budget and the previous one have been hammer blows to our already flagging high streets? Does he also recognise that the only retail premises that can currently be exempted from business rates are those that are listed and unoccupied? That introduces perverse consequences for the tone and texture of our high streets. By abolishing business rates, we will remove that perversity, and the look and feel and the vibrancy of our high streets should be improved. \p Nigel Huddleston: Again, my right hon. Friend is correct. Of course, it is not just the tax policies, but the wraparound—the devil in the detail of what can and cannot be included in various exemptions—that causes some perhaps unintended or indeed intended consequences. I think we all care very much about the future of our high streets, which is exactly why, at conference, we announced the retail, hospitality and leisure relief.

As I have said, the Chancellor had the brass neck to say she was helping the hospitality industry with business rates. The Government were doing no such thing; they were increasing business rates considerably. While hospitality is the UK’s largest employer of 16 to 24-year-olds, these cost pressures directly threaten in particular youth employment. New analysis from UKHospitality reveals that small hospitality venues alone will see business rates rise by £318 million over three years, and subsectors—such as pubs, which are often mentioned in this debate—will see a whopping increase. The average pub’s business rates, even with the reduced multiplier and transitional relief, will increase by 15% next year, which is an extra £1,400. In 2027-28, an average pub’s rates will be £4,500 higher, and in 2028-29, £7,000 higher. In total over three  years, the average pub will pay an extra £12,900. An average hotel will be paying an extra £28,900 in rates next year. In 2027-28, it will be £65,000 higher, and in 2028-29, £111,000 higher. In total over three years, an average hotel’s rates bill will increase by over £200,000—just in time, no doubt, for it also to face the dreaded new tourism tax.

Labour’s unemployment Bill will do nothing but impose thousands of pounds in extra costs on businesses across the country—not to mention the ricochet impact on temporary and seasonal jobs. \p Alison Griffiths: On the tourism tax, which will come on top of the increase in business rates, I spoke last week to Catherine, from the Navigator hotel, who is in despair at these additional costs. She fears for the future of her hotel and, indeed, for the 10 employees who work in that hotel. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give her? \p Nigel Huddleston: The tourism tax is an appalling tax, which we have said will do immense damage to an already overtaxed industry. As my hon. Friend will be aware, a consultation is going on, and we all need to encourage our constituents, particularly those working in these sectors, to participate in that consultation to ensure that Labour does not do the damage we fear it may do to an already hit sector.

Of course, many sectors of the economy rely on seasonal employment during peak times, whether that is food production sectors during peak picking and growing seasons, retailers in the run-up to Christmas, or the hospitality and tourism industry over peak summer season and during school holidays. However, if the Minister and Labour MPs had actually been engaging with and listening to businesses in their constituencies or across the country since they came to power, they would know the frustration that so many of those businesses feel. They want to employ more people, especially young people, and to give learning and skills development opportunities—perhaps providing people with their first job—but they have been unable to do so because Labour’s policies are making it unaffordable for them to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) pointed out how bizarre is it that the Government announced plans over the weekend—note, Madam Deputy Speaker, over the weekend, not to this House—to help young people with skills building opportunities in hospitality, care and construction through taxpayer-funded Government schemes. Those are the very industries that the Government are undermining with their own tax policies. If the Government did not attack these industries, businesses would be generating such opportunities and jobs of their own volition, not needing Government handouts. Rather than spend £820 million using public money to help create jobs that may not be sustainable, surely it would have made more sense not to have taxed the hospitality, construction or care sectors in the first place. Even hospices were not exempt from the national insurance increases. \p Thomas Tugendhat: There is a fundamental misunderstanding between the Conservative Members and Labour Members. Labour Members seem to believe that the Government create jobs, wealth and everything, but we recognise that  individuals get up in the morning to group together into what we call companies, and they come up with ideas, stretch themselves and try different ideas. Some of them succeed and some of them fail, but relieving the pressure on them is not somehow letting them get away with something, but enabling them to express the freedom of the ideas they have.

A second fundamental misunderstanding is that this is not about who has had job experience and who has not; it is who has had an HR department and who has not. The problem is not that those on the Labour side of the House are bad people or good people—as we all know, there are bad and good people on both sides—but that, in reality, someone with experience of a business that has only ever had an HR department, or only ever been large enough to look at different in-year cost savings in such a sense, is not the same as someone trying to pay for one person, two people or three people. Actually, 80% of businesses in this country have fewer than 10 employees, and we are talking about them. \p Nigel Huddleston: My right hon. Friend again makes some really important points not only with specific examples, but about the fundamental difference in political and economic philosophy between the Conservative side and the Labour side of the Chamber. We believe in personal responsibility, low tax, small Government, living within one’s means and being unapologetically pro-business because we recognise that the private sector generates jobs and the economic activity that pays for our vital public services. Labour Members are agreed on the complete opposite. We recognise that, as the Leader of the Opposition has said many times, we get into difficulty when we stray too far away from these things—we let down the country and the economy when we stray from our principles—but Labour lets down the country and destroys the economy when it sticks to its principles. \p Sorcha Eastwood: On the hon. Member’s point about the employment of young people, in Northern Ireland we have one of the highest levels—if not the highest level—of youth unemployment and young people not in education, employment or training. Would he agree with me that the Budget absolutely hammers any prospect of young people being employed in hospitality or tourism, for example? \p Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Lady has obviously been speaking to her constituents and businesses in her constituency, and young people are of course extremely disappointed and feel let down by this Government and their economic philosophy. That is why the Budget announcement followed by this other announcement—“Oh, we’re now going to kind of help them a little bit with some public money”—is just bizarre. It shows that they do not get basic economics, and that is hitting young people in particular. \p Gareth Snell: Under a Conservative council and a Conservative Government, Stoke-on-Trent had one of highest levels—if not the highest level—of NEETs anywhere in the country. The number is now coming down, but what does the hon. Member think was the reason why my city had to endure that under his Government and  his council? Would he accept that it was partly because economic growth was not felt equitably across this country, and that economic growth that takes place only in one part of the country is equally as damaging as much of what he is professing is damaging today? \p Nigel Huddleston: I do agree with some the principles the hon. Gentleman articulates about the need for economic growth outside the M25 as well. London is a great dynamo—it needs to be London-plus—but we do need to make sure we grow across the country. That was, of course, exactly the point of the levelling-up agenda. However, I am afraid we cannot have this wishful thinking of forgetting that both the economic crisis in 2008 and of course the pandemic and other global crises had a major impact on the economy, and therefore economies around the world were challenged. The difference now is that our economy is doing badly uniquely because of Labour Government decisions. That is the difference.

The national insurance increases in last year’s Budget alone cost the hospitality industry more than £1 billion. The business rates increases that it now faces make matters even worse. This is not so much giving with one hand and taking with the other; it is giving with one hand, then punching them in the face and giving them a good kicking when they are down on the ground. That is an appalling attitude to take towards business, but that is this Government’s attitude. \p Aphra Brandreth: Just last week, I visited one of the many fantastic cafés in my constituency. The hard-working owner told me that she had chosen not to take on a young Saturday worker as a direct result of the increase in business rates. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that this Government’s policies are directly affecting employment for young people in Chester South and Eddisbury, and across the country? \p Nigel Huddleston: Yes. I had the pleasure of visiting a café in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I sincerely hope she is not referring to the one that we visited. This is a common theme across the country, and we hear it on way too many occasions. What is interesting is that the owners of these often very small business feel guilty that they cannot employ people in the way that they would want to—they cannot provide Christmas jobs and so on. They should not feel guilty about that; the Government should feel guilty about that. \p Bradley Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the tax rises and the additional cost burden that is causing a lack of confidence? That lack of confidence is in itself probably the most corrosive aspect of all, because once that is entrenched it is very hard to unpick, particularly when businesses repeatedly face a Government who are doing the exact opposite of what they pledged in their manifesto. \p Nigel Huddleston: Yes. My hon. Friend knows that confidence is a major driver of economic activity. When the public, consumers and businesses do not have confidence, things fall apart. Without a significant change of direction, I am afraid I cannot see confidence returning. As I said, I do not get any joy in saying that. I want the Government to get their act together. I want them to be economically competent for the sake of our constituents. \p Polly Billington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was interested in him suggesting that it was Labour’s principles that are causing the problem. Which bit of our plan for small and medium-sized businesses, action to tackle late payments, reducing regulatory burdens and expanding access to finance does he disagree with? \p Nigel Huddleston: This is just noise. The hon. Lady needs to speak to businesses in her constituency—[Interruption.] The facts are the national insurance increases, the business rates increases and the additional burdens on businesses. If anybody on the Government Benches can name any major business organisation that welcomes the employment Bill—the unemployment Bill, as we call it—I would welcome them doing so now, but I do not think they can. They are anti-business: that is the point. The Conservatives are pro-business, they are anti-business. The principle is key: to be pro-business means to be pro-workers and pro-public sector, because that is how the taxes are generated. The Government have the exact different— \p John Slinger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Nigel Huddleston: I won’t. I will give way in a moment to somebody behind me, but I am aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am on the final stretch.

I can only assume the Labour Government just do not understand the negative impact their tax policies are having on tourism, hospitality and leisure, because to do such harm willingly is pure economic vandalism. The Government’s lack of understanding of the private sector and how jobs are created beggars belief.

None of this would be necessary with a competent, pro-business Government. There is an alternative: a pro-business Conservative alternative that backs business, that wants the private sector to succeed, that backs entrepreneurs and wealth creators, and has policies that enable job creation and economic growth through policies such as 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure. Instead, the Government have decided on an economic strategy that punishes enterprise, burdens the taxpayer, disincentivises work, increases dependency on welfare and grows the size of the public sector. That is the wrong strategy.

The Labour Government are destroying the economy. They promised change at the last election. Well, we certainly got it: slower growth, higher taxes, higher spending, more debt, more welfare and higher unemployment. Time and again, Labour has betrayed the trust of the British public and we on the Conservative Benches will not tire of holding this disastrous Labour Government to account for their utter incompetence. The country cannot afford three more years of this. Britain deserves better. \p Blair McDougall: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“notes the Government’s strong support for small and medium-sized businesses, including those employing seasonal workers; further notes that the Government’s Employment Rights Bill will help seasonal workers by bringing the UK’s outdated employment  laws into the 21st century; welcomes the policy paper entitled Backing your business: our plan for small and medium sized businesses, which sets out a comprehensive vision for productivity and success; further welcomes action to tackle late payments through the introduction of the toughest laws in the G7, helping SMEs maintain cash flow during peak periods; supports measures to cut energy bills for SMEs through investment in clean power and reducing levies; commends investment in high streets via the Pride in Place fund, boosting footfall for seasonal trade; also notes consultations to reduce burdens on hospitality businesses; and further commends targeted support through the Business Growth Service to help SMEs access skills, finance and growth opportunities.”

Around this time every year, I like to re-read “A Christmas Carol”. Last night, I read that passage from Dickens where the protagonist says:

“every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart”.

I have to say that the tone of the shadow Minister’s speech made Ebeneezer Scrooge sound positively festive!

The Government recognise that it has been a hard few years for business. Despite the appalling economic legacy the hon. Gentleman’s party left us, in this festive period we can look forward to the new year with a sense of optimism. Living standards are rising and wages are growing faster than prices. The Productive Business Index found, a few days ago, that nearly three quarters of small businesses expect revenue increases over the next three months and nearly two thirds have seen rising order volumes in the last three months. The hon. Gentleman mentions, as did other Members, Small Business Saturday. Small Business Britain reports that spending during Small Business Saturday last weekend was the highest it has been in five years.

Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, I ran a business for a decade and I know how hard the last decade was. [Interruption.] It would be immodest to agree with what he says from a sedentary position. \p Roger Gale: On Saturday last, I was in Herne Bay on Mortimer Street, where there is an absolutely fabulous toy shop called Kids Korner. It was empty. I said to them, “How are you doing?” They said, “The shop is empty, the street is empty. Nobody is spending any money.” The hospitality industry is on its knees. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and I attended a roundtable recently, where every single person present said that they were having a hard time, and some were in danger of going into liquidation. I raised this example in the House earlier this week: one chain of 25 cafés, which employs young people, had a profit of £12 over the last 12 months. That is due entirely to this Government’s policies. \p Blair McDougall: The right hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head when he talks about people not spending money. That is exactly why this Labour Government are taking action to put money into people’s pockets. We must recognise that a big part of why it has been such a difficult 10 years for business were the stagnating living standards and stagnating wages under his Government. I know that hospitality, leisure and retail, which have very thin margins, have been hit especially hard by the pandemic, the cost of living crisis and changes in shopping habits, but that is why we recognised that and published, for the first time in a decade, a Government strategy for small businesses. It is why we  are putting more money into people’s pockets. It is why fiscal credibility, which the Conservatives just do not seem to value at all, matters to our constituents. \p Ashley Fox: The Globe Inn in North Petherton is a fantastic local pub. This financial year, its business rates bill is zero. By 2029-30, it will be £5,000, thanks to this Government. That is an extra 10,000 pints it will have to sell to meet that extra cost. How is the Government’s strategy helping? \p Blair McDougall: The hon. Gentleman will know about the transitional relief that we are putting in—I will come on to that in a moment—but we are putting more money into people’s pockets.

I spent five days last week speaking to small businesses. I was in Staffordshire, the north-west and Scotland meeting dozens of small businesses, and all of them said the same thing to me: what they want is footfall. As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, they want people to start spending money again and to get custom. \p Alison Griffiths: Will the Minister give way? \p Blair McDougall: I will make some progress first.

We are lowering costs. The hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham mentioned the burden of regulation and red tape, but I have to ask: where was he for the last 14 years? When Labour came to power, we inherited a situation where businesses were spending 380 million staff hours on form-filling and red tape every year. We are getting into that now in a way that just did not happen before. \p Anna Gelderd: On that point, it is important to note that businesses such as the Co-op and IKEA are supportive. The Minister mentions red tape; time and again, businesses in my constituency tell me that bureaucracy is holding them back. Will the Minister outline how we will cut red tape further? \p Blair McDougall: Let us start with a few weeks ago, when we brought in changes meaning that thousands upon thousands of companies—particularly smaller companies—no longer have to engage in so much of that corporate reporting, which was completely unnecessary, saving about £250 million on the way to our wider target of cutting the regulatory burden by 25% and cutting £5 billion. \p Alison Griffiths: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I invite him to visit the hairdressers in Aldwick, in my constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, where the owner will tell him that he spends hours upon hours working to ensure that he can even stay profitable. The Government might be withdrawing some aspects of small business paperwork, but that does not change the fact that the maths do not add up. Unless the owner spends hours dotting every i, crossing every t and cutting costs where he can, his employees will not have jobs and be able then to spend more money. \p Blair McDougall: The hon. Lady makes an important point, which is exactly why we are trying to drive down costs for business, not least when it comes to red tape. If there is something in particular about your constituent’s business—I do not know if it is the hairdressers that you yourself frequent—perhaps I could pop along. I would be very happy to listen— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I do not wish to put on the public record which establishments I do and do not frequent, Minister. \p Blair McDougall: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Opposition Members raise the matter of business rates as well. It is exactly because we recognise the stress that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses face that the smallest of those properties will now have the lowest business rate since 1991, and those with values below £500,000 will have their lowest rate since 2011. That is a permanent tax cut worth nearly £1 billion a year, benefiting more than 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties. \p Alison Griffiths: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I would just like to tell him about Charlie Cockaday, who runs the Fox Inn in Felpham, who tells me that with the new business rates reform introduced by this Government, he will be paying £1,600 a month more in business rates going forward, which is the equivalent of 35p for each pint that he sells. How does that equate to putting more money in people’s pockets? \p Blair McDougall: Again, I will talk about the transitional relief that we have brought in. Under the plans for valuation that we inherited, pubs were looking at rates increasing by about 45%; because of the relief we have introduced, they will face about a tenth of that. So we are acting.

I have to say, the Conservatives knew that this revaluation was coming; they knew that the temporary covid relief was coming to an end. How much did they have in their financial plans to help businesses with this revaluation? Nothing. They did not allocate a single penny for it, and now they criticise us for having brought in a £4 billion package to help businesses with it. Worse than that, they oppose the higher business rates that we have brought in for the warehouses of online giants, which is exactly what is paying for the structural change allowing for permanently lower business rates on retail and hospitality. \p John Glen: Governments have to make choices—we all understand that—but the choice that this Government made was not to cut spending on welfare, which has limited their choices elsewhere. There is a real choice. If the Conservatives had been in power, we would not have made those choices over the summer, and the hospitality sector would have been in a very different place in the Budget. \p Blair McDougall: That is exactly my point—the Conservatives were not going to make those choices. Those choices were not in their financial plans, but they are in ours. \p Thomas Tugendhat: Will the Minister give way? \p Blair McDougall: I will give way one more time, but only because I have deep affection for the right hon. Gentleman. \p Thomas Tugendhat: The Minister is a charming and, no doubt, soon to be very well-haircutted gentleman. The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) was making—I am afraid this reinforces it—is that such a choice was clearly not in the Government’s plans, either. Otherwise, they would not have brought forward the welfare changes they planned in July, but have since been bounced out of by their own Back Benchers. It clearly was not their plan either, and that is why we are in this position. \p Blair McDougall: But it is in our plan. We have just passed the Budget, which introduces the relief on business rates.

Let me return to the theme of “A Christmas Carol” and the visit of the ghost of Christmas past. Let us travel back to when the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham gushed about Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, with her unfunded tax giveaway, which he said represented “a new era” and would

“help everybody with the cost-of-living pressures”.

Well, unlike Ebenezer Scrooge, the hon. Gentleman has not repented; he has not seen the error of his ways and the impact of unfunded commitments. Instead, he is at it again, calling for tax cuts without any idea whatsoever of how to pay for them. \p Christopher Vince: Members on the Conservative Benches talk about political choices—they made a political choice to bring in austerity, which meant a lack of funding for the NHS. My constituency of Harlow is full of sole traders who tell me that what really affects their ability to earn money, in order to have money in their pockets to spend in the pub or at other establishments, is the fact they have to wait for years on end to get a doctor’s appointment or an operation. Does he agree that the Chancellor has made the right choice to invest in our NHS so that we can get waiting times down and my workers can get back to work? \p Blair McDougall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the important ways we will get the welfare bill down as well as getting more money into people’s pockets, and ultimately more money into tills. Instead of fantastical unfunded tax cuts, we are giving real help to high streets across the country. Millions of British people will benefit from the £5 billion Pride in Place programme, which puts local people in 339 neighbourhoods in the driving seat of renewing their own areas. \p Polly Billington: I am grateful to the Government for the fact that Ramsgate in particular is benefiting from the Pride in Place fund. More widely, on the matter of seasonal work, which is vital for coastal communities such as mine, can the Minister confirm that seasonal and hospitality workers will benefit from many of the measures in the Budget that will tackle the cost of living and raise their wages, such as increases to the minimum wage, cuts to energy bills and the freezing of bus and train fares? \p Blair McDougall: Absolutely. Members on the Government Benches recognise the link between the standard of living and business sustainability. My hon. Friend mentioned that her area will benefit from Pride in Place—the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham has Smethwick, Darlaston, Bilston, Dudley and Bedworth in his part of the world, all of which are receiving funding through Pride in Place.

We are also ensuring that we protect the character and the safety of high streets, because again, what we hear from small businesses again and again is that they need footfall. We need to make high streets attractive places to go, so we are clamping down on illegal high street activity in premises such as mini-marts, barbershops, vape shops and nail bars. At the Budget, we announced an additional £15 million a year, alongside wider measures to tackle bogus retailers. \p Andrew Murrison: Has the Minister compared and contrasted Pride in Place with the future high streets fund, which was a proven mechanism for uplifting the state of many of our high streets, including Trowbridge in my constituency? He is trotting out a load of things that he thinks will benefit retail and hospitality. The whole point of retail and hospitality businesses is that they must be welcoming places that are open to all, so what does he make of the dozens of pubs and restaurants up and down the country that are now feeling forced to put up signs in their windows that say “No Labour MPs”? \p Blair McDougall: I have yet to see any pub with any such sign. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke about how disastrous the implementation of the future high streets fund was on the ground, and we are trying to learn lessons from that.

The hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham also criticised the Employment Rights Bill. I compared him to Scrooge earlier, but I am sorry to say that on this subject he was even less charitable than Dickens’s great character. Scrooge famously wanted his workers to have regular hours over Christmas—indeed, he insisted on it—but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to want that. Even Scrooge by the end of the story gave Bob Cratchit a pay rise so that his family could enjoy Christmas, but the hon. Gentleman is arguing against that. \p Gareth Snell: I remember sitting on the Opposition Benches when the Conservatives were in government. They were trumpeting their increase in the minimum wage and saying that the creation of the living wage was a demonstration of their commitment to helping low-paid people in this country. Does the Minister worry that, if we extrapolate the point that the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham has been making to its natural conclusion, the Conservatives are actually advocating a cut in the minimum wage as a way to help businesses, which would be detrimental to the thousands of people in Stoke-on-Trent who rely on that money to pay their bills? \p Blair McDougall: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Again, the Conservatives do not understand the link between what is in people’s pockets and what goes into the tills. I spent a fantastic day with my hon. Friend and his local businesses last week, and I was impressed by how those at the businesses were all on first-name terms with him. \p Jayne Kirkham: Does the Minister agree that part of the problem was caused by the Conservatives, who did not welcome the introduction of the minimum wage in 1998, saying that it would destroy businesses, and later when in government split the minimum wage so that people over 25 got more than people under 25, which is causing the inequality that we are having to deal with now? \p Blair McDougall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I recall working in this place as a younger man when we had all-night sittings, as the Conservatives united with those in the other place to try to stop our efforts to make work pay for people—and here we are again, a quarter of a century later. \p Caroline Dinenage: That is exactly the issue: the Minister was in this place back when the Government were coming up with their plans and policies; meanwhile, I was starting and running a business and employing people. That is the difference. A minimum wage cannot be given to someone who does not have a wage at all because they do not have a job. His party is putting people out of work. There are now 31% more young people not in employment in my constituency than there were this time last year. That is a disgrace, isn’t it? \p Blair McDougall: If the hon. Member had been here at the start of the debate, she would have heard me talking about how I ran a business as well. She mentions job creation. The first year of this Government has seen 138,000 more jobs. \p Alison Griffiths: Will the Minister give way? \p Blair McDougall: No, I have given way several times. I will make progress.

The Government are fully supportive of the variety of working arrangements that people, including young people, might choose depending on their circumstances, but the key word there is “choose”. Until now, that flexibility has been entirely one-sided; it has been something that employers have used to their benefit. It is time to let workers have their rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central asked about whether Conservative Members understand what it is like to be in insecure work, particularly at this time of year. This is the most expensive— \p Alison Griffiths: Will the Minister give way? \p Blair McDougall: No, I am coming to a close.

This is the most expensive time of year, and December is the most expensive month. Labour is proud to be acting to ensure that families can plan for the expense of Christmas and look forward to Christmas without worrying and having anxiety about whether they can make it to the end of the month. The criticisms and lack of understanding from the Conservatives about how important the cost of living and money in people’s pockets is to the success of businesses is, quite frankly, humbug. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses across the country. Many businesses, such as those in the farming and agricultural sectors, depend on recruiting the right people at the right time. Obstacles to hiring seasonal workers can have a significant impact on businesses, which are already struggling with sky-high energy bills, having trouble recruiting the workforce they need and facing high costs in trading with Europe.

We are seeing a practically stagnant economy, with business confidence down and unemployment up. Unemployment is particularly prevalent among young people, many of whom traditionally find their first jobs in the hospitality sector, which is the largest employer of young people. However, the sector is struggling to employ new workers. The damage being done to the prospects of our youth, as they struggle with unemployment, will be detrimental to the broader economy in the years to come.

Many of those challenges began under the last Conservative Administration. It was the previous Government who undermined farming, agriculture, hospitality and so many other sectors that are dependent on seasonal work by negotiating failed trade deals with the EU, Australia and New Zealand and breaking their promise to reform business rates. Their record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and falling living standards.

People endured years of Conservative mismanagement, which is why it is so disappointing that this Government have wasted the last 18 months by failing to pursue policies that promote growth and by imposing an unfair national insurance jobs tax that has stifled business investment. \p Steve Darling: In the west country, we have seen an icy chilling effect from the NICs hike on our hospitality and tourism industry, particularly in Torbay. The Torbay Coast & Countryside Trust, which looks after some of our beautiful natural spaces, has faced a £100,000 cost from the NICs hike, which has forced it to close its doors and take a step into the dark. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to explore the impact of the NICs hike on this fragile sector of our economy to see how they can step in to support it? \p Sarah Olney: It is tragic to hear of the closure of my hon. Friend’s local organisation. Not only will local people be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the services it provided, but young people will be deprived of the opportunity to take on their first job.

On the Employment Rights Bill, the Liberal Democrats have been clear that we welcome many of the principles underpinning the legislation, but we have been pushing the Government to make crucial improvements to ensure that it properly delivers for workers and small businesses. We strongly believe in giving all workers security over their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. On flexible work, we will continue to advocate what we think would have been a fairer and less onerous system, based on giving workers a new right to request fixed hours, which businesses would not be able to unreasonably refuse.

On seasonal work, we are glad that, thanks to the work of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, the Government have made significant concessions for the benefit of businesses and workers, placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult with key stakeholders before exercising powers to specify what a “temporary need” is in relation to the provisions on the right to zero-hours contracts. We are pleased that the Government have listened to Liberal Democrat calls for clarity by providing examples of how an employer could approach seasonal demand while complying with the new right to guaranteed hours. These provisions, secured by Liberal Democrat peers, will support workers by giving them more control over their working hours, while ensuring that businesses are properly consulted and given the resources to navigate this new legislation.

This weekend, towns across the country mark Small Business Saturday, but many small businesses will have struggled to celebrate, given the challenges that they face. Recent Government decisions, including the devastating business rates hike in last month’s Budget, are causing huge damage to small hospitality firms, with many now considering whether their business remains viable. \p Edward Morello: Tourism is vital to the economy of West Dorset and hospitality is one of the largest employers. Our population soars by 40% during the summer months and those businesses require seasonal workers. Given all the headwinds my hon. Friend outlines that face the high street and UK hospitality, does she agree that the Government should reward and look after the sector with a 5% drop in VAT? \p Sarah Olney: My hon. Friend is right; the hospitality sector has been disproportionately impacted by the hike in national insurance contributions because it generally employs people on lower wages for a shorter period of time. In particular, the decrease in the threshold has been damaging to many businesses that have that kind of employment pattern.

My hon. Friend is right that what we really need to do is boost growth and demand. We think that that could happen by introducing a 5% decrease in VAT for hospitality businesses. We need the Government to give hospitality the tools it needs to grow and help boost the wider economy. Thousands of venues are facing steep and unprecedented cost rises, making this a critical moment for the hospitality sector. I urge the Government to tackle the cost-of-doing-business crisis by adopting our proposal on VAT. \p Luke Evans: How much would the 5% VAT policy cost? \p Sarah Olney: The cost of the VAT cut could be met by— \p Luke Evans: How much is it? \p Sarah Olney: I believe, off the top of my head, that it is about £9 billion. We think that that could be met by the money that we have lost from leaving the European Union—from Brexit. As a result of leaving the European Union, £25 billion a year has been lost to the Treasury thanks to the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal. There are so many better ways that we could have been spending the money that the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has cost us.

Pubs, bars, cafés and restaurants across the UK that rely on seasonal workers need all the support they can get, so I sincerely hope Ministers will listen. Today’s motion calls for the abolition of business rates, and the Liberal Democrats agree that we need to see a complete overhaul of that unfair and damaging system. In 2019, the Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of the business rates system, which they failed to deliver. In their recent Budget, the Government committed to rebalancing business rates, but we saw nothing of the sort. UKHospitality says that the average tax increase for hospitality will be 76% over the next three years. Meanwhile, warehouses, offices and large supermarkets will see bills go up by just 16%, 7% and 4% respectively. The Chancellor said that she is looking to introduce permanently lower business rate multipliers, but the painful reality is that the new higher valuations will wipe out any benefit that businesses might have seen.

The increase in the minimum wage announced by the Government in the recent Budget is welcome and will support millions of low-paid workers, but it is not just workers who need a boost; it is small businesses too. Unless businesses are able to grow, there is a danger that the long list of cost pressures they face will result in fewer jobs being available overall. \p Anna Dixon: When I have talked to small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency of Shipley, they have welcomed the announcement that there will be free apprenticeship training so that they can help the next generation of young people get into higher-skilled jobs and have careers. Does the hon. Lady agree, and does she support the Government’s announcement about apprenticeships as part of the youth guarantee? \p Sarah Olney: I thank the hon. Lady, my colleague on the Public Accounts Committee, for her intervention. She is absolutely right. I 100% and wholeheartedly welcome any boost to apprenticeships and that announcement in the Budget. However, there has been and continues to be caution over whether there will be sufficient business growth for high-skilled jobs to be created, which is what will enable our young people to progress in their careers.

Businesses from all sectors across the UK continue to struggle with high energy bills, which is compounded by the burden of the NICs rise and concerns about the effect of certain aspects of the Employment Rights Bill on their monthly employment costs. The cost of employment has risen significantly over the last year and there have been nearly 70,000 hospitality job losses just since last October. Our small businesses face huge challenges and many are already struggling to absorb rising costs. Unless more is done to support them, vital entry-level jobs, which make an essential contribution to the culture and character of our local communities, may be lost.

As the motion looks to examine the challenges facing businesses, a perhaps unsurprising omission is the absence of any reference to the damage caused by the last Government’s failed Brexit deal. The appalling agreement negotiated by the Conservative party has been a complete disaster for our country and particularly for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports.

The dismal impact of the Conservatives’ terrible Brexit deal is becoming increasingly clear. A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33% of currently trading enterprises experienced extra costs directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period. Small businesses have been particularly badly affected, with 20,000 small firms stopping all exports to the EU. A recent study has found that goods exports have fallen by 6.4% since the trade deal came into force in 2021.

While the Liberal Democrats welcome the steps, hesitant as they are, that this Government are taking to rebuild our relationship with the EU, I urge them to recognise that this should only be the start of the move towards a new bespoke UK-EU customs union, which this House voted for just yesterday. Independent analysis has shown that a closer trading relationship with the EU would boost GDP by 2.2% and would bring in roughly £25 billion of extra tax revenue every year, which would be crucial in fixing the public services that the Conservative party left broken. \p Simon Hoare: I am not suggesting that the hon. Lady should have been hanging on my every word yesterday, but she was in the Chamber during that debate. I would not call 100 votes in favour and 100 votes against a win. A ten-minute rule Bill will go nowhere. Why her leader jumps up and down on social media as if he has just introduced Magna Carta, I fail to understand. Did she not hear me when I said that in conversations with the European Union, the EU itself will not entertain a new customs union with the United Kingdom? It wants to evolve the agreement that we have, as per the agreement, not have groundhog day. Which bit of that does her party not understand, or are the Liberal Democrats just ignoring it because it is convenient to do so? \p Sarah Olney: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech yesterday, which I thought he delivered very well. I am grateful to him for putting the points against our Bill. He is absolutely right: it was 100 on each side. However, it passed with the help of Madam Deputy Speaker and it has progressed to Second Reading. I take his point, but I say to him: how does he know? If there is a political movement for change in this country, a political will towards further integration with the European Union and a political will in favour of a customs union— \p Jayne Kirkham: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Sarah Olney: I will finish this point, if I may. I think the EU would welcome that and would be very keen to have a conversation on that basis. \p Simon Hoare: rose— \p Sarah Olney: I will give way to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. \p Jayne Kirkham: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she not agree that the trade agreement that was signed earlier this year and the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which the EU now has a  mandate to discuss and which will hopefully be through by 2027, will make a massive difference to a lot of the exporting that is done? We are getting there; it takes time, but we are getting there. \p Sarah Olney: That approach is very piecemeal and it is taking time. If we had a more wholehearted approach to a customs union, we would be able to unlock all sorts of benefits that are not possible with a piecemeal approach. \p Simon Hoare: I suggest that a new customs union might take a little bit of time—maybe just a day or two. The hon. Lady asked a perfectly legitimate question: how do I know? In direct response to her party’s motion, I raised the issue directly with representatives of the European Union, and the answer was, “No, thank you.” That is what I know. I was not speculating; it was knowledge. \p Sarah Olney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing that knowledge with us all. Obviously, that is something to reflect upon. That is why we are pressing the Government. It is the Government who hold the purse strings and the pen here. It is up to them to make those advances on behalf of the country. \p Antonia Bance: I will ask this question in a spirit of genuine curiosity, if I may. The trade deal done with the United States earlier in the year by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the former Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), guaranteed more than 200,000 jobs in the west midlands at Jaguar Land Rover and in its supply chain. What future does the hon. Member envisage for those jobs in her ideal scenario, where we go back into a customs union tomorrow? What would she say to my constituents and the people in our west midlands region about the prospects for those jobs? Has she thought about that and does she have a plan? \p Sarah Olney: Our allies in America are becoming increasingly unreliable, and it is absolutely right that we should look elsewhere for our alliances, not just on trade but on defence. Recent moves just this week show us the shaky ground on which our agreements with the US are built. For the long-term future of the car industry in the west midlands and of our whole economy, we need to look to Europe and build up those relationships with our European neighbours, because our partnerships with our allies in the US are becoming increasingly unreliable. If I were one of the hon. Lady’s constituents, I would be looking to the Government to fully investigate other opportunities for trade as well as with the US.

More broadly, as we look at issues affecting the workforce, Liberal Democrats welcome the industrial strategy that this Government have put in place, alongside a funding boost for skills and training. However, this progress stops well short of the fundamental reform we need to see if we are to address the workforce shortages that many industries are facing. British businesses must be able to hire the people they need with the skills they need. A key cause of workforce shortages is ill health. To tackle this deeply entrenched problem, the Government must do more to invest not only in our NHS but in social care, so that people can get the healthcare they need and rejoin the workforce more quickly.

Any business will tell you that the apprenticeship levy does not work, despite the Government’s attempts at reform. Firms cannot get the funding they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds of funding is going unspent. The Liberal Democrats have long called for proper reform of the levy, replacing it with a wider skills and training levy that will give businesses real flexibility over how they spend money to train their staff. We were pleased to hear in the Budget that more details on the wider youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy package would be announced shortly, but can the Minister provide a timeline for when we can expect to see that detail?

Will the Minister also set out a timeline for the introduction of a youth mobility scheme, which would be beneficial to our economy, easing some of the burdens that the hospitality sector is facing? Businesses across the country, especially our small businesses, are struggling with unprecedentedly high costs, such as the Government’s unfair national insurance rise, sky-high commercial energy bills and a broken business rates system. Struggling businesses mean fewer jobs and lower pay, so it is absolutely clear that we must look for ways to support local businesses and all those who rely on them. \p Euan Stainbank: I am going to confine my remarks to the criticisms of the Employment Rights Bill, because it is where my experience sits and because I tried—in no small part thanks to the efforts of yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker—to get into Monday’s debate on the Bill, but sadly I was not able to speak.

Having said that, I do also want to make the point that it is imperative that all hon. Members listen to small businesses, as I did this Saturday as I helped out Falkirk Delivers and the Falkirk business improvement district team, disentangling the Christmas lights and carrying ladders about Falkirk High Street as they set up the inaugural Falkirk festival of trees. I encourage any hon. Member to visit the vastly brilliant hospitality venues in Falkirk. With that out of the way, I will now focus my contribution on the impact of the Employment Rights Bill.

We have heard from the Opposition that small businesses are looking for more solutions, although I would point out that very few of them say that we should either cut welfare substantially in a way that would push children into poverty or rejoin the European Union as the immediate solution. It is imperative, though, that we talk about seasonal workers and not just the businesses that hire them; that is, of course, an important perspective, but it can often be a parochial view that involves talking to one side of the labour market—the employer—and failing to grasp the incentive system that we need to change in order to get people into work, as I believe the Employment Rights Bill will do. After years of hearing the Conservative Government using the stick—tough language about benefit sanctions, often kicking down at a workless generation that they directly caused and also directly failed to address when in government—the Conservatives now repeatedly slam the carrot: the Employment Rights Bill and this Government’s broader agenda to make work pay again.

So in lieu, I will provide my own relatively recent experience to the House. With the exception of the pandemic—when I lost my insecure hospitality job as  one of the workers who was not provided with furlough assistance because of the nature of my contract, and I had to move back in with my parents for the first time since I was 17—I have not gone one week unemployed since I was a teenager. After long days at school and, later, long days of studying law, I spent my weekends working behind the bar at weddings and various functions in the hospitality industry and the retail industry. I did this because of the ethos my family instilled in me as a 16-year-old, when I got my first seasonal job at Argos, that nothing is better for your self-esteem, your progression, your social skills, your life, your independence and, ultimately, your wallet than to get yourself in, and keep yourself in, work.

I still remember hitting 1,000 orders on Christmas eve 2016 in that first job, only to be told on Boxing day, alongside many of my generation who worked hard in that seasonal job and made sure that the business was running, that I was not going to be kept on. We have to remind ourselves that the workers who work over Christmas in hospitality, in retail and in gift shops are the economy that we are talking about here. They are the ones who consistently keep the lights on in our high streets. In my experience, working on the minimum wage, insecure and low pay, high turnover and insecure hours are major characteristics of the sectors I have worked in. Until I moved out of the hospitality sector in June 2022, my income was sometimes enough to pay the rent on my digs and for my bills, food and the occasional trip to the pub or a Falkirk match—but, sadly, sometimes it was not.

This is still the reality for far too many who work in hospitality, retail, social care and many other sectors, and it is ultimately the reason I got into politics: to improve the lot of those who, despite grafting and seeing little result for themselves or their families and sometimes working in quite deep poverty, still went in each day and got on with it. That same spirit lives on today in the young hospitality workers who are currently in dispute with their employer at the Village Hotel and at Vue in Glasgow. The hard-working generation that I am a part of are down there once again, organising and demanding better, because they are contributing and keeping our economy going, and they deserve fair pay and conditions over Christmas.

More than anything, this was the reason I ran for election: I saw in my generation the corrosive social sickness that the previous Government neglectfully allowed this country, and especially my generation, to be infected with. After 14 long years, many in my generation looked at the workplace with no prospect of being able to build a better life than the one their parents had. I believe that the last Parliament was the first in history in which living standards went down. Off the back of that, too many in my generation saw that they could either work hard and see little reward or sit about and see little reward as well.

Something had to radically change. This country had to make work pay again. That was the message in the manifesto that Labour stood on and promised the country that we would deliver if we had the privilege of winning office. This is what the Employment Rights Bill is designed to do, with day one rights to statutory sick pay, allowing workers who fall ill to bounce back into the workplace quicker and healthier, and day one rights to paternity leave—those were secured this week; I am  grateful to the Minister—meaning that fathers can spend those precious first few days at home with their newly-born bairns, which I imagine will be crucial for many families this Christmas.

Having said that, as Ministers are aware, I was desperately disappointed earlier this week when the concession was made to the Tories and Lib Dems in the other place on day one rights against unfair dismissal. Those same peers have, throughout the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, fought to bargain on behalf of the bad bosses to weaken the sick pay and paternity leave of millions of ordinary people. The obstructions of the other place to delivering that core manifesto commitment, which will benefit so many in my generation—those who are seasonal workers, to boot—must be addressed by the Government at another time and, from my perspective, with far more radical intent in regard to the other place. I cannot and I will not forget the workers I have pulled pints alongside. \p Alison Hume: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. An 18 to 20-year-old this Christmas who is serving a pint will be earning £1.40 an hour more. Does he agree that this demonstrates Labour’s commitment to young people? \p Euan Stainbank: Yes, absolutely. I also find it disgraceful that the Leader of the Opposition suggested this week that we should freeze the minimum wage. That would mean that, in later years, the workers who are going to keep the lights on this Christmas in the gift shops, the pubs and the restaurants would be entitled to less as inflation went up—[Interruption.] Well, they are part of the economy. If we did not have the workforce keeping the lights on in the first place, there would be no restaurants, no pubs and, sadly, no Christmas custom. That is the experience of far too many people in hospitality.

This is the fourth Christmas in my working life that I am going to be able to spend with my family instead of working in the hospitality industry. If any of those on the Opposition Benches can share their experiences, I would be very interested to hear them, considering how much experience in business they utilised earlier in the debate. Throughout the progress of my career in this place and the votes that we make, I am not going to forget the workers I pulled pints beside and served tables with. I have heard too many stories about kids being bullied, belittled and booted out of the workplace by bad bosses during the first two years of their working lives. I do worry—and I have shared my concern with Ministers—that, especially in the seasonal work sector, this will now simply happen before the six-month mark. We should return to and address that later in the Parliament.

I expect nothing from Opposition Members but an apology to the 1.5 million people who were put into in-work poverty during the shambolic 14-year tenure of the Conservatives. They built a low-wage, insecure, low-productivity economy, all while practising austerity, and now they have come back to this House with essentially the same ideas but with 200 less MPs. \p Bradley Thomas: What would the hon. Gentleman say to the 89,000 people who have lost their hospitality jobs over the last 12 months? \p Euan Stainbank: An extensive amount of hospitality jobs were lost over the previous five years as well. I speak to small businesses in my constituency every week, and I do not deny that they have been hard pressed for a number of years. I know, because I was there—I was working in the industry. \p Bradley Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Euan Stainbank: It is important that we back our hospitality sector, and I said earlier that I think there should be more to come. Small businesses in the hospitality sector have talked to me about their energy prices. \p Bradley Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way a second time? \p Euan Stainbank: I will give way, given the hon. Gentleman’s insistence. Maybe he will mention some experience of hospitality workers as well. \p Bradley Thomas: I thank the hon. Member for giving way to me a second time. Some 89,000 hospitality jobs have been lost during the past 12 months. Youth unemployment is up, with 12% of 16 to 24-year-olds currently unemployed. There are an estimated 40% fewer seasonal jobs this year—the biggest decline in 15 years. Energy costs are up. Business rates are up. Confidence is down. Regulation is up. Does he acknowledge that it is not a coincidence that all that is happening at the same time, and that it must, at least in part, be related to the really poor choices made by this Government? \p Euan Stainbank: Although I do not accept the premise, I think it is important to recognise that hospitality has struggled over a number of years. I am not in any way denying that. However, I do not know why the Employment Rights Bill is mentioned in the Opposition Day motion, given that its provisions have not yet come into place.

It is important that we listen to hospitality and give feedback, but it is also important not to discourage young people from seeking job opportunities in the first place. That has happened for far too long—for the past 14 years under the hon. Gentleman’s Government. \p Alison Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Euan Stainbank: As I am going to draw to a close, I will not take any more interventions.

Moaning about the rates of maternity pay or proposing to freeze the minimum wage is not likely to incentivise more young people to grasp their first opportunity. It is not likely to encourage the people we are talking about here—the NEETs of my generation—into the workplace. This Government are delivering a fair wage and fair working conditions, but we do need to go further and faster, both on employment rights—instead of stepping back at the first sign of opposition from the Tories and the Lib Dems—and on support for the hospitality industry in my constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) pointed out something quite important: because of what this Government have done, the younger workers in our constituencies are going to be £1.40 an hour better off in their workplace. I only wish that, back when I got my first seasonal job, we had a Government who saw the value of my labour over the Christmas period. \p Joe Robertson: Tourism and hospitality offers seasonal, flexible and part-time work, and that is why many people, particularly young people, choose to work in that sector. The UK tourism and hospitality sector is one of the most taxed sectors in Europe, so what did the Government do for the sector? They reduced flexibility and increased taxes, and that is having real-world consequences. It is little wonder that 55% of the jobs lost under this Government have been lost from retail, hospitality and leisure.

Youth unemployment is up, too, which is having real-world consequences in coastal communities such as those on the Isle of Wight. Towns that are reliant on the visitor economy, like Ryde, Sandown, Shanklin and Ventnor, are seriously concerned that this is just the start, and that the Government are making plans for a tourism tax, which would hit small businesses even further. On the Isle of Wight, 38% of our local economy is based on tourism and visitors. If the Government tax something, we can expect less of it, and we expect fewer visitors, which will hit our economy. It is local businesses, not just those in my constituency, that provide the first job opportunity for so many of our young people. Young people may want part-time, flexible work, because they are in education, yet the Government say that the state knows best, and through their unemployment rights Bill, they have reduced the flexibility that benefits those looking for work.

The Government have already made some important U-turns, such as getting rid of the ridiculous idea of day one rights—by the way, the previous Labour Government never sought to introduce such rights—but they need to go further. What do I say to small business owners and to hard-working families on the Isle of Wight when they see job opportunities disappear and their taxes go up? The only answer I have for them is: more tax for more welfare. This is happening because today the Government want to grow an already substantial welfare bill. They did not want to do so last summer. Last summer, the Government tried to reduce welfare, though not by much, but they had to abandon their plans while a Minister was delivering a speech in this Chamber because their Back Benchers said no. This is not a Government being led from the front; they are being led from their Back Benches, and we have a caretaker Prime Minister in office. Having abandoned the Prime Minister’s plans to cut welfare, the Chancellor has done the opposite and increased welfare spending.

The Government have a solution for the challenge that tourism and hospitality faces in finding people to do the jobs. We heard just a few days ago that their solution is to encourage people to do those jobs while they are on welfare, because there are vacancies, though jobs were lost because of the Government’s taxation policy. In fact, there are more people on welfare because of taxes on small businesses, tourism and hospitality, and now the Government are asking those people, who once had a job in the private sector and are now reliant on the state, to help them out by doing some of that work. That is both socialism and incompetence, and ultimately the whole country loses out, because the economy is grinding to a halt, with inflation and unemployment both up.

The best way to fund public services is to grow the economy. Growing the economy would increase the tax take without any taxes going up. In fact, the Government could reduce taxes and increase the tax take if the economy grows. That is the money that pays for public services. The Minister said that the shadow Secretary of State was like Scrooge for setting out the severe challenges that this Government’s economic policy presents for hard-working families and businesses. It is not being like Scrooge to hold up a mirror to decision makers to show them the outcome of their decisions. It does not matter whether it is Christmas time or any other time; the Minister and the Government need to hear the hard truth, and it is the role of Opposition Members to say it. We are not going to be put off from doing so. \p Anna Dixon: I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers and a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for speaking so much about his personal experience of working in the hospitality industry. Like him, I started out in the industry. I worked as a waitress in a hotel in Ilkley for just £1.70 an hour, so I am pleased that the Labour Government are doing all they can to raise the minimum wage for our youngest workers.

Under the guise of wanting to support seasonal workers, the Opposition are actually looking to scrap the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation, which this House recently voted on. The Employment Rights Bill is a landmark Bill that delivers on this Labour Government’s promise to put an end to insecurity, poor productivity and low pay for working people. The Conservatives, along with Reform and the Liberal Democrats, opposed ending exploitative zero-hour contracts, ending fire and rehire, day one rights on paternity, parental and bereavement leave and giving statutory sick pay to 1.3 million of our lowest-paid workers.

I would therefore like to focus my remarks on the benefits of the Employment Rights Bill, and what it means, particularly for adult social care and unpaid workers. While care workers are not necessarily seasonal, they have a lot in common with seasonal workers: low pay, insecurity and variable hours each week. It was a tragedy that during covid so many of our hard-working and dedicated care workers feared staying at home when they were ill because they were not entitled to statutory sick pay. I am therefore proud that this Labour Government are strengthening those care workers’ rights. What is good for workers is good for business, so I do not see this as a choice between the two. Take unpaid and family carers. Flexibility is hugely important to many of those who juggle care and work. The Bill will ensure that unpaid family carers, many of whom are women, can apply for a job, confident that they will have rights from day one. Workers with guaranteed hours will not have to worry about whether they can feed their kids or pay their bills. Keeping people in work, reducing recruitment costs and absenteeism, and boosting productivity—those of the results of giving security to workers. Healthy workers and a healthy workplace are better for workers, business and our economy.

The Employment Rights Bill makes good on the promise of a fair pay agreement for care workers. The Health Foundation’s analysis has found that one in five residential care workers live in poverty. I find that to be an absolute travesty, given the vital work that care workers do, looking after older and disabled adults, day in, day out. It is perhaps not surprising, then—given that the public recognise what great work those care workers do—that 77% of the public believe that care workers are paid too little. Not only are the Government delivering on the fair pay agreement for social care workers through the Bill, but they have already ensured a fairer funding formula for local authorities, and I hope that as that gets negotiated, it will result in a fairer package of terms and conditions. Many not-for-profit providers already pay the national living wage, but it is important that care workers feel that they have a career, and that caring is a good job for them. Hopefully we can attract more young people into those sorts of jobs, and give them a more secure career in care work. They should have not low pay and zero-hour contracts, but guaranteed work and better pay, so that they can take that first step in a career in health and care. Those changes will make a huge difference to those who provide amazing care and support for disabled adults and older people.

The second issue that I want to highlight is the introduction of a fair work agency. Members may be wondering what that has to do with care workers, but sadly, under the Tories, the decision taken, with no plan or preparation, to open up the skilled worker visa to care workers resulted in the horrific exploitation of care workers. Overseas agencies were charging extortionate fees. New businesses were set up and registered here solely to employ overseas workers. I have heard of cases in which those workers were given tied accommodation and zero-hour contracts, and were expected to travel far away to get care work. As a result, they got into debt. If they complained, they were sacked. With no sponsor, they could not take any other job in the economy here. That is verging on modern slavery, and that is why I am glad that the new fair work agency will have powers to crack down on those unscrupulous employers that leave workers so susceptible to abuse. \p Lincoln Jopp: There is a bit of a debate going on. Unemployment has gone up every month since the Government have been in power. The Government say that is the fault of the last Government; we Opposition Members say that it is the fault of two Budgets that have been anti-business. If the hon. Member has faith in the Chancellor’s policies, will she put her money where her mouth is and say that unemployment in Shipley and across the country will come down for the first time? If she could put a month and a year on it, that would be great testament to her faith in the Chancellor. \p Anna Dixon: Clearly, the package of changes that the Chancellor brought in are a huge boost to the economy and jobs. There is investment going into businesses, and support for scaling up businesses. I have brilliant businesses in my constituency, like Jack Pennington Ltd, which is investing in a whole new warehouse. It has the confidence to base its business in Shipley, and to expand. Some of the capital funds will go a long way on this. There are  also the apprenticeships and the youth guarantee, and we are already seeing youth unemployment coming down; I am confident that will continue.

We still have too many vacancies and unfilled posts in care work, and a lot of that is because it is a very hard job, both physically and emotionally, and many people working in care found that they could get a better paid job at Aldi. We have to lift up the value of care work and value it more as a society to attract people. There are jobs there, and we need to encourage young people into vital jobs like care work.

The Public Accounts Committee was highly critical of the lack of assessment of the exploitation risks that led to vulnerable migrant workers facing debt bondage and unfair conditions, so as I say, I am pleased with the creation of the fair work agency. I hope that—perhaps the Minister could address this—it will also help tackle the problem of overseas recruitment fraud.

Care workers are exploited in other ways, too, like other part-time workers. They are often not paid for travel or for night sitting, even though there have been legal cases to say that they should. Again, the fair work agency, as I understand it, will address that issue for those underpaid workers who are not even receiving the minimum wage.

In conclusion, I support the Government amendment to the Opposition motion. I believe that Labour is pro-business and pro-worker. The care sector is a major part of our economy. It employs some 1.6 million people, as well as providing vital care and support to millions of people. I hope that these reforms will be the beginning of us creating the foundations for a national care service. \p Simon Hoare: Let us take a look at the amendment which Mr Speaker has selected in the name of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s amendment tells us that he

“welcomes the policy paper”

on

“the plan for small and medium sized businesses, which sets out”—

wait for it—

“a comprehensive vision for productivity and success”.

[Interruption.] “Wow” indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) says from a sedentary position—she is less well trained in keeping her excitement levels under control. After 14 years of opposition and 18 months in government: a policy paper, a plan, a comprehensive vision—that is the sum of the contribution from the Treasury Bench towards these important and vital parts of the sector. The Government need to learn, I suggest, a key and important lesson: policy papers, plans and comprehensive visions deliver of themselves nothing. They create no jobs. They give no certainty. They provide no confidence to employees, employers, investors, entrepreneurs, innovators or consumers. Strategy and policy are not the same things. Vision and delivery are not two sides of the same coin.

The Government tell us in their amendment that their Employment Rights Bill

“will help season workers by bringing the UK’s outdated employment laws into the 21st century”.

Well, I would dispute first and foremost the idea that our employment laws are outdated; I think they have been organic and iterative over the decades, as one would expect. But the Government will not help seasonal workers if they cannot become seasonal workers because putative employers have neither the confidence to employ nor the headroom to create jobs and pay salaries. We are in fantasy land, with a fantasy idea about how to run an economy: we just legislate and, hey presto—pantomime-like—it happens. A strategy is published and—bingo!—it is all resolved. That is not the case.

This first example will, I am sure, be of enormous interest to the Labour party. Mark Fulton, a constituent of mine in Tolpuddle, is the landlord of the Martyrs Inn. \p Antonia Bance: Lovely pub! \p Simon Hoare: It is a lovely pub. The hon. Lady has been and has not been barred yet. Anybody who knows their trade union history, as I know she does, will know about the Tolpuddle martyrs in 1834. The pub is named after them. \p Antonia Bance: Excellent sandwiches, too! \p Simon Hoare: The pub was bought by the village for £500,000. It is a community asset-type pub. One significant stakeholder is the TUC itself, which decided that thirsty trade unionists might, after the martyrs memorial, enjoy a pint and, indeed, one of the excellent sandwiches that the hon. Lady has referenced.

After the Budget, Mark Fulton wrote to me:

“With the impact of this Budget, we risk losing these vital community hubs that are so important to our local life and economy.”

He, like others in all our constituencies, has been arguing for—and this freedom exists now we are outside the European Union—a bespoke reduction of VAT on pub sales, including the wet trade. We are asking publicans, who provide far more in the community hubs that Mark talks about, to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, when in essence they are paying a VAT rate of 20% compared with the 2% paid by supermarkets.

Business rates are clearly going to go up. That is, again, the fantasy world of this Government. One sector representative group after another tells the Government that, by the Government’s own figures and calculations, business rates will rise. “Oh no,” says the Minister. “Everybody else is wrong. I am right, because I am a Minister of the Crown.” This is the politics of the emperor’s new clothes. It is about time that one or two people on the Government Benches stood up and told the Treasury team that many of their policies leave the Government naked as they try to garner and foster a small, entrepreneurial business sector.

On employer national insurance and increases in the minimum wages, I quote Mark Fulton again:

“The latest rise risks opportunities for young people to be employed in our sector.”

He goes on to remind us that

“40% of young people begin their careers in hospitality—the sector plays a crucial role in training, upskilling and supporting social mobility.”

All that is put at risk. Surely, irrespective of geography or party affiliation, we should all be worried if a cogent argument is deployed about social mobility being reduced as a direct result of Government policy.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said in his excellent speech, many of the harmful decisions taken in the recent Budget were not of the Government’s choosing. They were, in essence, a fulfilment of what the Chancellor rightly said to rebellious Back Benchers on welfare: “Rebel if you like, and we’ll abandon if we have to, but there’ll be a cost that will have to be paid. That cost will be taxed, and there will be a concomitant diminution in confidence among employers and customers.”

I could quote several publicans, but Barbara Cossins, who owns and runs the Langton Arms in Tarrant Monkton, would have my guts for garters if I did not take this opportunity to mention her. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) knows it well and says what a good pub it is. Barbara Cossins replicates many of the points made by Mark Fulton, but adds that rural pubs in tourist areas are particularly reliant on seasonal summer trade. They have to pay business rates, but their major competitor in those small rural settings, Airbnb, pays no business rates at all. It is an un-level playing field.

The Government had an opportunity—and they possibly still do, as the Finance Bill progresses—to try to level that playing field. We are asking these important sectors of our economy to go into bat for UK plc—to create the jobs that create the tax that funds our public services—but at every step and turn, this Government seem hellbent on hobbling and hamstringing them and tying their hands behind their backs.

The Government have the laudable aim of seeing housebuilding increase. Who does not? Again, that is an important part of social mobility—we know that a lot of seasonal jobs are created in the construction sector. However, Travis Perkins sent out a customer email just today that said that, from 1 January, supplier increases in prices will come in across the industry. \p Antonia Bance: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Simon Hoare: I will, but let me finish this point.

Roofing prices are up 7%, bricks 8%, blocks 9%, landscaping 8%, drainage 8%, and plaster, plasterboard and cladding 7%. Costs can be increased, and companies can absorb as much as they can, but at some point, as Travis Perkins points out, those increased costs can no longer be self-absorbed and must be passported off to the consumer. When the consumer’s costs go up, their margins of profit decrease, and their likelihood, potential and appetite for creating additional jobs disappears, like an early spring frost, arguably never to return. \p Antonia Bance: I am so glad that someone has mentioned the construction industry. However, the hon. Member is talking not about seasonal jobs but about contract work. The key to maintaining sustained employment in the construction sector is having a strong pipeline of repeated projects so that people can build their skills and move on to the next contract, and then the one after that, to build a career in that way. Does he agree that the Government’s announcement of construction technical excellence colleges across the country—including close to my area, at the end of the new tramline in Dudley—£39 billion over the next 10 years for sustainable housebuilding, including social and affordable housing, and the largest sustained infrastructure funding in four decades, means that there will be a sustainable pipeline— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. \p Simon Hoare: Over the next 10 years—another “wow” moment. Jam tomorrow—well, we don’t even know if it is jam tomorrow; it is a promise of something that might materialise, but these sectors need support now.

Let me conclude my remarks by highlighting what I fear will be a terrible downward-pulling spiral in confidence from investors, employers and consumers. I am not an economist, but it seems to me self-evident that if we increase the costs of employing people, we are likely to see fewer people employed. Someone might not expand their business; they might not create that new job.

General elections create a lack of confidence in the sector. This Government were returned with a massive majority, which should be giving stability and confidence to the marketplace. In fact—it is the greatest perversity that we have seen since July 2024—the complete reverse is taking place. Why is that? Last year, the Chancellor created in her own mind a black hole. She decided to fill it by additional taxes, and she assured the House and country that it was a one-off. Growth was going to do everything else, spending was going to be looked at, and everything would be hunky-dory. Well, that did not come to pass. The Government changed the environment, and we had the Budget just a few weeks ago—fabrication, being economical with the actualité. That is saying to potential investors and job creators, “Well we thought we might have believed them on year one, but year two transpired not to be the case.” How many more acts that would make the Artful Dodger blush will they be dipping into our pockets next time, next time, and the next time? We will have a rebellion on that, or on that, and that rebellion will have to be funded not by a recalibration of where Government spending is allocated, but by increasing the pot that the Government have to spend by increasing taxes.

I took the advice of our Clerks, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether I should conclude with a certain word or not. The advice was that I would be better to slightly spell it out, so I will take that advice. North Dorset is not a constituency of large firms. They are family businesses, most will be micro, some will be small, and precious few will be medium-sized. A small business owner in my constituency has a family business that he has grown and he was seeking to employ. He wanted his kids to get involved with it as well. He said to me, “Simon, you can tell that Rachel Reeves”—because he said “Rachel Reeves”, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Lady— “to describe this Budget, in a few easy words for the media headline, as ‘The why the eff should I bother Budget’” Why the eff should he bother to invest, to create, and to provide opportunity for our young to then pay the taxes to deliver the public services that we require?

But if the Government do not give an eff, Opposition Members certainly do. There is an alternative Conservative vision for this, and I look forward with colleagues to presenting that to the country over the coming months. \p Alison Hume: I refer Members to my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. In my constituency of Scarborough  and Whitby there are thousands of seasonal job opportunities each year, and as well as an enlarged tourism sector during the summer months, there is regular seasonal employment for the rest of the year, such as the fabulous Scarborough Lights festival each and every winter—it is going on at the moment. Overall, 11% of working people in Scarborough and Whitby are employed in retail, with another 20% working in hospitality. The Employment Rights Bill will boost and protect those workers against zero-hour contracts and last-minute shift cancellations.

Having worked as a freelancer for many years, I understand the pressures that workers in the so-called gig economy face. Too many women have to constantly juggle their work around caring responsibilities, with no certainty as to whether they will work enough to pay the bills each month. I was one of those women. The Bill will establish day-one parental rights, and strengthen statutory sick pay, transforming the world of work for millions of women. In fact, 40% of unemployed women say that flexible working hours will likely get them into work. If Conservative Members claim to be pro-growth, they cannot disregard the economic benefits of legal protections that will help women to enter and stay in the workforce. The Employment Rights Bill protects both employers and workers by implementing common-sense protections and real financial provisions that will drive growth in coastal communities such as mine and across the country, and I fully support the Government amendment. \p Luke Evans: As it comes towards Christmas, I tend to think of the shows I like to watch, and one is “Blackadder Goes Forth”. Near the end there is a famous quote. Blackadder is finally trying to get away, but he cannot. He knows he is going to go over the top and he says, “Well, it rhymes with clucking bell”. For me, that is what many in my constituency who run businesses are now feeling about not one but two Labour Budgets.

When I think about high streets in Earl Shilton, Barwell and Hinckley, I think about our little cafés and restaurants, the shops, and the pubs. They are really feeling the pressure. The Government came in on a mandate of raising taxes—that is true—but to the tune of £7 billion or perhaps £8 billion, not £40 billion in the first Budget, and £26 billion in the second. Every Government may need to raise taxes—the Conservatives did it when we were in government—but the problem with the current Government, and the issue hitting all my businesses, is the toxic concoction of everything changing at once. There is constriction around the whole idea of growth. We see that at micro level on the high streets of Hinckley and Burbage, and at macro level as a country, with ever tightening red tape and tax, all under the auspices that we are supposed to be growing as a country. We have seen inflation and unemployment go up, and growth stagnate. That is the reality that the country is facing, and so are my high streets. \p Alison Hume: Under 14 years of the Conservatives, productivity and growth stagnated—the worst in the G7. Would the hon. Gentleman like to enlighten Members as to whether he thinks that helped or hindered businesses and their employees? \p Luke Evans: I would love to elucidate, because if we go back to 2010, we had to deal with the financial crisis, and we had to borrow £158 billion to deal with that. Then we had to get the coffers back in the right position, and we were just about doing that before the pandemic hit and we had to borrow another £400 billion. The hon. Lady was not here under the previous Government, but every time we were here, the Opposition were asking us to spend more, and we are now feeling the pressures of having to deal with that.

The hon. Lady talks about what Labour inherited, but it also inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7. We also had inflation at target and very little unemployment, but all those things are now changing under this Government, because of their polices. It is easy to see why. In the first Budget, there was an increase in the national living wage and in national insurance contributions, and business rates relief for the hospitality sector was cut from 75% to 40%. If we fast forward to this Budget, the national living wage has been raised again and the business rates relief has been cut again.

Now the Government have come forward to say, “We are putting transition measures in place”, but those measures will mean a 15% increase for the vast majority of businesses. That increase is capped—I give the Government credit for that—but for the vast majority of businesses, the increase is 15% this year, and then up to 30%, 40% or 70% over three years. That is the prospect for hospitality businesses. They were already struggling because of the very nature of the pandemic as well as high inflation because of the war in Ukraine, so the situation is difficult for those businesses—they are the most vulnerable ones—yet the toxic concoction put in place by this Government is making things worse.

I will go down my high streets this Christmas to speak to those businesses, but I fear what lies in prospect for them as a result of this Government’s actions. How will the measures that the Government have put in place encourage those businesses and help them to move forward? I do not think that Labour Members are anti-business and I agree that they want to support workers, but they are blinkered and naive to think about giving extra rights and pay to workers without taking into consideration the consequences of what may well happen. It is all very well having increased pay, but for people who do not have a job, that is an increase in nothing. That is the heart of the problem.

We want to see more secure pay. The previous Prime Minister, the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, talked about high productivity and high-value jobs, which all hon. Members want to see. The question is how we get there. We do not get there by tying a tight noose around the businesses that will drive those jobs, which is a real concern for me. Why would anyone take the risk of setting up a restaurant in Market Bosworth or a new pub in Donisthorpe? Why would they take on the responsibility of the livelihood of their employees? Most employers are good employers and care deeply about their workforce. \p Alison Griffiths: To reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about risk, employers are taking personal risk when they set up businesses and employ people. When they have so much cost piled on them, that risk-benefit equation evaporates, and with it the jobs that they deliver to other people in their communities. \p Luke Evans: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I bow to her experience as I know that she has run and been involved with many businesses. She speaks the truth about what businesses and risk-takers are looking at in this country. They are saying, “Why would I take that risk? Why would I take on that responsibility if there is not any reward?” I would have had more truck with the Government if they set out what they were trying to achieve over the next three or four Budgets sequentially. They could then have increased national insurance contributions, for example, as a one-off, and built around that. However, the problem is that there is a toxic concoction of measures all coming in one go. \p John Slinger: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. On his point about risk, Conservative Members always look at that through the lens of the employer. There are, of course, risks—I spent most of my career in the private sector, so I have some experience of this—but does he accept that employees also take risks? When they take up a job, they need to be paid sufficiently so that they can live their lives with dignity, look after their children, and so on. Does he accept that a balance must be struck between people seeking jobs and employers providing jobs? \p Luke Evans: The hon. Gentleman is right. As an MP, he will be an employer. No doubt, he is a good employer who offers the members of his team good terms and he cares deeply about the staff who he is looking after. However, we have taxpayer-funded jobs, but the private sector has to generate the funding to employ people, so those businesses have to take the risk and work out whether there will be a job in the first place. Worse still, because of the Government’s Budget choices, many cafés and pubs are looking to reduce the hours that they open, to reduce their staffing hours or even to close because they cannot make the numbers add up. We are seeing a cumulative effect, which is having an impact at a micro level on the likes of Twycross and at a macro level on the whole country, with every industry speaking out and saying that it is having problems.

I had hoped that the Government might listen to those ideas. The Government’s mantra has always been that their No.1 mission is growth, but all the measures that they have put in place are anti-growth. We are seeing the results of that, with inflation being higher. \p Lincoln Jopp: The Conservatives are often accused by Labour Members of talking down the economy, but from my recollection, over its 14 years the Conservative party set the conditions for the creation of 800 jobs per day, on average. I have just checked the recent statistics and the number is running at about 373 under the current Government. In addition, net inflation has risen every month that the Government have been in power, since July last year. Will my hon. Friend take an intervention from any one of the very few Members present on the Government Benches who is prepared to say when they think that unemployment might start to fall from the record levels of low unemployment that they inherited from the last Government? \p Luke Evans: I will take an intervention on that point, if any Labour Member would like to make one. More importantly, my hon. Friend correctly makes the point that it is the Government’s job to set the framework. There is no such thing as Government money: it is  taxpayers’ money, earned by those who create the wealth. It is businesses and the associated workforce that provide the public sector with the money it needs to do its job—it is that simple.

In my trade as a doctor, we talk about A-B-C-D-E when it comes to a patient. There is no use dealing with the circulation—the heart—if the person does not have a clear airway. The same applies here: we need to have an economy that is growing and thriving to be able to give the foundation to the funding for the likes of the NHS or education. This is where the Government might be slightly wrong and where they have got the balance wrong, about which we heard from the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger). If the system is tilted too far and made too tight for people ever to take a risk, we are not going to have the tax inflow in the first place. Worse still, we have seen 16,000 millionaires and counting leave the country. \p Adnan Hussain: I had the pleasure of meeting two risk-takers in my constituency this weekend: Habbak Watches and AutoLab. They are run by people who are simply wanting to grow their businesses and offer chances and opportunities to young people in my town. I have also met many micro and small businesses, all of whom felt neglected and that they were not being offered the support that they deserve. I support the Employment Rights Bill and I support the rights of employees, but I am beginning wonder and worry: are we pitting employers against employees, and vice versa? \p Luke Evans: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. There is a risk of doing that, but we have to remember that it does not need to be like that. There are many good employees and many good employers, far more than hon. Members like to talk about. Our job is to protect those margins. If we make the margins too tight, we hinder the very people who are doing a good job, which I think is his inference and what I hear in my constituency. That is why I am asking the Government to rethink this balance and to reconsider the toxic concoction of legislation, red tape and taxation all at once causing such a big problem. At the end of the day, we can have as many employment rights as we want, but if we do not have businesses driving growth and providing jobs, they will not apply—it is as simple as that.

In conclusion, at the end of “Blackadder Goes Forth”, Blackadder resigns himself to going over the top, but Baldrick taps him on the shoulder and says, “Sir, I have a cunning plan.” I hope that the Chancellor has a cunning plan to deal with this situation, but I will not wait with bated breath. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for opening the debate and for taking my slightly too long intervention. I also thank Sir Tony Robinson for his visit to Harlow before the general election. He had a cunning plan to get me elected as the MP for Harlow, and with that particular cunning plan, he was successful.

Let me start by thanking businesses in my constituency for everything that they do. Later this week, I am visiting the wonderful Stort Valley Gifting to get my  Christmas presents; I am taking the lead from Robert Halfon, my predecessor in this House, who did the same thing. I will talk about another Stort valley business, Lea Valley Growers Association, which is in my constituency—I am sure there will be a joke from the Conservatives about growth, but I will let them make it themselves. I met with it recently and will continue to meet with it, as I do with other businesses in my constituency.

I mention specifically the Lea Valley Growers Association because it uses seasonal workers, particularly seasonal workers from EU countries. I met with it recently, alongside Nazeing parish council. What I found particularly heartening about that meeting was how keen Nazeing parish council was to work with the Lea Valley Growers Association to support seasonal workers and make them feel like part of the community during the time they spend in the UK.

I am trying not to look at the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) as I say this, but the association mentioned concerns with the additional red tape following Britain leaving the EU. I ask the Minister to consider that when she winds up. How can we cut red tape to ensure that the Lea Valley Growers Association, which does an important job growing food for people in my constituency and across the UK, gets the seasonal workers it likes. A fact raised in the meeting was that many of these seasonal workers come over to this country to work in Nazeing on a regular basis. The association has said in recent years that it has seen some of those families—they are often families—not returning.

I welcome the measures the Government have taken in the Budget to support businesses and the workers they employ, such as tackling late payments, reducing regulatory burdens and extending the grace period for business premises. I also welcome the fact that Harlow is one of the places that will benefit from the Pride in Place programme, which will look at how we can revive our public spaces. I always try to find cross-party agreement when I give my speeches, and I hope we can all agree that our high streets face challenges. I look forward to seeing how we can revitalise Harlow. In the Minister’s summing up, I ask her to consider how we can cut the red tape and bureaucracy holding back the businesses that I speak to.

I welcome the commitment of the Co-op to bring down the cost of thousands of items as a direct result of the Government’s changes to business rates. I declare an interest as a Labour and Co-operative MP.

I will very briefly talk about the ERB and my favourite Swedish furniture maker. People often criticise and say, “IKEA is not a British company,” but it employs British workers, and it absolutely welcomes the Employment Rights Bill. When I met with IKEA earlier this year, its No. 1 complaint about the ERB was that it was taking too long to implement. It was very interesting that when I spoke to staff at IKEA, I heard that they are very happy in their jobs and very loyal to a company that treats them incredibly well. We should be thankful for that.

We must turn the page on insecure, poor-productivity and low-paid jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) is not in her place, but I welcome the comments that she made about the need to support unpaid carers. I take any opportunity to talk about unpaid carers and young carers in this place—I appreciate  that this is slightly off topic, Madam Deputy Speaker—because they are a hugely important part of this country and make a huge difference.

Ultimately, as I said in one of my interventions, being in government is about making choices—sometimes difficult choices. Under the last Government, we saw austerity that led to our schools and hospitals being at breaking point. We need to invest in those vital services. It will make a huge difference to people in Harlow to be able to go to the hospital and actually get appointments. It will mean that they can get back to work and continue to contribute to the economy.

Thank you for your time today, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to hearing further contributions to the debate. \p Caroline Dinenage: As I mentioned to the Minister when he was in his place earlier, I started my first business at the age of 19. That is what I did for 20 years, before I became an MP—I ran businesses. That is why I am so upset at some of the ways in which this Government have behaved: I understand viscerally how taking that leap takes everything somebody has. It takes their time, money, energy and social life, and it is all a risk.

For so many months—and years, in some cases—people work almost without pay, but the reward is fantastic, because they can employ people, create jobs, offer opportunities, change lives and futures, and generate their own supply chain for other small businesses to do the same. They can play a really valuable part in their local community. That is what small businesses across our communities do every single day. They are brave, resilient and dedicated, and they need to be valued, but over recent years so many of them have been suffering. The pandemic took a huge toll on them, and that was followed by the energy crisis. Now, worst of all, we have a Government who pledged to see their contribution and to help them deliver growth, but this Government are letting them down.

I feel viscerally that enterprise and entrepreneurship should be rewarded, which is why I run local schemes in my constituency. I have a competition for the best independent shop running at the moment, in line with Small Business Saturday last weekend. It is the sixth year that I have run this competition, and we get the results on Saturday—it is very hard-fought on my Facebook site. Thousands of residents are voting, and they love doing it, because they like to show how much these independent traders and little shops mean to local jobs, to our communities and to keeping our high streets vibrant and compelling.

Last year, I held a best pub competition. After another very fierce public vote, the winner was the Windsor Castle in Hardway. When I visited the pub to give its team their certificate, I saw the time, effort and pride that they put into everything they do—the programme of events, the decorations, and the hospitality they offer—just like all the other pubs that were on the longlist. I saw how much local people value their local, but the message from these pubs is stark: they are suffering.

Despite the Chancellor’s spin, the average hospitality business will see business rates rise by almost £20,000 over the next three years. The statistics have already been  mentioned very effectively today by the shadow Minister, but these numbers are real lives, real jobs and real futures, and that £20,000 represents an existential threat to the margins of these businesses; it will drive them to extinction.

Combined with rising energy costs, after the Government promised to tackle overheads, and last year’s rise in national insurance, this is a perfect storm. It is having a direct impact on jobs in my Gosport constituency, particularly jobs for young people. It is also closing off traditional routes into work. As a parent, I know that a part-time Saturday seasonal job is valuable—we probably all did one. My first job was at Olivers shoe shop on Waterlooville high street. I got £10 a day, and I spent most of it on shoes, but it taught me a lot. It taught me employability skills and how to save money—actually, it did not, as I spent most of it on shoes—and it also taught me the very valuable lesson that I did not want a career in retail or selling shoes. These are all fantastic life lessons and experiences that prepare people for their future careers.

Some of those jobs are on contracts that the Labour party has such a visceral problem with, yet they offer flexibility and convenience, particularly during exam time, when young people do not necessarily want to do all those hours. There are sectors that need that flexibility, such as hospitality, leisure and events. In the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we heard this week from people at major events, such as the London marathon, that the number of staff they need grows enormously as they get towards the event, then obviously tails off afterwards. These are the sectors that offer the most chances for young people, and they are right in the crosshairs of the Government’s punishment.

The evidence is clear, and in Gosport it could not be more tangible. The number of young people on out-of-work benefits has gone up by 31% in the last year alone. A recent article in The Daily Telegraph painted a bleak picture of the prospects for young people in my Gosport constituency; it makes for very tough reading. \p John Slinger: Does the hon. Lady accept that more 18 to 24-year-olds are in employment than a year ago—210,000 more, according to the November labour force survey? The story of doom and gloom that she is portraying is not entirely the case. \p Caroline Dinenage: That may be the case, but the hon. Gentleman needs to read his data a little more accurately, because the number of young people on unemployment benefit has also gone up. I will repeat the figure: it has gone up 31% over the past year in the Gosport constituency alone. It is all very well swapping numbers across the Chamber, but these are lives, futures, and opportunities to get on a career ladder. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his party for what it is doing to young people in my constituency.

The law of unintended consequences is at work. If local businesses are not giving opportunities to young people, that impacts the fabric of a town, including its social fabric. I recently received an email from one of the pubs in Gosport, which said:

“I can guarantee we will not be open this time next year if things continue. The Labour government is doing nothing to help the industry, the knock-on effect to the customers, staff, us, jobless, homeless…Sadly there will be no British culture left, and  that is the very sad truth of it. It’s only the Government at the moment, who are gaining and laughing all the way to the bank. The place and the building and the customers—the whole aspect of the ‘local’ pub—will be no more.”

Then there is the hair and beauty salon—another fantastic industry, worth £5 billion and as much again in social value. According to the National Hair and Beauty Federation, the Government’s tax policies are forcing businesses to make very tough decisions, such as taking on fewer staff and fewer apprentices, and incentivising staff to become self-employed, without all the protections that the Government say they want to promote. The British Hair Consortium has warned of an existential drop-off in the number of apprentices entering the sector, while a beauty parlour in Gosport recently told me that it was not optimistic at all about the health of the sector over the next year, and that it does not think the Government are supportive of such businesses. \p Antonia Bance: Does the hon. Member agree that the way to solve the crisis in apprenticeships in hair and beauty, as well as the crisis of bogus self-employment in hair and beauty, is to strengthen the single worker status? \p Caroline Dinenage: It is all very well supporting the status of workers if there are jobs to offer people. If you have the status, but no job to attach it to, you feel like a bit of a lemon—as I am sure the hon. Lady might do after that question. She should listen to businesses in her constituency, because what businesses are saying is that they do not feel the Government are supporting them. Given her track record in her previous life, she should understand that the hair and beauty industry is one that disproportionately employs young people and women, and the businesses in that industry are very often women-owned. This Government are not friendly to women-owned businesses, either.

Retail, hospitality, and hair and beauty—taken together, the failure of those sectors will prove to be the death knell for our high street. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about how important it is to see his high street regenerated. If we are going to regenerate our high streets and see them as living, breathing, vibrant things, we need to reimagine them as places where we not only shop, but live, work, socialise and engage in leisure activity. The only way that is going to be delivered is if our high streets are filled with small independent traders, but since the Budget, over 1,000 pubs and restaurants have closed—the equivalent of two every day.

We on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee are seeing a similar trend in our work on grassroots music venues, which are still closing at the rate of two a week. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, those venues say that the outcome of the small business rates review is nothing short of a disaster for them. A cap of 15% this year is going up to a 40% cap in 2028-29—that is what they are getting after transitional relief, and that still will not be the end of it. \p Luke Evans: When the Chancellor stood up and said that the Government would be changing business rates, there was some relief across the industry, but now  businesses are realising that because the temporary relief that has been in place for five years since the pandemic is being stripped away, even though they are getting these new business rates, they are much worse than what they had before. It is the cumulative effect of both those things crossing over that is causing the problem—that is why bills will go up, rather than come down. Does my hon. Friend agree? \p Caroline Dinenage: I agree 100%—my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The grassroots Music Venue Trust says that despite multiple Ministers saying on the record that business rates would go down for the live music sector, it cannot find a single venue in the country whose bills will be lower. \p Jerome Mayhew: My hon. Friend may recall my question at Prime Minister’s questions last week, in which I raised the case of Claire Howard Jewellery in Fakenham. It is one of many shops that contacted me in the aftermath of the Budget. There is a real sense of anger that the Budget claimed there would be a reduction in business rates—particularly for hospitality, retail and leisure—but the experience of those shops, looking at the numbers, was that business rates were going in exactly the opposite direction. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real sense of a breach of trust when people hear politicians saying one thing in public and doing the opposite in the small print? \p Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government may be fooling their Back Benchers, but they are not fooling our constituents.

This goes back to the wider question, and it is not only Members on the Conservative Benches who are asking it; our constituents are asking it, too. What is the strategy, and whose side is this Labour Government on? Are they on the side of business? They are not on the side of working people, since 80,000 working people have lost their jobs in the hospitality sector alone. They are not on the side of my constituents, either; the Minister may not have been in the room when I mentioned this, but 31% more young people are on unemployment benefit in the Gosport constituency over the past year alone. National insurance contribution rises have hit my constituents disproportionately, due to the very high proportion of people in my constituency—three times more than the national average—who work in care, leisure or other service occupations. This year’s Budget confirmed that Labour is not on the side of our small businesses or our high streets. That is why I welcome the shadow Chancellor’s plans to introduce 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, which I think the Minister should look at.

The Minister opened with analogies to “A Christmas Carol” and likened the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), to Ebenezer Scrooge. That is a travesty—he is nothing like Ebenezer Scrooge. However, “A Christmas Carol” can offer a cautionary tale to us all; let us talk about Jacob Marley, the ghost whose heavy chains are a metaphor for the burdens he created through his actions in life, and who said:

“I wear the chain I forged in life”.

I hope the Minister’s chains do not prove to be the misery that he and his Government are delivering for businesses and our communities. \p Antonia Bance: I beg the indulgence of the House for a moment to welcome the opening this week on Market Place in central Wednesbury of the new Walden restaurant. The menu looks absolutely delicious, and I very much look forward to sampling it soon.

I also want to mention Chris Birch from the Swift Group in Wednesbury, who I met yesterday—he was in town to go to the Goldman Sachs “10k Small Businesses” reception yesterday evening. Chris is the managing director of a family-owned business; he and his 36 employees make industrial and commercial kitchens, and he spoke to me about the help he has received with solar panels, which are going to be installed on his buildings—he has got a grant for that. He has also got a grant to help with the CRM through the Goldman Sachs scheme.

Chris spoke to me about his recent success in winning a major Government public procurement contract to supply every prison in the country with kitchen equipment. I was so pleased to hear that, and I know that the Minister for Small Business will be particularly glad to hear it as well. That is a huge, multimillion-pound contract won by a SME thanks to the targets that have been put in place to ensure SMEs are able to access public procurement. I know the whole House will be so very pleased to hear that that bit of the small business strategy is beginning to take effect, and I thank Chris for coming down to Parliament and telling me about it yesterday. I look forward to visiting him and his staff team soon.

In response to some of the points made in the debate, let me say that no Labour Member will apologise for being a Government in a hurry. Perhaps at times we do try to do many, many things at the same time, but there is a reason for that. Opposition will teach you about the powerlessness of being unable to effect the things you want to, and I can hear the frustration of Opposition Members—the regret they feel about their powerlessness in the face of a Government who are doing things that they do not like—but it would be good to hear some Conservative Members apologise for the damage caused over 14 years that led us to the situation we are in now. \p Lincoln Jopp: I notice that there are quite a lot of people on the Public Gallery at the moment. The former Government left almost record levels of low unemployment, and unemployment has gone up in every month that this new Government have been in power. Would the hon. Lady like to answer how this Government in a hurry are heading in the right direction, and perhaps suggest when unemployment in her constituency and across the country might start to come down, rather than continually going up? \p Antonia Bance: I am sure the hon. Member knows me well enough by now to know that I am not going to indulge in silly games. What I will say is that this Government’s priority is to get the economy growing. It is why we are investing in infrastructure. It is why we are rebuilding our public services. It is why we have put the greatest level of investment in our public infrastructure.  It is why we are investing £39 billion in house building, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is no longer in his place. It is why we are rebuilding our public finances. At times, this does involve some difficult choices, and some that not everyone may always agree with, but we are making the fair and right choices: asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear the heavier load, rebuilding public services, helping with the cost of living—and, yes, clearing up the Tory mess.

We are cutting borrowing more than any other country in the G7, leading to a doubling of the headroom to £21.7 billion. We have the highest levels of public investment in four decades. We are backing entrepreneurs and fast-growing companies with tax breaks to list and to hire here in the UK. Our planning changes will back the builders. Devolution for local growth will mean that local growth spreads outside London and the south-east—something so very close to my heart and to the hearts of many in this place. We are proud to be putting up the national minimum wage so that people have more money in their pockets, because the core problem affecting the retail and hospitality industries is that people do not have money in their pockets to spend on our high streets. Getting wages going up—and they are going up faster than prices—is the way to have people with more money in their pockets. \p John Slinger: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Did she notice yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition said that she did not want the national minimum wage to increase at all? Does my hon. Friend think that indicates that there might be a cold freeze in the air? \p Antonia Bance: My hon. Friend reads my mind, as that is the point I was just about to make. I was so sad to see the Leader of the Opposition abandon what was one of the better policies of the last Government: that there should be a fast-rising national minimum wage at all times. I agreed with the last set of Prime Ministers before this one on very little, but one thing I did agree with them on was that it was right to maintain the machinery of the Low Pay Commission—a tripartite body where unions, businesses and academics come together with Government to look at the prevailing conditions in the country. Those at the commission get out there and visit businesses of all types in all regions, including hospitality and retail, and set the national minimum wage at a level that would work for workers and for businesses. It is an approach that this Government have continued, and I am sad to see that the Leader of the Opposition intends to abandon it and to abandon low-paid workers to frozen pay. \p Ashley Fox: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that under the last Conservative Administration, the minimum wage rose at the same time as we created 4 million new jobs and left unemployment at a record low? The difference now is that in only 17 months, unemployment has risen by 280,000 as a direct result of her Government’s policies. Our caution on the minimum wage is that it is now at a level, with their economic policies, that means they are pricing younger people out of work. \p Antonia Bance: I would not wish to try the hon. Member’s generosity, but it seems to me that I have already been generous in my tribute to the work of the  previous Government in continuing to maintain the machinery of the Low Pay Commission—something that this Government have continued—and in continuing to make sure that the national minimum wage rose. I will admit that many people in my position feared greatly in 2010 that the Conservatives would come into government—admittedly, in coalition—and immediately tear up the national minimum wage. The fact that they did not was a great thing. The pinning to two thirds of male median wages was a good thing, and I am so sad that the Leader of the Opposition has departed from the consensus on this point.

The national minimum wage is set by a tripartite body. It is not too high, because businesses were in the room arguing their case. The commissioners went out on visits around the country to look at the prevailing economic conditions. The wage is set by consensus using the tripartite machinery, and it is important that we all understand that that has served this country well and has made extreme low pay a thing of the past. I am sad that the Conservatives have departed from this consensus. \p Tom Gordon: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the need to see the minimum wage increase—people who live in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough simply cannot afford to live or work in the area, and that is a real problem—but does she accept that it is not just the minimum wage that is the issue for employers, but the combination of increasing employer NICs and business rates? When I go out and speak to people, that is what they are worried about. It is not necessarily about the minimum wage, but the cocktail of measures that the Government have introduced. \p Antonia Bance: The hon. Member need have no fear about the extent to which I talk to businesses in my constituency and more widely. I see at least one employer every single week—often not in retail and hospitality, as I represent a manufacturing constituency. I recognise the concerns, but I would say that in this country we need to have a functioning set of public services. We need an NHS that is not asking people to wait as long as it was when we took up office. In my constituency, waiting lists for those waiting over a year for an operation have fallen by 45%. That is absolutely incredible, and it was achieved because of the difficult decisions that our Chancellor of the Exchequer took to put money into the NHS. I know that many people regret that decision. They wish the ends—the reduced waiting lists—but they do not will the means. On this side, we will not dodge hard choices; we will the ends and we will the means. \p Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady is being incredibly generous in giving way. Given the focus on cutting waiting lists and tackling NHS challenges, how does the hon. Lady feel about the employer national insurance contribution changes, which also fell on GP surgeries, care homes and children’s hospices? Those changes are proving to be an enormous burden on the NHS and are sucking up a lot of the extra money that the Government purport to be putting into it. \p Antonia Bance: The hon. Lady makes her point well, and she has made it; there is no need for me to respond.

After 14 years of flatlining wages, wages are now growing faster than prices. That is incredibly important. I was so proud to see wages go up by more in the first 10 months of this Government than they went up in the first 10 years of the last one. The Budget did more on the cost of living, whether it be through frozen fares, frozen prescriptions, frozen fuel duty, £150 off energy bills or—my favourite policy—thousands of pounds in the pockets of the poorest families in the UK. They will spend that money on high streets, like those in my constituency: Crankhall Lane and Union Street in Wednesbury, and our shopping centre in central Tipton. That is where low-income families spend any extra pounds on food and on stuff for their kids. \p Paul Holmes: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being characteristically courteous. She is entirely correct in outlining the choices and some of the policies that her Government have made, but does she not agree that those choices and policies will be delivered on the back of higher taxation? As a result, employers have less money to employ people, so the proceeds of growth do not mean that there will be better public services. The hon. Lady is right that her Government are spending more money, but that is on the basis of taxation, because of the policies that her Government are advancing, and not on the basis of growth or entrepreneurship. \p Antonia Bance: I thank the hon. Member for his kind words, and for his intervention. It is absolutely clear that alongside investment in public services, there is investment in infrastructure, in house building, and in making sure that this is a good country in which to grow and scale a business. I am glad of those things. I am also glad that we took action to ensure that the poorest families are able to feed all of their children. The way to make the high street thrive is for people to have more money to spend. Let me repeat the statistic mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger). There are more people aged between 18 and 24 in work this year than there were a year ago, but NEET numbers are still too high. People familiar with the constituency I represent will not be surprised to hear that they are particularly high in my corner of the Black Country. This is in no small part due to the failures of the Conservatives in government, not least during the pandemic, when they kept the schools closed but allowed pubs to open.

Opposition Members keep calling on us to engage in further welfare reform to cut the welfare bill. It is interesting to me that when we do so—when we announce a clear, costed, proven, evidence-based plan to get young people back into work, as we did this weekend—they do not like it. It feels like history repeating itself. I remember the future jobs fund from 15 or 16 years ago, and the way it gave hope to a generation of young people kicked out of work as a result of a global financial crisis, through no fault of their own. Hundreds of thousands of them got jobs through the future jobs fund. It was particularly effective for the hardest-to-help young people, and in tough labour markets, in places like the one that I represent, but it was canned, basically on day one, by a Conservative Chancellor. I am so glad that our Work and Pensions Secretary is building on the legacy of the future jobs fund to help a new generation of young people. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Much like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine relies on its manufacturing industry, and our apprenticeship guarantees and support will make a huge difference to people there. However, having listened to my hon. Friend’s history lesson, I am thinking back to the youth training scheme. I recently met someone who did a YTS apprenticeship at the age of 16, and is now about to take over as chief operating officer of the company for which he works. That is the difference that a good apprenticeship and investment in young people can make. \p Antonia Bance: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, as I have done since the first time we worked together, more than 20 years ago.

It is interesting to hear the advocacy for welfare reform. Today we have heard a lot about the difficulties with business rates, and I will not rehearse the arguments—they have been well made by my friends on the Front Bench—about the action that this Government are taking on business rates to help the hospitality and retail sectors, but I will make this point. We have heard repeatedly from Opposition Members that they would like to abolish business rates for retail and hospitality, yet they do not have a plan to do that. To pay for it, they will somehow find £47 billion worth of “savings”. The majority of that will come through indiscriminate cutting of the welfare budget. It is not clear to me how that is a credible plan, when the annual welfare bill went up by £114 billion on their watch.

Of course, Members would not expect me to speak in a debate like this without talking about my pride in our Employment Rights Bill and our plan to make work pay. I am proud beyond words to speak for hospitality workers and for seasonal workers who will benefit from that Bill. Earlier this week, I asked colleagues in the trade union movement to run the numbers, based on Government statistics, on how many workers will benefit from the reduction of the waiting period for protection from unfair dismissal from two years to six months: 6.3 million workers will benefit from that—from protection against being unfairly dismissed, without due process, for reasons that are not good enough—and 36% of hospitality workers will benefit as well. I am so very glad that we are making rules that will benefit disproportionately the workers most likely to be exploited at work. \p John Slinger: My hon. Friend, who continues to make an excellent speech, has referred to unfair dismissal. I think it worth putting on record that much of the debate over recent hours, days and weeks has implied that employers will not be able to dismiss people. That is simply not the case. What we are talking about here is unfair dismissal, not dismissal. This is a right that absolutely has to be at the heart of the biggest uplift in workers’ rights that any Government have introduced for a generation, or perhaps more. \p Antonia Bance: I agree with my hon. Friend. Employers may continue to dismiss, as long as they do so for fair reasons and following a fair process, and good employers already do that.

My favourite measures in the Employment Rights Bill—this could be a very long speech, but I will bring it to a close—[Interruption.] I will! I will just say this: I am so proud of the ban on zero-hours contracts, and  I suggest to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that we should have a nice short reference period for that when the consultation begins. I am so proud of the plans on sick pay, and on fire and rehire. I am so proud of our enhanced parental leave, the fair pay agreement and the school support staff negotiating body.

In conclusion, I often say that my goal is for people in my constituency to be able to take the family out for a curry on Friday night and not worry about the cost. I want that for all workers, including the hospitality workers who are serving and cooking that curry, and the seasonal workers who make it such a pleasure to be on the beach at Blackpool or down in Brighton, having that curry. That is why we need a Government focused on growth, new rights for every worker in the Employment Rights Bill, and a higher national minimum wage. \p Jamie Stone: As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall talk about my faraway and far-flung constituency, but I will first say that what the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who is no longer in her place, said about carers rang a bell with me, because I am a carer for my wife.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) talked about the jobs that he had as a young man. In this place, I try to effect an urbane and smooth image—not very successfully, I might say. But I can tell the House that owing to my father’s rackety finances—I love him dearly—I had to work all the time when I was a student, and I had to do lots of the sorts of jobs that the hon. Member talked about. I remember being a kitchen porter, which is the lowest form of life in a big canteen—you get your backside kicked by every sous chef. For the record, I was very glad that I was a member of the Transport and General Workers’ Union at the time. I went to my shop steward because a particularly obnoxious sous chef was a real bully, so I am grateful to that august former institution. That is something that the House did not know about me.

The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) was here earlier, but I am bound to say that the absence of the Scottish National party and Reform is surprising, because whichever side of the argument one takes, this is a colossally important issue.

I turn to my constituency. Much has been made of the importance of seasonal workers to hospitality, and what is said about that is absolutely true. In my conversation this morning with Mr Murray Lamont, the owner and manager of Mackays hotel in Wick, he stressed to me that these workers are crucial, particularly in the run-up to Christmas. He is very good employer indeed, but his business could not keep ticking on without those workers.

Mention has been made of Ebenezer Scrooge. For the interest of the Chamber, Mackays hotel in Wick is in Ebenezer Place, which is the shortest street in the United Kingdom, at 6 feet 9 inches. Think about that! If any hon. and right hon. Members find themselves in Wick, I recommend going to Mackays hotel. Mr Murray Lamont is a charming man.

Secondly, I want to talk about something that the Chamber will not know about: potato roguing. I have a reputation for talking about seed potatoes a lot in this  place, so I shall continue to earn it. When you grow seed potatoes, they have to be of the highest quality, as people in Lincolnshire or wherever, or indeed in Europe, buy them because they are the best seed potatoes, which come from my part of the world. If you have a dodgy spud in your bag of seeds—whatever the type of potato—that is no good at all. We have seasonal workers whose job is to walk down the lines of potatoes, identify those that are not the right species or that are diseased due to a mosaic virus, and pull them out. Let me namecheck another constituent. Mr James Gordon of Bindal farm, a potato grower of excellence, tells me that without those seasonal workers, he would be in trouble. He exports the best-quality potatoes to the south of England and across the channel.

My plea is a simple one. In this argument, some say this, and some say that, but at the end of the day, what matters to me and my constituents is that seasonal workers and their employers are given the help they need, whatever form that may take, and that such workers are recognised for playing an important part in the economy of one of the most remote and faraway parts of the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to talk about potatoes all the time. \p Anna Gelderd: In South East Cornwall, we truly value, and know the pressures of, seasonal work. It can be unreliable and involve unsociable hours, yet it is hugely valuable and remains a vital part of our Cornish economy. The Government are taking steps to make seasonal work more secure, and to increase fairness. Tourism is a key part of our local economy and supports many livelihoods. It is our wide range of hospitality venues, retail locations and small businesses, powered by hard-working and dedicated staff, that makes such an offer possible.

Seasonal work has helped families and local businesses for generations—work in our cafés and restaurants in Looe and Polperro, in our retail shops in Lostwithiel, and picking vegetables and flowers near Liskeard. There are more 18 to 24-year-olds in employment than there were a year ago, and the Employment Rights Bill strengthens good practice in the workforce, helps people into work and protects their wellbeing. I want to thank those involved in local businesses for their hard work, and for the always incredibly interesting visits that they regularly invite me to make, during which they tell me about their concerns and their hopes for the future. \p Jerome Mayhew: The hon. Lady is right, but would she agree that there is a balance to be struck in every policy? Here, the balance is between employment rights on the one hand and business growth on the other. The sign of whether an economy has got it about right is when employment and growth go hand in hand. Does she share my concern that, as a result of the policies of the Government, unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is going up month after month? Is that not a warning sign that the balance is not correct? \p Anna Gelderd: I agree with the hon. Member on certain things, such as the importance of balance, but I will not make a habit of agreeing with him in totality  and, no, I think there is a huge number of other points to make about the economy, which I wish to focus on in my speech.

I spoke to a local publican last week, and his words struck me. He said that his workforce absolutely deserve support, and are the heart of his business, and it is important to remember that as we move forward with this work. The Conservatives, including the hon. Member, call for the Bill to be scrapped in its entirety, but I struggle to see how that shows respect for seasonal workers. The Conservatives would deny sick pay to lower-paid workers, and expect people to turn up when they are unwell, putting colleagues and customers at risk. The publican talked to me about that and several other things. I think that approach is wrong, unfair and out of touch. I believe we show our values by how we treat those who keep the economy moving—both the business owners and those in their workforce. Supporting workers to recover from illness, in particular, helps them to return to work sooner and stronger. Business owners know that—I hear that from them frequently—so I welcome the Government’s action to improve employment rights in the sector, including for the seasonal workforce.

Tackling exploitative zero-hours contracts and one-sided flexibility is beneficial for employers. It reduces recruitment costs through increased staff retention, and levels the playing field on enforcement. These are good steps forward for workers and for businesses, and after years of stagnant productivity, our communities deserve them.

Seasonal work will always have a vital place in Cornwall, but families also need year-round employment, so that they can plan for their future and avoid hardships through the winter months. That means creating skilled, secure opportunities through projects such as the new Kernow industrial growth fund, which was secured by Cornish Labour MPs and part of this Labour Budget. It will give communities across Cornwall a path to long-term prosperity, as we work with them and the seasonal workforce in other ways.

Cornwall draws millions of visitors each year, and we must ensure that the system works just as well for the residents who welcome them, so I welcome this Government setting out how employment rights help boost productivity, and by doing so, ultimately support stronger economic growth and higher living standards. Seasonal workers deserve to be part of those improvements, and I will keep working with the Government to deliver just that. \p Alison Griffiths: In constituencies like mine, seasonal, flexible and part-time working are central to the local economy. Seaside towns such as Bognor Regis and Littlehampton thrive on the cafés and attractions along the seafront and the pubs and shops on the high street. During the booming summer season, those businesses rely on seasonal workers to meet the demands of the tourists who flock to enjoy our wonderful stretch of Sussex coastline. Many seasonal workers are young people taking their first step on the career ladder during school, college or university holidays or long-term unemployed people looking for a route back into work, and even parents and pensioners who benefit from being able to work when it suits them to do so.

When writing this speech, I cast my mind back to my early jobs: chopping vegetables in my local Harvester; waitressing in every imaginable kind of environment on a part-time basis when restaurants needed me; and earning double or sometimes triple my wages if I was prepared to work on Christmas day or new year’s eve, which, as a student, I welcomed. Then there were the pubs which employed me during my university career. All those roles are probably unviable now. It is the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, which provide such vital jobs, that are bearing the brunt of the Government’s damaging economic policies. After the Chancellor’s first Budget last October, more than 89,000 hospitality workers lost their jobs—over 50% of all jobs lost in that time.

The Government tell us that the Employment Rights Bill, the darling of the trade unions, will make life better for working people. They are wrong. The Institute of Directors warns that the Bill is already undermining job creation, and research by FTI Consulting finds that 59% of SMEs will have to cut jobs. But do not take it from me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Listen to Ash, who co-owns Harbour Park, a seaside amusement park in Littlehampton. From ensuring the rides run smoothly to keeping visitors well fed and hydrated, local attractions such as Harbour Park rely on seasonal workers to open their doors every summer. After the Chancellor’s disastrous second Budget a fortnight ago, Harbour Park will see its business rates rise by 72.6% despite the so-called transitional discount. In 2026-27, that will increase by a further 97.5%. \p Jerome Mayhew: I should make it clear that I spent my career before coming into politics running a ledger business, so I am intimately familiar with a seasonal workforce and I employed about 1,000 people as part of my job. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the business rates—the fixed costs—going up, but the uncertainty in consumer confidence caused, both this year and last year, by the leaking leading up to the Budget, which knocks the people coming through the gate as well? Turnover is depressed at the same time as fixed costs are rising. It is an absolutely catastrophic combination for people who are trying to earn a living and employ others. \p Alison Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right. The Business and Trade Committee had a number of businesses come to Parliament to tell us about the stasis that the leaks in the run-up to the Budget caused to their businesses. As he says, that feeds through to the general population, who know the costs businesses are having to incur and that they are getting to the point where they can no longer sustain them. People are concerned for their jobs. They know that, if they do not have a job, having more employment rights are no use whatsoever. He makes a valid and important point.

The increase in Harbour Park’s costs amount to an extra £40,000, seriously impacting its ability to employ young people and give them a start in the job market.

Last weekend, I met Kathleen, who runs the Navigator hotel in Bognor Regis. She employs young people in the town to work when she needs them during the busy summer months, when tourists fill the hotel rooms, drink in the bar and eat in the restaurant. Kathleen told me that she started her business full of hope, but now, after the imposition of so many additional costs and  taxes, she works a full-time second job just to keep her business afloat, and to ensure that her 10 employees still have jobs to go to. \p Tom Gordon: I do not believe the hon. Lady has yet got one of these devolution mayors, although she can correct me if I’m wrong. We have one in York and North Yorkshire, who is now looking at how they might implement a tourist tax. Will the hon. Lady give her thoughts on the impact such a tax would have? When I met the Harrogate district chamber of commerce and spoke to the hoteliers in my area, they were concerned about how it would suck many tourists out of towns like Harrogate and pass them off to other areas. It would be an additional cost—I wonder what her thoughts on that might be. \p Alison Griffiths: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which takes me back to the conversation I had with Catherine this weekend. I hope she will not mind me saying this: she was so emotional that she was almost in tears at the prospect of a tourist tax being imposed by a Sussex mayor, who will come in next year—actually, that has been delayed into another year as well, hasn’t it? The rapid roll-out is not going quite so well. The emotion and fear that I heard in Catherine’s voice when we talked about that tax will not leave me for a long time. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising what a pernicious tax that could be. \p Scott Arthur: I am really looking forward to a tourist tax coming to Edinburgh next year. Like local authorities in England, we benefit greatly from tourism—it is fantastic for the city—but it does have impacts on the operation of the council with things like litter and so on. The tourist tax will help the council to make the city better for both citizens and tourists; the idea is that it will actually drive tourism and bring more business to the city. I am sure the hon. Lady is well travelled—she has probably been to many places across Europe without ever thinking twice about paying the tourist tax, and she will have benefited from how that money is invested in those local economies. What is different about English towns and cities that means a tourist tax just is not going to work here? \p Alison Griffiths: I am delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, because there is a very important difference. Right now in the UK, the tourist economy is being hammered by the increased minimum wage, the Employment Rights Bill and high energy costs—I could go on. Businesses on our high streets are suffering, in particular seasonal businesses, which are having to bear the brunt of the Employment Rights Bill. If you had met the hotel owner in Bognor Regis—a tourist town—I think you would really be questioning what you are saying. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I have no desire to meet your local businesses, Ms Griffiths. You are obviously directing your comment at the hon. Gentleman. \p Alison Griffiths: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that if it was one single tax instead of multiple taxes, it is quite possible that the tourist tax would be a good idea.  However, in the current context of multiple taxes drowning our businesses into oblivion, it is not a good idea.

If the unemployment rights Bill passes, Ash and Catherine will have to offer guaranteed hours to their flexible seasonal workers even during off-season troughs. With increased employer national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage rising again, these fixed schedules will make hiring people unviable. Far from protecting people who work seasonably and flexibly, by forcing businesses to provide guaranteed hours throughout the year the Employment Rights Bill will threaten their jobs.

The Government should be supporting businesses such as Harbour Park and the Navigator Hotel, which give young people their first job and keep coastal towns like Bognor Regis and Littlehampton alive. Instead, the Government are putting them in a vice. Ministers must change course and withdraw the Employment Rights Bill, reverse the tax hikes and back the flexible seasonal jobs that our communities rely on—before more businesses close and more workers lose their jobs. \p Sarah Bool: As the late great Andy Williams sang, “It’s the most wonderful time of the year” but I am afraid that is not true for farmers, business owners or those in retail, hospitality or leisure. Following the Chancellor’s Budget just two weeks ago, there are only two lines in that song that resonate—“scary ghost stories” caused by the Chancellor’s announcements, and memories of “tales of the glories of Christmases long, long ago” before Labour got in.

One of the many problems with the Government’s approach to working is that they start with the premise that any flexible or part-time working, including zero-hour contracts, is by nature wrong and unfair. In actuality, it simply reflects the needs of the market and businesses at any given moment, as well as personal preference. Take food production as an example; it should be obvious, but that work in that sector is often seasonal and cyclical. The labour demands of farming and horticultural businesses are variable and difficult to forecast with 100% accuracy. Crop conditions, weather conditions and customer demand all contribute to the inherent unpredictability in food production.

On Monday night, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs voted against an amendment from the other place to insert a proper definition of “seasonal work” into the Employment Rights Bill, and Reform did not even bother to show up. The Government have instead proposed an amendment to “consult”. This is another issue that the Government hope they can just kick into the long grass and hope we will forget about.

That difficulty with forecasting also spills into the hospitality sector, as has been acknowledged. With benefits ballooning and the tax bill for the working man increasing day by day, everyone is feeling the pinch. They are all tightening their belts, so it becomes incredibly hard to forecast the current level of need. I was speaking to one of my local hospitality businesses, which has already been hit by a £900,000 NICs bill this year alone. The business was explaining the impact of NICs and  what it means in reality. I think we throw around large numbers but do not actually understand the intricacies of them.

The Chancellor said to the Treasury Committee that she does not see the link between the NICs increases and unemployment. I fail to see how she cannot see that link. Let’s do a NICs 101: NICs are paid on a month-by-month basis, and are triggered when someone earns £417 a month. If a student or anyone else worked for just one month and did more than 35 hours in the month at minimum wage, the business would then have to pay an additional 15% of national insurance on every pound above £417. Cash is king, and if that is to be rolled out, it is no wonder that businesses are questioning whether they can take on any other employees. \p Jerome Mayhew: My hon. Friend makes an important point, although it is not just, or even primarily, about the increase from 13.8% to 15% on the overall rate, but that it kicks in at £5,000, down—from memory—from £9,200. That has a particular impact on those employed part-time, youth employment, and lower-wage employment, because it means that employers start paying NICs much earlier in the pay journey. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is exactly why we are seeing youth unemployment rising as well as general unemployment? \p Sarah Bool: My hon. Friend makes a valid and correct point. We have started to see a rise in unemployment in South Northamptonshire among 16 to 25-year-olds exactly because of that.

The business owner I spoke to said that the problem is that the business starts paying at a certain level, but that increase pushes up across all wages across all levels of the business. Suddenly businesses are finding themselves drowning in the amount of money they are having to pay. That will stifle the market. We even talked to some of my hairdressers—they have been mentioned numerous times to the Minister—who said that the impact of NICs means that, according to the British Hair Consortium, there will be no new apprentice starts in 2027. That is staggering and appalling, when the Government are talking about all the opportunities for the young. \p Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend may be aware that just across the channel in France, high regulation and high tax has led to consistent, long-term high youth unemployment. Speaking of Andy Williams, another song says that there is a “lesson to be learned” from this, and we do not have to look too far to learn it. \p Sarah Bool: As always, my right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Andy Williams is getting a lot more airtime today than any of us imagined. \p Simon Hoare: I am afraid that I do not know anything about Mr Williams, so I cannot add to the lovefest. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has reflected, as I have, that in households that have been workless for quite a long period of time, temporary seasonal intro-jobs often show our young people the value, importance and benefit of work and what it can do for their families and communities. When those opportunities are reduced, so the opportunity and potential for social mobility is curtailed. \p Sarah Bool: Absolutely. We need to encourage that next generation through to the workforce, and I cannot see that they are getting any of those opportunities at the moment. The Government are so proudly trying to promote that, but let us look at the impact and the figures. There can be no denying that they are achieving none of what they hope to achieve in future. \p Tom Hayes: Across these Benches in the mainstream parties, we have to develop solutions to the problems we face, partly because we know that in our Chamber we have the likes of Reform. Our country is in debt to the tune of £2.7 trillion and we spend around £105 billion each year to service the debt before we spend any money on anything else. We therefore have to think, in that difficult situation, about how we come up with solutions.

If we are to fund our public services to get people back into work, which helps to grow the economy, and are to do the other things that we want to do as a country, what is the right way of raising the funds that allows our country to pay down our debt and the amount we spend each year to service our deficit and to bring the change that people want in delivery of public services? I ask the hon. Lady please not to say “Welfare reform.” I agree that we need to do welfare reform—[Interruption.] If I may, I agree that we need to do that, and the Milburn and Timms reviews will be critical to taking forward an effective welfare reform package, but what else would she do? \p Sarah Bool: At least the hon. Member has acknowledged that we have to repay debt, unlike the Green party, which suddenly believes that repaying debt interest is not a viable or true alternative in this world. The hon. Gentleman denies talk of welfare, but it is a fundamental element. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that he agrees with that, but there is so much more. Why is the Labour party increasing the welfare bill?

The Government have to grow the economy and that means supporting businesses, giving them opportunities, reducing tax and putting money in our pockets to do that. Unfortunately, we can see from everything that has come from the Government so far that the economy is not growing. Watch this space, but that is a problem that we will struggle with.

South Northamptonshire has 95 pubs, which are crucial to our rural community and to our economy. They are a great example of a place where young people can start their first jobs. At The White Hart in Hackleton, a young girl with Down’s syndrome, who could not get a job outside the village because of transport issues, took her first job. That job will be threatened by all the measures from this Government. \p Jerome Mayhew: The Centre for Policy Studies has undertaken an analysis of all the impacts of both the previous Budget and the one last month on the cost of employing 18 to 20-year-olds. The shocking figure is that it will cost an employer £4,000 a year more to employ a single person between the age of 18 and 20. Given that, is my hon. Friend surprised that employers, just like the pub that she has mentioned, are taking rational decisions not to give young people jobs? \p Sarah Bool: I agree entirely, and I am devastated to hear that, because that is exactly not what we need for society and for the young generation.

Research from the Taxpayers’ Alliance showed that in 2024 the average pub paid almost £100,000 per year in taxes on the sale of alcoholic drinks alone. When we add to that the coming changes to business property relief and the recent increase to employer NICs, we see that hospitality is really being smothered. But there is a way out. There is no need for an enforced and permanent dry January. The Conservatives have a plan, and it includes the abolition of business rates for hundreds of thousands of high street businesses.

The Government often deny it, but pubs and shops have seen their business rates bills more than double under this Government. We say that what is needed to bring back the festive cheer to our high streets is not more Government, but Government getting out of the way and allowing businesses and entrepreneurs to flourish. There is a big difference between business and the Government. Businesses, as has been mentioned, take risks with their own money. They provide jobs and they grow the economy. They are brave, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said earlier, but this Government just risk taxpayers’ money, destroy jobs and contract the economy.

Particularly, I look to my farming community. I have 550 farms, and they are the driver and the lifeblood of South Northamptonshire. One of their biggest issues, alongside things like NICs, is the inability to plan. A lot of discussion has been had about helping our companies grow for the future, but part of that growth requires the ability to make long-term plans. Under this Government, we have seen the removal of the sustainable farming incentive, and capital grants have gone on and off. There is also the double cab pick-up tax and the fertiliser tax. When we add in the employer national insurance tax and the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, we have to ask how farmers are possibly supposed to plan or invest in the future. \p Simon Hoare: On my hon. Friend’s point, how can businesses be expected to plan, having been told in the 2024 Budget that the tax rate was a one-off, and in 2025 that there was an unforeseen second tax rate but with no further plans? That is not a promise that one can necessarily rely upon. The presumption is that there will be more next year. How can businesses, whether they are agricultural, industrial or whatever, be expected to plan for growth, investment and job creation when they have absolutely no idea of the trajectory of the tax take that the Treasury is hellbent on introducing? \p Sarah Bool: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The importance of the construction industry was mentioned earlier, along with the plan to give more construction apprenticeships and jobs to young people, but for those jobs to be offered, we need people to be investing in the first place. Companies are not doing that, because they cannot make those decisions. They do not know where the money is coming from. They do not know when the money will next be taken from them. We are not creating an environment in which they can grow. I do not see anyone on the Government Benches disagreeing with me on that, so I think my hon. Friend’s point is well made. \p Graham Stuart: What seems to be missing on the Government Benches is any recognition of the growing anger among young people at the fact that they are being shut out of the jobs market. It is the most damaging time in someone’s life to be barred from work when they are young. The Minister does not seem to be an Andy Williams fan, but The Clash sang under a previous Labour Government:

“Career opportunities are the ones that never knock”.

Not under Labour. \p Sarah Bool: Absolutely.

In Prime Minister’s questions earlier, I asked about the fair choices that this Government say they have made. I think those choices are fundamentally unfair. The Government are trying to introduce a digital ID scheme, unfunded by the Government, that could cost at least £1.8 billion, yet most of the public do not want it, given that 3 million people signed the petition against it. The Government then talk about inflicting tax hits on all our businesses. It is just madness. There is absolutely no sense of direction from this Government. This is not a pro-growth Chancellor but a no-growth Chancellor. That will be the legacy.

I never thought that a Christmas song could sum up a Government’s economic approach, but if we look at “We wish you a Merry Christmas”, it appears that we are in the “we won’t go until we’ve got some,” phase from this Government, whether they are demanding figgy pudding or, in this instance, tax. I am really hoping, though, that they will see the light and eventually help businesses to unlock, to reach their potential and to have a merry Christmas and a happy new year. \p Ashley Fox: I am fortunate to represent a beautiful part of the Somerset coast. Burnham-on-Sea, Berrow and Brean all have lovely sandy beaches and are visited by many holidaymakers every year. Seasonal tourism is not just part of the local economy; it is the bedrock of those communities. Our motion regrets the many measures introduced by this Government that hit both the economy at large and have had a particularly bad impact on those areas that are dependent on hospitality and tourism. The effects are even worse for businesses that employ seasonal workers.

I have said before that, although the Government were elected on a promise to go for growth, most of their actions over the past 17 months seem designed to achieve the opposite. Before the election, many businesses backed this new Government. They believed the Chancellor’s prawn cocktail offensive. They thought this Government would be a reincarnation of the Blair Government, who, at least in their early years, managed to control public expenditure. Instead, they seem to be the very worst of Wilson, Callaghan and Healey.

The reality is that, rather than implement the modest tax rises and spending increases contained in its manifesto, Labour increased taxes by £40 billion last year and a further £26 billion this year. That is a huge increase in taxes on businesses and hard-working families to pay for more welfare spending. All the businesses I speak to  in my constituency are suffering. They have lost any faith they ever had in this Government, and who can blame them?

The Globe Inn in North Petherton is a fantastic local pub. This year, it will not pay any business rates, but it will pay £5,000 a year from 2029-30, so it will have to sell 10,000 extra pints just to pay the Government’s higher taxes. That might not sound a lot to Labour Ministers, but I can assure them that, for a small business with a tiny profit margin, any additional cost can have a hugely negative impact.

It is not just business rates that are going up. \p Jerome Mayhew: It is easy to make the mistake of talking about SMEs as though they are corporate entities when, in many instances, they are not. They are often a husband-and-wife team working incredibly long hours and living above the shop. I was in my local pub, The Greyhound, the other day, which is run by the tenant and his wife. They told me that they were covering the shifts of the employees who they have let go because of the Government’s tax policy changes. The cost of that is not just economic; it is hugely damaging to their relationship and to their whole way of life, and it is incredibly stressful. Does my hon. Friend accept that the damage caused by these changes is not just economic but societal? \p Ashley Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I agree with. The Globe Inn is not a husband-and-wife team but a mother-and-daughter team, and those extra costs bear heavily on the business.

It is not just business rates that are going up. There is also the hated jobs tax, which we heard about earlier, and the consequences of the anti-jobs employment Bill. On paper, guaranteed hours and scheduling rules sound as though they would protect workers, but for seasonal workers whose livelihoods depend on flexibility, immediate availability and quick uptake of short-term work, the measures risk doing precisely the opposite.

Let us take some examples. Forcing employers to offer guaranteed hours after a short reference period will make businesses reluctant to take on seasonal staff at all. I know this from experience: in Burnham-on-Sea, the number of visitors who turn up very often depends on the weather. If there are two or three weeks of very good weather, businesses will need lots of seasonal workers. In this great country of ours, that could be followed by many weeks of rainy weather. What would the Minister say to employers who are contractually bound to offer work to employees who are not required because tourists are not there? \p Alison Griffiths: Harbour Park in my constituency would be required to pay people, rain or shine, at times when it receives no income from visitors. Does my hon. Friend agree that this measure will cause many businesses acute hardship? \p Ashley Fox: My hon. Friend is correct. In fact, what will probably happen is that many businesses will offer less work. That tells us that these regulations have been drawn up by people who have never run a business. When a farm, holiday park or festival operator knows that it might be legally required to provide fixed hours even when demand disappears with a change in weather or tourist numbers, the safest option will be not to hire so many people. It should not surprise the Government  when that is what businesses decide to do. Seasonal workers could see fewer opportunities, shorter seasons and more competition for every shift.

Secondly, the strict advance notice rules and penalties for changing shifts might offer security for longer-term part-time workers, but seasonal work often depends on rapid, last-minute scheduling. If a grower cannot schedule pickers until they know the fruit is ready, or an events company cannot bring in extra hands until bookings spike, they may be forced to reduce the number of workers they engage at all.

The added liability on agencies will shrink the pool of temp placements, on which many seasonal workers rely. It is natural that agencies will become far more cautious about taking on temps. No doubt some will pull out of short seasonal contracts altogether. That means fewer people will be in short-term work, fewer people will be building experience in their first jobs and fewer people will have the stepping stones to full-time employment. The Bill will act as a hammer blow to seasonal work. Employers will hesitate to hire, and workers will lose the very flexibility that makes seasonal work viable. \p Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and he is entirely right about the impact on seasonal workers, but we should always look beyond the producers to the consumers. What will the impact be at music festivals and at all sorts of events—community events—all around the country? We will see higher prices and there will be less competition and choice. It is socialism in action—everybody losing, including society as a whole. \p Ashley Fox: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point with which I agree.

The combination of extra costs and extra regulations means that it becomes incredibly burdensome for small businesses to afford to take on staff. The above inflation increases to the minimum wage add further pressure, and that all has a disproportionate effect on industries such as hospitality and tourism.

My constituent Kathy owns a shop in Burnham-on-Sea, which she has run for 20 years, but the recent changes imposed by the Chancellor are making it harder and harder for her to operate. Kathy currently employs three 16-year-olds. Increases in the minimum wage and future changes to employment law will force her to stop the practice of giving youngsters their first job. There are only so many tasks someone of that age can be given, but now the salary increases and other changes will be prohibitive. Two of the three will be leaving, and Kathy tells me they will not be replaced. Is it any wonder that youth unemployment is rising? Many businesses will think, “Why risk it?”

Every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they started. Last July, unemployment was 4.4%; it is now 5%. That 0.6 percentage point increase may not sound like much to Labour Members, but it is an extra 282,000 people out of work and claiming benefits. I fear we have not reached the peak because while unemployment is rising, business confidence is falling. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor cling to their jobs, telling their nervous Back Benchers that it is them—and only them—who the markets trust. I have to say that that boast is not all it might appear. What it really means is that the alternatives  are so awful that they would tax, borrow and spend even more if Keir and Rachel disappear— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Member knows better than to refer to Members by name. \p Ashley Fox: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If the current Prime Minister and the current Chancellor were to disappear, all confidence in the Government would collapse. It seems that the Prime Minister has as much faith in his Cabinet as the rest of us have in him. It is unfortunate that the Government are comprised almost entirely of people of public sector, academic or union backgrounds. Precious few have ever operated a business. They do not understand how running a business works, and it shows.

There is another path that the Government could take, and it is not too late. I call on them to withdraw their Employment Rights Bill, to get rid of their “Benefits Street” Budget, and to lower taxes for hard-working people and businesses. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Andrew Griffith: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair.

We have heard from Members from across the House who understand a fundamental truth: that the hospitality sector is the cornerstone not only of our economy but of our society. It is a great strength of our parliamentary system that we all represent unique districts that are all, in one way or another, replete with high streets and hospitality businesses—pubs, restaurants and hotels—which we all wish to support. Members on both sides of the House have observed the importance of binding our communities together, giving people a warm place to stay—a refuge from loneliness—and keeping our high streets vibrant. Those are places where life happens.

As we have also heard, hospitality performs a vital and arguably unique role in providing the next generation with that vital first step on the career ladder. I imagine that many of us had our very first experience of the world of work—that priceless exposure that helps us become world-ready—in retail or hospitality. I certainly did, and we have heard many other such examples. The sector does that precisely because it is a feature, not a bug, that it provides flexible seasonal work that allows young people to earn their first wage, combined with other responsibilities or opportunities, and, in so doing, to learn the important dignity of labour.

As we have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends, pubs, hotels and restaurants in particular are hurting as a direct result of the Chancellor’s choices, not just in last year’s Budget but once again in this year’s Budget, which was delivered from the Dispatch Box just a few weeks ago. More than a dozen venues from my South Downs constituency have contacted me in the last 24 hours alone, having heard about this debate. Ruth and Martin at the Cricketers in Duncton described to me how their rates are going up by £4,500 to £5,000 a year—that is money that they do not have. The Fox Goes Free in Charlton has been a public house,  continuously serving the community, for over 400 years. Like every pub, it makes a huge contribution. Its business rates bill will increase by more than £13,000 next year. The House should bear that in mind when Labour Members talk about how they have introduced permanently lower business rates. That is a laughable idea. I have heard similar stories—and worse—from the Murrell Arms in Eastergate, the Half Moon Inn in Northchapel, the Labouring Man in Coldwaltham and the Onslow Arms in Loxwood. \p Graham Stuart: Tom, the landlord of the Kings Head in Hedon, heard on Budget day that business rates would be cut for businesses like his. Instead, the rateable value of that pub, which provides such an important service to the people of Hedon and the surrounding villages, has gone from £9,000 to £32,000. \p Andrew Griffith: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I would not want to incur wrath by accusing anybody of misleading the House, but that is exactly the same story that I have heard from the Bridge Inn in Amberley, the Star and Garter in East Dean, the Bricklayers Arms in Midhurst and the Black Horse Inn in Byworth. That surely cannot be a coincidence; these cannot be isolated examples of those “permanently lower” business rates— \p Anna Dixon: rose— \p Andrew Griffith: Of course I will give way. I look forward to hearing about how one should understand that statement about the “permanently lower” business rates that this Government have introduced, of which we cannot seem to find an example. \p Anna Dixon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to come and walk with me down the high street in Saltaire, where property valuations mean that many businesses will have lower business rates in absolute terms. Has he explained to his local pubs that that property revaluation has been hanging around for many years, but his Tory Government did nothing to implement it? That is the main reason why some of his pubs might be experiencing increases—it is due to property valuation, not business rates. \p Andrew Griffith: I hear the hon. Lady’s point, and I am glad she has found some examples—I note that neither in her intervention nor in her earlier remarks did she go so far as naming any of them, and I will happily take another intervention if she would like to do so. I have named many examples. The revaluation exercise on pubs is not some long-delayed exercise; it is a routine, frequent timeframe that the Valuation Office Agency goes through. This is not something that has been pent up for many years; it is just the process of revaluation.

When it comes to the rubber hitting the road of how much business rates are being levied on pubs, and how much cash will leave those stretched businesses that are struggling with all the different costs, what matters is the net effect of revaluation, this Government’s removal of the retail, hospitality and leisure relief that the Conservative Government put in, and of course the ongoing rate multiplier.

Every pub and hotel that I have spoken to in my rural constituency bears out precisely the figures from  UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association —we have heard about that many times today, and I know that they ran drop-ins earlier today for Members across the House. Tom Richardson at the Three Moles in Selham explained to me how the turnover basis of assessing rateable values has combined with the cost headwinds that this Government have amplified—I will be so kind as to imply that they did not all happen from 1 July 2024. Nevertheless, the choices that the Government have made, in particular the change in the national insurance rates and the changes to thresholds on national insurance, have enormously pushed up the cost of employment. On top of that, businesses are still waiting for the promised reduction in energy prices, whether for electricity or heating oil, because those prices have more than doubled in some cases.

Tottington Manor Hotel in Henfield has to find nearly £50,000 extra due to the changes that this Government have made to employment costs. It is no surprise—we heard this again and again from colleagues this afternoon—that pub and hotel owners are at the end of their tether. Nobody should want to preside over such a series of choices. One landlord told me that they have not been able to draw a wage from their pub for the last six months. Another told me how she was working seven days a week, 16 or 17 hours a day, just trying to keep the pub open.

As we heard from many colleagues, the cost of hiring staff has become so prohibitive that owners are having to cut back. They are not able to hire, support or sustain staff, and they are taking more and more upon themselves, stretching their working day and taking on more tasks, creating one of the doom loops in which, it is sad to say, this Chancellor so specialises.

We heard that from many colleagues who made contributions this afternoon, including my hon. Friend and near neighbour the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who spoke about the challenges on the island, particularly with seasonal work, and about how young people are hurting and how that is costing all of us in the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said that this Government are awash with policies, plans and visions, but words butter no parsnips and they do not provide the jobs that we need—least of all the Employment Rights Bill, which, as it comes down the line, will really hurt and disincentivise family businesses, with which the sector is replete.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) talked, as did others, about the cumulative effect of measures—tax rises, national insurance increases, higher energy costs and more red tape—rather than there being one single axe falling on the heads of businesses. We should listen to small enterprises when they say that it feels like the Government are not on their side. It is no surprise that pub after pub, hostelry after hostelry, is erecting a sign on the door saying, “No Labour MPs here”. I remember that the Minister said that he had not seen one of those signs, so I trust that people in his constituency will take that as a personal challenge to ensure that one such sign is brought to his attention in the very near future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said that this Government are doing that most terrible of things: preventing young people from getting on the job ladder through their first chance  of work. The Government weigh down precisely the sorts of businesses that do such a good job of providing those opportunities, and that is difficult.

My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), talked about the tourism economy. To all the challenges and headwinds that have come about because of the Chancellor’s choices, we can add the bed tax, which will increase the cost for anyone holidaying in the UK. It will deter people from enjoying the wonderful vistas of Bognor Regis, Littlehampton or the South Downs, and simply encourage people to go to other countries on holiday, following in the wake of the many young people mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, who are leaving this country, such is the dearth of opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) talked about the degree to which the hospitality and pub sector is already over-taxed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) made the really important point that all the burdens of family businesses fall back on families.

I am afraid to say that we are seeing nothing less than a full-frontal attack on seasonal work, and we see that no more so than in the unemployment Bill that was before the House this week. Like King Canute, this Government are legislating to outlaw seasonality and the rhythms of the tides. If a seaside café hires a student to wait on outside tables in the glorious sunshine, Labour wants the café to be forced to offer the student the same hours once the shutters come down in the autumn. It will mean the demise of strawberries and cream sellers in Wimbledon fortnight.

The Government’s plans will even mean the death of Father Christmases and assistant elf helpers in shopping centres across the nation, because there is little demand for a Christmas elf in January, February or March. This is bureaucratic madness, yet Ministers press on, deaf to the cries of those who would most benefit from the choice—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like what I am saying, but they do not have an answer. They should know by now that you do not protect workers by bankrupting employers; you do not support our high streets, communities, pubs and restaurants by taxing them into submission.

We Conservatives understand business. Unlike those in the current Cabinet, many of us have worked in businesses and enterprises ourselves. We stand with the risk takers in this country who create wealth, not the bureaucrats who seek to destroy it. That is why our motion supports seasonal, flexible and part-time working. We will take 250,000 high street businesses and pubs out of business rates entirely, paid for by the welfare reforms that the Government does not have the backbone to push through, and we will repeal all of the job-destroying measures in Labour’s unemployment Bill.

We back the engines of growth in our economy—the providers of jobs. This Government seek to push them to the wall. I commend this motion to the House. \p Kate Dearden: It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Government.

Let me start by saying that I will take absolutely no lessons on running the economy after what the Conservatives did during 14 years in government. Given that there have been so many references to songs and music today, I want to suggest a song that Conservative Members might want to reflect on. It is an Elton John classic: “Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word”.

I noticed yesterday that the Conservatives produced a Christmas video in which they claimed that Santa’s elves were seasonal workers—you couldn’t make it up! May I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), on his somewhat alarming AI skills? I would gently point out that if the Opposition’s reference point for the modern economy is Father Christmas’s workshop, that does explain a lot; although, frankly, I am not surprised. On Monday, the shadow Secretary of State repeatedly quoted figures on the supposed cost of the Employment Rights Bill from the Growth Commission. However, that commission boasts a Ms Elizabeth Truss as an adviser, so he will forgive me if I take any of his economic advice with a large pinch of salt.

Let me be clear. We on the Government Benches do not believe in pitting employers and employees against each other. No one wants a business to succeed more than the workers who rely on it for their livelihood. This Government will not indulge in the scaremongering so beloved by the Conservatives, and I will take this opportunity to clarify some of their misleading claims. But first, I want to acknowledge how difficult the past few years have been for small businesses, particularly in the hospitality, retail and leisure sectors. These sectors were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, by a botched Brexit, and by a cost of living crisis that has robbed the British people of their disposable income. \p Graham Stuart: Will the Minister give way? \p Kate Dearden: I will carry on and make some progress.

Let me respond to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). As many hon. Members reflected on this point, I will clarify that we are not seeking to return to or rejoin the customs union; we are focusing on trade deals with countries such as the US and India. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) demonstrated that so clearly in relation to our trade agreement with the US, which guaranteed thousands of jobs under Jaguar Land Rover. I will come to the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the youth guarantee later in my speech and respond to her reflections.

First and foremost, I pay tribute to all those running and working in small businesses, especially in such important sectors as hospitality and retail. I know from my own experience and my family’s experience just how hard that is. My first job was in a café in the hospitality sector; it was where I developed through my first opportunities. I became a manager there, and I absolutely loved my job. It was a really important aspect of our community, including for local people’s livelihoods.

My dad worked in the printworks growing up, and he was made redundant by his bosses under the watch of the Tory Government. I worked with my mum and dad, and took the opportunity that the hospitality sector  provided to them. It gave my dad the opportunity to set up a small business and run a café successfully for 14 years, and our family are so proud of that. He gave an opportunity to more young people in the community I grew up in, and the business was a really important aspect of our lives. I now have so many excellent businesses in my Halifax constituency, which I am proud to champion at the Dispatch Box and in government. That is why this Government were elected: to provide economic growth that will raise living standards and support vital sectors across our economy.

As the Minister for Employment Rights, I should say that this Government were also elected on a promise to make work pay. The UK’s employment laws are mostly a product of the 20th century. They have not kept pace with how businesses now employ people, nor with how people experience working life today. The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years; it is no longer the norm for employees to stay in one company or even a single sector for their whole career. New technology continues to rapidly transform how we work, where we work and when we work, and the rise of the gig economy has changed the certainty and stability that employment used to provide. The Employment Rights Bill takes steps to fulfil our commitment to bring employment rights into the 21st century.

Lots of hon. Members have spoken passionately about the Bill and its importance to them, as well as the experience that they bring to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) spoke powerfully about his personal experience of working in hospitality and about how he stands up for his constituents in the sector. He demonstrated the importance of the Bill in providing job predictability and security as a baseline.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke about the fair pay agreement and her experience standing up for care workers in her constituency and across the country, as well as about the importance of statutory sick pay for thousands more people across this country and the importance of the fair work agency. It is essential that we get this Bill on to the statute book and ensure that people can see the benefits it will bring to them, particularly through setting up the enforcement powers of the fair work agency. My hon. Friend also mentioned overseas recruitment. What matters in UK employment law and enforcement is where the worker is based; if they are based in the UK, then in general they have access to UK employment law, and enforcement agencies can and do take action no matter where the employer is based. I would be happy to talk to her if she has any further questions about the set-up of the fair work agency.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for her support. She made a passionate and to-the-point case for the importance of the Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury. I agree with every word that they and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) said about the importance of this legislation to working people and to brilliant businesses across the country.

The Employment Rights Bill will strengthen workers’ rights and lead to growth. Many British businesses already offer their employees benefits and protections  that far exceed what is in the legislation. The Bill will encourage those seeking employment, including young people looking for their first job, giving them security that they will be treated fairly by their employer. As we have said, we are not springing these changes on businesses; we are working very closely with them as we implement these changes gradually over a number of years. We will be consulting and working with them closely.

Lots of Opposition Members mentioned zero-hours contracts. Many people in the UK value the option to work flexibly, but some employers have taken advantage of that flexibility. We are determined to tackle the issue of one-sided flexibility, which can leave people unclear about when they will next get paid work and how much time they need to keep available for work. Of course, some businesses—including those in the hospitality, retail, agriculture and tourism sectors—experience fluctuating demand across the year. There are ways for businesses to plan their work that gives their workers a degree of security, which is why flexibility is already built into the Bill to address issues of seasonal demand. There are several ways in which an employer could approach this issue while complying with the new right to guaranteed hours, depending on their circumstances.

The right to guaranteed hours does not force companies to make seasonal workers permanent, nor does it force them to give unnecessary hours to employees; it gives workers the right to choose certainty and stability in their contracts where they want it, and helps them to budget and plan for their lives. I recently visited a brilliant business in Manchester and heard from one of its employees about the difference that guaranteed hours made to him and his work, allowing him to plan his bills and family finances and giving him stability in his livelihood. Having guaranteed hours was absolutely vital to him; it changed his life, and this legislation will change the lives of many other people across the country who are looking for that certainty and stability. \p Graham Stuart: Will the Minister give way? \p Kate Dearden: I have lots to make progress on, but I will give way very briefly. \p Graham Stuart: Would the Minister like to apologise to the more than 280,000 people who are not in work now, compared with the level of unemployment last year, and could she spell out how a business that, for example, provides catering at summer festivals and then ceases to have any festivals to service can guarantee hours to a workforce it does not need any more? \p Kate Dearden: I have heard lots of Conservative Members reflect on unemployment. What they fail to mention is that the average unemployment rate over their 14 years in government was 5.4%, which is substantially higher than the current unemployment rate. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from Monday’s debate, we have committed to consult on seasonal work. We will work with businesses, trade unions and all other stakeholders to get the legislation right—I will continue to listen and to work with them on the details. It is so important that we pass the Employment Rights Bill, so that we can consult and stick to our road map for implementing it. Many working people and businesses across this country want that certainty; they want us to crack on.

I will try to make some progress, as we are pressed for time. Several hon. Members—including the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage)—raised the subject of business rates reform, as did the shadow Secretary of State. This Government are determined to remove barriers to investment, helping our businesses to succeed, our high streets to thrive and our economy to grow. We are introducing permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 from April next year. This will give long-term certainty and support to the high street, in marked contrast to the previous form of relief, which created a yearly cliff edge and had to end entirely in April next year. We know that this tax cut must be sustainably funded, which is why from April next year, we are applying a higher rate to the most valuable properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above. Let me be clear: those properties represent less than 1% of all properties, but they include the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants.

Some Members have spoken about the raising of employer national insurance contributions in last year’s Budget. I have already mentioned the state of the finances we inherited from the Conservative party. That meant that we had to take difficult decisions to get the nation back on track, and one of the toughest decisions was to raise the rate of employer national insurance contributions, but we are protecting the smallest businesses from these changes, including many of those in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors. These difficult but necessary steps will protect our public finances and ensure that we can to continue to fund our essential services, such as the NHS and social care, and to invest in the economy.

Moving swiftly on, many Members have mentioned the visitor levy. Our mission is to kick-start economic growth and to devolve fiscal powers, and the levy is critical to that. Introducing a visitor levy provides mayors with a new lever that they can use to raise funds for reinvestment locally. We launched a consultation at the Budget so that the public, businesses and local government can shape the design of the power to introduce the levy that will be devolved to local leaders. They will decide how to introduce the levy and how it will be used to drive growth in their region. That is a historic step for English devolution.

I will reflect on some of the comments of the hon. Members for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool). I do not share their lack of enthusiasm for continued investment in this country under this Government. \p Luke Evans: The Minister’s amendment to the motion refers to

“a comprehensive vision for productivity and success”

for small businesses. It is incredibly similar to the amendment that the Government tabled in the high streets debate, but interestingly, what has gone is a reference to a 25% cut in administrative burden. The Minister raised the issue, but did not comment on whether the Government are committed to that 25% cut. Where does that figure come from, and why has it disappeared from this amendment, when it was in a previous one? \p Kate Dearden: The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), mentioned in his opening remarks all the steps that we are taking to reduce those burdens, and all the policies that we are introducing to back our small businesses across the country. On the point that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth made on investment, just last month J.P. Morgan announced its £3 billion tower. That is one of the largest financial services investments in recent years. Scottish Power has announced a £24 billion clean energy investment, which will create 2,000 jobs up to 2028. We are proud of that investment.

I will finish on the subject of the youth guarantee. Many Members have stressed the importance of employment for young people. There are more 18 to 24-year-olds in employment than a year ago. The Tories left the NEET rate rising and saw a colossal rise of almost a quarter of a million in young people out of work. We are determined to turn that around. NEET numbers are still too high, and lots of Members have rightly reflected on that. We want to give young people a brighter future, and that will be the impact of our youth guarantee. Our measures supporting young people to earn and learn are backed up by the evidence on what works. There is a national crisis of opportunity, and we are taking action in response —through the youth guarantee, the growth and skills levy, and, more widely, by interrogating the root causes of the issues, with the support of Alan Milburn.

To summarise, this Labour Government are on the side of working people and our brilliant businesses. We have boosted pay for millions of the lowest earners, and we are putting money back into people’s pockets. We are making work pay again in a way that suits the 21st century, and that will create security and opportunity for everyone, no matter their background. Most of all, we have a commitment to a core British value: those who work should be rewarded. As we put it in Yorkshire, this is about a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We are getting on with the job. We are focused on fixing the long-term damage to our economy, and setting Britain on the path to renewal. That is why I call on the House to support our amendment.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 325.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 98.

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).

Resolved,

That this House notes the Government’s strong support for small and medium-sized businesses, including those employing seasonal workers; further notes that the Government’s Employment Rights Bill will help seasonal workers by bringing the UK’s outdated employment laws into the 21st century; welcomes the policy paper entitled Backing your business: our plan for small and medium sized businesses, which sets out a comprehensive vision for productivity and success; further welcomes action to tackle late payments through the introduction of the toughest laws in the G7, helping SMEs maintain cash flow during peak periods; supports measures to cut energy bills for SMEs through investment in clean power and reducing levies; commends investment in high streets via the Pride in Place fund, boosting footfall for seasonal trade; also notes consultations to reduce burdens on hospitality businesses; and further commends targeted support through the Business Growth Service to help SMEs access skills, finance and growth opportunities. \p Saqib Bhatti: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I bring to the House an issue of grave concern. At Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister how many more teachers there were since the Education Secretary came into office in 2024. The Prime Minister replied that there were

“More than when the Conservatives left office”.

The Department for Education’s website makes it clear that the Prime Minister was wrong: there are 400 fewer teachers under Labour. This is more than an inaccuracy, and it is exactly why the public lose faith in our parliamentary democracy. Can you advise on how the Prime Minister can come to the House and correct the record? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. While the Chair is not responsible for the content of contributions made by Ministers, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard his comments this afternoon and, if an error has been made, I am sure it will be corrected as soon as possible. \p Caroline Nokes: Before I call the shadow Chancellor to move the motion, I remind Members that, as “Erskine May” says:

“Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of their opponents in debate.”

The reason that matters in this particular debate, and does not really occur in other debates, is that this debate is on a substantive motion directly relating to the conduct of the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). In this debate, because it is on a substantive motion of this kind, arguments intended to criticise or defend the Chancellor’s conduct relating to public finances are in order. Therefore, things may be said that the Chair would not normally permit in other proceedings. Those speaking on the motion should set out their arguments clearly. Intemperate abuse is out of order on this motion as much as on any other.

I inform the House that the Speaker has not selected the amendment. I call the shadow Chancellor to move the motion. \p Mel Stride: I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apologise for misleading the country about the state of the public finances, rolling the pitch for raising taxes, breaking her promises and increasing welfare spending, including her claim on 4 November 2025 that the OBR would be downgrading their productivity forecast which, as the Chancellor said, had ‘consequences for the public finances too, in lower tax receipts’, when in fact on 31 October 2025 the OBR had submitted its forecast to the Chancellor that showed tax receipts would be £16 billion higher than previously thought, resulting in the Government’s current balance target being met by a margin of £4.2 billion; further calls on the Chancellor to apologise for breaching the trust of the OBR, whose forecasts are shared in strict confidence until the Chancellor has given her Budget Statement; also calls on the Chancellor to apologise for the misleading briefings and leaks from HM Treasury in advance of the Budget Statement which caused uncertainty for families, businesses and investors; and calls on the Chancellor to apologise for breaking her promise after the last Budget that the Government was not going to raise taxes again, instead raising taxes in the 2025 Budget by £26 billion.

I will, of course, heed your remonstrations and remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is said that astrologists are there to make economists look good and second-hard car dealers are there to make politicians look good. It is inconceivable that anywhere in the world there is any trade or career that could possibly make this Chancellor look good. Indeed, one need only look at the polls. The Ipsos poll on the Chancellor’s approval rating shows that she has achieved minus 60%. That is a record low for a poll that was first commenced in the 1970s. A recent YouGov poll stated that the Chancellor was the least trusted on the economy, even more so than Jeremy Corbyn and, yes, Liz Truss— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. We do not refer to Members by name. \p Mel Stride: You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker; I meant to say the right hon. Member for Islington North and Liz Truss. The Chancellor is not so much the wilting lettuce as a complete liability. How could  this possibly have occurred? We have a Government who came to power with one of the largest majorities in the history of our country. One could almost see their majority from the moon. This has happened because of a huge failure on their part.

Let us take unemployment. Unemployment is now at a five-year high, back at a level last seen during the pandemic. The latest forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show unemployment higher in every single year than in the forecasts from back in the spring. The International Monetary Fund tells us that inflation will be at the highest level of the G7 this year and next year too. Looking beneath the headline figures, the rate of inflation for food is at almost 5%. For a party that claims and professes to stand up for the poorest in our society, that is a disgrace.

When it comes to growth, we know from the OBR’s latest forecasts that, for every year going forward, growth will be lower than the spring forecast set out. Our borrowing costs not so long ago reached a 27-year high, and we are now paying more on our borrowing than Greece. \p Gareth Snell: I congratulate the shadow Chancellor on finally working out what apologies are; I know he is demanding them from this side of the House. Before he carries on, will he apologise for the 15% spike in interest rates under Liz Truss, the thousands of pounds that were put on mortgages under Liz Truss, the billions that were cut from local governments under his Government and the fact that he ruined the health service under his Government? If people make mistakes they should apologise. When is he going to start? \p Mel Stride: I have had many things to say about the mini-Budget, both at the time that it happened and subsequently—and more recently too. Can I remind the hon. Gentleman that on the day of the general election, we had a near record level of employment and a near record low level of unemployment? We had the highest growth in the G7, and we had inflation bang on target at 2%. It is almost double that at present. The reason this Government have failed can be distilled to just two words: one is “deceit” and the other is “incompetence”. In the run-up to the last general election, the Labour party said that it would not put up taxes left, right and centre, and yet, within a few short months, they were to roll out £40 billion-worth of tax increases, including £25 billion by way of increased national insurance contribution taxes on employment. \p Graham Stuart: Will my right hon. Friend give way? \p Mel Stride: How could I resist? \p Graham Stuart: My right hon. Friend is right to put his finger on the issue of trust. It is not the 280,000 people who are not employed now compared with last year; it is not the lost opportunities for so many young people in hospitality or, indeed, the so many other areas of failure, such as the reduction in numbers of teachers. The issue that is most corrosive for this Government is a loss of trust, because we can see their mendacity from Mars. \p Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend is right. To be more accurate, we can see it even from Pluto. He is also so right about the loss of jobs in hospitality; about 90,000 jobs have been destroyed, many of them the first opportunity to get on to the career ladder that young people would otherwise have had. That is as a direct consequence of the increase in national insurance. It was not just an increase in the rate; it was a reduction in the threshold at which that tax cuts in. That disproportionately affects those on lower income, in particular women, part-time workers and, yes, young people. \p Shaun Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Natalie Fleet: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Mel Stride: I will in a moment.

We have seen the consequences of that up and down our country. I have spent a lot of time speaking to employers—from the large employers down to those on the high streets. They are all struggling and they do so because of the decisions that were taken by this Chancellor. \p Natalie Fleet: I welcome the debate and I thank the shadow Chancellor for giving way on the point about women. We are here to talk about the conduct of the most powerful woman in this country, who used her Budget to remove the rape clause, to take children out of poverty and to give justice to miners in my patch. That never would have happened without her. I welcome this moment to celebrate our Chancellor, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for it. \p Mel Stride: I thank the hon. Lady for that passionate intervention. The best way to get people out of poverty is through work. To the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the record of the last Government was exemplary. We had 4 million more jobs, and 800 new jobs every day under the last Conservative Government. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Were I not sat in a different place, I would be feeling déjà vu, because this appears to be the same debate that we had on the Budget just a week or so ago when I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that the problem we have is that two thirds of children growing up in poverty have a parent in work, when it was a third before the last Government got in. Will the right hon. Gentleman, who is a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, like to, first, apologise for that and, secondly, reflect on why work was not a route out of poverty under his Government? \p Mel Stride: I just ask the hon. Gentleman what he thinks the effect of increasing taxes on hard-working people does for poverty. Any economist will say it drives poverty up.

There is also the question of the farm tax, with the changes under the inheritance tax regime. In the run-up to the general election, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, then in his shadow position, looked the National Farmers Union president Tom Bradshaw in the eye and said that, at least on that count, farmers had nothing to fear from a future Labour Government. Well, that lasted about five minutes before they changed and the Chancellor changed her position.  That will cause untold misery to farmers up and down our country. It will mean that farms that have been passed down generation to generation over many years will now fall into the tax net and potentially have to be broken up. \p Dave Doogan: We know that there are serious questions over this Chancellor’s alleged experience in the financial services sector. We can see that she has no experience in either industry or commerce. Perhaps the worst of her detriments, however, is her clinical lack of empathy, seeming totally unable to connect cause and effect. That is why she has allowed the disastrous— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. May I respectfully remind the hon. Member that comments need to be about what is in the substantive motion and not wider matters? \p Dave Doogan: Indeed. In terms of that conduct and those decisions that have been made, that is most evident in the egregious family farm tax—a betrayal of the producers of our food, no less—and the, let us call it, management of market-sensitive information before the Budget, which had a material effect on the economy of these islands. \p Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman makes excellent points, and I will come to the issue of the market-moving effects of some of the comments made by the Chancellor. On the point that he rightly raises about the impact on people’s lives, these are real jobs. These are people struggling with real businesses. These are farmers getting up early in the morning, going out, working and doing what they know to be right, yet they are weighed down by the decisions taken by the Government.

Labour said that it had no intention of means-testing the winter fuel payment. There was no mention of it in its manifesto during the last general election, yet within a very short period of time, that is precisely what it did. Before Labour Members get excited about excluding millionaires and multimillionaires from those payments, the reality is that about 80% of pensioners living below the poverty line were impacted by that decision, which would have only entrenched and driven up poverty. \p Luke Evans: One concern that I have is the repeated pattern seen with the Budget. At the time, the Government sat on an impact assessment that showed that 100,000 pensioners would be pushed into poverty and 50,000 into absolute poverty. That was the Government’s own assessment, but they did not release it to the House or the country before pushing through the policy, which we have now seen in the Budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a pattern of behaviour rather than a one-off mistake? \p Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government talk a good game on poverty, but when it comes down to what they do, we see something entirely different. \p Sorcha Eastwood: On the point about what poverty means to our constituents, we are sitting in Northern Ireland with the local growth fund and the Treasury refuses to understand that the way we do things is different. We do not need 70% capital funding; we need it the other way around. That,  to me, speaks to some of the substantive motion that I am comfortable to speak to, which is that it sometimes feels that the message is not getting through. Whether it is on the farm tax or the winter fuel allowance, our constituents need a Government who will listen. They promised to listen, but so far that has not been reflected. \p Mel Stride: The hon. Lady is absolutely right.

There is another change to the inheritance tax regime that will be equally as destructive as the agricultural property relief changes, and that is the business property relief changes—the tax changes relating to family firms up and down the country. I have met many of them. These are sometimes substantial businesses that have gone from having a bright outlook under the last Government to suddenly being concerned about the provisions they will now have to make to avoid being broken up as a consequence of the ruinous changes to the inheritance tax regime for those businesses. This is destroying investment, jobs and growth. That is the story of the Labour party. \p Gareth Snell: On the right hon. Gentleman’s new-found concern for pensioners in poverty, the one time that the triple lock was suspended was under the Conservatives in 2021. I believe that he is on record as saying that it was unsustainable and should be replaced with a double lock. Is that still his position or does he support the triple lock? \p Mel Stride: I invite the hon. Gentleman to look back a bit further in time, before the triple lock was introduced by the Government of my party, to the time when his party was last in office. Under the last Labour Government, pensioner poverty was the fourth highest in Europe. That is why we brought in the triple lock—to clear up the mess that his party had created.

Labour also said, during the run-up to the general election, that unlike all socialist Governments in the past, it would not borrow and spend massively, yet the plan set out in its first Budget last autumn was to spend around half a trillion pounds more across the Parliament than under the plans it inherited. That was added to further in the recent Budget. Billions of pounds more are to be borrowed and spent. The consequences of that are that inflation has been stickier and higher for longer, as I have set out. It will be the highest in the G7 this year and the highest in the G7 next year. The consequences of that are that the Bank of England has had to keep interest rates higher for longer than it otherwise would have. The consequences of that—[Interruption.] Yes, there should have been more reductions—if the Government had not fuelled inflation, we would have seen interest rates coming down faster.

The reality is that increased borrowing costs have heaped pressure on people with mortgages and on businesses, and have added to the cost of servicing the huge national debt, to which the Government are readily further adding such that we are now spending £100 billion a year just to service our national debt, and that will rise to £140 billion, according to the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. That is more than double what we spend on defence. If debt servicing were a Department, it would be the third largest in Whitehall, but not one looking after public services or providing the additional teachers, which, apparently the Prime Minister does not realise are not there. This is money being spent simply on paying for the profligacy of the Labour party. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: I want to help out the right hon. Gentleman, because he seems a bit confused. On his party’s watch, the debt service exceeded £100 billion. When it took over, the debt service was only £30 billion, so his party tripled it. Will he apologise for mortgaging our children’s future as a result of the Conservative party’s inability to manage the public finances? \p Mel Stride: May I give the hon. Member a basic lesson in economics? In 2010, when my party came into office, we inherited a deficit at over 10% of GDP—as any economist will say, that is the amount of money being added to the debt every single year. It was over 10% on the watch of the Labour party, and that is the story of increased debt.

The debt pile as a percentage of GDP was coming down just before covid. Along with just about everybody else in the political firmament at the time of covid, the Labour party urged us to spend ever more to support the economy and to support jobs. That is precisely what we did, and of course that came with a fiscal cost. \p Gareth Snell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Mel Stride: Three times might be a bit too much—we will come back to the hon. Gentleman later. \p Jonathan Davies: After the global financial crisis, which hit every country in the world, the Conservatives inherited a growing economy in 2010. I remember that it said it would wipe the deficit by the end of the 2015 Parliament, but that simply did not happen. We acknowledge the huge pressure that covid put on the economy, but we are taking steps to get the deficit and borrowing down, because it is a huge burden on the economy. \p Mel Stride: The steps, as the hon. Gentleman terms them, that his party is taking to get the deficit down are to borrow ever larger sums of money—half a trillion more than was laid out in the plans that his party inherited, and that has been added to further by the Chancellor at the last Budget.

You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that after her first Budget, the Chancellor said that she would not be coming back for more tax, which brings me to the issue of her being misleading. That was clearly a misleading statement, because the recent Budget sets out that £26 billion more will be raised in tax in the year 2029-30. But £26 billion is not the extent of the increased tax rises. Because the Government have fuelled inflation, for the reasons that we have been discussing among ourselves, fiscal drag has dragged in a total of £38 billion of additional taxation in that year. The Labour party must start to understand that if it taxes and taxes and taxes the economy, it will get less growth, less productivity and less employment, and that is precisely what we are seeing.

The Labour party also said—if you recall, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the Chancellor would not be taxing hard-working people. Well, that simply was not true. By freezing the income tax thresholds for those extra years, the Chancellor is increasing taxes by £7 billion, which is a direct contradiction of what she said—with great gusto—in the previous Budget. She said that she would not do that because it would hurt hard-working people and that she would stick to her promises. Clearly, she did not mean it when she said it. \p Graham Stuart: I wonder how best this behaviour can be described—as a falsehood, an untruth, a fib, a lie or a whopper, or are there other synonyms that better describe the repeated failure to do what one promises? \p Mel Stride: I thank the right hon. Member for that observation. I have been cautioned by the Chair as to the language—“misleading”—that I use, but it was clearly misleading for the Chancellor to come to the House and say that she would not be putting up taxes and that this was a one-off, as she used the expression “wipe the slate clean”, and yet be back for £26 billion more only a matter of months later.

The Chancellor also said that she would control welfare spending. Well, how did that go? The first thing that Labour did was to scrap the reforms that we had brought in—in fact, from when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—that the OBR had scored as 450,000 fewer people going on to long-term sickness and disability benefits with a multibillion pound— \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Mel Stride: I think I have a jack-in-the-box over there. A jack-in-the-box is great to observe, isn’t it? I am not sure that is the case with the hon. Gentleman, but I might take what is probably the fourth intervention from him momentarily.

The Government scrapped our plans, with the result that 450,000 people who would not have gone on to those benefits are now heading exactly in that direction. They U-turned, of course, on the botched attempt to bring in their own reforms because perhaps some Labour Members sitting here this evening refused to back them. That cost about £5 billion.

We have seen that the terms of reference for the Timms review, which is looking at reform of personal independence payments, make it explicitly clear that there will be no attempt to manage down any of the forecast numbers for that benefit within the OBR’s forecast. Labour has given up on welfare reform. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Mel Stride: Momentarily—I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will come to him.

What Labour has done in the meantime with this Budget is to take entirely the wrong decision, which is to tax all those hard-working people to the tune of £7 billion—a high proportion of that to transfer straight across to those who are on benefits, including scrapping the two-child cap. Those are the wrong priorities. They are about the socialist obsession with redistribution, and nothing to do with driving the incentives in the economy that grow it and make everybody better off. \p Mark Pritchard: We heard from Labour Back Benchers about the previous Government’s borrowing, but that was for the country as a whole—for example, covid recovery loans. We have seen with this Budget what I would call career recovery loans, which are for the benefit of two people: the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. \p Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In her heart, I do not believe that the Chancellor really thinks the right decision was to scrap the two-child benefit cap—I genuinely do not. This is a case of the political or fiscal tail wagging the welfare dog; it is as simple as that. The Front Bench has given up on any serious welfare reform.

Of course, the Chancellor has reassured us by telling us that she has rebuilt her headroom. She has doubled the headroom against her fiscal target, though it should be pointed out— \p David Burton-Sampson: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Mel Stride: I will in a moment.

It should be pointed out, of course, that that is a fiddled fiscal target. It is not the fiscal target that we were working to—the same definition of debt. It is not net public sector debt at all; it is something different. In fact, if we were to apply the targets that we were running to, which were much more stringent, to the figures in the forecast that we see from the recent Budget, those targets would be underwater in every single year of that forecast.

We should acknowledge that there is now real risk to the stability of our economy, even with an apparently doubled fiscal headroom. The first risk is in defence spending. Although within the numbers, there is the ambition to reach 2.7% of GDP by 2027, there is nothing beyond that. Of course, the Government know that they will have to spend more on defence, and that every increase of 1% of GDP in defence spending is about £25 billion—more than the entire fiscal headroom that the Chancellor has set aside.

The Chancellor knows that part of the problem she had with the forecast—although other things moved strongly and positively in her direction—was the productivity growth downgrade by the OBR from 1.3% to 1%. The trend for productivity over the past 15 years has been just 0.5%. If the OBR decides in a couple of years’ time to return to an assumption of trend growth in productivity, that will wipe out £28 billion of headroom. It will destroy all the headroom and more.

Similarly, on the path of interest rates, a 1% increase in interest rates across the forecast would cost £16 billion. In relation to particular spending pressures, such as special educational needs and disabilities, there is of course a £6 billion cost pressure, because that spending will be taken from local authorities and put on to the Government’s books in 2028. How that additional cost will be met is not in any way accounted for. Similarly, apparent efficiency savings of £4 billion in 2029-30—the target year—are very handy if one is trying to hit a fiscal target, but there is no explanation whatsoever of where or how those efficiency savings will be found.

My final point is that the tax increases set out by the Chancellor are all back-ended. That is when the frozen thresholds kick in. We are expected to believe that, in the run-up to a general election, a party that has shown no resolve, backbone or capacity to take difficult decisions will suddenly find some backbone, stick to its guns and deliver those tax increases. That simply will not happen. \p Luke Evans: Nowhere is that more evident than in health, with the abolitions and redundancies in integrated care boards. Given that those redundancies cover 50%  of ICB staff, we now understand that the funding is just being reprofiled into later spending in 2028-29. Is that not exactly the kind of example that my right hon. Friend is talking about? Labour will encounter real problems in the next couple of years as it tries to drive through its agenda. \p Mel Stride: The reality is that back-loading tax-paying and squeezing spending, as the Government are doing, simply pushes off the inevitable. The evidence shows that, despite its huge majority, Labour does not have the backbone or a plan to control spending and take difficult decisions, even on tax.

The Chancellor is like Mr Micawber in Charles Dickens’s “David Copperfield”, who was just waiting all the time for something to turn up. Mr Micawber, as those who are familiar with the story will recall, not only ruined himself through his inability to manage his own finances, but ended up ruining another person, too. The Chancellor, with her inability to manage the public finances, will, I am afraid, be the ruin of our nation. For most of us, Christmas will be not so much a question of “Great Expectations”, but one of “Bleak House”. I give way to the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), who has been very patient. \p David Burton-Sampson: The shadow Chancellor wants to talk about fiction, so let us talk about the Liz Truss Budget. Before we do, though, imagine if the Chancellor had turned up to deliver her Budget with headroom of £4.2 billion—£2.2 billion below what is set out by the stability rules. That would have been fiction. But she did not do that; she took the fiscally responsible decision to create headroom of £21.7 billion, which covers us for future financial shocks. Does the shadow Chancellor not agree? \p Mel Stride: Well, no. The reason there is the obsession with fiscal headroom is that this is the Chancellor who set up too little back in the day, blew it all, had to rebuild it, blew it all, and has had to rebuild it again. That is why the markets are so sensitive to fiscal headroom. The fact that the Chancellor is now saying that she needs £22.5 billion as fiscal headroom against her primary current Budget target is evidence of the fact that she had woefully too little back at the time of the first Budget, when she had £9.9 billion. That is the moral of the story. \p Desmond Swayne: The political reality is that this Government have been dead in the water since they failed to get their very modest reduction in the rate of growth of the benefits bill through Parliament earlier in the year. We saw the ridiculous nonsense in the Budget when, having sacked and suspended Back Benchers after the previous Budget because they voted to end the two-child limit, the Chancellor came back with this great triumphal announcement that she was going to do it for them. May I entreat my right hon. Friend to give way one more time to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) so that he can give us an explanation of his socks? \p Mel Stride: I think the less said about the socks the better, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Gareth Snell: They’re more interesting than your speech. \p Mel Stride: Yes, not bad, but I have to say that the tie runs in a close second—that is pretty shocking too.

I now turn from the substance of the Budget to the chaotic pantomime that we had in the run-up to the Budget? We had every possible kite flown by the Treasury as to which taxes were potentially going up. We had so many kites that they blotted out the sun, and the long shadow of all that chaos swept across businesses who stopped investing, and consumers who stopped spending. Members should not take my word for that; Andy Haldane, the former chief economist at the Bank of England, observed that all that speculation made businesses and consumers “hunker down”. It had real economic consequences. \p Andrew Murrison: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point? \p Mel Stride: I will take one final intervention, and there is none better than my right hon. Friend. \p Andrew Murrison: My right hon. Friend is being very generous. The truth is that through dither, delay and changing their mind, the Labour Government in the run-up to the Budget had a real impact on people’s lives. Does he agree that pensioners in particular were encouraged to withdraw funds from their pension funds, which will have an impact on them for many years to come? What does he think of the remarks of Michael Summersgill, the chief executive officer of AJ Bell, who said that millions and billions of pounds were withdrawn from pension funds precisely because of the changing mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed before the Budget? \p Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why that behaviour was so irresponsible. There are people who would have drawn down on their pensions because they were extremely concerned about what was being briefed out by the Treasury as to what changes may be coming down the line, and about their ability to do so after the Budget. We also had people leaving the country because they were worried about an exit tax, which was another kite flown by the Treasury. That grossly irresponsible behaviour had real-life impacts in the real economy.

When it comes to misleading, there is much to consider in the complete mismanagement of the run-up to this Budget. That is not just my view. Indeed, a member of the Cabinet was quoted in the press saying,

“the handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish.”

The impression that has been given is that there was a deliberate attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of the public finances, designed to give political cover for Labour’s plans for more taxes and more welfare spending. The Chancellor delivered a pre-Budget statement in Downing Street on 4 November in which she said that the OBR would be downgrading its productivity forecast, meaning lower tax receipts, but she failed to mention that in reality the OBR’s forecast had already shown her four days earlier that overall tax receipts were £16 billion higher—not lower—than previously thought. To quote the OBR’s Budget report:

“In isolation, the reduction in productivity growth could have lowered revenues by around £16 billion in 2029-30. However, the boost to receipts from higher inflation and changes to the composition of nominal GDP growth…more than offset this.”

Ministers have pointed out that there was a need to increase headroom, but that was not the justification for tax rises that was being made before the Budget, and it is an admission that the headroom that the Chancellor left in her first two fiscal events was inadequate and irresponsible. Crucially, it also fails to acknowledge that a significant proportion of the increase in taxes was used to fund policy decisions to spend more on welfare.

On 14 November, the media were briefed that a plan to increase income tax rates had been dropped following an improved forecast from the OBR. We now know that that was simply untrue. The finalised pre-measures forecast came weeks before this, on 31 October. That is why it is vital that the Financial Conduct Authority investigates the briefings and leaks that went on, and I have written to it again this week on that matter. Even after the Budget, in a Guardian interview, the Chancellor said that income tax rises had remained on the table well into November,

“because we didn’t know the size of the downgrade, the productivity”.

Again, that is simply untrue.

We now know that at no point was there a deficit of the scale suggested to the media. We know that because the OBR felt it necessary to take the unprecedented step of publishing its forecast rounds in full. The question remains as to why Ministers seem to have been so unconcerned about what was appearing in the press, when the OBR has now revealed that the alarm was being raised before the Budget. The reality is that the briefings and leaks were a smokescreen designed to distract from the real reason that taxes were going up, the utter weakness of this Labour Government and the need to buy off their Back Benchers with yet more welfare spending.

In the process, the uncertainty and speculation fuelled by the Treasury had an impact on families and on growth. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) rightly pointed out, people made decisions about their finances. They locked in higher mortgage rates, and businesses put off making investments and hiring workers. The British public have been left worse off and they have been misled. They deserve an apology, and they deserve much better than this weak and irresponsible Government. \p James Murray: I thank the Opposition for giving me another opportunity to remind Conservative Members how the Budget cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.

I have seen the shadow Chancellor across the Dispatch Box so much in recent weeks, on what feels like a daily basis, that I might almost miss him over the recess—almost. No matter how many times I have seen him across the Dispatch Box, he has shown that he does not want to talk about the fact that this Budget takes £150 off energy bills, freezes rail fares and prescription charges, lifts 550,000 children out of poverty, increases our headroom to £21.7 billion, and gets debt falling and cuts borrowing in every year. This Budget invests in our NHS, our defence, our roads and our railways, and in every region and nation of the UK. The Conservatives do not want to talk about the substance of the Budget because they can see that the Chancellor has delivered a Budget that delivers for working people. \p Dave Doogan: I did not expect the Minister to give way. He says that energy bill payers in the UK are now £150 better off, forgetting that energy bills are currently almost £600 higher than Labour promised they would be at the election. Ofgem has come in with an additional £108 for infrastructure charges. Energy bills will go up again in January and again in April. Does he want to reflect on what he has said? Is that really the record on which he is standing? \p James Murray: I am unclear whether the hon. Gentleman supports our £150 off energy bills and our extra £150 off for those 6 million households on the lowest income. That will benefit people right across the UK with the cost of living challenges they face. We know that that is what matters to people right across Britain.

Instead of focusing on what this Budget means for people across Britain, we heard the shadow Chancellor’s comments on a motion that focuses so much on process. While I accept that process is very important, it has been covered extensively in recent weeks—indeed, most recently by the Chancellor in the Treasury Committee this morning—so let me put on record our response to the motion and to the comments that the shadow Chancellor made about process.

Let me begin by again addressing the speech that the Chancellor made on 4 November. When the Chancellor addressed the country that morning, her purpose was simple: to give the British people an honest sense of the circumstances we were facing and the principles that would guide her as she took decisions at the Budget. She wanted to highlight the challenges that our country was facing and her priorities in the face of those challenges, and that is exactly what she did.

Following the OBR’s review of productivity—the review of the impact of 14 years of the Conservatives being in power—the Chancellor knew that we faced a downgrade. To understand the scale of the impact, members of the Opposition need only to consult the Budget document. There, they will see that the OBR’s productivity review, which covered the Conservatives’ time in office, reduces

“the amount of revenue the OBR expects the government to collect by around £16 billion in 2029-30.” \p Graham Stuart: I think it is the dishonesty that is catching at everybody’s throat. A year ago at the Budget, the Chancellor said that she was not going to freeze income tax thresholds because—I think I quote—it would be an additional tax on working people, and therefore in breach of the Labour manifesto. A year later, she did exactly that, and then claimed that it was not a breach of the Labour manifesto. That is rank dishonesty. That is why Madam Deputy Speaker is allowing language that would not normally be used in this Chamber: because this motion and this Government mean we have to address issues that normally do not occur. \p James Murray: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. We have kept to our manifesto commitment not to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance on working people, and VAT. We also said in our manifesto that we would keep taxes on working people as low as possible, and we have been able to do that only because of the other fair and necessary choices that the Chancellor made on taxation. \p Graham Stuart: Will the Minister give way? \p James Murray: I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he supports our changes to council tax on high-value properties. \p Graham Stuart: On the issue of the manifesto, will the Minister confirm that it does not say that it would not raise the income tax rates? It just says that it would not raise those taxes. The word “rates” is not in there. It is that that is misleading. It is that that makes everyone outside throw things at their television, because they are disgusted by a Government who cannot face up to simple truths! \p James Murray: The word “rates” is definitely in there. The manifesto talks about the income tax rates and additional, main and higher rates of income tax, and it is very clear that we were talking about the rates of tax on working people. As I said, the manifesto also says that we will keep taxes on working people as low as possible. I note that the right hon. Gentleman did not take my suggestion to comment on some of the other tax choices we took at the Budget—the fair and necessary choices. The Opposition are picking and choosing what they want to refer to in the Budget. The Budget is a package. If they do not like it, they should explain what they would do instead. \p Mel Stride: On the matter of picking and choosing, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that on 4 November, the Chancellor did point out that there was a downgrade in productivity; we now know that to be £16 billion, and she knew that at the time. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that she did not mention—it was omission—the upgrade to the number, which was twice as much as that £16 billion, and that she thereby gave an inaccurate reflection of the state of the public finances at that time? \p James Murray: The Chancellor set out the productivity review that was under way by the OBR. In fact, if the right hon. Gentleman consults the OBR document published on Budget day, he will see in black and white that the productivity downgrade reduced tax receipts by £16 billion. The Chancellor was clear in her speech on 4 November that this, combined with the clear need to increase headroom to build resilience in public finances, would require everyone to contribute, and that is what happened. \p Mel Stride: rose— \p James Murray: The right hon. Gentleman had a very long time to comment earlier in this debate—I may give way to him later. \p Andrew Murrison: The Minister is a reasonable man, and I imagine that he would subscribe to the Government’s much-vaunted duty of candour that they are selling in their Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which is currently in Committee. The Bill is so important to the Government that the Prime Minister himself had to introduce it on Second Reading. Will the Minister examine what has happened over the past couple of months? Does he really believe that the Treasury, and in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can truly be said to have discharged that duty of candour in their dealings? \p James Murray: As the right hon. Gentleman should know, this Government take our responsibilities to public office incredibly seriously, and we have made sure we focus on that in the way we conduct ourselves in office. In speaking to people on 4 November, the Chancellor was setting out the challenges that we knew we were facing and the principles that would guide her in approaching decisions ahead of the Budget. It was important to set out the priorities she would have in taking her decisions on Budget day. \p Mel Stride: The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he accept that on 4 November, the Chancellor knew that there was an upgrade to the state of the public finances of around £32 billion due to additional tax, inflation and other factors? If he does accept that, could he explain to the House why no mention whatsoever was made of that fact by the Chancellor? \p James Murray: What the Chancellor knew when she gave her speech on 4 November was that headroom stood at a precarious £4.2 billion, and that was before previously announced policy measures had been accounted for. As I have said before in this House, and as Professor Miles of the OBR said to the Treasury Committee, that was a very challenging fiscal situation. If I had been at this Dispatch Box trying to justify a headroom of £4.2 billion or less, that would have been completely indefensible. Doing nothing was not an option—£4.2 billion of headroom would have been insufficient and deeply irresponsible.

In her speech at the beginning of November, the Chancellor was clear that she would seek to build more resilient public finances, with headroom to withstand global turbulence. She set out her priorities for the Budget, and those priorities were exactly what the Budget delivered. The apparent astonishment of Conservative Members that a Government could set out circumstances honestly, explain their approach and then deliver as promised is very telling—it must be an alien concept that they never considered during their time in office. As the Chancellor set out on 4 November and then delivered in her Budget, she wanted to cut NHS waiting lists, and that is exactly what we are doing. Waiting lists are already down by 230,000, with an extra 5 million appointments delivered since the election and 250 new neighbourhood health centres on the way. \p Antonia Bance: One of the things I am most proud of—having stood on doorstep after doorstep in Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley at the general election, hearing people tell the dreadful stories of how long they and their relatives had been waiting for hospital treatment—is the 45% fall in people waiting more than a year for their operation in the Black Country, in our hospital trusts. I am glad the Chancellor made the decisions she did in the last Budget that have enabled that. \p James Murray: I thank my hon. Friend for talking about the experience of her constituents. She is absolutely right that the NHS is so important to all of us, and it is so important for the Chancellor to protect it in the Budget. The decisions she took protect our investment in the NHS in order to get it back on its feet, which will improve people’s experiences right across the country. \p Christopher Vince: On the topic of the NHS, the point I made in the previous debate is really important. The investment in the NHS is not just an investment in buildings; it is an investment in people, including working people. I have lots of people in my constituency who are self-employed—sole traders, as we call them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those people having to wait years for an NHS appointment is bad for the economy and bad for their pockets? \p James Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that although improving the NHS is a clear priority, because of all of our experiences and because of our reliance on it to keep ourselves and our families healthy. Investing in the NHS is also an economic investment, because people being out of the workforce due to ill health is a serious drag on our economy—that is the situation we inherited from the previous Government. Our investment in the health service and our desire to get the NHS back on its feet is the right thing to do, not just for families across the country but for economic growth. \p Steffan Aquarone: Will the Minister give way? \p James Murray: I will give way one more time, and then make some progress. \p Steffan Aquarone: On the same topic, the way this Budget was handled has undermined public confidence in North Norfolk in many ways, few more so than the fact it produced radio silence on our long-pledged dental school at the University of East Anglia. Does the Minister agree that if the Treasury had spent a little less time on its fiscal fandango and more time on delivering dentistry improvements in North Norfolk, this Budget might have gone down better with many of my local residents? \p James Murray: I would take the hon. Gentleman more seriously if he spent a little less time opposing the decisions we take on tax to fund public services, because we are taking fair and necessary decisions on tax precisely to fund the NHS and the other public services on which we all rely.

I have set out at length what we are doing to protect the NHS, but the Chancellor’s second priority going into the Budget was to tackle the cost of living, and that is exactly what we are doing. At this Budget, the Chancellor chose to freeze rail fares for the first time in 30 years, to extend bus fare caps, to freeze prescription charges, to increase the basic and new state pension, to raise the minimum and living wages, to extend the fuel duty cut, to help more than half a million children who would otherwise live in poverty, and to save the average household £150 off their energy bills. As the Bank of England deputy governor told Members yesterday, this Budget will reduce inflation by between 0.4% and 0.5%.

The Chancellor’s final priority going into the Budget was to cut our national debt and Government borrowing, and that is exactly what we are doing. \p Sean Woodcock: The Conservatives have spent a lot of this debate saying that apologies are due from the Government, yet under them £11 billion  of taxpayers’ money was lost in covid fraud. Does the Minister agree that if an apology is due from any party in the House, it is them? \p James Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sorry seems to be the hardest word to say for Opposition Members when it comes to covid fraud, the state in which they left the NHS, the Liz Truss mini-Budget and everything they did to public services and our economy, writing off the next generation and vast swathes of our nation. They should stand up and say sorry.

The priority for the Chancellor at the Budget was also to make sure that we cut our national debt and Government borrowing. Because of choices that the Chancellor made at the Budget, borrowing will fall as a share of GDP in every year of this forecast. Net financial debt will be falling as a share of GDP by the end of this Parliament, and will be lower by the end of the forecast than when we came into office. As I have said already, our headroom now stands at £21.7 billion, meeting our stability rule a year early, giving businesses the confidence to invest and leaving Government freer to act when the situation calls for it.

Whatever mischief the Conservatives try to make and however personal they make their attacks, the truth is that the Chancellor was clear about the challenges the country faces. She set out her priorities in taking those challenges head-on, and she delivered a Budget that meets the priorities of the British people now and in the future. \p Paul Holmes: As usual, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is out here defending the Chancellor. I feel quite sorry for him. He has reeled off a number of policies that his Chancellor and his Government have made a choice about, but before the election, the Chancellor said that those choices would be on the back of a fully costed manifesto. Instead, taxes have gone up to pay for those choices, and that means that the manifesto was not fully costed. The motion therefore is correct, is it not, that the Chancellor misled the country before the election and in this Budget? \p James Murray: The hon. Gentleman said he feels sorry for me—he needn’t. I am proud to be defending a Labour Budget in this Chamber. Frankly, I might repay the sympathies to him: I feel sorry for him to be stuck on the Opposition Benches, where I fear he may be for a long time.

The other point of process in the motion, to which the shadow Chancellor referred in his comments, is speculation ahead of the Budget. Let me start by addressing the premature publication of the “Economic and fiscal outlook”. We know that the EFO is a highly sensitive document, which is obviously not meant to be published until after the Chancellor has finished presenting the Budget to the House. The fact that it was accessed online before she began her Budget speech was a serious matter. \p Louie French: The Minister refers to the accidental or deliberate release of this information, but we know that on 14 November the press were briefed, clearly with incorrect information. Will he confirm to this House today who gave authority  for that press briefing to go ahead, which misled not only the press, but the country? \p James Murray: I think the hon. Gentleman is incorrect in what he said. He said that I may have implied the premature publication was deliberate; I certainly did not. It is none the less a serious matter, which is why we are responding to it with the commensurate seriousness that it deserves. We know that the OBR rightly took responsibility for this mistake, and soon afterwards—while we were discussing the matter at these Dispatch Boxes last Monday—its chair, Richard Hughes, resigned. That, of course, is a matter for Mr Hughes, and is his decision. The Chancellor wrote to him to thank him for his professionalism and dedication. Many Members and I have made clear our gratitude for his work as a public servant. Nonetheless, it was a serious breach, and the Government are acting with seriousness in response. \p Christopher Vince: I read the OBR report with interest. One of its recommendations that caught my attention was this:

“We recommend that the process for publishing the EFOs…should immediately be removed from the locally managed website and conducted in an environment more appropriate to the nature of the task”.

May I ask the Chief Secretary, or his Treasury colleagues, to find out whether “immediately” means that that has been done? \p James Murray: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the OBR’s report contains a series of recommendations. It was, in fact, published within a few days of the premature publication. We are acting on its recommendations, including the recommendation that we should determine whether this has happened before, at previous fiscal events. While the OBR indicated that it might have happened earlier this year, at the time of the spring statement, it did not look into previous fiscal events, either under this Chancellor or under Chancellors in the last Government. We are looking into that to find out what happened.

More widely, beyond the EFO and the OBR, we put the utmost weight on Budget security, as I told the House last week. That is why, as I have told the House, a leak inquiry is under way, with the full support of the Chancellor and the whole team at the Treasury. In addition, the permanent secretary to the Treasury will conduct a review of its security processes, which will inform future fiscal events. The Budget security review will happen in the new year, and we will publish the outcome once it has concluded. More immediately, however, while recognising the seriousness of what happened with the OBR’s forecast, we remain fully committed to working with an independent OBR, and we recognise its vital role as a core part of our fiscal framework. The Government will soon launch a competitive external recruitment process to appoint a new chair, subject to the consent of the Treasury Committee. In the meantime, Professor David Miles and Tom Josephs will jointly lead the OBR until the new chair is in place.

I am happy to come here every day to explain the decisions that we took in the Budget in the interests of the British people. It is clear that the Conservatives do not want to talk about £150 off energy bills, freezes in prescription charges and rail fares, our investment in  our NHS, and the fact that we are cutting debt. They do not want to confront the fact that this is a Budget that not only delivers for Britain, but does so in challenging times. It is a Budget that invests in Britain, supports the NHS, helps people with the cost of living, and gets our debt and borrowing down. It is a Budget delivered by a Chancellor who takes challenges head-on, makes the right decisions for our country, and meets the priorities of the British people. It is a Budget from a Government who will not let Britain’s future be defined by the failures of Governments past. This is a Budget that we are proud of, and we reject the Opposition motion. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: It is a real delight to speak in this debate, because I honestly thought that I would not get the chance. There was a risk, I thought, that the shadow Chancellor might even filibuster in his own Opposition day debate, much as I enjoy his poetry readings and so forth.

We all know that the Budget process was a bit of a mess. It had more leaks than a sieve, lots of flip-flopping, and all the rest. By the time we got to Budget day, many of us were relieved that the process was over. But let us not pretend that this was all new. Previous Budgets had involved a number of leaks, and we all know that the Liz Truss mini-Budget must surely be the gold standard for sidelining the OBR. \p Clive Jones: What with the Chancellor’s flip-flopping on the Budget, the various leaks and the misleading comments about the state of the public finances, Labour is beginning to look as incompetent as the Conservatives in its running of the economy and the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour has let the public down, and must start being transparent with us all? \p Daisy Cooper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I agree with him: transparency is critical. On transparency, we Liberal Democrats think that it is time to overhaul this entire process. Colleagues will know that when Sweden faced a similar crisis in its Budget process in the 1990s, it overhauled the process, and it now has a system in which a draft Budget is published. There is a lot of time for it to be debated, and amendments can be tabled by Opposition parties before the process is concluded. The public would welcome such transparency; it would then be incumbent on the Government and all Opposition parties to set out how they would fund their pledges, raise revenue and manage Government spending.

These debates over the last few weeks have raised questions about the role of the OBR, and I want to put it on the record that we Liberal Democrats think that we should keep the OBR. It plays an important role as an independent organisation that can scrutinise the Treasury, but there is scope for more democratic accountability, and to tease out the divergence between forecasts by the OBR and the Treasury.

I am slightly perplexed to see that the Opposition day motion focuses on process, not policy, and that it promotes spin over substance. This Budget has levied stealth taxes on households and on our high streets, and has fundamentally failed to galvanise growth. Maybe it is obvious to people at home why the Conservatives have not tried to focus on the substance: because those stealth taxes were started by the Conservatives and have been carried on by Labour. The Conservatives failed to fix the business rates system, and Labour has not taken forward fundamental change. It is clear that both parties continue to refuse to go for growth with Europe.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) asked a very reasonable and legitimate question about why the Treasury has not said whether it will provide funding for dental training places in his county and for his constituents. That was a legitimate question to ask, so I was disappointed that the Minister tried to say, in response, that we have not supported his tax rises, when we Liberal Democrats have repeatedly, over the last year and more, set out the different ways in which we would raise taxes, including by reforming capital gains tax, looking at other taxes and a windfall tax on the big banks, as recommended by the Institute for Public Policy Research and endorsed by independent economists. We have also set out how getting a customs union with the European Union would boost public finances by £25 billion a year. [Interruption.] I understand that the Minister and those on the Treasury Bench who are chuntering right now may wish to level their accusation at the Conservative party, but that does not stack up when talking to the Liberal Democrats. \p Dave Doogan: Is the hon. Lady as frustrated as I am to hear the normally temperate Chief Secretary to the Treasury chuntering, “Do you agree with our taxes?”, as though there is only one way to raise fiscal revenues, and as though if we do not agree with Labour, we have got it wrong? That would be ironic, because there are many ways to raise taxes. Is she, like businesses across Scotland, concerned that this Government have taken £66 billion out of the real economy, with no care for what that will do to growth? \p Daisy Cooper: I am concerned about the impact of this Budget on businesses, and particularly about business rates.

We have been very clear that we are trying to be a party of constructive opposition. In last year’s Budget, it was clear that the jobs tax would raise £10 billion, once we had adjusted for spending, for rebates for the NHS and education, and for changes to behaviour—not the £25 billion that the Government claimed. We set out a number of proposals that could have raised that £10 billion. We Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government raising remote gaming duty in this Budget, because that was in our manifesto at the last general election. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) that there are other ways of raising taxes, and we hope that the Government look at some of our proposals, including our ideas for reforming capital gains tax, which would be a fairer way of raising revenue. It would raise more money from the 0.1% of the population who are super-wealthy. \p Graham Stuart: Let me make a point before the hon. Lady makes it herself: the jobs tax is a peculiarly misconceived tax. It is a £25 billion or £26 billion hit on  the real economy, with all the lost jobs that we have seen as a result, and it does not even raise much money. Looking at all the negative impacts in the round, it may actually raise even less than £10 billion. There is a £25 billion or £26 billion hit, and the measure potentially raises less than £10 billion. It is economic madness, and it shows why the Government need to think more deeply. \p Daisy Cooper: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the jobs tax has been damaging. I say to Treasury Ministers that the combination of the jobs tax and higher business rates bills will have a profound impact on the very small businesses on our high streets, and our high streets are critical to our communities. Most ordinary folk do not follow the statistics on growth, unemployment, GDP and everything else; when they walk out their front door and look at their high street, they decide how they would answer the question, “Is the economy working in our area?”. It is so vital that we support our high streets.

On that point, I genuinely urge Ministers to look again at the multiplier for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. They talk in a very technical way about one element of the bills and continue to say that the rates are coming down. They have come down by 5p for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, but Ministers gave themselves the power to reduce them by 20p. However, businesses heard “lower business rates”. They did not think about the technicality of how the rates are calculated; they just heard the word “lower”, and made decisions on that basis—but bills are now higher, and they are really struggling.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: we cannot tax our way to prosperity; we have to grow our way to prosperity. We hope very much that, as Ministers move ahead on this debate, they not only reform the OBR and Budget process, so we have more transparency in this House, but think again about going for growth with Europe. \p Christopher Vince: It is a pleasure to speak in this Opposition day debate. I would say that it is the first time I have spoken in a while, but I did so about two hours ago. [Interruption.] I am already getting heckled.

I thank both my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the shadow Chancellor for their different but equally engaging styles of beginning a debate. I was a little disappointed the shadow Chancellor did not give me any Shakespeare quotes, but he did refer to Dickens at the end. \p Gareth Snell: On Dickens, whom the shadow Chancellor mentioned, Mr Bumble, a minor parish official, was described as having

“a great idea of his oratorical powers and his importance”.

Does that suggest to my hon. Friend anyone in the Chamber? \p Christopher Vince: I thank my hon. Friend, but I must disagree with him, because my next point was to say, in all sincerity, that I am a little bit disappointed with the Opposition motion, which I feel is particularly targeted at an individual. I recognise that the motion is about the Chancellor’s position and does not name her, so there is an attempt to talk about the role that she holds, rather than the individual. However, I just do not like the way  that the motion singles out a particular person. I think it could have been worded in a way that made it more about the Budget process—but that is my view. I say that because I feel very strongly about the importance of political debate, but as I hope the Opposition have seen, I always try to avoid political attacks on individuals, and to be honest, the motion makes me feel uneasy. \p Dave Doogan: I share the hon. Gentleman’s appreciation of the fact that the motion is about the post and role of a Minister, not about a local MP and a person. However, while he is dishing out sympathy and empathy, can I encourage him to think of his constituents and mine who are disabled, who thought for the longest time that they were going to lose their livelihood until the Government U-turned on that policy? Can I encourage him to worry about family business owners, who now have no idea how they will afford to pass their local growth-generating business on to the next generation—not to mention farmers, who are now scared to die? \p Christopher Vince: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not think I could ever be accused of being devoid of sympathy. I became an MP because I genuinely and passionately care about making a positive difference to people’s lives. In fact, as Members across the House know, I previously worked in the charity sector and as a teacher. I got involved in those jobs because I wanted to make a positive difference to people’s lives.

One of the big things in the Budget—before I go completely off my speech—is the scrapping of the two-child cap. I recognise the concerns raised by Opposition Members about increased welfare spending—although, it went up on their watch too—but when I am presented with the statistic that over 1,000 young people will be taken out of poverty as a result of that policy, I find it very difficult to ignore.

On a lighter note, I would like to state—there will be collective relief across the House—that no members of my immediate or extended family have ever worked for the Treasury or the OBR. That said, like many Members across the House, particularly on the Labour Benches—I am glad that the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), mentioned this too—I value the work done by the OBR and, in particular, its independence. Of course, as many Members have mentioned, it is extremely disappointing that the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” was prematurely accessed by external users before the Chancellor’s speech on Budget day. I am really pleased that the OBR responded to that very quickly. In its own words:

“It is also important to note that the EFO contains market-sensitive information, i.e. information that is not public and could have a material impact on financial markets. This is why, in the run-up to the delivery of the Budget, any leaks concerning the OBR’s forecasts, whether accurate (as in this case) or inaccurate, whether inadvertent (as in this case) or deliberate, are to be greatly deplored.”

This is a good Budget for residents and families in Harlow, with rail fare freezes; prescription fee freezes; additional investment in our local NHS, which I have covered previously, and which had sadly been neglected; a rise in the minimum wage; a rise in the state pension—yes, a brief mention of my mother, who is delighted—and, for the vast majority of residents in Harlow who do not own a property worth over £2 million, no increase in tax.

We saw in 2022 what happens when the OBR is bypassed in the Budget-setting process, but we must ensure that the IT that backs up this non-departmental public body is fit for purpose and that such mistakes do not happen again. \p Graham Stuart: I think it was Gladstone who said that the first duty of a statesman is to be honest. Is the hon. Gentleman, who I think would be recognised across the House as someone for whom honesty is a natural state, entirely comfortable with the Chancellor cherry-picking the confidential briefing from the OBR in that 4 November speech and not setting out the full circumstances that she was then aware of? \p Christopher Vince: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the OBR was very confident that the Chancellor did not mislead in the statement she put out, and I am confident about that.

The Chancellor was consistent in her priorities for this Budget: tackling the cost of living crisis, bringing down waiting times and cutting borrowing. It cannot be right that £1 in every £10 is being spent on interest payments alone. We cannot go back to the austerity we have seen, with schools and hospitals that would literally fall apart.

I would like to finish with two quotes. The first is from Margaret Thatcher:

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means that they have not a single political argument left.”

And finally, to quote Dickens:

“charity begins at home, but justice begins next door”. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Dame Harriett Baldwin. \p Harriett Baldwin: I am the former Chair of that Committee, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I appreciate the chance to make a couple of additional points.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) set out an extensive case. In the speech I made right after the Budget, I mentioned that shenanigans had happened with regard to the Budget. I think we are beginning to find out a bit more about what those shenanigans were. The OBR has published a full analysis of the error that led to it publishing the Budget before it was delivered by the Chancellor.

On 1 December, the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility rightly resigned for that technical breach. I think he showed real leadership, and I thank him for his service. However, it has distracted us from a much more serious breach that happened. The Chancellor clarified this morning in evidence to the Treasury Committee that there are, apparently, two categories of leaks from the Treasury: authorised leaks and unauthorised leaks. We are going to hear a report from the permanent secretary about the unauthorised leaks, but I think the authorised leaks also need focus.

Let us face it: this all started in the run-up to the general election, when the Chancellor promised many, many times not to raise taxes. Then, in what was probably  one of the greatest robberies since Ronnie Biggs and the great train robbery, she managed to increase taxes by £40 billion a year in her first Budget, before increasing them by a further £26 billion a year in this recent Budget. \p Sean Woodcock: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Harriett Baldwin: I would love to, but I am going to try to really race through what I have to say.

There is a track record here of saying one thing and then doing another. What we see is a revealed preference from our Chancellor for tax hikes. She was unable to deliver the welfare reforms she sought, and she has been unable to deliver much in the way of savings from any Department, so she is always going to go for tax hikes. We have seen that in her behaviour, despite her assurances to the contrary.

I just want to point out how damaging all this speculation has been to decision makers in the British economy. These authorised leaks have led to changes in behaviour across the UK economy; people have made real-world, real-life decisions. Now we know that at every fiscal event during this Parliament the Chancellor will have a default position to tax more: to tax homes more; to tax cars more; to tax pensions more; to tax savings more; to tax jobs; to tax the farm that farmers want to pass on to their children; to tax anything she can justify.

That is the lasting legacy of this period of shenanigans, selective leaking and manipulating behaviour. I believe it has done lasting damage to our Chancellor, and we are right to condemn her conduct today. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. We will start the winding-up speeches at 6.40 pm. \p Jeevun Sandher: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. This is clearly a serious moment for our country—perhaps the most serious moment in a hundred years. We are threatened by existential crises: the affordability crisis, with the far right on the march; the climate crisis, with a planet that is burning; and a military crisis in Europe. Any one of those crises would pose a massive danger. On top of that, we are a nation that is deeply divided. The question for this House is whether the Budget will help us to meet those challenges. That is why I am surprised that the Opposition’s motion focuses so much on process, rather than on the things that actually matter to the country.

I have seen hard budgets before, in this country and elsewhere. When I lived and worked in Somaliland, it experienced the most serious drought in living memory. The choice in that budget was between feeding children and paying soldiers. I have seen hard budgets and Chancellors having to make difficult decisions. Now, as then, we are facing a difficult, existential and dramatic moment for our country.

The point about this Budget, and about this Government, is to help us to meet those moments. How do we make life affordable? How do we stop the planet burning? How do we prepare for war so that we can prevent it?  Those are the questions before us, and those are the questions the Chancellor addressed in this Budget. That is why we are here: to take each of those challenges in turn.

The first challenge is affordability. Yes, that is about taking £150 off people’s energy bills, but it is also about creating good jobs across the country by building the homes that we need. It is about increasing social security payments for the poorest people in this country so that children do not go hungry.

The second challenge is the climate. Of course that is about the investment we are making publicly and reducing emissions, but it is also about leadership. That does not just mean political leadership, with us saying to other nations, “Yes, we are doing our part to reduce emissions”; we can also sell our innovations around the world and help other countries reduce their emissions as well.

Finally, and most importantly, given the news that we are hearing from across Europe, this nation must prepare for war in order to prevent it. I remind Conservative Members that it was a Prime Minister from their Benches—perhaps this nation’s greatest Prime Minister—who spoke of the dangers of not preparing for war, of the years that the locust hath eaten, and of the things that his generation did not do. He spoke of those dangers, yet the most dramatic and destructive war in the history of humankind followed. I say politely and with good will to Conservative Members that perhaps those are the things they could have focused on today; perhaps that is what is important at this moment for our country. \p Graham Stuart: Britain is hurting: families are cutting back, bills are soaring, and inflation is twice the Bank’s target. Just last month, the Chancellor claimed that she had no choice but to raise taxes on working people, and in true Harry Enfield style she blamed the Tories, the Tories, the Tories—and, of course, the OBR.

On the subject of honesty—the thread that runs through today’s debate—it is worth me returning to my earlier exchange with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in which I said that the Labour manifesto did not specify that it was the rates of the taxes that would rise. I was quite wrong, and the Minister was correct. I would like to apologise to him and the House for getting that incorrect.

The OBR told the Chancellor in October that tax receipts were £16 billion higher than expected. She knew that but suggested otherwise. That is not spin or sophisticated political communications; it is deceit, and it does matter. \p Luke Murphy: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Graham Stuart: I have very limited time, so forgive me but I will not.

It matters because the Chancellor has a nearly £3 trillion debt to service, and because trust is everything. Because the policies that are being implemented and the promises that were made by the Chancellor are at such variance, the markets—unlike in any other western nation, I believe —have put a higher and higher cost on borrowing for this country. That has very real-world impacts. Investors  from Beverley to Berlin need to believe what the Chancellor says. After all, “credit” comes from the Latin “credo”, meaning “I believe”. If that belief falters, borrowing costs rise and more of our taxes go to paying lenders instead of funding the priorities of the British people. When trust goes, growth goes. Investors hesitate, businesses hold back and families feel the pinch.

The Chancellor appears to have learnt nothing from last year’s Budget of broken promises. It was a Budget that brought higher unemployment, fewer businesses and lower growth. She did not learn from that first exercise. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) pointed out, the weakness of the jobs tax is not just that it will hurt growth; it does not even raise much money. It was peculiarly poorly thought through.

This year’s Budget repeated more of the same. The British people know that the way to tackle the cost of living is by getting people into work, not increasing the number of people on welfare; and by creating opportunity, not dependency. But Britain has a Chancellor who talks about helping working people while making it harder to work, to save and to succeed—and throwing the OBR under the bus while she is at it. That is not a vision for the future, and it is certainly not leadership; it is fantasy dressed up as policy, and the people of Beverley and Holderness can see right through it.

Labour came to power promising change. Unfortunately, change has been delivered, but it is not what we were promised. We have 280,000 more people on the unemployment register, more than 200,000 businesses have closed, and 5,000 people are signing off sick every single day, because of the decisions made by this Labour Government. People are angry about the impact of Labour policy, but my constituents tell me that they are particularly angry about feeling misled. I hope I have shown my own candour in addressing my earlier error, for which I apologise again. Can we Members of this House try to speak honestly and accurately, and not gaslight or mislead? \p Judith Cummins: I call James Wild to wind up. \p James Wild: This is a rare and serious conduct motion that calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apologise for misleading the country about the state of the public finances, breaking promises on tax and breaching the OBR confidentiality process—in short, for not being straight with the British people.

I was expecting to refer to more contributions this afternoon, but it has been a slightly curtailed debate. [Interruption.] We had the comprehensive introduction from my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. The hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) were surprised and disappointed that the Chancellor is being held to account not for her personality, but for her conduct. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just said, this debate is about honesty, trust and confidence and what happens as a result, and about the “shenanigans”, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) put it.

On Times Radio this morning, the shadow Chancellor was asked why this debate matters. It matters because the deliberate briefing and misrepresentation of the  Budget has damaged workers, savers, pensioners and investors. Let us start with the simple truth: this Government and the Chancellor spun false narratives about the public finances to justify their political choices to increase welfare spending. \p Peter Swallow: During the Budget debate, I asked the shadow Chancellor whether he would address the fact that, on multiple occasions, he referred to the public finances in a fantastically negative tone that appeared far from the truth that was revealed at the Budget, suggesting at one point that there was a £40 billion black hole in the public finances. As the shadow Minister says that we were not being straight with the public about the state of the public finances, will he take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of his colleague for doing just that? \p James Wild: If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the whole debate, he would have had the opportunity of the opening 45-minute speech to put that to my right hon. Friend.

What happened as a result of all the policy kites that were flown? Pensions were drawn down, fewer mortgages were approved and investment was paused. That is not my verdict; the Bank of England warned that the economy was heading for slowdown as a result of the uncertainty, the British Chambers of Commerce said that that uncertainty affected investment and recruitment, and hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions. Those are the real impacts of that activity—the shenanigans—and there is genuine anger across the country at the damage such uncertainty caused. The Chancellor must take responsibility because she is responsible for that uncertainty.

People are already cynical about politics, but what could do more to undermine trust than abusing the OBR process to cook up a story to make a case for higher taxes that were not needed? It is the Chancellor who is at the centre of misleading the country. On 4 November, she staged that unprecedented press conference to roll the pitch for tax rises. \p Luke Murphy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p James Wild: I will not. In breach of the confidentiality rules, the Chancellor warned that the OBR productivity downgrade meant lower tax receipts. Indeed it did, but the OBR report makes it clear that that downgrade was more than addressed by higher tax receipts. In other words, there was no black hole. The Chancellor had the numbers and she knew the position. Now we know what she said was simply not true. Instead, she crafted a narrative to justify decisions to increase taxes to fund higher welfare spending.

On 13 November, the Financial Times reported that the Chancellor had decided against the much-briefed income tax increases. The next day, after the gilt market had responded badly, journalists were briefed that the tax rises would not happen thanks to an improved fiscal forecast. Yet that is not what the OBR pre-financial measures said. Little wonder the OBR took that  extraordinary step of publishing the forecasts, exposing the truth that there was no giant deficit, as briefed to the press.

The OBR said it took that action to address misconceptions about the forecasts. Where might such misconceptions come from? We do not need to be Sherlock Holmes to identify the Treasury as the culprit. \p Luke Murphy: The OBR told the Treasury Committee, on which I sit, that the narrative that the Chancellor set out on 4 November was consistent with the forecast at that time. When the OBR made that point, was it right or wrong? Are you questioning what the OBR said? \p James Wild: I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker is not questioning anyone. I am pointing out that the Chancellor said that there was a big £16 billion downgrade from the productivity—that was all offset—but she did not mention that—[Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene to say that she did mention that on 4 November, I will give way. She did not. She did not at all.

Yesterday, when the Chancellor was asked in the House if she had authorised or allowed confidential details of the Budget or forecasts to be briefed to the press, she gave a categorical no. If the Chancellor did not license briefings, can the Minister give a cast-iron commitment that no other Ministers, special advisers or officials in the Treasury or No. 10 briefed or authorised briefings about potential measures or the forecasts? Frankly, if you believe that all of those were unauthorised briefings, the Treasury is utterly out of control and I have a bridge to sell you. There is a leak inquiry, but the permanent secretary said today that it centres on 13 November, not on the tsunami of tall tales on potential Budget measures. Why might that be, I wonder. Nothing less than a full inquiry, with the findings made public, will do.

That brings us to the broken promises referred to in the motion. A year ago, the Chancellor delivered the biggest tax-raising Budget in modern history, hitting the British people with £40 billion of tax rises. Then in this Budget, taxes were increased yet again, by £26 billion, despite the Chancellor promising not to come back for more. Life comes at you fast. A year ago, the Chancellor also said that extending the freeze on income tax thresholds

“would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

Do Labour Members remember her saying that? I certainly do. She said that she would not freeze the thresholds. Then what did she do? Oh, she froze the thresholds. She imposed a three-year extension, with £23 billion coming out of the pockets of 1.7 million people who will pay higher taxes for her failures. As the motion says, the Chancellor should apologise for breaking her promise not to raise taxes again.

What Chancellors say matters. The public and the markets need to believe them, and to trust that they are not being misled. That is not the case around the events of this Budget. That is why this motion calls on the Chancellor to apologise for the misleading picture she presented of the public finances, for the Treasury briefings that did so much damage to businesses and to people, and for breaking her promise not to increase taxes.  Frankly, in the face of such a charge sheet, an apology is the very least that the British public deserve. I commend this motion to the House. \p Dan Tomlinson: I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), for his earlier remarks, which framed today’s debate rather well. As he set out, we have here an Opposition day debate, a chance for Members to really interrogate Government policy, to challenge our decisions, to say what they would do differently and to paint a picture of the kind of country that they would build if they were in charge. Oh, what a sight it would be! In short, an Opposition day debate is a chance to be a serious Opposition, but as my right hon. Friend set out in his opening remarks, they have not chosen to do that, instead preferring to rehash their already discredited complaints about process, which we have already addressed extensively, rather than talk about the Budget. \p Gareth Snell: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Tomlinson: I am going to make some progress, if that is okay, because my hon. Friend will know that many other Members have not yet spoken and I might give way to them later.

It is worth recounting just how many times Conservative Members have chosen in the last few days to major on process rather than policy. They are very interested in what was said by whom and on what day, so let us recount it. On Wednesday 26 November, the Leader of the Opposition, in response to the Budget, raised process multiple times, introducing to Hansard the somewhat intriguing phrase “fiscal fandango”. No, me neither! Admittedly, this was immediately after the OBR had dumped the Budget just before the Chancellor stood up, so that is fair.

But then the Tory process paso doble—two can play at this game—really began. Thank you, everyone! On 27 November, the shadow Chancellor raised process in a Budget debate. On 2 December, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury raised it in a Budget debate. On 3 December, the Leader of the Opposition raised it at Prime Minister’s questions. This was the same day that the Opposition called an urgent question on the resignation of the chair of the OBR, which had coincidentally happened during a statement two days earlier by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the OBR and its forecast. Yesterday, the Opposition Front Bench raised this at Treasury orals, and today we are having an Opposition day debate on the same topic after the Chancellor took questions on it this morning in the Treasury Committee.

All this political dancing has denied the Opposition the chance to scrutinise the Budget. I am not sure how much of it they have read. Let me remind them that the Budget will cut the cost of living, raise pay for those earning the least and invest in our NHS. It meets our fiscal rules and delivers £21.7 billion of headroom. It is a Budget that delivers on the promise of this Government and delivers for the British people. By contrast, the Opposition are stuck in the past, playing the songs of old again and hoping for a new audience. \p Shaun Davies: There are 4,600 reasons in my constituency why this Budget is the right thing to do: 4,600 children who will be lifted out of poverty by the Budget. On the basis of the Opposition’s remarks, it is my understanding that the Conservative party would plunge those 4,600 children back into poverty as part of a £46 billion welfare cut if it were to win the next general election—as well as potentially scrapping the triple lock. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is morally bankrupt? \p Dan Tomlinson: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a strong advocate of ensuring that we do all we can to support people, lift people out of poverty, and grow our economy and our towns and cities across the country.

By contrast, the Opposition are stuck in the past, playing the songs of old again and hoping for a new audience. After a year and a half on the Opposition Benches, the Conservative party knows that all it has to offer the country is the same as it offered before: a reheated and not renewed set of Conservative policies, tax cuts for the wealthy, wages held down for the poorest, cuts to public services and a rise in child poverty.

The problem is not just that the Conservative party is playing the old tunes but that half the old band has jumped ship to join the more extreme party, which has not even bothered to show up to this debate. I do not know how the band will manage to perform without the likes of the hon. Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), Jonathan Gullis, Dame Andrea Jenkyns, Nadine Dorries, Ann Widdecombe, Sir Jake Berry, Mark Reckless, Maria Caulfield and Marco Longhi—those are just the Tory-to-Reform switchers I have heard of. There are many more who I think are probably as well known as I am, so I do have a soft spot for them. For completeness, let me remind the House of their service and their defection, too: Lia Nici, Chris Green, Anne Marie Morris, Graham Simpson, Adam Holloway, Alan Amos— \p Graham Stuart: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last time I checked, this debate was supposed to be about the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know the Minister is relatively new to the Dispatch Box; perhaps he may need a little guidance. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure the Minister has heard it and will return to his speech. \p Dan Tomlinson: Indeed; I heard the point of order loud and clear. It is worth remembering that this is an Opposition day debate—I think it is within the remit to talk about the Opposition and the fact that they have lost all their players to the other team.

I also think it is time to move on from talking about process, because on this side of the House, we have a country to run, an economy to build and public services to mend. Instead of this subject, we could have talked about whether it is right to raise wages for those on the lowest incomes, but the Opposition did not want to bring that up. Maybe that is because wages have risen faster in the first 10 months of this Government than they did in the first decade of the Conservative Government, or maybe it is because it turns out that their latest policy is a real-terms cut to the living wage. We could have talked about the cost of living, but again, the Conservatives did not choose that as a topic because its mini-Budget  crashed the economy and added thousands of pounds to mortgages, and since this Government have come to power, the Bank of England has cut interest rates. \p Rachel Hopkins: The Minister makes a point about the previous disastrous mini-Budget of September 2023. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), said at that time,

“I welcome much in this statement. There is a great deal that will help millions of families and businesses up and down the country.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 942.]

Does the Minister agree that the reason the right hon. Member focused on process is that his judgment on policy is so poor? \p Dan Tomlinson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Too many Conservative Members defended the mini-Budget, which crashed the economy and added thousands of pounds to mortgages. In contrast, since this Government have come to power, the Bank of England has cut interest rates five times, taking £1,200 off a typical two-year fixed rate mortgage. At this Budget, we cut £150 from the average energy bill, froze rail fares and prescription charges, and extended bus fare caps and fuel duty cuts, but the Conservatives do not want to talk about that either. They could have chosen in their Opposition day debate to talk about fiscal stability and increased headroom, but again, they chose not to do that because of the £21.7 billion of headroom that the Chancellor secured at the Budget, which will help protect our country from global shocks and unforeseen challenges.

Of course, the Conservatives do not want to talk about child poverty either because they know that this Budget has lifted 550,000 children out of poverty, whereas the last Government were content to leave them, preferring instead to rebrand the hungry children who they let down while in power as benefit scroungers. They should be treated as our future, not as our opponent.

I have a couple more minutes, so let me address some of the points made during the debate. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for engaging on policy. We have had conversations on business rates already this week, and I am sure that we will have more. We have begun the work to rebalance the system with a £900 million switch from the highest value properties to those on the high streets.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his Thatcher quote. It was a good quote that bears repeating. She said,

“I always cheer up immensely…if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

I thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) for going through every single tax change and saying that she opposes them all. That is the sort of opposition we have got used to. Rather than constructive opposition, which comes forward with proposals that would raise revenue in a fair way, such as the changes on electric vehicle excise duty, which will stop us losing £12 billion of fuel duty revenue in the coming years, we just hear, “No, no, no,” over and over again. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for  Loughborough (Dr Sandher). His experience in economics is richly valued in this place, and I enjoyed his speech, as I always do.

Finally, it has been a short debate, has it not, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am glad that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) took the time during the debate to read the Labour manifesto—that was much appreciated—and that he was able to clarify for the House that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was right to say that we have stuck to our manifesto commitment. \p James Wild: To bring the Minister back to the debate, it is about honesty and the real-world consequences of the briefing that happened around the Budget. Does the Treasury accept that hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions, which is an irrevocable decision—yes or no? \p Dan Tomlinson: What the Treasury does accept is that at this Budget, the Government had to make the decisions to ensure that we could increase our fiscal stability and get borrowing falling in every single year. The previous Government were not able to control our public finances, and yet in every year of this forecast, borrowing will be falling, and we have more than doubled our headroom to £21.7 billion. \p Scott Arthur: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Tomlinson: Go on—that’s helpful. \p Scott Arthur: I always try to be helpful, and I thank the Minister for giving way.

There was a lot of speculation about the Budget, but a lot of that came from the Opposition Benches. Every single clickbait headline was repeated in the Chamber to fuel speculation. It was incredibly damaging—does the Minister not agree? \p Dan Tomlinson: I agree that the Opposition are incredibly damaging for the economy.

The clean-up operation of the disaster zone that was the last 14 years is well and truly under way. Our economic plan is working, with growth up, employment up, interest rates down and borrowing falling, with a Labour Budget focused on the British people delivered by a Labour Chancellor making the fair and right choices. We reject this absurd monologue of emotion from the Conservatives, and we will stick to our plan for a better Britain.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 30 October, be approved.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question agreed to. \p Wes Streeting: With permission, Madam Speaker Deputy, I shall make a statement on industrial action by resident doctors. I thank you, Mr Speaker, business managers and the official Opposition for facilitating this evening’s statement.

As we head into winter, our hospitals are running hot and the pressures on the NHS are enormous. Flu season has come earlier, with a sharp rise in cases and the peak still to come, and this year’s strain is more likely to affect older people more severely. Already, the number of patients in hospital in England with flu is the highest on record at this point in the year. It is 50% higher than this time last year and 10 times higher than in 2023. Some 95% of hospital beds are occupied, growing numbers of staff are off sick and we are already seeing the pressure in our A&E departments. It is against that backdrop that the British Medical Association is threatening to douse the NHS in petrol, light a match and march its members out on strike. This represents a different magnitude of risk to previous industrial action.

The BMA resident doctors committee is in dispute on two issues: pay and jobs. On pay, resident doctors have already received a 28.9% pay rise—the highest in the public sector. For a first-year resident doctor, that is the equivalent of a £9,400 pay rise. I have been consistent, honest and up front with resident doctors that we cannot go further on pay this year. There is a gap between what the BMA is demanding and what the country can afford. Nor would further movement on pay be fair to other NHS staff, for whom I am also responsible and many of whom will never in their careers earn as much as the lowest-paid doctor. As I have made clear to the BMA and other trade unions, I am open to discussing multi-year pay deals with any trade union if we stand a chance of bridging the gap between affordability and expectations.

On jobs, I have much more sympathy with the BMA’s demands. I have heard the very real fears that resident doctors across the country have about their futures; it is a legitimate grievance that I agree with. My Conservative predecessors created training bottlenecks that threatened to leave huge numbers of resident doctors without a job. In 2019, there were around 12,000 applicants for 9,000 specialty training places. This year, that number has soared to nearly 40,000 applications for 10,000 places.

It used to be the case that UK graduates competed among themselves for specialty roles; now, they are competing against the world’s doctors. That is a direct result of the visa and immigration changes made by the previous Conservative Government post-Brexit, and it is compounded by the Conservatives’ decision to increase the number of medical students without also increasing the number of specialty training places.

Taxpayers spend £4 billion training medics every year—we then treat them poorly, and some leave to work abroad or in the private sector. It is time that we protect our investment and give bright, hard-working UK medical graduates a path to becoming the next generation of NHS doctors. Our 10-year plan for health set out our commitment to provide that path. It pledged  to introduce 1,000 extra specialty training places and prioritisation of medical graduates from the UK and Ireland.

Today, in an offer to resident doctors, I can announce that I am able to go further. I want to thank Sir Jim Mackey, the chief executive of the NHS, and his team, who have been going trust by trust to see how many extra places can be funded and are needed. Thanks to their hard work, I am in a position today to be able to offer 4,000 specialty places for resident doctors, starting with an additional 1,000 for those applying this year.

In the Department of Health and Social Care, we have been working intensively on UK graduate prioritisation. The barriers have been legal ones, so I have been working intensively with my team to see how quickly we could introduce legislation. Thanks to their efforts, the co-operation of colleagues across Government, and my counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I can notify the House tonight that, subject to the agreement of resident doctors, we intend to introduce urgent primary legislation in the form of a Bill to be presented to Parliament in the new year.

The legislation will prioritise graduates from UK medical schools over applicants from overseas during the current application round and in all subsequent years. The reforms will also prioritise doctors who have worked in the NHS for a significant period for specialty training. This will not exclude international talent, who will still be able to apply to roles and continue to bring new and vital skills to our NHS, but it will return us to the fair terms on which home-grown medics competed before Brexit. The impact of these changes is that instead of four doctors competing for every training post, it will now be fewer than two doctors for every place. That is a good deal for doctors.

Following discussions with the BMA, we are also addressing the specific costs faced by resident doctors that do not apply to other NHS staff. Although I cannot go further on pay this year, I am able to offer today to put money back in resident doctors’ pockets by reimbursing royal college portfolio, membership and exam fees, with the latter backdated to April. The allowance for less-than-full-time resident doctors—many of whom are parents and carers—will be increased by 50% to £1,500, helping to close the gender pay gap.

In recent days, I formally made this offer to the BMA resident doctors committee. The BMA will now survey its members in the coming days on whether to accept this offer and end its dispute with the Government. The BMA told us that it will survey its members quickly and give us less than 48 hours’ notice of whether the strikes are going ahead. That presents serious operational challenges for NHS leaders, who need certainty now as to whether they are cancelling patient appointments and cancelling staff annual leave to cover strikes.

In my determination to prevent the havoc that strikes would cause this Christmas, I therefore made one more offer to the BMA, which I will now share with the House, the country and frontline doctors. So that the BMA could run a genuine ballot of its members and call off next week’s strikes while that ballot ran, I offered to extend its strike mandate. This would have allowed enough time for the BMA to reschedule next week’s strikes for the end of January, were the offer to resident doctors rejected in a ballot. It would have avoided the chaos that looming strike action threatens at the most  dangerous time of year by removing the spectre of strikes next week. I knew that extending the BMA’s strike mandate would leave me open to attack from political opponents; that was a risk I was willing to take to stop the Christmas strikes going ahead. Madam Deputy Speaker, I must report to the House that the BMA’s leadership said no.

In the coming days, as the NHS prepares for strike action that may or may not happen, there are patients whose operations will be cancelled. There are NHS staff who will have to tell their families that they will not be home for Christmas because they have to cover for their resident doctor colleagues. This was entirely avoidable—no one should be in any doubt that the BMA has chosen to play politics with people’s lives this Christmas, and to continue holding the spectre of strikes over the NHS. I ask resident doctors to bear that in mind when they cast their votes.

The power to end these strikes now lies in the hands of doctors. Resident doctors face a choice: to continue the damaging industrial action in which everyone loses, or to choose more jobs, better career progression, more money in their pockets and an end to strikes. The deal that is on offer would mean emergency legislation to put our own home-grown talent first; to increase the number of extra specialty training places from 1,000 to 4,000, with a quarter of those places delivered now; to reduce the competition for training places from around four to one to less than two to one; to put more money in doctors’ pockets by funding royal college exam fees, portfolio fees and membership fees, with exam fees backdated to April; and to increase the less-than-full-time allowance by 50% to £1,500. It is a chance for a fresh start, to end this dispute and look ahead to the future with hope and optimism—a chance to rebuild resident doctors’ working conditions and rebuild our NHS. I urge every resident doctor to vote for this deal, and I commend this statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Health Secretary. \p Stuart Andrew: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and sincerely thank him for making me aware last night of his intention to come to the House today and make a statement. Given that the next set of planned industrial action is due just a few days before Christmas, and at a worrying time when winter pressures are increasing early, with more flu patients needing hospital beds, we all want to see an end to these strikes. We on the Opposition Benches offer our thanks and gratitude to all those in the workforce who have worked so hard to try to minimise the impact of the strikes so far.

In his statement, the Secretary of State talks about the competition for places. This is not new information. He said himself that the figures have soared in the last two years. Why is it only now that he is addressing it, so close to a damaging strike? He could have dealt with this issue back in the previous talks with the unions, but he did not. I have said, though, that I want us to be constructive in opposition, so I welcome the work that he has done to offer more places to UK doctors. Depending  on the detail of the legislation, we will help to secure that aim. I make this offer to work with him to ensure that we get there.

On the 4,000 places that the Secretary of State has announced, and the 1,000 specifically announced for this year, can he tell the House in which specialisms those places will be? Can he break it down into GPs, surgery, obstetrics, anaesthetics and so on? Is he confident that there are enough trainers and that there is enough capacity in the training settings he has chosen? GPs are trained in general practice and in hospitals, and there is community training for some specialists, such as paediatrics. When will these places be available for applications? Will he also look at replicating the Australian model of placing any international doctors in areas of the country with the greatest need? We know we need to address those issues.

All of this is dependent on the BMA accepting the offer, but what if it does not? After all, its track record speaks for itself. We warned that giving pay awards with no conditions would encourage the BMA to come back for more, and it has. If its members rejects this offer, what are his plans to manage and deal with the situation? As the Secretary of State has said himself, the NHS is under pressure from combined flu and RSV, so what is he doing to ensure that those who are eligible for the vaccines actually have them? What additional resources has he made available to manage the strikes if they happen, and for winter pressures if they do not?

Does the Secretary of State recognise that if the BMA membership reject this offer and carry on with the strikes, his Government’s own Employment Rights Bill will make things much worse next year? Will he think again about the reductions in the minimum thresholds for strikes and reintroduce the minimum service levels? Does he expect that this new legislation and the announcements he has made today will have any implications for the Equality Act 2010? If so, what are they, and how will he address them? Will he have to disapply the Act?

These strikes must end. The BMA is behaving appallingly, but if the Secretary of State does not deal with those issues around thresholds and minimum service levels, it will only get much worse, with unions like the BMA causing more issues. It is patients—our constituents—and their families and loved ones who will suffer. \p Wes Streeting: First, I thank the shadow Health Secretary for the constructive terms on which he has agreed to work with the Government. That should give resident doctors across the country who receive their survey the confidence of knowing that, should they vote for this deal, emergency legislation will be introduced in the new year. We will be able to work at pace, because with the majority that the Labour party has in this House, and with cross-party support in the other place, we can make sure that we expedite the legislation and achieve our goal of making the changes for international medical graduates that we have always intended to make, and that we committed to well in advance of today. By expediting those changes, there will be a direct impact on people applying for speciality places now and those who, even in recent weeks, have experienced the disappointment of not receiving the training place they had hoped for. We can keep that hope alive. We can improve the number of specialty places available if resident doctors vote for this deal, so I urge them to do so.

The shadow Health Secretary asked why we had not dealt with this before. I am tempted once again to revert to my usual analogy of the arsonist heckling the fire brigade, but given the constructive terms on which he has offered to work with us on this, I will pull my punches a little. I will say, however, that putting together the 1,000 extra places now, and bringing together the legislation urgently, requires significant operational detail. He is right: we have to ensure that we have enough trainers. Jim Mackey and his team have literally been working trust by trust to ensure that we can give the shadow Health Secretary, the House and resident doctors an assurance that we can facilitate those extra places.

When it comes to the legislation, the shadow Health Secretary will know, and people will appreciate, that this is fiendishly complicated. I have had to secure agreement from business managers, as we have a packed legislative programme. We have had to make sure that the Bill would be legally watertight and consistent with both domestic law and our international treaty obligations, and I have needed support from my counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I must thank them sincerely for the spirit in which, regardless of party, they have worked with this Government; we can give resident doctors that assurance.

As for what will happen if the strike goes ahead, let me say first that the shadow Health Secretary was right to say that frontline staff and NHS leaders did a superb job of managing previous rounds of strike action. In fact, during the last round we did indeed maintain 95% of planned care, and I believe—we will see when the waiting list figures are published in January—that the impact on waiting list progress will therefore not have been as severe as it might have been. However, I must be upfront with the shadow Health Secretary and the House and point out that there is a very different degree of risk this time. While we are aiming to maintain 95% of elective activity, I cannot guarantee that. I cannot give that assurance in all good conscience, given the level of pressure that we are under.

I offered to extend the mandate, so that the BMA could reschedule the same amount of strike action for January, if its members reject this offer, and I do not understand why the BMA would not do that. I find it inexplicable. As a Labour MP, I have spent a lot of time in rooms with trade unions and negotiating, and I honestly cannot think of a single other trade union in this country that would behave in this way. I am shocked by it. I am shocked because of the risk that it poses to patients and the pressure that it places on other NHS staff, and shocked because it threatens the recovery of the NHS that we all care about.

I would say this to resident doctors who are following these exchanges: listen to what the Conservative party has said about trade union laws, and about their rejection of the deal that we struck within weeks of coming into office. There is not a more pro-NHS, pro-doctor Government waiting in the wings. There is a Labour Government who are committed to the NHS, and committed to the NHS workforce, who have gone further than any other Government before on pay, on terms and conditions, and on the pace at which we are improving them. These were never grounds for strike action before, and they are certainly not grounds for strike action now. I appeal to resident doctors, over the BMA, to do the right thing, to vote for this deal, and to work with a Government who want to work with them. \p Paulette Hamilton: I have always been a massive advocate for all medical and nursing staff, and I absolutely understand what a difficult job our healthcare workers do, but given that flu is running rampant across the country and most NHS staff—including resident doctors, but also nurses and other staff—are suffering at this moment, will the Secretary of State join me in urging the leadership of the BMA and the doctors to see sense and put patients first at this difficult time? \p Wes Streeting: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. She brings considerable frontline experience to this House, having worked in the NHS and dedicated her life to it. I am pretty sure that as well as speaking for her constituents, she speaks for so many other NHS staff. I do not want to see nurse pitted against doctor, or NHS staff pitted against each other. I do not want to see people resenting each other at a time when we should be pulling together to get the NHS back on its feet, and to make sure that it is well down the road to recovery. That is why, even at this late stage, I urge the BMA to think again. There is nothing to stop me extending the strike mandate tomorrow and giving Jim Mackey and NHS leaders the opportunity to stand down planning for strikes next week, even at this late stage. It would be an extraordinary gesture of good will, and it would be a Christmas present for the country. It would benefit doctors, resident or otherwise, and all NHS staff. Most importantly of all, it would benefit patients. I hope that message is heard in good faith by the BMA, even now. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Danny Chambers: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. People will be hugely alarmed at the threat of more industrial action right before Christmas, and we cannot forget how we got here. We know that the previous Government under-resourced the NHS. It was overburdened, people felt underappreciated, and the whole system was being held together by the good will of the staff.

Having said that, the timing is terrible, because we have the worst winter flu outbreak in decades, right before Christmas. We have to urge the BMA to work constructively to resolve this dispute in a way that is fair for both patients and taxpayers. Given that resident doctors received a 29% pay rise last year, I think most of the public feel that pushing for another 28.9% this year is unaffordable and unreasonable.

The Secretary of State touched on resident doctors’ legitimate concerns. The previous Government increased medical school places without increasing the facilities to deliver the necessary specialist training placements, so this was a predictable bottleneck that we are now up against. Waiting lists are long, we need more doctors, and we have doctors who have been trained largely at the taxpayer’s expense struggling to find work. We very much welcome the extra 4,000 placements that were announced today, which are hugely necessary. Can we ensure that they will address the acute shortages in general practice and psychiatry? To put those 4,000 places in context, 10,000 doctors applied for 500 psychiatric training places last year, and the Secretary of State said that about 40,000 doctors have applied for 10,000 places this year. Is there work to try to increase places as quickly as possible in the next few months and years?

At Winchester hospital, one in five beds is taken up by people who do not have any social care packages. That is not good for them, because they are stuck in the hospital, and we want to get them home for Christmas, but it will also affect the flow through the hospital right now, during a winter flu crisis.

We welcome this action and urge the BMA to call off the strikes, but can we address the legitimate grievances that the Secretary of State has mentioned? \p Wes Streeting: I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his support, as well as for the constructive challenge. He is absolutely right to describe the challenge that we inherited, and we are seeking to deal with it. We have taken a number of steps along the way. For example, we promised to recruit an additional 1,000 GPs to the frontline in our first year. We expanded the additional roles reimbursement scheme in order to do that, and we were actually able to recruit an extra 2,500. The international medical graduate dimension of the deal means that the extra speciality training places go even further.

Although I would never pretend that the steps we have taken in our first 18 months in office have solved everything all at once—there is no shortage of things to solve—I say to those BMA members considering how to cast their vote that we have delivered a 28.9% pay rise, have taken action on international medical graduates through urgent legislation, and have expanded speciality training places. This is real progress. It is meaningful change in people’s pockets and to their lives, working conditions, career progression and prospects.

The BMA should please not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have a lot of fires to put out on a lot of fronts as a Government, and that does take time. We are committed—and I am personally committed—to working constructively with the BMA on things like workforce planning to address those issues, if it is willing to work with us. That is all I ask. It is all I ask from any part of the NHS workforce. It should work with us constructively, understand our constraints, work through the challenges with us, and we will all get to a better place and create a rising tide in the NHS that lifts all ships. \p Alex McIntyre: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. My residents in Gloucester are rightly worried about strike action in the run-up to Christmas, and the impact that it will have on waiting lists in my patch in Gloucester. I am not surprised that there is no one here from the Reform party to hear about the challenges that our NHS is facing, and I am really shocked that there is nobody from the Green party, but there we go. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be resident doctors sitting at home in Gloucester tonight who will want to vote for this deal, who will not want to go on strike next week, and who want to get the NHS back on its feet? The BMA should do the right thing, and call off the strikes next week. It should listen to its members, and let us together get on with the work of repairing our NHS and the damage the Conservative party did. \p Wes Streeting: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I was about to say that it is always a disappointment when Reform and Green Members do not appear in the  Chamber, but I would not want to be accused of misleading the House. I am sure they had a better offer, and there is a Christmas party up the road.

In all seriousness, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The tragedy of the past couple of rounds of industrial action is that each round costs about a quarter of a billion pounds. Each round, despite the best efforts of NHS leaders and frontline staff, does cause disruption, and we all lose when that happens. One of the things that is really hard for staff is that they are also confronted in a very real way with the impact of the state of the NHS on their patients. They are not in it for themselves, but because they believe in public service and want to improve the health of our nation. We are so much better able to achieve our shared goals if we work together, and we can grasp that opportunity if doctors vote for this deal, we draw a line under this dispute, and we try to reset the relationship between me and this Government on one hand, and the BMA’s leadership on the other. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. \p Layla Moran: This is just not the time for a strike. As much as we have huge sympathy with many of the grievances of resident doctors, we understand that the next few weeks will be critical for how the next few months will be for the NHS, so I echo calls for the BMA to listen to reason. However, I spare a thought, and I hope the Secretary of State does, for the overseas doctors we rely on so heavily, because there is an acute workforce shortage. How, through this plan and this legislation, will the Secretary of State avoid creating a two-tier system that risks undervaluing the critical work that overseas doctors do to prop up our NHS? \p Wes Streeting: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that contribution, which is really important on two fronts. First, she is absolutely right that this really is not the time for this kind of disruption, and I think the BMA knows that. I do not think that those I am dealing with are bad people. I think they are frustrated with me and this Government—they do not think we have gone far enough—and I am equally frustrated with them, and the fact that they do not recognise how far we have come, and how fast, but that is the nature of the dispute. With the extended mandate, there is an opportunity for us all to park this and, in the worst-case scenario, revisit it in January. I hope, even now, that the BMA will seize that opportunity. I think it would do it the world of good in the eyes of the public, and in the eyes of its members and the wider NHS family.

I am really glad that the Chair of the Select Committee raised the point about international medical graduates and the overseas workforce. The NHS has always been an international employer. We have been so fortunate as a country that, since 1948, people have come from around the world to help us build and sustain a national health service. Without them, it would collapse, and we never want to be a country that closes the door to international talent.

What is extraordinary is that many of those overseas doctors, when they see the competition ratios and compare our approach to that of their home country and other countries, think we have lost the plot. They cannot  believe we do not already do this, so I think they will understand what we are doing and why. I hope they will be reassured that international recruits who have given service to the NHS will also be able to apply for specialty places, because we want to recruit and retain great talent, but they will also recognise how this is a game changer for the ratios for homegrown talent. I think they will understand that. I think they will respect that. Not least, I have been at pains as Health Secretary, given some of the ugly rhetoric that has come from one corner of this Chamber, to emphasise that, while some people in this House might tell those international recruits to go home, as far as we are concerned they are home. \p Jennifer Craft: My mum, a former shop steward, always drummed it into me that there are no winners in a strike. Never is that as stark as in the situation we are facing now. There will be healthcare workers in my constituency, already under tremendous pressure, who will be looking at the situation coming up in the next few weeks with dread. That includes resident doctors who will be looking at that uncertainty and wanting some surety as to where they should go. The Secretary of State has been incredibly reasonable and has set out a plan that I plead the leadership of the BMA to get on board with. Call off these strikes to get us through winter and through this difficult period for the benefit of patients and for the whole NHS. Will the Secretary of State join me in echoing that plea? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope that point is not lost on the BMA. On the Labour Benches, we are the party of labour. We were created by the trade union movement to represent the interests of working people. That has been our calling for more than a century, since this party was founded. We have shown through our actions, not just our words, that this is a party in government who are committed to defending and extending the rights of working people, to improving pay and conditions, to clamping down on exploitation, and to making sure that this is a Government with and for the people.

The BMA has a willing partner with this Government. I sometimes feel like the Government have changed, the policies have changed and the approach has changed, but the BMA’s tactics towards us have stayed the same. I understand their cynicism about politics and their grievances with the situation they are working in, but I ask them also to recognise the progress we have made when we work together. There is an opportunity confronting them now to make further progress and I urge them to seize it. \p Gregory Stafford: These strikes will have a massive effect on my constituents in Farnham and Bordon. I am already getting emails from constituents who are concerned about the fact that their operations will be cancelled. The BMA is being entirely irrational and it holds the lion’s share of the blame for this situation, but the Secretary of State also has to take some responsibility for what is going on. If he gives the doctors a 29% pay rise with no strings attached, it is absolutely no surprise that they come back for more. I welcome the 4,000 extra places. I would like to press him on exactly where those 4,000 places will come. Would it not be better to have published that in the workforce plan, which is continually delayed by his Department? When will that workforce plan actually come about? \p Wes Streeting: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first bit. As for the rest of it, let me just say that the NHS workforce plan we inherited came in the 14th year of the Conservative Government. It was so absurd—it was so absurd—that on its trajectories for the increase in staffing numbers, within this century, 100% of the public would have to work for the NHS to sustain that level of workforce growth. And that is against the backdrop of AI, machine learning, genomics and the revolution in life sciences and medical technology that will change the NHS workforce and change the face of medicine.

We are working with the royal colleges, think-tanks and trade unions to make sure that in the new year our workforce plan is more credible. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are taking a bit longer with the workforce plan than I had originally intended. We are doing that because I was asked to do so by the partners that we will need, to ensure that the modelling and assumptions underpinning the workforce plan are good. I am always prepared to take a little bit more time to get it right, than to rush something out. That is the spirit in which I have engaged in workforce planning. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: With a 28% pay rise and 4,000 extra specialty training places, it is starting to feel like the BMA resident doctors committee is deeply committed to not taking yes for an answer. It is not just about the services; it is about the parent who wants their kids to have their elective appointment before Christmas. It is real people in my constituency and across the country who are suffering, so I urge the BMA to come to the table and be reasonable. While we are looking at the training crisis, will the Health Secretary look at the specific areas where we have real training crises, such as mental health, GPs, sexual health and palliative care? There are a lot of areas in the NHS where this deal can be a win-win, as we can both open up the extra training places and solve some of the workforce crises that we know about right now. \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do wish the BMA would take yes for an answer sometimes; I would like it even more if the BMA gave yes as an answer to me once a while, but that has not happened in a little while. He is right to talk about the need for workforce planning. The workforce plan, which is in production, is all about making sure we have the right people in the right place at the right time. He mentioned mental health specifically. Our manifesto committed to 8,500 extra mental health workers over the course of this Parliament, and I am happy to report that we have already delivered well over 6,500. There is lots done, but more to do. \p Julian Lewis: I find it rather shocking that when the Secretary of State for Health has offered the BMA leadership an opportunity to strike a few weeks later, they have turned it down, presumably because they prefer to strike at Christmas, when, frankly, lives will be lost as a result. Am I missing something here? Why is it, according to the Secretary of State, that the BMA leaders seem to be so determinedly militant? Does he think that in reality, they simply do not represent the views of their own membership? \p Wes Streeting: I will say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything we can to mitigate against harm during the proposed strike dates, but I cannot in  all honesty and integrity assure him that no patient will come to harm next week should the strikes go ahead, because the situation is so dire. I really urge the BMA to reflect on that overnight and into tomorrow and to ask themselves—perhaps their members will also ask this of their reps—whether it is really necessary to strike next week, given the offer of an extension to mandate.

To the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, when I was the president of the National Union of Students, I was once asked by a Labour member of a Select Committee that I was appearing before whether I was speaking for my members or for my activists. There is sometimes a difference between the two. I know that lots of people have campaigned hard for pay restoration and that many people are involved in the Doctors Vote campaign in pursuit of that aim. I think there are many doctors, however, who recognise that there has been real progress on pay and that what we are putting forward now is meaningful progress on jobs, too. I say to all members of the BMA: do not let the perfect be the enemy of good, especially when the stakes are so high. \p Peter Prinsley: I congratulate our own frontline team, because this is a great deal. I came to Parliament partly to speak up for our NHS, and I have spoken in many debates. I have also trained many surgeons over the years, and I know that my fellow surgeons will be up for this deal. College presidents will support it, and I urge all resident doctors to support it, too. I will just issue a word of caution from my son, a resident doctor, who is up there in the Gallery: if we increase the number of trainees, we will also need to increase the number of consultants and GPs. If we do not do that, we will simply push the bottleneck down the road. \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to address bottlenecks and to do adequate workforce planning. He draws attention to his son, in the Gallery, who is a resident doctor and no doubt a voter—it is almost tempting to break the rules and start appealing to voters in the Gallery for a yes vote in the survey.

I would say one thing to any resident doctors who are watching, and not just the immediate members of my hon. Friend’s family. I do listen carefully to what resident doctors say and how they feel, so I know there will be some who are listening to my hon. Friend and thinking, “It’s all right for you and your generation—you’ve had it easy. We are fed up with these consultants and college presidents telling us what to think and feel.” I hope that they know the extent to which my hon. Friend has fought their corner and spoken up for their concerns—not just on the Floor of the House, but in meetings with Ministers. He keeps us anchored in the sentiment and experiences of all parts of the profession, especially resident doctors. I know that my hon. Friend feels a real commitment to ensuring that resident doctors have a bright future and a bright career. I hope they will heed his advice, just as I do. \p Louie French: Given the seriousness of the pending strikes, it is understandable that the Secretary has decided to focus his comments today on the BMA and this upcoming  strike. I ask the Health Secretary this question constructively: what assessment has he made of the impact of the giveaways he has just announced on the likelihood of future strikes and on other NHS staff, particularly nurses, who are already feeling hard done by following last year’s pay rise? \p Wes Streeting: That is a very thoughtful and appropriate question. Just to reassure the House, the Minister of State for Health and I have been working with Agenda for Change unions, particularly Unison, the Royal College of Nursing and GMB, to ensure that we are dealing with the structural reform of Agenda for Change that they are seeking. We have been exploring how we can deliver fairer pay for other parts of the NHS workforce and an improvement to the conditions and status of the nursing profession specifically, while maintaining fairness for all NHS workers. That is one of the considerations I have had to bear in mind when it comes to what we can offer the BMA and resident doctors. I have been very clear with the resident doctor reps about that privately, and I am happy to restate that publicly.

Doctors have not had a bad deal from this Government, frankly, and I have a responsibility to all parts of the NHS workforce, especially those who are lowest paid and who often lie awake at night worrying about their bills. \p Simon Opher: On international medical graduates, I commend the Secretary of State. It is something we have discussed in the past, and bringing forward emergency legislation is absolutely crucial here, so I thank him for that. I also want to mention trainers in the NHS. I can reassure the Conservatives that we will make this happen. I have been a GP trainer for 25 years. We will work to make this happen; that is what we do in the NHS.

I have many resident doctor friends who do not like this action. Can we urge those doctors to talk to their fellows and try to call off this strike? It is not generally well supported among resident doctors, and it is something that we can change. \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Sometimes during ballots people who are opposed to industrial action choose not to cast a ballot at all because they know that the turnout threshold is material. In the coming days, it is absolutely vital that every resident doctor makes their voice heard. This is their chance to tell me and their reps how they want to proceed on this deal. I respect the fact that the resident doctors committee has chosen today to present the deal in neutral terms to its members so that they can make a choice. I really do respect that. Now I urge resident doctors to make their views known and take the opportunity in front of them so that we can move forward together to make real changes to their lives. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: I do want to finish this statement shortly, so could Members keep their questions and answers short? I call Andrew George. \p Andrew George: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the manner in which he has been handling the issue. However, I want to ask him about  the way he summarised the position at the end of his statement. He presented it as a choice between striking and having more jobs and the other parts of the offer. I seek clarity on the matter. Is he genuinely saying that he is going to withdraw that? Was that purely for oratorical effect, or is that his negotiating position? \p Wes Streeting: I regret to say that if the BMA rejects this offer, we will not proceed with it at this time. I wish that we were not in this transactional lock. I wish we could just move forward together in a spirit of partnership, with a bit of give and take. That is not where we are, and I think I would be crucified by the public if I were to take a different approach. It would be the wrong thing to do and it would incentivise people to strike further, and I cannot tolerate that any longer. \p Justin Madders: Our constituents will consider it absurd that we spend billions of pounds every year on training doctors who will never work in the NHS. I am pleased that we are grappling with this issue, just like the Secretary of State is grappling with many others. He has shown that by working constructively through the issues, we can, hopefully, reduce industrial action. I contrast that with the comments from the shadow Secretary of State, who talked about bringing back the minimum service level laws. Will the Secretary of State remind the House that those laws were so unworkable that no public sector service ever actually used them? In fact, we had the highest levels of industrial action in 40 years under the previous Government. \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend has so much expertise on health and on employment rights and trade union law, and he is right. That is why this Government have chosen a different approach. We want to work with all our trade unions, we want to work with the BMA, and we can still do so if we hit the reset button and each of us commits to building a more constructive relationship. \p Jim Shannon: I congratulate the Secretary of State and I fully support his stance on the resident doctors’ strike action. “Stand firm” is the message that I send to him, and I ask that God bless him and his team.

This will be the 14th strike since March 2023 and it is expected to cause major disruption. With the recent influx of flu, some wards have 70% occupancy. That could put the healthcare system under extreme pressure. Accident and emergency in the Ulster hospital, Belfast city hospital and the Royal Victoria hospital are under intense pressure. If they did not have the doctors from India and Africa, we would be under real pressure. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the BMA about the impact this strike will have on emergency care and, ultimately, on getting patients back home before Christmas? \p Wes Streeting: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He is right to raise concerns about the impact on urgent emergency care. We will do our best to keep the show on the road, but I cannot make guarantees in the way that I would want to about the quality or timeliness of care. I place on record my thanks to my counterpart in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, as well  as to my counterparts in Wales and Scotland, for the constructive approach that they have taken in making this possible. \p Laurence Turner: I draw attention to my membership of the GMB and my chairship of its parliamentary group. The BMA is currently in dispute with its workforce over an offer of 2% for this year, which is below the inflation rate on the retail prices index and the consumer prices index. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a striking inconsistency between the heads of claim that the BMA has advanced and its own record as an employer? \p Wes Streeting: I should also declare that I am a member of the GMB and Unison. I say to my hon. Friend that there is a striking inconsistency between what the BMA is demanding for its members and what it proposes to pay its own staff. There is a word for that. In the spirit of trying to engage more constructively, I will not use it. However, I urge the BMA to engage constructively with us and with its own staff. It certainly will not want to see me on the picket lines outside BMA House. \p Kim Johnson: I am a lifelong trade unionist and a proud member of Unite and Unison. I was proud to stand on the picket line with resident BMA doctors in my Liverpool Riverside constituency recently. They talked about the challenges around fees, and I am sure that they will welcome the fact that more money will be put in their pockets. There was some inconsistency, however. Will the Minister clarify that all resident doctors of all specialisms will be subject to the fee waivers? \p Wes Streeting: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the royal college fees that I outlined in my statement will be covered by us. That will be a material saving in resident doctors’ pockets. Exam fees will also be backdated, recognising that many doctors will have already done those exams and paid the fees. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend and resident doctors in her constituency the confidence that this is a good deal and one that we can move forward on and campaign on together. \p Kevin McKenna: I have worked so many Christmases and new years as a nurse in the NHS, and I know the weary dread with which so many colleagues are facing this threat of strike action, particularly against the background of a spike in respiratory illnesses. It will be devastating. In a good year without strikes, it would be bad enough.

I really commend the Secretary of State for the work he has done to address what have been long-running sores in the experience of resident doctors. Some of this is genuinely transformational, and what I know a lot of clinical colleagues have been after for so long. But healthcare is a collective activity. It is the multidisciplinary team that delivers healthcare, not individual doctors or individual nurses, so can I recommend that the Secretary of State keeps focusing on that collective improvement to the NHS, as I know he has been doing? I implore everyone in the BMA who is listening: let’s just put this to bed now. It is time for everyone to have a healthy Christmas. \p Wes Streeting: Of course, my concern is always patients, first and foremost, but it has been playing on my mind and my conscience that, going into this December, a lot of consultants, nurses, allied health professionals and other NHS staff are more tired than they would otherwise have been because they are putting in those extra shifts and extra effort both to cover the previous round of strikes and then to help the NHS to recover in that long tail that follows in the days and weeks afterwards. I really feel for them at the moment because of the conditions they are working in. I think all of us would breathe a sigh of relief—and also, frankly, express a great deal of gratitude, myself included—if the BMA were to take up the offer of postponing strikes until January. It is not too late. I urge it to think about that overnight and to do the right thing. \p Shaun Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for his leadership, and also the NHS bosses up and down this country for theirs. They often do not get the praise that they deserve in this House. This situation is bad for patients and their families and also for NHS staff, but above all it is bad for trust and confidence in our NHS. We know that there are people in this House and across the country who want to attack the very principle of the NHS. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BMA needs to take into consideration that this is about not just the deal on the table today but the very principle our NHS? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be honest, the thing that causes me most anxiety is that, although I know that the NHS is on the road to recovery, we are surrounded by an enormous amount of jeopardy. We need, as much as we possibly can, to make sure that we are not inflicting avoidable damage or setbacks on our progress, and it feels like that is what this round of strike action represents. My hon. Friend is right to praise NHS leaders and managers. I know how emotionally invested they are in seeing their patients and their staff through this Christmas, and I urge resident doctors and the BMA to take up not only the deal but the opportunity to at least put off strike action to January. \p Rachel Taylor: I thank the Secretary of State for all his work on this matter so far, but I know that people in my constituency are going to be really worried about what might happen to them over the Christmas period. I thank all those hard-working NHS staff, be they nurses or doctors, who have continued to look after us and are facing a really difficult situation over this Christmas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to urge the BMA to call off this strike and, in doing so, will he commit to continuing that dialogue with the profession so that it knows that he really understands the challenges it faces, the training opportunities it needs and the job opportunities it deserves? \p Wes Streeting: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This is the point that I have impressed on the chair of the resident doctors committee. This deal is not the end of the conversation about jobs and career development in the NHS, because there are plenty of problems for us to solve. Although we cannot afford to go further on pay this year, what we have done so far—28.9%—is not  the extent of what the Government can and are willing to do on pay. It just requires a bit of give and take, and I think we will make much more constructive and meaningful progress if we work together. I have my part to play in that, and from my point of view, we need to reset the relationship. It has hit the buffers somewhat in recent weeks. I am willing to do that. We have people we can work with on the resident doctors committee, but I think we are going to have to grasp the olive branch as it is presented today so that we can make more progress in the new year. \p Mike Reader: People in Northampton are on a bit of a rollercoaster: they have seen the benefits of a Labour Government in the £16 million that has been secured for our new urgent care centre at Northampton general, but they will now rightly be worried reading the news. Will the Secretary of State send a message to my constituents to assure them that they will be kept safe should the BMA take this disastrous action? \p Wes Streeting: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his campaigning to secure investment in his constituency. One thing I can assure everyone in our country is that NHS leaders, frontline staff and I will do everything we can to mitigate harm during these strikes; I am afraid what I cannot do is guarantee that there will be no harm. That is the thing that keeps me awake at night at the moment, and that is the thing that the BMA should keep foremost in their minds when deciding whether or not, even at this late stage, to take up the offer to postpone strikes until January and take the mandate extension. \p Amanda Martin: As a proud trade unionist, I know that trade unions are there to represent their members’ interests and views, yet by pushing ahead with this strike action, the BMA appears set to ignore its members. The offer on the table is real and comes from a Government who are listening and making positive change. Would the Secretary of State urge the BMA to take stock, think again about patients and its colleagues, and pause action while its members are consulted on the new terms? It has nothing to lose from pausing, yet the NHS and the population have so much to lose. \p Wes Streeting: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The BMA has put the offer to its members in neutral terms, but the fact is that it is now going to run a hasty survey over the next few days in order to give us what will still be less than 48 hours’ notice of whether or not these strikes will go ahead. If it took up the mandate extension, it could run a referendum properly and give its members more time to consider and discuss the offer in the workplace and with their families and reps. I do not see how more participation in the conversation and in the ballot could possibly be a bad thing.

As I have made clear to resident doctors, there are no downsides for the BMA in this. In fact, the only person who risks having a downside is me if, even after accepting the mandate extension, the deal is rejected and the doctors go out on strike again in January. This is not even a win-win scenario; this is a potential win-lose scenario, so I do not know why the BMA would not take it up.

This is a great offer for doctors. I know there will still be more to do, whether that is the implementation of the 10-point plan that Jim Mackey has come up with, my offer to work with the BMA trust by trust and employer by employer to see progress, or any of the other things we can do together. If we work together, we can get more done together. If we are working as partners rather than adversaries, we will all enjoy it a lot more and we will make more progress, and that is the opportunity that is available. \p Lizzi Collinge: I am very concerned that flu has hit hard and hit early this year. Hospital bed occupancy for flu is more than 50% higher than it was this time last year and resident doctors are central to tackling that. I have to admit to being very shocked that the BMA turned down an offer that would allow it to postpone next week’s strike. Does the Secretary of State share my worry that any strike action would make tackling this flu crisis much harder? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It also costs us roughly a quarter of a million pounds each time the BMA does this, and we cannot afford to keep paying that. It may say, “Well, then just do a deal with us and you will not have to fork out,” but then why would the rest of the NHS workforce, or the entire public sector or the entire economy, not go on strike? That is not constructive, and it is not going to get the NHS or Britain out of the enormous hole it was left in by the Conservatives. We are making real progress together, and I thank resident doctors for that. We will make more if we work together. \p Lewis Atkinson: The coming weeks are always the most dangerous time of year for the NHS, and it is important to note that the patient safety risks arising from the strike will be present not just during the strike period but in the weeks following it. Some of my most daunting, and indeed scary, times in the NHS involved working alongside resident doctors, nurses and others in the early hours of the morning in January and late December to try to ensure that ambulances could still be offloaded under the most difficult circumstances. In that spirit of one team working for patient safety, I urge the resident doctors to accept the offer that the Secretary of State has set out. Will he confirm that NHS England and local NHS leaders will have his full support in taking the difficult decisions that they need to take to keep patient flow going and emergency care going during this period if strikes do take place? \p Wes Streeting: I thank my hon. Friend for what he says and for the experience he brings to bear. I hope his urging is heeded by the BMA. I can give him that assurance. I think its operational leaders will face some fiendish choices in the coming days and weeks if strike action goes ahead. They will have my full backing. Myself, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Care are working closely with both the NHS and the social care sector, but this will be extremely challenging, and that is why I urge the BMA to adopt that “one team, one NHS” approach that he urges them to adopt. \p Josh Newbury: I too thank the Secretary of State for the lengths he is going to for resident doctors. As somebody who worked in our NHS  before coming to this place, I know what a pressured time winter is for staff and patients alike. With strikes at this time of year, NHS staff will this week be taking calls from harried managers and cancelling plans to be with their families at Christmas to cover shifts, and of course patients will have their operations cancelled. Does he share my concern about the human impact of this planned strike? \p Wes Streeting: That is the only thing I have been thinking about in recent days, and it is why I have offered to extend a strike mandate for the first time, even though the BMA has asked me to do that on previous occasions in different contexts. I think it is a sensible compromise, and it avoids that dreaded phone call to the NHS staff member who has to cancel their holiday plans for Christmas and go back to work. Most importantly of all, it avoids that dreaded phone call to the patient who has been gearing themselves up for that test or scan that they are worried about, or that operation or procedure that they have waited far too long for. Indeed, it avoids the dreaded situation of someone having to call 999 in an emergency uncertain about whether the ambulance is going to arrive on time and anxious about whether they will be waiting in a car park, in a queue, in the back of an ambulance or, indeed, on a trolley in a corridor.

It gives me no pleasure at all to acknowledge that the bleak situations I have described are in play today in the NHS. Activity is already being stood down, but even if this strike action were not looming, the NHS is not in a state that I would want myself, the people I love, the people I represent or anyone in our country to be treated in, because of the enormous pressures that it is under.

With that in mind, and after listening to the contributions we have heard from across the House from Members on both sides who are not anti-doctor or even anti-BMA, I urge the BMA to do the right thing—not just to adopt this deal, but even at this late stage to adopt the offer of mandate extension in order to put off till January the spectre of strike action, and to give their members time to think, vote and make a decision on whether to accept a deal that would make a meaningful material difference to their job prospects, to their careers and to the future of our national health service. It is not too late to change course. It is not too late for the BMA to change its mind, and there is never any shame in doing so for those who think that is right.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving us so much time on such an important issue. \p Jessica Asato: On the final day of the UN’s 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, I present a petition on behalf of my Lowestoft constituents on the pornography industry and the serious and long-lasting impact it is having on our society, not least in fuelling violence against women and girls. Pornography  that depicts performers as children or stepfamily members is abhorrent and fuels real world interest in the sexual abuse of children.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform–and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003147] \p Andrew George: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the people of the Penzance area, 3,000 of whom have already signed a public version to oppose the closure of the Lloyds bank, which is located in the iconic market house in the centre of Market Jew Street. The decision has been taken without any local consultation whatsoever. The significant impact on the vulnerable, on businesses and charities with complex transactions, and on the digitally excluded has not been taken into account. The petitioners observe that Lloyds was bailed out to the tune of £37 billion of taxpayers’ money during the financial crisis, yet it treats the town in this manner without any consultation, leaving customers with a two-hour bus journey to the nearest branch in Truro.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of St Ives,

Declares that the decision by Lloyd’s bank to close its Penzance branch will have a severe and detrimental impact on older and disabled people, local businesses and on the digitally excluded; further declares that Lloyd’s has been established at the iconic Market House in the centre of the town for one hundred years and local people have appreciated the work of the staff and the service provided; and further declares that banking services should not be limited to being accessed electronically, by telephone, at Post Office counters and through the limited services and hours of Banking Hubs.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward measures to ensure a network of accessible full-time banks throughout the UK and in every market town, and to call on Lloyd’s to keep its Penzance branch open.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003148] \p John Martin McDonnell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not having given notice of my point of order.

Earlier today, I raised a point of order with regard to correspondence that I had submitted to the Secretary of State for Justice. I said that I had written to the Secretary of State a week ago with regard to the Palestine Action prisoners who are on hunger strike at the moment, some of whom have been hospitalised, but received no response. This evening—I have just picked it up—a Ministry of Justice spokesperson has said in a press release:

“The Deputy Prime Minister has responded to and will continue to respond to correspondence on this issue”.

I have received no correspondence or any reply whatsoever. I have checked all my emails and consulted colleagues. May I, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, urge those on the Treasury Bench to take back the message that that is an inaccurate statement? We need an urgent response on behalf of the several Members who put their names to that letter. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. This is a very important matter. I know that Mr Speaker has made his feelings known. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I will ensure that Mr Speaker is aware of his dissatisfaction. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Morgan.) \p Kim Johnson: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate on the historical injustice of the wrongful imprisonment of 37 Cammell Laird workers who, in 1984, occupied their workplace in protest at redundancies, privatisation and threats of closure. They were sacked, they lost their jobs, redundancy and pension rights, and they were sent to prison in an unprecedented assault on trade unionists. They have been fighting ever since to clear their names. It is my honour to be their voice in this place today. I note for the record that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice.

I will begin by recognising the work of those who helped to bring this debate here today: the 37 themselves. They are Billy Albertina, Eddie Albertina, Francis Albertina, Jimmy Albertina, John Albertina, Jimmy Barton, Christopher Bilsborough, John Brady, Michael Byrne, Thomas Cassidy, Thomas Culshaw, John Dooley, Lol Duffy, Colin Early, Nicholas Fenian, Joe Flynn, Andrew Frazer, Barry Golding, Paul Hennessey, Edward Kenny, Paul Little, Eddie Marnell, Jimmy McCarthy, Anthony McGarry, Philip McKeown, Michael Mooney, Aiden Morley, Sam Morley, Alan Prior, Francis Roach, Stephen Smith, Christopher Thompson, Tommy Webb, Tommy Wilson, Chris Whitley, George Whittaker and John Wright.

I want to thank several other people, including the previous MP for Birkenhead, my very good friend Mick Whitley, whose brother was one of the 37. I thank him for his tireless work and campaigning both in and outside Parliament. I thank, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) who led the Westminster Hall debate on this topic back in 2023, and has continued to support the campaign. I would also like to recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) who has a long history of supporting the campaign as a GMB officer. He used one of his first written parliamentary questions as an MP to secure a commitment from the then Justice Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), to consider a review into the jailing of the Cammell Laird workers. \p Laurence Turner: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on again reading into the record the names of the 37. I hope I might put two sentiments of my own on the record. First, I pay tribute to the work of Eddie Marnell who, over many years as a member of GMB’s north-west and Irish region and central executive council, championed their cause outside this House and, through the union, inside it. I also pay tribute to the work of my former colleagues at GMB; I can attest to the many hours that have been spent in support of that cause, and I understand that the union is due to meet the campaign again in the new year. \p Kim Johnson: I echo my hon. Friend’s support for Eddie Marnell. I look forward to the continued support of GMB going forward. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I also attended the 2023 debate in Westminster Hall with her and other Members, and I fully support the campaign. During the earlier statement on resident doctors, she referred to standing on a picket line. Like her, I have stood on the picket line along with nurses and others in Newtownards on many occasions.

The imprisonment and removal of redundancy packages would not normally occur in any instance where a workforce had decided to strike, and many of these workers never regained stable employment. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a case to be answered in terms of the regaining of finance, and that more must be done to seek justice for the 37 workers who still suffer today and have not had justice? \p Kim Johnson: I totally agree: justice does need to be served, and the 37 have been affected because of the financial demands put on them because of the action they took. They were striking workers, not criminals, and they should never have gone to prison.

I pay tribute to Paul Heron and Clare Lash-Williams, who are providing legal advice for the campaign, with the intention to launch a successful legal appeal against the original charges. I also thank GMB union for its support; I look forward to its continued support going forward.

In 1984, faced with sweeping redundancies and the decline of the shipbuilding industry, workers at Cammell Laird occupied their workplace, including a gas rig and a Royal Navy frigate, to resist job losses and defend their livelihoods and communities. Management’s response, backed by the Government at the time, was swift and very heavy-handed. The workers were threatened with dismissal, the loss of their redundancy payment, and even police intervention. They were deliberately targeted to send a warning to others—an attempt by the state to break industrial action and demoralise workers taking strike action across the country.

The workers reluctantly agreed to end their occupation in September 1984 after weeks, when their water supply was cut off. They were immediately arrested for failing to turn up to court for an earlier judicial review hearing. They were convicted in their absence and sent to Walton jail, Merseyside’s category A high-security prison. Their appeal at the High Court in October 1984 was presided over by Lord Lawton, who had been a member of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, had visited Hitler in the 1930s and had been selected to run for Parliament. He was a long-standing enemy of the trade union movement and would have been only too happy to uphold the unprecedented 30-day prison sentence for contempt of court, a grossly disproportionate punishment.

The whole case stinks of an establishment stitch-up. There were plenty of similar cases at the time, throughout the movement. Not even the National Union of Mineworkers leader, Arthur Scargill, was imprisoned, despite being convicted of the same charge. The only comparable case of an imprisonment of a large group of workers due to a national dispute was the Shrewsbury 24, and 47 years later, their convictions have finally been overturned by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

When the 37 were charged with contempt of court and sent to a high-security prison, Liverpool city council was locked in a fierce battle with the Thatcher Government  of the time over a £30 million cut to funding from central Government, after the Government deemed the council to have set an illegal budget. The council remained defiant, adopting the mantra. “We would rather break the law than break the poor.” More than anything, the council focused on building council homes and creating jobs—work unmatched by any other authority at the time. That was the political environment with which the Cammell Laird 37 had to contend.

The workers fought proudly not only for their jobs, but for the future of the shipyard. Their only crime—if it can be called a crime—was defending their livelihood. The strikers ensured that there was absolutely no damage to any property during their occupation. They even allowed Ministry of Defence inspectors into the occupation to inspect a frigate and to carry out maintenance work. Were they criminals? No. They were responsible trade union members, carrying out legitimate action at their own workplace, and respecting the property of which they were in control. For that, they were incarcerated in prison for 30 days.

The Justice for the Cammell Laird 37 campaign resonates deeply with my constituents in Liverpool Riverside, and with people across Merseyside. The 37 are widely considered to be heroes for standing up to Thatcher’s policies of managed decline, which destroyed our industries and decimated our communities. Their struggle took place against the backdrop of the broader union fight-backs, and parallel injustices, such as Orgreave and Hillsborough, in which ordinary people paid the price for fighting back against a Government hellbent on crushing working-class communities. Four decades later, the fight for justice continues. Sadly, half of the 37 have died while waiting for their names to be cleared. Action is needed now to ensure that the surviving workers receive justice, because justice delayed is justice denied.

I grew up in Liverpool during the Thatcher years. The neo-liberal policies enforced on our city would define us for years to come. Liverpool in the 1980s was highly dependent on the docks for work. We suffered unemployment rates of almost 50%. Our communities were deeply aware that the fight for jobs was not just about improving the current situation, but about preserving jobs and workplaces for generations to come. Thatcher’s privatisation drive resulted in British shipbuilders going from employing 62,000 workers in 1982 to just 5,000 workers five years later. In Merseyside alone, we lost 34,000 manufacturing jobs between 1978 and 1981 due to Thatcher’s policy of managed decline. It was this hollowing out of industry that these workers were trying to defeat. They deserve full recognition and gratitude for the struggle they waged, and an apology for the disgraceful way that they were treated.

The Justice for the Cammell Laird 37 campaign, like the campaigns on the Shrewsbury 24 and the miners’ strike, and so many other union struggles of the time, goes to the very heart of how Thatcher’s Government responded to workers who dared to stand up for themselves. I remember the police brutality inflicted on striking miners at Orgreave, followed by lies and cover-ups by politicians, the police and the media. I am proud that this Labour Government have now committed to a full inquiry into Orgreave. It follows logically that there should be a public inquiry into the jailing of Cammell Laird  workers—a miscarriage of justice with many obvious parallels. However, the priority must be releasing the Government papers to help the legal team clear the names of the 37.

There is no doubt that this was a major miscarriage of justice, sanctioned at the highest levels of Government. No other industrial action resulted in so many men being sent to prison. The 30-day sentence was grossly unfair; by the time the men were released, they had lost their jobs, workplace rights, redundancy payments, and pension payments. Research by the GMB shows that at least one of the men could have lost £120,000 or more. Some were blacklisted for many years and struggled to find work afterwards, causing immense suffering and economic hardship. For that reason, we believe that there should be a public inquiry.

The limited records from the National Archives and Thatcher’s private papers demonstrate that Ministers were determined to privatise the building of warships, cut the number of shipbuilding yards, and sell off the remainder of the state-owned yards. The Cammell Laird 37 knew that was what they were up against—a Government hellbent on privatisation at any cost. It is that systemic and ideologically driven undermining of the British shipbuilding industry by a group of Ministers determined to drive through the complete privatisation of British shipbuilders, regardless of the wider economic and social consequences, which warrants a public inquiry, so that the 37 and all those impacted can understand why the treatment they received was so uniquely punitive and destructive.

A public inquiry is not merely symbolic; it is essential. It is crucial to understand how and why a Government acting through Ministers and the court imposed such punitive measures on ordinary citizens for exercising their right to industrial action. We call for the actions of Ministers from the time to be investigated, and for all the remaining records to be made public. That includes the Ministry of Defence and British Gas contracts, and any Crown Estate leases relevant for a future appeal. Following a GMB campaign almost a decade ago, the European Parliament committee on petitions called on the UK Government to release all relevant papers, but that has never been actioned. More importantly, we want a formal Government apology to these workers.

The legal team believes that the court was given inaccurate information at the time of the initial prosecutions, and that the workers may not have been lawfully dismissed. It argues that Cammell Laird may have had no legal standing to bring the claims that led to the injunctions, and that the occupation may have occurred on land that was not under the company’s control. These claims are groundbreaking, and, with the help of the Minister, we can ensure that the campaign’s legal team has access to the appropriate documentation to finally bring about justice for the 37.

During the 2023 Westminster Hall debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), the Justice Minister at the time stated that

“this Department has conducted extensive searches of its records and those in the court and prison systems.”

He also confirmed that he understood that

“nothing has been found in relation to the Cammell Laird strike action or the strikers themselves.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 301WH.]

He stated that other Departments, including the Cabinet Office, Home Office and the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, confirmed that they “do not believe” they hold any relevant records, which I find quite astounding. However, the Cammell Laird campaigners believe that an exhaustive search has not been undertaken. Papers must exist relating to the closure, and every effort should be made to identify and release them. \p Justin Madders: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this debate. I declare for the record my membership of the GMB trade union. I was at that Westminster Hall debate, in which the Minister at the time said that a search had been undertaken. Given what my hon. Friend has said today about the highest levels of Government pushing this issue forward, it is very hard for us to believe that an exhaustive search was conducted at the time. During the debate, the then shadow Minister said that a Labour Government

“would release documents held by Government relating to the Cammell Laird prosecutions and carry out a review into the jailing of the striking workers.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 298WH.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be able to agree that very quickly indeed? \p Kim Johnson: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that when the Minister sums up, we will hear something direct in relation to that request. We need answers about who was behind the incarceration of the 37 Cammell Laird workers for contempt of court. Those men were not vandals or criminals. They were trade unionists defending their jobs, their pensions, and the future of the shipyard.

I would be grateful if, when the Minister sums up, he fully committed to the search for the truth—committed that the Government will release every relevant document, fully investigate the decisions that led to the imprisonment of those workers, and agree to meet the campaigners and the legal team to discuss what support they need to exonerate all those workers. Forty-one years on, the call remains the same: justice for the Cammell Laird 37. They deserve our recognition and gratitude for their courage in standing up and fighting back, and while this debate and whatever follows it will not undo the damage done to the lives of those men, their families and our communities, it will go a long way towards achieving justice. Jobs, not jail, must remain the guiding principle. Those men deserve our full support as they seek a formal Government apology and seek to clear their names. We will not rest until the truth is uncovered and justice is finally done. \p Jake Richards: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing this debate, and on her characteristically powerful speech on this important issue. I join her in praising all the campaigners, and in particular the 37 whose names she read out. I also declare an interest as a proud member of the GMB trade union, and praise that union’s work on this important issue.

As we have heard, in 1984, 37 workers were involved in an occupation at the Cammell Laird shipyard at Birkenhead in a bid to stop compulsory redundancies. Those 37 men were sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment for contempt of court after defying a judge’s order to leave a partially built gas rig. They were imprisoned for 30 days in HMP Walton. They were subsequently dismissed from their jobs, and lost their right to redundancy and a pension. I recognise that what those 37 workers suffered was a disgrace, and although this case occurred before I was born, I recognise the issues that it raises, and the profound effect it has had on those workers and the communities that my hon. Friend represents. I am deeply sympathetic to the case and the individuals affected by it, and recognise that due to the passage of time, some of those individuals have sadly passed away.

Before I turn to the specific question posed, I would like to emphasise that this Government are committed to tackling injustice and ensuring fair and progressive rights in the workplace, so that these types of malpractice never happen again. I am about to set out the many measures that the Government are hoping to introduce through their Employment Rights Bill, but first I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is in the Chamber, and who has done so much work on this issue, both in opposition and in government.

The plan to make work pay sets out the Government’s ambitious agenda to ensure that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth. That plan will bring our employment rights legislation into the 21st century. The Government fulfilled their manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation within 100 days of entering office by introducing the Employment Rights Bill. As the House will no doubt be aware, the Bill is going through ping-pong. It is the first phase of delivering our plan to get Britain moving forward, and to create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth.

I stress that blacklisting is completely unacceptable and has no place in modern employment relations. Any individual or trade union who believes that they have been a victim of blacklisting can, and should, enforce their rights through an employment tribunal or the county court. The 2010 blacklisting regulations are reinforced by powers in the Data Protection Act 2018, which protect the use of personal data, including information on trade union membership and sensitive personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office regulates the use of personal data and investigates data breaches. It has the power to take enforcement action, including searching premises, issuing enforcement notices, and imposing fines for serious breaches.

The question posed in this debate is whether there is merit in holding a public inquiry into the imprisonment of Cammell Laird workers in 1984. I recognise that this question has already been discussed in the Chamber; it is an issue of abiding parliamentary interest, and was the subject of a Westminster Hall debate in February 2023, before I was a Member of this place. That debate was brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and was attended by hon. Members who have been in Parliament for some time, and who have long campaigned for justice in this area.

Public inquiries are independent investigations into matters of significant public concern. They are established by the Government and led by an independent chair. They are usually asked to establish the facts surrounding a serious issue and consider the lessons to be learned from what has happened, as well as make recommendations intended to correct deficiencies for the future. For example, an inquiry may be established to look at the cause of a major disaster, accident or other event involving significant damage or loss of life.

The Government will consider whether a matter is sufficiently serious to warrant an inquiry, and an inquiry might take a number of forms. An inquiry could be established under the Inquires Act 2005. Critically, although the Ministry of Justice owns the Inquiries Act 2005 and the Inquiries Rules 2006, Justice Ministers do not decide whether to set up an inquiry. That falls to the Department with policy or operational responsibility for the issue under consideration. Industrial relations and how they were historically dealt with are not a matter for me or the Ministry of Justice, and as such it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the potential merits of an inquiry.

As has been touched on, and as was set out by a predecessor in the Ministry of Justice in the Westminster Hall debate, document disclosure is a vital part of any inquiry, or any assessment of whether an inquiry is necessary. As the Government have previously disclosed, my Department has conducted extensive searches of our records within the court and prison systems, and nothing has been found in relation to the Cammell Laird strike action or the strikers. Other Departments have likewise previously confirmed that they do not hold potentially relevant material. I have heard what my hon. Friend has had to say, and tomorrow morning I will go back to my Department to make sure that those searches are done again, and I will send correspondence to the relevant Departments to ensure that they do those again, too.

It is important to note, as has been accepted, that inquiries do not determine civil or criminal liability. They are not a substitute for court proceedings, and they do not determine guilt or award compensation. The appropriate route for challenging a conviction and/or sentence is by way of appeal. Once the appeal route has been exhausted, it is possible to apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Where a person believes that they have been wrongly convicted of a crime in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, a request can be made to the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission, which can investigate and, where appropriate, refer cases back to court. \p Kim Johnson: The Hillsborough campaign fought for an independent panel, and it was through an independent panel that information was brought to light that enabled the campaign to move forward. Does my hon. Friend believe that an independent panel would help the 37 campaigners to move their case forward? \p Jake Richards: I take the suggestion seriously. As I have said on document disclosure, which I think is the first step for the campaign, and in my hon. Friend getting what she is seeking, tomorrow morning I will go  to my Department and looking at this issue again. Her speech, this campaign and the Adjournment debate have meant that will happen. I can assure her that I will do that, and I take that seriously. We consider no options to be off the table. \p John Martin McDonnell: One of the areas that is worth exploring is the Cabinet papers and the discussions that took place. These Cammell Laird workers are the innocent victims of a political strategy that was devised in Cabinet to suppress all opposition to the introduction of monetary policies—monetarism—under the Thatcher Government during that period. The Minister may not have been born at the time, but I was. In any areas where there was resistance to the Government, the resistance was suppressed. I was a Greater London Council councillor, and the GLC was abolished. In Lambeth and in Liverpool, councillors were surcharged and removed from office. Individual trade unionists were suppressed in a way that was more brutal than we ever thought possible. The Government inflicted damage, having forced trade union action, and there was also the imprisonment. This is about the Cabinet discussions that took place at the time, and Nicholas Ridley and so on. As we saw in the Shrewsbury campaign, there is also the matter of the influence they had on the courts. \p Jake Richards: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention. My point about the passage of time was not me being flippant about this serious issue. The Orgreave events occurred in my constituency, and I am pleased that this Labour Government have launched a public inquiry. I will not comment from the Dispatch Box on individual disclosure searches in different Departments and particular conversations; I am sure that he can appreciate that that would not be appropriate. I have given a commitment to look at this issue again when I go back to my Department tomorrow morning. I take that seriously, and will keep him and other Members updated.

One of the difficult aspects of the Cammell Laird workers’ imprisonment is that we are talking about committals for contempt of court, which is a civil matter, rather than convictions for criminal offences. This is a technical issue, but it means that the case does not meet the criteria for a miscarriage of justice, which relates to wrongful convictions. That might appear to be an issue of semantics, but distinct processes apply in cases in which a person has wrongfully been convicted of a criminal offence, so it is important for us to be clear about the distinction between a miscarriage of justice and what we may term a historic injustice. The Law Commission is reviewing the law on contempt of court, at the Government’s request. The first part of its report, on liability for contempt, was published last month. The second part will be published next year, and will include a review of the routes of appeal and the sanctions that courts are able to impose for different types of contempt.

I am deeply sympathetic to the case, to the campaign, and to the individuals who are affected by this. Industrial relations and how they were historically dealt with are not necessarily matters for the Ministry of Justice, but I have made a number of commitments from the Dispatch Box to looking at certain issues again as a result of this  Adjournment debate. That is this House working. I confirm those commitments, and I will report back to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside. I thank her for initiating the debate, and for the opportunity that she has given me to respond to it and take action as a result of it.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.