debates/debates2025-11-04b conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-04)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-04b conversation_22

Stella Creasy:British businesses face a toxic storm of crushing tariffs from America and mountains of paperwork from Europe. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition that we need to do something about the latter because in my constituency, because of Brexit, businesses now have to deal with 27 different VAT regimes rather than one. Can the Chancellor update us on what she is doing to be a red against the red tape and solve that problem? \p James Murray: The work that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been doing with Europe is all about taking down trade barriers where they get in the way of our national interest and economic growth. That is our priority, as well as cutting bureaucracy for businesses here in the UK. \p Harriett Baldwin: The Chancellor justified at the Dispatch Box what a working person is. Will she reiterate at the Dispatch Box now what she said to the British public during the general election campaign, which is that her forthcoming Budget will not raise taxes on working people? \p Rachel Reeves: We will set out all our Budget measures at the Budget. \p Tom Hayes: How will the Government help to fund the green infrastructure that we need, as through the coastal energy partnership that I helped to set up in Bournemouth, with Great British Energy taking on early stage project development and the National Wealth Fund making those critical long-term investments? \p James Murray: Through our investments in the National Wealth Fund, Great British Energy, the British Business Bank and UK Export Finance, we are using every lever the Government have to support businesses to thrive—in stark contrast with the previous Government, which left them high and dry. \p Stephen Flynn: Charities, trade unions, academics and industry are united in their view that replacing the energy profits levy is not just an economic imperative, but a moral one. How many more of my constituents need to lose their jobs before the Government do just that? \p Dan Tomlinson: At the Budget we will set out clearly our proposals for the future of the energy profits levy and the oil and gas mechanism. We will ensure that we can provide the certainty to business on the future regime as soon as we can. \p Sam Rushworth: People in Crook and Tow Law are excited by the £20 million that the Chancellor is investing in our area through the pride in place scheme. After years of decline under the previous Government, which failed to spend most of the levelling-up money that they promised our community, what assurance can she give me that this time it will be local people in the driving seat and that we can spend the funds? \p James Murray: I am glad to hear that the people of Crook and Tow Law are already thinking about how to use their pride in place funding to improve their local area. Children at Peases West primary school will be reassured to know that improving local playparks and upgrading community facilities will be possible under this funding. \p Nick Timothy: From her CV to her tax promises, would the Chancellor know the truth if it stood right in front of her? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You do not need to bother answering that, Chancellor—we will now move on. \p Valerie Vaz: Will the Chancellor update the House on how and when schools can apply for libraries for primaries funding, which she announced on 29 September? \p Rachel Reeves: We have made a commitment that every single primary school in England will have a library by the end of this Parliament. The Department for Education will set out the process in due course, but any primary school without a library can rest assured that it will have one soon. \p Tim Farron: Will the Chancellor consider in her Budget closing the loophole in small business rates relief that allows wealthy second homeowners to have their homes on the rental market for 72 nights a year and therefore avoid paying any tax whatsoever? My constituents working the minimum wage are having to subsidise them. That is not fair, is it? \p Dan Tomlinson: We will set out the changes that we will make to business rates at the Budget. \p Richard Quigley: The Government’s pride in place programme presents a welcome opportunity for communities across the country to once again feel proud of where they live, especially after years of austerity and neglect under successive Conservative Governments. However, the Isle of Wight received none of that funding, which feels like an oversight, given the challenges our island faces, not least with cross-Solent transport. Will the Chancellor assure me that she is doing everything possible to ensure that islanders are not left behind and that they, too, can benefit from this programme and feel pride in our island once again? \p James Murray: The pride in place funding is going towards 250 communities across the country to ensure that local people are in control of investing in their local areas. I note my hon. Friend’s comments about the community that he represents. Of course, the Government’s wider agenda about driving growth, increasing people’s wages and ensuring that people are better off is central to improving the lives of his constituents and those right across the UK. \p Mark Pritchard: Since the Chancellor delivered her speech this morning, the FTSE 100 has dropped by over £22 billion—the real £22 billion rather than the fantasy £22 billion black hole. What can the Chancellor say right now to steady the markets so that all our constituents’ pensions are protected? \p Torsten Bell: What this Government have done to steady the markets is to kick the Conservatives out of office and leave them in opposition for years to come. \p Claire Hazelgrove: I welcome our Government’s recent Typhoon deal with Türkiye, which will see the brilliant team at Rolls-Royce in Filton play a key role in engine production and maintenance. Will the Chancellor join me in congratulating  them, our local small and medium-sized enterprises and others, and set out how integral she sees defence as an engine for growth? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend is a solid defender of businesses and working people in her constituency. The defence industrial strategy is about supporting British industry as we—and other countries around the world—up what we spend on defence. We want British businesses and British workers to benefit from that investment. \p Rupert Lowe: Through freedom of information requests, Restore Britain has uncovered unpublished Treasury analysis breaking down contributions by ethnicity. Evidently the data exists, so will the Chancellor commit to going further by publishing the same analysis by nationality, so that we can see which groups are paying their way, and, more importantly, which groups are not? \p James Murray: Mr Speaker, I am considering how to respond to that question. I will simply leave it at saying that everyone must pay their fair share of tax. That is something that the Labour party are committed to in government. \p Lloyd Hatton: On a more constructive note, for the past year I have been campaigning hard for Eden Portland to open in my constituency. If opened, it would be a world-class attraction, rejuvenating Portland, attracting investment, creating well-paid jobs and promoting our coast. The project is a success story waiting to happen, so will the Chancellor of the Exchequer continue to work with me, Dorset council and the team at Eden Portland to deliver that exciting project as soon as possible? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank my hon. Friend again for raising the opportunities in Portland. As he knows, we are working closely with Dorset council, the project and him to bring that to fruition. \p Chris Coghlan: The Chancellor knows that I agree with her that the use of public research and development is one of the most effective levers for economic growth, but it will not significantly increase over the entire five-year spending review period. If the Government are serious about economic growth, they must find a way to increase public research and development. Does she agree? \p Rachel Reeves: We are increasing spending on research and development in real terms and in every year of this Parliament, for exactly the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentions. But we are doing more than that: we are supporting start-up and scale-up businesses through our pensions reform, through the British Business Bank and through UK Export Finance. We are absolutely determined to ensure that the money that goes into R&D in this country turns into great businesses that stay in this country. \p Sarah Smith: Will the Chancellor join me in congratulating the great work of Red Hat, a catapult based in Hyndburn that has supported the safeguarding of over 300 jobs and the development of  46 new products? Will she meet me to consider the role of catapults in supporting economic growth in places such as Hyndburn? \p Rachel Reeves: Catapults have been a big success in driving economic activity, especially in manufacturing and engineering, which are prevalent in all parts of the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It was a pleasure to visit Hyndburn with her last year. I look forward to having the opportunity to do so again. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: In the past few weeks, I have visited two incredible local businesses: Saragusta Spirits, a local gin distillery, and Williams Family Wines, an award-winning winery. However, such entrepreneurial success is being hampered by small producer relief adding significant additional duty cost and preventing businesses from growing. With English viticulture and wines enjoying a surge in popularity, will the Chancellor consider extending small producer relief to drinks above 8.5% ABV, and if not, why not? \p Dan Tomlinson: All decisions relating to tax will be made at the Budget in late November. \p Juliet Campbell: Claire founded Little Foxes Play Town in my constituency. It caters for and is enjoyed by children and parents in the community. However, Claire’s business has struggled with the cost of business rates and now with the requirement to pay VAT. Will the Minister assure me that the change in business rates will benefit small business owners such as Claire and ensure that they can continue to serve their local areas? \p Dan Tomlinson: One important thing about the business rate reforms that the Government will undertake is that we support small businesses in growing and investing. They are the backbone of our communities and our country. The reforms that we will set out at the Budget—and on which we will continue to have conversations with Members across the House and with businesses—will, I hope, continue to support and enable investment in our small businesses. \p Adrian Ramsay: This morning the Chancellor spoke of difficult decisions for everybody but the ultra-rich. With billionaire wealth soaring while living standards for most people fall, does she agree that it is time to double down on gross inequality in our country and tax extreme wealth fairly, so that we can tackle the cost of living crisis, end child poverty and invest in our public services? \p Rachel Reeves: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not what I said in my speech this morning. In last year’s Budget we got rid of the non-dom tax status, we introduced   VAT and business rates on private schools, we increased capital gains tax, we increased tax on private jets and we got rid of the carried interest—more than the Green party has ever done to reduce inequality in this country. \p Terry Jermy: So often the farm is the very core of a rural economy. Could my hon. Friend confirm what assessment has been made about the impact of proposed changes to agricultural property relief on growth opportunities in rural areas and the viability of rural communities? \p Dan Tomlinson: As I said earlier, the proposals made by CenTax and others in relation to agricultural property relief would result in twice as many farms paying more tax as are planned to do under the Government’s proposals. We think our proposals are right and fair. \p Carla Lockhart: Asylum accommodation costs are set to quadruple in Northern Ireland, from £100 million to £400 million, and across the UK to £15.3 billion in the next decade. Before hiking taxes again, should the Chancellor not look at where the waste really lies, when we are funding an asylum system that is failed, chaotic and expensive? This is not racist or far-right; it is looking after our own citizens who cannot pay their bills. \p James Murray: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should reduce the cost of asylum accommodation. Indeed, that is why our commitment to close all asylum hotels in this Parliament is so important. \p Brian Leishman: When will the Government lift the two-child cap? \p Torsten Bell: The previous Labour Government cut child poverty significantly, and so will this one. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Between 2010 and 2020, the personal tax allowance threshold went up by 9.2% on average per year. However, it was frozen by the previous Government in 2021, and the freeze has continued under this Government. Will the Chancellor consider unfreezing the personal tax allowance and adjusting the additional rate and higher rate bands to compensate, to ensure that tax receipts are maintained? \p Dan Tomlinson: It is important to realise that changes to taxation, if they are unfunded, will mean additional borrowing. This Government will ensure that we do not return to austerity, as the Conservatives did, but nor will we return to additional borrowing, which causes interest rates to rise, causes the cost of mortgages for families to go up and leads to economic chaos. That is not the approach this Government will take. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sarah Dyke presented a Bill to make provision to require the Secretary of State, in any negotiation relating to an international trade agreement, to seek to ensure that the agreement does not result in any detriment to UK dairy farmers; to make provision about the labelling of dairy products imported from outside the UK; to make provision about fair dealing between dairy farmers, processors and retailers, including in relation to pricing; to provide for certain additional contractual protections for dairy farmers; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed (Bill 323). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Alice Macdonald: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a right to paid time off work for fertility treatment; and for connected purposes.

Deciding to start or grow our family should be a time of joy and happiness, and of making plans for the future. Every year in the UK, hundreds of thousands of babies are born under such circumstances, but for some people the path to parenthood is not simple or easy. According to the World Health Organisation, infertility affects one in six people globally. Whether it is due to medical factors, being in a same-sex relationship or considering solo parenthood, there are so many people who desperately want children but cannot without extra medical support.

That support comes through the form of fertility treatment. In 2023, 52,400 patients underwent IVF in the UK. These are not statistics; these are our friends, our colleagues and our constituents, and right now, they are not entitled to the support they deserve. Of course, this has an especially big impact on women, given that they are the ones most often undergoing fertility treatment in the form of IVF.

Currently, there is no legal right to paid time off to attend fertility appointments. Women have to hope they have an understanding employer or, as I shall come to, take sick leave or annual leave instead. In fact, the Equality Act 2010 code of practice on employment makes a comparison between a woman having fertility treatment and a man having cosmetic dental surgery. How can that be right?

Let us be clear: fertility treatment is not a lifestyle choice; it is a necessity for so many people. However, as I have heard from many women, some employers treat fertility treatment as an elective procedure, and do not allow employees time off, as they would in the case of other medical procedures. IVF is not a simple filling or a dental clean-up. A single cycle of IVF typically involves five to seven appointments, often at short notice. The timing is dictated by hormone levels and follicle development, which cannot be predicted. Throughout, someone is pumping their body full of hormones and drugs, which can have an extraordinary physical and emotional toll. Indeed, according to research conducted by Fertility Matters at Work—I pay tribute to it for all its work on this issue—87% of people say that they experience anxiety or depression directly related to their treatment.

So many stories have been shared with me and other organisations about the impact of having no legal right to paid time off for fertility treatment. Women have had to use all their annual leave, have faced disciplinary action, and have hidden what they were going through from their employers, and that has had a huge toll on their mental and physical health. At an already stressful time, these people, in particular women, are having to navigate more uncertainty and stress. I am introducing this Bill because of the huge impact that the situation has on many of our constituents.

Sarah—I have changed her name for legal reason—paints that story clearly. After pouring her all into her job for five years, she and her husband decided that it was the right time to start a family. After months trying to conceive, she began IVF, and what followed, in her words, “completely blindsided” her—the staggering number of tests, the drop-everything-at-once appointments, and the cocktail of drugs that she would have to inject into her body in her office toilet. Sarah feared disclosing to her employer that she was undergoing fertility treatment, and she was right. She developed complications and had to spend weeks in hospital, which meant she had to tell her employer that she was undergoing IVF. Not long after, her boss suddenly told her that she needed to work abroad. When she explained that she needed to be close to her IVF doctor, she was told that she had to go anyway. An employment lawyer told her that she had no legal grounds to challenge that, and the choice she was left with was to stay or to leave—family or career. It was a choice she should never have had to make. That cannot be right, and the current situation is deeply unfair. The issue has a disproportionate impact on women and contributes to wider equality challenges—for example, to do with the gender pay gap and career progression. In the most extreme cases, women are having to choose between a career and a child.

The Bill aims to right this wrong. It is straightforward: it would create a statutory right to paid time off for all necessary appointments for employees undergoing fertility treatment. It gives partners a right to time off, too. That is important, because as one person said:

“I wanted to be there at the conception of my child.”

I do not think that an unreasonable request. The Bill mirrors the existing framework for antenatal care, recognising that fertility treatment is equally deserving of workplace protection. Fundamentally, it raises these questions for the House: do we believe that everyone who wishes to have a child deserves a fair chance of doing so? Will the state support all its citizens who have chosen that path? Do we have a moral duty to level the playing field for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves struggling to get pregnant? This is about fairness.

On that point, although the Bill’s scope is limited to employment rights, we must also tackle the postcode lottery of access to NHS-funded IVF cycles, which organisations such as Fertility Action and LGBT Mummies have so powerfully campaigned to address. Fewer than 10% of integrated care boards in England offer the recommended three cycles of IVF, but someone’s chances of having a baby should not depend on where they live.

The Bill is in our national interest. As Becky Kearns from Fertility Matters at Work said:

“This is also a workforce crisis hiding in plain sight. We’re facing a global fertility decline but failing to support those actively trying to start a family”.

Last year, the fertility rate in England and Wales reached an all-time low, falling for the third year in a row to 1.41 children per woman. Just to sustain current population levels, it needs to be 2.1, so we need more people to have babies. We should be helping those who wish to become parents and grow their families, and who will be raising the future workers and taxpayers on  whom this country will depend. That is, of course, not the only solution to falling fertility rates, but it would help.

Meanwhile, while there is a climate of stigma, in which women are afraid of revealing that they are undergoing treatment, there is a very real cost for British business. Without the right to receive time off, up to 63% of people take sick leave to attend appointments. Because many are concerned about telling their employer, they often take whole days off to hide their appointments, instead of the few hours that they actually require. Recent research published this week estimates that this costs UK employers up to £54 million in unplanned sick leave alone every year, and that is just one example of the cost to businesses. Providing a statutory right to time off not only protects employees, but gives them permission to take that time off openly, and to plan it with their employer, transforming chaos into clarity for everyone. Accessing treatment can be even more challenging for those working in certain circumstances, such as those doing shift work or travelling often.

In fact, this right is also smart business, because 86% of employees would be attracted to a role in an organisation that provides fertility support. Many businesses already recognise that this is not only the right thing to do, but in their interests. Businesses such as Centrica, Cadent Gas and Aviva, which has a strong presence in my constituency, have all voluntarily given paid time off to their employees for fertility treatment, but whether someone can attend their fertility appointment should not depend on the luck of the draw, a kind manager or an understanding employer; it should be the norm for everyone. In many other countries, bespoke employment legislation has already been developed. People in South Korea and Malta, for example, are entitled to paid time off for fertility treatment.

We have come a long way as a society. For decades, we provided paid time off for antenatal leave, then maternity leave, and soon, thanks to Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, we will have day-one rights for paternity and parental leave, and for bereavement leave after pregnancy loss. We must look at fertility treatment too, because, as I know myself, the pathway to parenthood is not always easy.

This Bill would help shift the culture and narrative in workplaces about a topic that has remained taboo for far too long. I know there has been support across the House for this change; I pay tribute to the former Conservative Member Nickie Aiken, who introduced a similar private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament. I also thank the Government, and current and past Ministers, for their engagement with me on this issue, and I know that they are listening. If it is not possible to get a change in the law soon, I would encourage Members to ask businesses in their constituency if they will join others in voluntarily providing paid time off for fertility treatment.

Finally, it is deeply fitting that this Bill is presented in Fertility Week—a time to challenge taboos and raise awareness of the devastating physical, emotional and social impacts of fertility problems. How better could this House show that it is alive to these issues and injustices than by giving its support to this Bill?

This Bill is about fairness. It is about saying to the thousands of people who undergo fertility treatment every year that we see them, we support them, and they   should not have to face it alone. That is morally right, right for our economy and right for our national interest. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Alice Macdonald, Andrew Pakes, Daniel Francis, Jess Asato, Kate Osborne, Matt Turmaine, Michael Wheeler, Olivia Blake, Rachel Blake, Sarah Owen, Sarah Russell and Stella Creasy present the Bill.

Alice Macdonald accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed (Bill 320). \p Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. \p Andrew Griffith: I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to support high streets by cutting public expenditure to facilitate the abolition of business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure premises on the high street; and further calls on the Government not to proceed with the Employment Rights Bill to avoid hiring freezes and job losses, to remove red tape for businesses, including by reviewing IR35, to cut energy bills for businesses and to tackle retail crime, thereby protecting key pillars of local communities including post offices, pubs and pharmacies.

I am pleased to move the motion in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. We celebrate and support our high streets—their independent shops, the warm refuge they provide from loneliness, and the way that they incubate new business. They bring us together as communities, provide markets for local farmers and food producers, offer venues for street festivals and often afford young people their first step on the career ladder, but across Britain’s high streets, the lights are dimming, the laughter in our pubs is falling silent, and shutters on shops are coming down for the last time. When high streets thrive, communities thrive. When our high streets retreat, so does civic society. We Conservatives profoundly value our high street enterprises, which is why one of our first actions in government will be to abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses.

In July, the Chancellor said that she will make the UK

“the best place to start and grow a business”.—[Official Report, 29 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1051.]

Well, goodness me, she has an odd way of showing it! In her very first Budget, the Chancellor slapped businesses with a £25 billion tax raid, and with a national insurance jobs tax, which hit high-street businesses the hardest, and meant that it cost business owners more simply to give someone a job. \p Luke Evans: Hospitality was hit particularly hard by that toxic concoction. A UKHospitality survey found that 76% of businesses put up their prices, one third restricted their hours and 63% had to cut their staffing as a result. Is that not the reason why we need this policy to try to improve our high streets? \p Andrew Griffith: My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point: it was a devastating concoction of the Chancellor’s last year, and I believe that I am right in saying that UKHospitality calibrated the figures and estimated that 98,000 jobs have been lost across the hospitality sector. How proud this Government must be of costing mostly young and often vulnerable people their first chance! \p Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. Hospitality is fundamental to social mobility. I would have thought that Government Members would be ashamed of a policy that means that those furthest away from the labour market—young people—are put off from trying to get their first job. Hospitality is essential to enabling them to join the labour market, and the Government have put blocks in the way of people who want a better life. \p Andrew Griffith: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Let us be optimistic: we are here to celebrate our high streets, and perhaps all is not lost. The Chancellor could yet repent and reverse some of her most damaging policies, or adopt our policy of cutting business rates entirely for 250,000 high-street businesses. \p John Glen: When I visited Salisbury chamber of commerce on Friday, it gave me the example of a single mother doing 30 hours a week on the national living wage. As a result of the combination of the increase in the national living wage, the threshold changes and the rate changes on national insurance, that individual costs a business 11% more than they did last year. As a consequence, they cannot take on anyone else. What does my hon. Friend think about the impact that has on the economy? \p Andrew Griffith: My right hon. Friend represents his constituents in Salisbury diligently, and makes exactly the same point. With respect, the Government have not understood business, and the Treasury did not pause to consider, or to conduct an impact assessment. In particular, the capricious change in thresholds from £9,100 down to £5,000, without any impact assessment from the Treasury, has done immense damage to high-street businesses. The Government should hang their head in shame. \p Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend will know that cafés, including small cafés, play an important part on the high street and bring people to it. Is he aware that under this Government, mushrooms are up, bacon is up, eggs are up, sausages are up, bread is up, tea is up and milk is up? Therein is a threat to the full English breakfast. This Government might be forgiven for many things, but taking away the full English breakfast from the high street is not one of them. \p Andrew Griffith: I enjoy a full English as much as I suspect my colleague does. It is not just breakfast that is under threat; it is also lunch, supper, tea, dinner and the great British pub. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing this debate forward, and I welcome it. I am always constructive and encouraging, so let me say that Ards and North Down borough council, my local council back home, has a scheme for a new, thriving high street. A council grant enables shop owners to repaint their premises, provide new signage and address the blight of vacant shops. Online shopping without investment means that the high street cannot survive. Does he agree that the Government should extend the initiative that we have back home in Northern Ireland, in my council area, to councils here, to help with jobs and rebuilding the high street? \p Andrew Griffith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is so much that we in this House and those in the Government—if they are minded to do so—can do to alleviate the burden on business. It is hard to run a business at the best of times, and it is even harder when the Government seek to be a headwind, rather than a tailwind. \p Alistair Strathern: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Andrew Griffith: I have so many wonderful contributions to take from my colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have his chance later. \p Andrew Murrison: One thing that the Government might like to reflect on is the perverse situation that people facing VAT find themselves in. The £90,000 threshold is causing many small business people, such as barbers, to adjust their behaviour—classically, reducing their working week from five days to four or three. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury needs to look at the increased tax take that it might receive if it changed VAT thresholds to allow those small businesses to work full time? \p Andrew Griffith: My right hon. Friend makes another excellent point. I recently had the wonderful opportunity to meet Dr Arthur Laffer, whose pioneering economic research showed that reducing taxes increased not only the growth rate of the economy but, as a consequence, the tax take to the Treasury. That is a very important point about incentives and what we in this House can do. \p Phil Brickell: The hon. Member is speaking about the tax rate. Is it not also important to talk about the tax gap? That gap is £46.8 billion, of which £6.4 billion is linked to tax evasion. We are seeing a lot of that on our high streets up and down the country. What does he think should be done across Government to tackle it? \p Andrew Griffith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must have overstayed oral questions to the Chancellor, because what we are doing in the Chamber now is celebrating, cherishing and supporting our high streets, not accusing businesses in our constituencies of tax evasion. However, I am sure he has impressed his Treasury colleagues, who are never shy about trying to transfer wealth from the private sector to the less productive public sector. \p Desmond Swayne: Growth, increased turnover and increased profits for microbusinesses should be a cause for celebration, but the reality is that crossing the reduced VAT threshold can be a disaster. So many suppliers of small businesses are themselves small businesses; there is no VAT that they can reclaim, so it can be dreadful. \p Andrew Griffith: Again, that is an excellent point. It is something that the Chancellor, who is spreading uncertainty and consternation again this morning, should think about in relation to the conduct of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. While businesses absolutely understand that part of their role is to contribute to society—to the communities in which they exist—it seems that HMRC so often goes out of the way to make it hard for our businesses. This is an organisation that literally sought  to turn its telephone lines off for six months of the year, until the previous Government refused to allow it to do so.

Hospitality venues, which we have talked about, are really suffering. They are at the apex of those affected by the changes to employment law, taxes and business rates. \p Connor Naismith: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Andrew Griffith: I will make some progress. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the Queen’s Head in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), which brought home to me the challenges that that business is facing. Of course, all hon. Members in this Chamber represent constituencies, and traders on high streets in places like Arundel, Midhurst, Petworth, Pulborough, Storrington and Henfield have worked tirelessly throughout history to make our high streets and our communities what they are today, but—from the unacceptable time it has taken to fix the fire-damaged Angel Inn in Midhurst to the imposition of higher parking charges by Liberal Democrat councillors—government is too often a headwind, rather than a tailwind. \p Helena Dollimore: The hon. Member is talking about the importance of high streets. In Hastings town centre, £150,000 of levelling-up money was provided to renovate the old Debenhams building and open a family fun factory. Sadly, that closed after a couple of weeks, the staff were not paid, and the building was boarded up. That taxpayer money was given to one of the biggest Conservative donors, Lubov Chernukhin. She has left with the money, and has not replied to my letter asking for it to be given back to the people of Hastings. Will the hon. Member, or perhaps the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel)—who received £70,000 from that donor last year—help me to get a response about where our money is? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just check that you have let the right hon. Member know that you intended to refer to her? \p Helena Dollimore: indicated assent. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Okay. \p Andrew Griffith: I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish to take that matter up with Ministers through the appropriate channels, but there will not be many fun factories on our high streets when they feel the burden of Labour’s further changes.

Running a business—something that Conservative Members understand—is not easy at the best of times, but thanks to this Chancellor and this Government, these are far from the best of times. For the average pub, business rates have soared from £4,000 per year to over £9,000, and this morning, we have learned that the Chancellor is coming back for more. A year ago, she promised that she was done—that her tax raid on business was the end of it. She is leading us down the garden path. Spending is out of control, and she expects taxpayers, including businesses, to clean up her mess. \p Wendy Morton: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a Government who simply do not understand business? They seem to think that they can just squeeze and squeeze small businesses because they make unlimited profits. If they do that, there will be no businesses left on our high streets. \p Andrew Griffith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One only has to look at the wording of the motion we are debating and that of the Government amendment. We Conservatives talk about lifting burdens, removing business rates, cutting red tape, and taking more action to address crime on our high streets. The Labour party talks about compulsory purchase, more grants and more subsidies—it is not interested in lifting the burden on business. \p Bradley Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government present an illusion of choice? I will give him a very brief example. Two weeks ago, I met the owners of a business in my constituency—a young couple who own a hospitality business. They have two young children; one is three weeks old. They are buying a new house, and have said to me that because of the pressures bearing down on them as a result of choices made by this Government, they fear for the future of their business, which may have to close next year. Is it not the case that the Government are giving people an illusion of a choice, when in reality they are stifling the economy? \p Andrew Griffith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the choices that businesses face are enormously difficult. Every single day, they have to ask themselves whether they should put up prices to try to claw back some of the damage—some of that £25 billion cost—thereby increasing inflation and keeping interest rates higher for longer, pushing up the cost of living. Do they reduce the number of employees or the hours per employee, or do they simply fold in the face of disincentives, a lack of support and headwinds rather than tailwinds? Do they shut up shop before the Chancellor’s next intervention heaps on more and more burdens? \p Carla Lockhart: The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech. High streets across my constituency are struggling, and one additional burden that they carry is a parcels border in the Irish sea caused by the Windsor framework and the protocol. It cost a children’s clothes retailer over £200 to get a delivery from GB. Does the hon. Member agree that this is an extra burden that retailers should not have to carry, and that the Government need to do something about it quickly before businesses go out of business? \p Andrew Griffith: Rather than giving away our fishing for 12 years and getting nothing in return because of a dogma, or spending time on international affairs—giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory and paying for the privilege—the Government should be prioritising the needs of business and focusing on the specific barriers mentioned by the hon. Member. Doing so would make a huge difference to businesses in her constituency.

It is not just the Chancellor. The Business Secretary seems to be doing his bit too, creating more small businesses by shrinking existing large ones. His 330-page unemployment Bill, which is due to come back before  the House tomorrow, will make life a nightmare for every employer on our high streets. It will make flexible and seasonal working impossible, and will prevent employers from taking a risk on young people and work returners—some of the most vulnerable people in society—for fear of joining the backlog of 490,000 claims to employment tribunals. \p Amanda Martin: rose— \p Andrew Griffith: If the hon. Lady wants to talk about what the Government are doing to help employment, I would love to hear her intervention. \p Amanda Martin: The flexible labour market under the Tories meant that people were employed but did not know when they were working, how long they were working for and how much they were getting paid. \p Andrew Griffith: You do not improve workers’ rights by making them unemployed, creating a generation of jobless young people who cannot find their way into gainful employment. And do you know what? It is not just the Conservatives who are saying that. Even that finishing school for socialists, the Resolution Foundation, opposes Labour’s Bill because of the unemployment that it will yield.

What this shows us is that the Government are simply not serious about business. We Conservatives get it. Many of us have worked in business ourselves, and we understand that businesses take risks, create wealth and employ millions. That is why we introduced business rates relief before this Labour Government cut it, and it is why we will introduce a 100% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, taking 250,000 high street premises out of business rates entirely. \p Dave Doogan: The shadow Minister will, of course, be delighted to know that the Scottish National party was the first party anywhere in the United Kingdom to introduce business rates relief for small businesses. As for the Labour Government’s business literacy, which the hon. Gentleman critiques quite accurately, does it concern him that it manifests itself in deeply disingenuous moves, like taking a penny off the price of a pint, while the same pub—the Taybank in Dunkeld, perhaps, or the Stag in Forfar—is seeing its national insurance contributions put up and its energy bills going through the roof? This Government cannot join the dots. Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that this is only going to get worse? \p Andrew Griffith: I am enormously concerned. I was concerned when I woke up this morning, and I am even more concerned after hearing the intervention from our Chancellor: no certainty, confidence plummeting, and the promise of more taxes to follow. \p Vikki Slade: I hope that the shadow Minister will explain something to me. I totally agree that business rates need reform, but I am deeply concerned about the hole in local government finance that it will cause. My local council, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, has calculated that it retains £66 million from business rates. Can he please tell me where that will come from? \p Andrew Griffith: To coin a phrase, we are not going to balance the books of local government on the back of entrepreneurial businesses that are keeping our high streets alive, providing services for the community and allowing our economy to grow. \p Adam Thompson: When the shadow Minister’s party came into government in 2010, I was working in the Animal store in Queens Arcade in Cardiff, which was an anchor institution there: it brought people in, and ensured that retail was thriving in the community. When his party left government 14 years later, the Animal store was closed, as were the majority of the other units in the arcade. Can he comment on why that happened on his party’s watch? \p Andrew Griffith: I am not sure that we were in charge in the particular area that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I am pleased to know that, like so many of us, he had his first experience of work—his first leg-up, his first work opportunity—in the retail and hospitality sector. It is hugely important, and gives people great opportunities in life.

I have talked about our promises—[Interruption.] I do not want to get too deflected by stories about the Animal store, of which the hon. Gentleman clearly has enormously fond recollections, and where he spent many a happy hour. \p Neil Hudson: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Andrew Griffith: I will, but I suspect that I should then make a bit more progress. \p Neil Hudson: May I move the conversation on from animals, much as I would love to talk about animals today?

In Epping Forest we have fantastic pubs, restaurants and cafés—including the Queen Vic, Il Bacio, Gosht, Alecco, Papillon and Poppy’s—but they are all struggling under this Labour Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should listen to our sensible proposals to cut business rates and help them to get their energy bills and food costs down? \p Andrew Griffith: I absolutely agree. We are all here individually today representing our fantastic constituencies, our wonderful high streets and our entrepreneurial businesses—those residents and constituents who seek to be employed and contribute to a growing part of our economy. That is why we in the Opposition are here to talk about our plan to save the high street, not to make the sort of partisan points that we are hearing from Labour Members. \p Harriet Cross: Family businesses are crucial to our high streets, including mine in Inverurie, Ellon, Turriff and Huntly. Indeed, they are the backbone of our high streets, yet this Government’s national insurance contributions changes and Employment Rights Bill, and their slashing of business property relief, will have a huge impact on them and employment in them. What does the shadow Minister think of that, and what can we do to help our high streets and, in particular, family businesses in them? \p Lindsay Hoyle: All up the Chorley market! \p Andrew Griffith: So many family businesses will be devastated by the family business death tax introduced by the Labour party. We often hear about the plight of farmers and food producers, but family businesses are even more numerous. If you have survived Labour’s job tax, if you have survived Labour’s more than doubling of business rates, if you have survived the red tape— so much more of it—that Labour is imposing, all that awaits you when you seek to pass your business or your family farm on to the next generation is Labour’s family business death tax. That is why, as part of our plan for the high street, we will repeal those damaging measures. \p Catherine Fookes: rose— \p Andrew Griffith: I hope that the hon. Lady is rising to commit herself to repealing them too. \p Catherine Fookes: No; I want to remind the shadow Minister that we on this side of the House talk up our high streets, while all I can hear from the opposite Benches is people talking them down. As for red tape, the family businesses in my constituency were desperate to get rid of the red tape that the Conservatives created during their botched Brexit deals. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that by giving £5 billion to the Pride in Place scheme, this Government are doing a great deal more to support our high streets than his Government ever did? \p Andrew Griffith: That was a valiant attempt to return to past history, but on this side of the House we are looking forward. Our plan for the high street would remedy the damage that has been done not over past years but over past months, and even again this morning—the collapse in confidence caused by our Chancellor. \p Iain Duncan Smith: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that many of those sitting on the opposite Benches have clearly been dragooned into coming here to support the Government—as often happens in government, God help us. Does he think that they walk down their high streets telling the shopkeepers, “It is great to have national insurance charges so high that you cannot employ anyone, it is great to have an employment Bill that means you will not be able to employ anyone again, and with the rates that are out there, you may all be out of business—suck it up”? \p Andrew Griffith: My right hon. Friend has made exactly the right point. It is genuinely bewildering—and we will see this again tomorrow—that when every single major business group in the country urges the Government not to proceed with their damaging unemployment Bill, when Labour think-tanks urge them not to proceed with that Bill, and when not a single business in favour of that Bill can be named by a Labour Minister—other than the Co-op and one that is overseas—they still seek to proceed with it. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Andrew Griffith: I will make some progress.

We have talked about the damage being done by the Chancellor, and we have talked about business rates and our plan to reform them and give the high street a chance, but there is more. Our cheap power plan will cut  energy bills by 20%, with the average restaurant saving a very real £5,000 and the average pub saving £1,100. Perhaps Labour Members would like to emulate that energy plan. We will save the high street from the scourge of crime and shoplifting, and early release of prisoners, by hiring a further 10,000 police officers, tripling the use of stop and search and reversing Labour’s release of criminals to make our high streets safer. We will repeal those most damaging elements of the Employment Rights Bill, and rather than paying lip service to cutting red tape, we will take a chainsaw to bureaucracy and blockages to business, from planning to licensing to IR35, and so much more.

We stand with the makers, not the takers: the people who put their time, energy and money on the line to make our communities a better place. We know that one cannot build prosperity by punishing those who create it, that one cannot revive our high streets by taxing them into submission, and that one cannot protect a worker by bankrupting their employer. Our message to the Government today is simple: give businesses the confidence they need; remove the threat of taxes hanging over their head; listen to the voice of business; and support our plans to support our brilliant high streets. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert

“recognises the need to rejuvenate high streets following 14 years of decline under the previous Administration; welcomes the Government’s action to restore Pride in Place backed by £5 billion to support 339 locations to empower communities to drive meaningful change in their local area, including high streets; supports local communities being given new powers to tackle vacancies, and prevent new betting and vape shops in their areas, including the ability to auction off persistently empty premises through High Street Rental Auctions; further welcomes the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that will ban upwards-only rent reviews in commercial leases, helping to create fairer rental conditions; endorses the Government’s support for property owners; also welcomes that from April 2026, eligible retail, hospitality, and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 will benefit from permanently lower business rates multipliers; welcomes the Plan for Small Businesses which supports high street small businesses as the backbone of local economies and which commits to cut the administrative burden of regulation for businesses by 25%; and further recognises that the Employment Rights Bill will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many small businesses already offer their workers to all.”

I will start with where I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Our town and city centres are part of our identity and our sense of belonging. When they do not meet expectations—when shops are shut and footfall is down—that can dent pride in place, hold back the economy and leave our communities divided. Put simply, they are part of the nation’s barometer of whether we—all of us in this House—are doing a good job. That also means that, when our high streets prosper, the country can too. Retail and hospitality form the engine of our economy. Every pound spent on our high streets supports jobs, renewal and living standards.

But, after 14 years of decimating our high streets, I think the Conservatives have some cheek in raising this debate and pretending they have solutions. The shift to online and out-of-town retail left too many high  streets with increased vacancy rates, and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing about it. Austerity and cuts to local government robbed our public realm of investment, and they did absolutely nothing about it. The harshest pain of all was felt because of the cost of living pressures resulting from Liz Truss—remember her?—and her catastrophic mini-Budget, which Conservative Members supported every step of the way.

Where the Conservatives oversaw neglect and decline—for which they should hang their heads in shame—this Labour Government believe that the best days of the nation’s high streets are ahead of us. But to reach them, we need the full force of Government to make that a reality. Only by raising household incomes and putting more money in people’s pockets can we boost the demand that our high streets need.

To the Conservative party, who pretend that there is a quick fix, I say this: you crashed the economy; do not forget that. You put jobs and livelihoods at risk; do not forget that. You oversaw 14 years of decline for our high streets and our district centres; this Labour Government are dealing with the mess that you left behind. So, quite frankly, we will take no lectures from the Conservatives. \p Graham Stuart: Does the Minister regret the fact that unemployment has gone up every single month since Labour came to power, whereas, over the 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800 more people a day—4 million in total—came into work? Surely she must recognise those facts, away from her—albeit rather brilliant and fiery—rhetoric. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: Any economist will tell us that there is always a lag. What we are now seeing are the consequences of the last party’s failures. We are fixing the mess; we are fixing the foundations in order to repair, and I will give examples of that.

Growth is our priority for the nation’s high streets, but we also recognise that, historically, the effects of that have not been equally felt. That is why we are giving communities greater control over their areas, so that they can drive the change that they want to see. In September, the Communities Secretary and I set out the Government’s Pride in Place programme and strategy. We will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support across the 244 places that need it the most—places that were neglected by the Conservatives. It will be up to new neighbourhood boards to decide how that is spent over the next decade, but each area will be encouraged to use the funding to build thriving public places. \p Catherine Fookes: Does the Minister agree that the £1.5 million that my constituency of Monmouthshire will get for our five high streets will make a huge impact and help deliver the change that we so vitally need in our high streets? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. Through our Pride in Place impact fund, we are providing a cash injection to 95 places across the country. That will be spent by local authorities specifically to drive and improve high streets. That is a direct, tangible action that this Labour Government are taking against those 14 years of decline. \p Mark Pritchard: I know that, as a London MP, the Minister spends a lot of time reading the Shropshire Star, so I am sure she will be aware of its recent report that, year on year, there has been a 15.5% increase in businesses in severe distress; across the west midlands, year on year, the figure is 11.9%. Does the Minister not finally get that raising taxes does not grow the economy? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We absolutely understand the pressure that businesses are under, but that pressure did not happen overnight; it is the consequence of 14 years in which we have not seen productivity growth and 14 years in which the economy has not grown. We understand the economic reality and we are taking action to respond to it, but, candidly, it is pretty disingenuous for the Conservatives to pretend that the foundations that they left for the economy were not absolutely corrosive and decimated. That is the inheritance that we are building on. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Minister for giving way; she has been very generous with her intervention time. In Harlow, we have a lot of sole traders—workmen and workwomen who are self-employed. One issue that they face is the long waits to actually get seen by the NHS, which has a huge impact on their businesses. Is it not right that we need to invest in the NHS, and that we should welcome the record investment that this Government have put into it? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that there is a fundamental link between public services that work and can support people across the economy and how well the economy does. This Labour Government have made the decision that it is right for us to invest in our public services, and right for us to invest in our NHS, because it is good for people, but also good for the economy. We do not resile from that decision. \p Tim Farron: I strongly empathise with the Minister’s articulate fury at the previous Government and the damage they did to our village and town centres. But will she acknowledge the fact that Cumbria Tourism, which represents the employers of 60,000 people in Cumbria, reports that the national insurance rise has seen 37% of those businesses cutting staff, 34% freezing pay and 33% halting recruitment? Is that not likely to reduce the tax take—as well as damaging businesses generally—and reduce our ability to support the public services that she says she is so passionate about? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We understand that businesses across all sectors are under pressure. We are working with the tourism sector, because it is absolutely vital to the growth of the wider economy, and with all sectors. This requires a whole set of interventions, whether that is what we are talking about today, in terms of our high streets, the action we are taking to support training and skills for the workforce, or the investment we are putting into the economy.

We recognise the pressure, but I come back to the fact that that pressure did not come overnight. If you decimate and under-invest in the economy for 14 years, you end up where we are now. The choice for this Labour Government is that we can now do the job of renewal. It takes time, and we recognise that, but that is a journey that we are determined to go alongside business on. \p Gareth Snell: In a polycentric city such as Stoke-on-Trent, we have six town centres, as well as many other areas of trade. One big thing that affected us under the last Conservative Government—we also had a Conservative council in Stoke-on-Trent—was the closure of five of the six town-centre police stations, which made those town centres feel unsafe, and the complete hollowing out of our bus network, which meant that many people could not get to the town centres to spend their hard-earned money in the shops. Could the Minister set out what this Government are doing to reverse those terrible trends under the last Government? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank my hon. Friend for setting out all the failures and mistakes that we are now having to fix. We are very conscious of that. That is why, through our Pride in Place strategy, for example, we introduced an action plan that was fundamentally about how we build strong communities, create thriving places and allow our communities to take control. As part of that, we are taking new steps to support high streets and town centres. That includes rolling out high street rental auctions, banning unfair upward-only rent review clauses in England and Wales, supporting property owners to establish business improvement districts, reforming the compulsory purchase process and land compensation rules to allow local authorities to shape their high streets, and opening a new co-operative development unit within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to help our communities take greater control and ownership of their high streets. The problems in our high streets so often stem from the “we know best” attitude that we saw from the last Government over 14 years, so the answer must be to hand power to communities. \p Polly Billington: I emphasise the importance of the pride in place programme for places such as Ramsgate, where the vacancy rate in the high street has been an appalling 24%. We were left with the legacy of 14 years of Tory Government, and only because of the social and community energy in Ramsgate have we been able to turn that around, with the support of the pride in place programme. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. We feel that we are giving places the tools and levers that they need to turn around the legacy of the last Government. \p Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady is making great pace through her speech, but I want to bring her back to one point. She has made the case for all the peripheral things that the Government have done to try to help high streets, and for various other things. Does she not understand—I would like her opinion on this—that raising national insurance on small businesses, and reducing the time in which they have to pay, has damaged their ability to take people on and is really costing them, to the point that many have closed? Does she not agree that that single decision has done more damage to our high streets than anything that she talks about repairing? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: What has damaged the high street is 14 years of neglect. The Conservatives pretend that it was thriving for 14 years and that we did not see shops  closing down, boarded-up shops and the decimation of our public realm. We will take no advice from them, because they had 14 years to respond, but they categorically failed. \p Melanie Ward: Does the Minister agree that it will be infuriating to many of my constituents to hear the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) describe what the Labour Government are doing as “peripheral”? That presumably includes the growth mission fund, which is making a multimillion-pound investment in my high street in Kirkcaldy. The high street was left in a state of decline after 14 years of Conservative government. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that what we are doing is not peripheral—I was so incensed by that that I forgot to mention it. It is fundamental that we respond to the challenges in our high streets.

The key point that I want people to take away is that we are acting, whether it is through the pride in place strategy and programme or through the action that we are taking on business rates. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned business rates. From April 2026, eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 will benefit from permanently lower business rate multipliers. That will, critically, level the playing field between online retailers and high streets. \p Wendy Morton: The hon. Lady talks a lot about footfall on high streets, and I think we all agree that more footfall benefits businesses. With that in mind, what consideration has she given to regenerating our towns and city centres by building on brownfield sites and setting proper housing targets in our city centres, rather than on the peripheries of cities? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are densifying. I return, however, to the 14 years for which the Conservatives failed on housing. Do they remember removing housing targets completely? Their carping on at us for making progress on our commitment to deliver 1.5 million homes is for the birds. We are clear that we need thriving high streets, and that requires mixed use and a range of things in our strategy. \p Helena Dollimore: The Minister is talking about the Conservative party’s record of damaging our high streets. As I mentioned earlier, in Hastings, £150,000 of levelling-up money was given to a Conservative donor, who ran off with it and left a boarded-up shop in our town centre. I did not hear from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), whether the Conservative party will refuse to take any donations from Ms Chernukhin after she ran off with that money. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I hope that when the shadow Minister stands up, he will respond to that question and say whether the Conservative party will return the money.

In the end, we need investment in our communities. That is what we are providing, whether it is by reducing business rates or through the work of my Department for Business and Trade colleagues to deliver the backing  your business plan, a long-term strategy for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and the everyday economy. As part of that, family-run businesses on the high street will benefit from new tools to unlock access to finance, action to crack down on late payments—we know that is a massive issue for SMEs—and easier access to the business growth service. \p Bradley Thomas: Will the Minister give way? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I will make progress.

Hon. Members have mentioned retail crime. We have scrapped effective immunity for low-value shoplifting, and we are taking action to protect retail workers from assault. Alongside the Employment Rights Bill, which we are proud of, that will make retail a more desirable career choice, improve retention and make recruitment clearer. We are very clear that employment rights are good for workers, but also for businesses and for the economy. \p Luke Evans: The amendment contains a bit of an oxymoron, because it says that the Government’s plan for small businesses

“commits to cut the administrative burden of regulation for businesses by 25%”,

but it then goes on to mention the Employment Rights Bill. Will the 25% cut in regulation take place before or after the Employment Rights Bill becomes law, and where will that cut come from? In all the measures that the Minister has talked about, we have not heard about that one. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: It is incredibly telling that the hon. Member thinks that regulation consists of things such as protecting our workers, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts and ensuring that workers have sick pay. This is a fundamental part of the social contract. We are trying to ensure that when the economy does well, the everyday person does well, and that requires them to have basic rights and protections. We are very clear about and proud of that. Quite frankly, it is tragic that the Conservatives, who governed for 14 years in which workers were hugely exploited and the economy crashed, cannot see that.

Finally, before I make progress, I will reflect on energy bills. We understand that businesses are under pressure from energy bills. That is why we are driving forward our clean power mission, because we are clear that the shift to renewables will drive down bills. Alongside that, we are giving SMEs access to the Energy Ombudsman for the first time, strengthening their ability to renegotiate contracts through blend and extend, and helping businesses to reduce their use in order to reduce energy costs. \p Dave Doogan: Does the Minister understand the immediacy of the pressure on small businesses? She may have the best of intentions, and I am sure that prices will unwind in five or 10 years, eventually resulting in lower energy bills for commercial enterprise across the United Kingdom. That will not happen this week, however, or even this year or next, and many of them will not survive. What is her message to them about this perpetual “jam tomorrow” culture? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We understand the pressure that businesses are under with energy, but it is driven by our dependence on global fossil fuel markets. We can do sticking-plaster or short-term fixes, or we can deal with the fundamental problem. We are pushing towards clean power, because that is how we ultimately drive down bills. That is not an offer to do so in 10 or 20 years; we are committed to driving down bills in this Parliament, and we will not resile from that.

Labour Members agree that our high streets will always be at the heart of our communities, and we welcome the cross-party agreement on that. Unless we grow the economy and put more money in people’s pockets, however, our high streets will never match local people’s ambition. That is why our high streets are front and centre of our growth mission, and why we are committed to driving their renewal.

I ask everyone in the House to remember the record and the legacy of the Conservatives, who are holding this debate pretending that they really care. For 14 years, our high streets were decimated, shops were boarded up and people in all our communities saw the impact of the Conservatives’ actions. \p Amanda Martin: There has been a lot of talk about hospitality, with people mentioning it as a great source of first jobs. Under the last Government, however, 7,000 pubs were closed—last orders were called on those pubs. Does the Minister agree that our plans for thriving high streets mean that Labour is the only party looking to ensure that more pints are poured for our hard-working people? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right—7,000 pubs.

Statistic after statistic speaks to the Conservatives’ failure, so rather than being smug and providing fake solutions, they should be far more humble about the state in which they have left our communities. It is now on this Labour Government to fix the mess they left behind. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I make it clear that we will be on a six-minute time limit from the first Back Bencher. I call Sarah Olney. \p Sarah Olney: The current landscape is extremely challenging for high street businesses. I am sure that Members across the House have heard from countless local businesses in their constituencies, on their high streets and in the hearts of their communities about the challenges they face—from the Government’s national insurance increase to sky-high energy bills and uncertainty about what the Employment Rights Bill means for them.

I wish to contextualise the motion and the challenges of the business landscape after years of dire economic mismanagement by the last Conservative Government. On their watch, energy costs soared and economic chaos unfolded following their mini-Budget. Business confidence fell, in part because of the scrapping of the industrial strategy and the huge increases in trade barriers following their botched trade agreement with the EU. \p Graham Stuart: Does the hon. Lady understand the immediacy of the problem facing companies in the high street? She has mentioned energy costs, and she is quite right to do so, but why does the Liberal Democrat amendment suggest that changes should be made to reduce them “within a decade”? \p Sarah Olney: The Liberal Democrat plan aims to halve energy bills within the decade by scrapping the link between gas and electricity prices. We have a positive plan to make a real difference to energy prices for households and businesses.

I wonder whether the Conservatives have really learned the lesson from their time in government. I listened with interest when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) asked the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), about how their plans for business rate cuts would impact on local government finances, and he had nothing to say. To me, that is an indicator that the Conservatives have not yet learned the lessons of the mini-Budget, and that they plan to repeat all those errors again if they ever get back into government.

However, many of the challenges that businesses face are being compounded by decisions taken by this Government, from their damaging national insurance rise to continued uncertainty about Ministers’ approach to the Employment Rights Bill. The economy is practically stagnant, with business confidence down and unemployment up. The Government must act more urgently to support our high streets, which are vital to our local economies and provide the jobs that so many rely on. \p Steffan Aquarone: Stalham, a beautiful market town in North Norfolk, is one of the places receiving support from the high streets taskforce to revitalise its high street, and local businesses are enthusiastically getting involved. However, to support businesses to thrive, we have to equip them with skills and expertise. Will she join me in praising the work of my local councils in providing training for small businesses, and does she agree that we need more ways to upskill and support business owners and managers so they can run the most successful businesses possible? \p Sarah Olney: My hon. Friend represents his constituents and their businesses in North Norfolk so admirably. He is absolutely right about skills, which neither Conservative nor Labour Members have yet mentioned, but which are fundamental to powering the growth we really need in our economy.

Providing the support that our high streets need should not and cannot be done by cutting public expenditure, as the Conservative motion calls for, but by taking bold action: implementing the industrial strategy with more urgency, addressing the workforce crisis and negotiating a new bespoke UK-EU customs union to grow our economy.

In 2019, the previous Conservative Government made a manifesto pledge to fundamentally review the business rates system, and the Liberal Democrats agree that we need a fundamental overhaul of this broken system. However, throughout their tenure, they failed to keep that promise to businesses and local communities, so we  will continue to call on this Government to reimagine business rates, and not just by tinkering around the edges and putting in place sticking-plaster solutions. \p Edward Morello: On business rates, coastal communities such as West Dorset are heavily reliant on hospitality for providing jobs—over 6,000 locally—and it is vital to our tourism economy. The George in West Bay has seen its business rates go from £8,000 to £27,000, which basically ends any chance of its making a profit in the foreseeable future. How can we talk about supporting hospitality, tourism and small businesses when such businesses have to suffer those kinds of costs? \p Sarah Olney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Businesses all across the country, including in my own constituency of Richmond Park, have reported similar massive increases in their business rates bills, and the Government urgently need to get to grips with that. \p Monica Harding: I would like to raise the plight of hairdressers. Angels in Thames Ditton in my constituency told me that this Government are hitting small businesses with higher employer costs, rising business rates and wage hikes that are already squeezing very thin margins. They are facing not just one increase, but a combination of high utility supply costs, wage rises, NI hikes and business rates that are all adding up, and they are really struggling to survive. \p Sarah Olney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just one thing or two things, but a whole range of different costs are being loaded on to businesses one after the other, all at the same time and during a time when the economy is very sluggish and growth is extremely difficult. \p Tim Farron: My hon. Friend has listed a number of factors, but one that would not cost the Government very much money to put right is the lack of a workforce. In areas such as mine, 63% of all the hospitality and tourism businesses are operating below capacity, because they cannot find enough staff. There is surely room in town centres, helped by flexibility in planning law, to create more affordable housing in those town centres and create a workforce, as well as to create footfall to create demand for those businesses. \p Sarah Olney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are talking about high streets, but there is a much wider issue across the entire economy about the workforce. If we can get solutions to work for some of these things, they will have a knock-on impact, and many more sectors will see a boost to their economic prospects.

On business rates, which so many of my hon. Friends have raised, the current Government pledged in their manifesto to replace the business rates system, but still no meaningful action has been taken. As we are nearly 18 months into this Government, I wish to ask if they plan to keep their word on that commitment. \p Al Pinkerton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way four times in such quick succession. Of the £40 million of business rates levied this year by Surrey Heath borough council, only £1 million has been retained locally. Given that borough  councils levy business rates and that businesses have an expectation that the money is retained locally, does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is vital that the money gets put back into the local economy to improve infrastructure and to increase the sense of place? If that cannot be done, perhaps business rates should be scrapped altogether and replaced with a more just way of raising funds. \p Sarah Olney: My hon. Friend’s local high street in Camberley is very close to my heart, because my first job was in WH Smith there some years ago now. He is absolutely right about business rates, and I repeat my question to the Government: please, what action are you going to be taking on business rates? \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Member should say, “What action are they going to take?” If she says, “What action are you going to take?” that means me, and I am not taking any. \p Sarah Olney: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker: what action are they going to take?

While the last Government did so much damage to our high street businesses, the Labour Government’s national insurance jobs tax has only made things harder for them and for the workers. The Liberal Democrats have voted against the change to employer national insurance contributions at every opportunity, and I once again urge the Government to scrap these measures. The changes to employer national insurance contributions announced in the last autumn Budget are an unfair and deeply damaging tax measure that is hitting small businesses of all kinds—social care providers, GPs—and the lack of sector consultation and business foresight prior to the changes has been hugely damaging to business confidence.

The Government’s handling of the Employment Rights Bill seems to have only compounded that uncertainty. So much of the detail that was expected in the Bill has been left to secondary legislation or future consultation, making it impossible for businesses to plan ahead with certainty. The lack of clarity on probation periods risks piling undue worry on to business managers who are struggling to find the right skills in the first place, for which many of my colleagues have provided evidence. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. This is a friendly intervention. She is a pro-European. Is she pleased that IKEA, a brilliant Swedish company that invests heavily in this country and has a fantastic business model, is pro the Employment Rights Bill? Will she push her colleagues in the Lords to get it through and on to the statute book? \p Sarah Olney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are many parts of the Employment Rights Bill that we are happy to support. However, there are some bits— \p Tim Farron: Just like IKEA, it may not fit together. [Laughter.] \p Sarah Olney: There are, dare I say, perhaps some bits missing, which mean it does not add up and we can’t put it all together—I don’t know where I am going with that, sorry! [Laughter.]

The training, hiring and retaining of a skilled workforce are issues affecting businesses across the country. The apprenticeship levy does not work and many businesses cannot get the funding they need to train staff, while hundreds of millions in funding goes unspent. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy, which would give businesses flexibility over how they spend their money to train their staff. We therefore welcome the Government’s intention to reform the levy and refocus it towards growth and skills, but we need faster progress and Skills England made into a properly independent body, with employers at its heart. However, we have concerns about moving funding away from level 7 apprenticeships, as we know this initiative increases social mobility. I will continue to ask the Minister if they will accelerate the announcement of the details of the new scheme, outlining exactly what training will be eligible so that businesses can plan with certainty and develop the workforce we need.

Perhaps the most obvious issue that has impacted our high streets over recent years is the last Government’s botched Brexit trade deal. Many business owners have highlighted the reams of red tape and trading forms that they must navigate to import goods from Europe or export them to the continent. This is valuable time taken away from the productive tasks involved in running a business, and Government policy has simply made life for managers far more difficult.

Meanwhile, unemployment has gone up and a range of sectors are facing acute labour shortages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has highlighted on many occasions in this place. Many high vacancies are concentrated in high street sectors such as hospitality, retail, the arts and entertainment. Those are exactly the kinds of industries that young people visiting the UK for a few years might wish to work in. A youth mobility scheme would offer British businesses a real opportunity to address staffing shortages by welcoming young people from EU countries for a limited period, bringing fresh talent and energy to our workforce. I ask the Government to set out a timeline for when their announced youth experience scheme will be introduced.

However, the Liberal Democrats welcome the motion’s call to increase support for high business energy bills. I urge the Government to act with more urgency in addressing energy costs for businesses, including by accelerating the launch of the industrial competitiveness scheme, the consultation for which is not even due to be launched until the end of the year. The Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to look closely at our proposals to break the link between gas and electricity prices, halving household bills within a decade and significantly cutting business energy costs over the same period. \p Graham Stuart: I would fascinated to hear from the hon. Lady precisely how the energy market can separate gas from electricity prices. If she has a plan to do so, it would be lovely to hear it. \p Sarah Olney: By breaking the link between gas and energy, electricity does not need to be sold at the same rate as wholesale gas. We are advocating for a change to the way the market operates. That deserves serious consideration, because currently the current market and the current way it is managed is resulting in enormous energy bills for both businesses and households.

Our party also agrees that more must be done to tackle retail crime. Shoplifting not only causes shops to lose out on sales, with the costs then passed on to paying customers; it also means that staff members—often young people—are met with the possible threat of violence. Shoplifting has risen by a staggering 48% in England and Wales over the past five years, and by an even more horrifying 104% in London. Every time I meet the owner of a local store, I am told that shoplifting has become effectively decriminalised, as thieves do not feel the threat of reprisal. And then there is the impact on prices.

The Government talk about bringing down inflation. One measure that can be taken to reduce the cost of everyday goods is to tackle the rise in shoplifting. It is incredibly frustrating to me that the Government have not connected the dots between an increased fear of crime and the stripping back of our police forces’ ability to do their jobs. As is so often the case, shop owners are told by the police that it is not a cost-effective use of their resources to follow up on relatively minor thefts. However, to every local business and paying customer, it is. I urge the Government to recognise the detrimental impact that shoplifting is having in our society, and to take this issue seriously.

The Liberal Democrats acknowledge that the Government inherited a dire economic landscape from the Conservative party. However, 18 months in, I do not believe that businesses feel that life has been made easier for them. Small businesses are struggling with the cost of doing business. They are finding it hard to plan around parts of the Employment Rights Bill, and they are struggling under the burden of sky-high energy bills and the employer national insurance contributions rise. \p Polly Billington: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am interested in her acknowledgment that we have made specific progress in dealing with the botched Brexit deal left as part of the legacy of the previous Tory Government, which she may indeed welcome. For example, our sanitary and phytosanitary deal includes being able to boost exports by slashing red tape and bureaucracy specifically for our farmers and food producers, lower food prices at the checkout and co-operation on energy. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may chunter from a sedentary position, but it is actually really important when you look at how— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Lady will know that interventions need to be short, and not read off phones. \p Sarah Olney: I am, of course, delighted that we are making some small progress towards a better relationship with Europe—I welcome that wholeheartedly. However, we could go a lot further. The Liberal Democrats have been pushing for a UK-EU customs union, which would unlock many, many more benefits, but the Labour Government are very reticent. I welcome some of the  noises from both the Treasury Bench and many Labour Back Benchers. I find it astonishing the number of Labour MPs I have encountered over the past couple of weeks who are suddenly desperate to tell me how very pro-European they have always been. I am very pleased to hear that, but I would say that I have not always heard that from the Labour Benches. But all progress in this area is welcome. \p Andrew Murrison: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I am listening very carefully to what she has to say. One of the more useful things the Liberal Democrats have done in the past is to support the future high streets fund, brought in by the last Government, but she has not mentioned it and neither did the Minister. That is surprising. Nearly £10 million of future high streets funding was given to Old Kent Road in Peckham in her constituency, but she did not mention it. A large sum of money was given to Trowbridge, the county town of Wiltshire, to good effect. What does she think of the fact that the future high streets fund has been ditched and replaced by something called pride in place, which is a pale reflection of the future high streets fund? Would she like to think about including that in her contribution? \p Sarah Olney: I am very grateful to take advice from the right hon. Gentleman as to what I should and should not include in my speech. What I would say is that it is always targeted pots of money for individual places, but we have always advocated for a much more wide-ranging set of policies that would support all high streets wherever they are in the country.

The Government must take bold action to boost our economy. We urge Ministers to scrap the national insurance jobs tax and act with far more urgency on implementing the industrial strategy, cutting energy bills and strengthening our workforce. We call for bolder, more ambitious and fairer measures to replace business rates with a fair new system that can boost high streets and town centres, and we call on the Government to negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which would cut red tape for small businesses and supercharge our economy as a whole. \p Kevin Bonavia: This motion is a masterclass in political gaslighting. It claims to support high streets, but proposes slashing public investment, scrapping workers’ rights and deregulating the very protections that keep our communities safe. It is not really a motion; it is a demolition notice for our high streets and our town centres. Neglect, not regulation, is the real threat to our high streets. Under the previous Tory Government, shoplifting rose by 71%, street theft increased by 59%, and violence against shop workers hit 2,000 incidents per day. This is the legacy of the Conservative party—a record of abandonment and inaction. The Conservatives let crime spiral and neighbourhood policing collapse. This Labour Government are reversing that damage.

Through the safer streets summer initiative, more than 500 towns, including my town of Stevenage, are seeing a surge in visible policing, targeted enforcement against shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, and bespoke local action plans to tackle violence against shop workers. This is not a short-term stunt; it is the first wave of Labour’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, backed by  a £200 million investment this year alone. This Government will deliver 13,000 new officers and police community support officers by the end of this Parliament and £5 million for our pride in place programme, giving communities the power to reclaim boarded-up shops, save derelict pubs and block unwanted gambling and vape outlets. This means boots on the ground—not empty promises—restoring safety and confidence to our high streets.

This motion offers slogans about energy bills, but it is Labour that offers systemic reform. We are reforming the energy market to make it fairer and more transparent for businesses and accelerating clean, home-grown energy to reduce long-term costs and dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets. We are not capping chaos; we are ending it.

The Opposition attack the Employment Rights Bill—a Bill that bans the fire and rehire practices that caused the exploitation of so many workers under the previous Government, introduces bereavement leave for grieving parents after pregnancy loss, ends non-disclosure agreements that silence victims of harassment and discrimination, and lifts standards for thousands of my constituents in insecure work. The Opposition call it red tape; I call it basic decency. The Bill will reward decent employers by punishing the bad behaviour of others.

In their motion, the Opposition talk about protecting post offices, pubs and pharmacies, which we all want to do. But how dare they? How dare they preach about protecting post offices? The Conservative candidate in a by-election in the Roebuck ward of Stevenage sent out leaflets to my constituents falsely insinuating that the local post office was closing—this was scaremongering. I checked with the post office, and there was no threat of closure. It was part of a national campaign by the Conservatives, telling people, “Your local post office is being closed,” with no evidence behind it. It is merely a cynical attempt to mislead voters. \p Graham Stuart: The previous Conservative Government had a national guarantee of 11,500 post offices, which this Labour Front Bench has put under review. That means that there is a threat to post offices across this country. That was highlighted. If anyone has gone further than that about a specific post office, that would obviously be wrong. The truth is that there is a threat to the post office network, and it is one instituted by the Labour Front Bench. Can the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that? \p Kevin Bonavia: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The point is that we, as politicians, have a duty to explain facts and base our arguments on evidence, which was not done in this case. I put it to all politicians and would-be politicians to base their arguments on facts.

This motion is a Trojan horse. It dresses up deregulation as a gift to our constituents while gutting the very foundations of our high streets—fairness and community power. If we accept the premise of this Tory motion, we are no better than a modern-day Troy.

Labour is rebuilding what the Conservatives hollowed out of our communities: safety, fairness, opportunity and, dare I say it, pride. We are putting power back in  the hands of local people, bobbies back on the beat and dignity back in the workplace. Our high streets do not need hollow gestures; they need real change. Only this Labour Government are delivering it. \p Lizzi Collinge: What my hon. Friend is saying really resonates with me. Does he agree that the fact that pride in place is a 10-year fund allows us to be really strategic about the regeneration of our high streets? Instead of them receiving bits and bats of money for six months with really tight frameworks, local people will be empowered by the fund to regenerate their own area. \p Kevin Bonavia: My hon. Friend is spot on. Pride of place is about actually getting our local communities involved. They know their high streets best, and we should work with them to use that money for long-term strategic decisions.

I oppose this motion. It is illiterate and has no answers for our future, it does not add up economically, and it ignores the good work that this Government are already doing for our high streets. \p Thomas Tugendhat: I was somewhat entertained by the lines about Labour being the new Trojans, which I suppose makes us the Greeks. It might be worth remembering that the Greeks won the war, and that the current Greek Government are generating employment while this Government are cutting it.

While we are telling stories, it might also be worth remembering that there are some really rather good books out there—none of them written by the Treasury team, it is true. A rather good one came out recently on prosperity for growth, written by Dr Laffer, whose name came up earlier in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and two Members of the other place, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell and Lord Hintze—I declare an interest, as Lord Elliott’s daughter is my goddaughter. It is still a good book, despite the fact that there is a connection there. It sets out the principle that we all know—a principle that has been known for hundreds of years—that taxation deters investment, lack of investment deters growth, and lack of growth deters future opportunity to look after all of us, including, in particular, the poorest. What we are seeing on our high streets today is a reflection of that tax policy. We are seeing the increasing ratchet of control—control through regulation, through taxation and through any number of different tools that this Government have brought in.

In wonderful towns such as Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Borough Green—I am sure you could add a few of your own, Madam Deputy Speaker; it would be worth saying that Portsmouth itself—[Interruption.] I have got that completely wrong, haven’t I? \p Caroline Nokes: As a point of information, it might help the right hon. Gentleman to know that my constituency is Romsey and Southampton North. \p Thomas Tugendhat: This explains why I was never welcome in the Navy.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are many other high streets, such as those in Romsey and Southampton, that are doing well despite this Government’s policies. However, we are seeing a series of changes that are costing us all, and I think it is worth focusing on a few of them.

The first affects retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which are seeing their rate relief reduced to 40%, and only up to a cash limit of £110,000 per business. Why is that happening? Well, this is basically just another tax grab. It is just another attempt to ensure that those who are working hard to put food on their tables—and, by the way, to put food on the tables of everybody else in this country by generating that employment— \p Lizzi Collinge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Thomas Tugendhat: I will just finish the point, if I may.

While they are working hard to do that, this Government are trying to squeeze them. I understand why they are doing that, because they have got themselves into a level of debt that is genuinely extraordinary. They are piling it on even more quickly than anybody— \p Lizzi Collinge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Thomas Tugendhat: If I may, I will just finish my point.

They are piling on the debt even more quickly than any other Administration for a long time, with the exception of during covid, when, as Members will agree, Labour wanted to spend even more. That squeeze is hurting businesses more and more.

I know of independent retailers in Tonbridge and Edenbridge that have seen 300% increases in business rates as a result. It is simply not sustainable. We are talking about taking money off businesses before they are able to pay those who are working there 24/7—those who own the business. That charge, that squeeze and that pain are being put on individuals who are getting up early and trying their damnedest to keep their business going. It is completely absurd.

The £110,000 valuation is artificial, because business rates are set by the Valuation Office Agency, and local businesses have no input. There is no way for decisions to be challenged and no real accountability. We are seeing a Government agency setting a valuation that allows taxation to rise with no possibility of appeal. This is simply no way to run an economy. We are seeing ever-increasing centralisation.

The correct thing to do would be to allow businesses to keep some of the money that they are making in order to reinvest in themselves and in staff, and to actually allow councils to have some say. If we believe in democracy and in individuals having the ability to shape their future, surely we must extend them the right to control how towns, villages and communities across our country tax themselves. Sadly, that is not what we are seeing. We are seeing what we used to describe as a nation of shopkeepers—that nation that defeated tyranny in Europe not once but many times—becoming a nation of bookkeepers, all taxed by the state. \p Lizzi Collinge: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman got to his point, kind of. He mentioned hospitality workers. I was a hospitality worker for many years, so  I know how hard work it is. I also know about the people who will benefit on the shop floor from the Government’s Employment Rights Bill. Could the right hon. Gentleman say more about how regulation is supposedly harming workers, because as a former hospitality worker I see the benefits of the Employment Rights Bill for all my former colleagues. \p Thomas Tugendhat: I would be delighted to, because direct comparison can be drawn with other countries that have extended these same rules. They protect the workers who are in the job—that is absolutely true—but they dissuade anybody else from joining and starting as a new hire. Then those countries see exactly what we are seeing in the UK today: growing youth unemployment. When there is a burden on a business that makes it harder to change its employment structure, it simply delays employment. That is all that happens. \p Lizzi Collinge: I thank the right hon. Member for his generosity in giving way, because I am finding this debate very interesting. In the rural areas of my constituency, businesses are struggling to hire workers not because of the cost but because local workers cannot afford to live in those areas because there is no affordable housing. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is very welcome that the Government are focusing on the practicalities that ordinary workers need in order to be employed, which will help rural businesses like those in my area that are struggling to recruit? \p Thomas Tugendhat: Forgive me, but I do not agree. I can see that transport connections and the £2 bus link—which has now gone up by 50% under this Government—was crucial to helping small businesses survive in rural areas, but businesses that were taking in younger people as new starters are not hiring them because of cost. The cost of any change that may be needed in the business, which may evolve or shape itself differently, means that effectively it is not worth the risk. We see this again and again.

The tragedy is that I am not telling this House anything new. This speech could have been given anytime in the past 50 years. The reality is that we have tried all these experiments, and we know how they work: they end up with rising unemployment, rising debt burdens and fewer public services. We know where this goes. \p Iain Duncan Smith: The real problem in all this is that the Government imposed a national insurance increase on businesses. The second problem is what they have done for businesses that might have taken on new starters by lowering that threshold. It has been an absolute killer on both counts for businesses, so there is a reason why they are not taking on new starters at the moment. \p Thomas Tugendhat: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the reality of what this Government have done. I understand that they have decided to defend the established strength of unionised and employed workers. I get it, but they have chosen specifically to punish incoming workers, young people and those who are trying to enter the labour market. That is the choice they have made. They have also chosen to defend established businesses—those businesses that can pay a large amount for human resources functions—rather than the smaller  businesses that innovate and start up. Again, that is a choice that they have made, and let us not ignore the fact that it was a choice. They have chosen the large company, the institution, the established worker, and they have decided to punish the high street. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I am going to reduce the time limit to five minutes, starting after Jim McMahon. \p Jim McMahon: Oldham has always been a town of hard work and heart. It has been built, rebuilt and reinvented time and again, and is reinventing itself again now, but let us be honest: the challenges facing Oldham, Chadderton, Royton and towns like them up and down the country are significant.

It has been interesting to hear the debate. We can all as parliamentarians reflect on just how much we care about the places we live in and represent, and that should be lauded. We have also heard honesty about the fact that much more should have been done in the past than was, and much more needs to be done than perhaps is being done. The pace has to be improved. I should say that I have every faith that the Government and the Minister will do just that. We understand the power and importance of place. Our high streets and town centres are, for many people, the barometer of how well the country is doing.

When I look at Chadderton, I see a fantastic place. I see a stable community that has terrific community pride, but it is a town without a single bank branch. It has seen very little new development, and quite a lot of the land that is ripe for development is held in private ownership by distant landowners who have no stake in the local community. In Royton—another a thriving town, just a couple of miles away—not a single bank is left in the town centre or the precinct, yet there are shoots of growth. The council invested in Royton town hall. New independent bars and restaurants are bringing life back into the centre, and a Thursday market is still thriving. That shows that when we support local businesses, the community responds with footfall and support. By the way, I think we too often take for granted and underestimate the importance of our local markets, whether they are indoor or outdoor.

Then there is Oldham itself—our borough’s heart—once home to a magistrates court, a county court, and many public sector agencies that have either reduced their presence or closed altogether. Stores such as Debenhams, BHS, HMV, Woolworths, H&M, Thorntons, WH Smith and Clintons were the anchors of the town centre and the shopping centre in the past, but unfortunately will not be in the future. Across the country, there are 20,000 fewer shops open than in 2010. Each closure is more than just a lost business. It is a small part of the town taken away. It is people’s jobs and livelihoods. It is the story of a place, and people’s memories; we have heard that in the debate.

Across the country, we see 6,000 banks closing. In my town, RBS and Barclays are closing, but we still have banks. It is really important that the Government’s  strategies for investment, planning reforms, and schemes such as Community Britain, which give communities powers in the place where they live, do not allow the kind of free-for-all that we saw under the previous Government. Under the previous Government, banks were at the Government’s door when they needed a bail-out and times were bad, but walked away from our communities when it was time to repay money. \p Suella Braverman: The hon. Member makes a good point about bank closures. Does he agree that the innovation of banking hubs, which we have seen since 2022, is welcome? As of April this year, there were 150 around the country, and they can be a lifeline for many communities. Does he agree that the criteria applied by Cash Access UK for granting a banking hub can be quite narrow? I ask this for the Minister’s benefit. Would the hon. Member join me in urging the Government to reconsider and review some of the narrow criteria? In Portchester, we are campaigning for a banking hub— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Jim McMahon to continue. \p Jim McMahon: I will. I have heard the right hon. and learned Lady raise that point a few times, and I think it is legitimate. If the criteria do not work for the town she mentions, or for my town, or Royton or Chadderton, then the criteria are the problem, not the towns and communities that need banks. We can agree on that.

In Oldham, there is progress. Sometimes we rush to a deficit model of talking down our places a bit too quickly. The old town hall, built in 1841, was left derelict for decades but has been reborn as a cinema. The grand Egyptian Room has been restored to life. It was once a banking hall where people paid their council tax, but I guarantee that it is a lot more popular today than it was when it was used for that purpose. The old library, built in 1883, was long empty; it is now home to the new council chambers and the inspiring Oldham theatre workshop. Every single week, 600 young people go through those doors to celebrate the arts and culture. The Spindles shopping centre has been transformed with the new indoor Tommyfield market, an events space and the local studies archive. That shows how the community can benefit when we invest in our towns. Of course, as has been mentioned, we should use derelict brownfield sites to build housing for local people. In Oldham, that will mean up to 2,000 new homes in the town centre—decent, safe and affordable places to live—and footfall in the town.

Much though we talk about the household names that have been lost, let us not forget that many of our towns are built on the work of independent traders—local people who give something of themselves, and sometimes their life savings, to invest in our towns. They should be celebrated.

Things are not easy. Online retail now accounts for 25% of retail sales. Business rates changes will shift the balance in favour of the on-street, local, independent traders, and convenience stores. There is also the changing dynamic between out-of-town retail and city centres. We have the benefit of being on Manchester’s doorstep, but it means that it is easy for Oldham’s people to travel to Manchester. In large towns, we have seen the hyper-local  becoming more popular. District centres like Royton, where people want to create somewhere to go, are thriving, and our cities are thriving, but the towns, somewhere in the middle, are struggling. We need a strategy for our towns, as well as wider investment.

The same goes for the planning system. Honestly, I am sick to death of seeing low-quality, substandard accommodation being built in my town. Under the previous Government’s free-for-all, office accommodation could be converted in a blink, and there was also conversion to houses in multiple occupation. The concentration of social pressures in town centres and district centres is having a real impact on community safety and the local housing market.

There is a different way. Through Community Britain, we can rebuild our towns, civic pride and confidence. Through co-operation, we can give power to people in the places where they live and that they care about. We can end the top-down model of command and control, in which we tell people what they need for their area. We should give money to communities, so that they can decide matters for themselves and collectively co-produce solutions for their places. \p Jack Rankin: Every MP in this place thinks that they have the best constituency in the United Kingdom, but I am afraid that only one of us can be correct. Perhaps with the exception of Romsey and Southampton North, Madam Deputy Speaker, the best constituency must be Windsor, with its beautiful towns and villages.

As well as our green spaces, including the Great Park, which has been in the news slightly more than we might like of late, and our heritage, we also have our high streets, our small businesses and our hospitality crown jewels, which range from Ascot racecourse, Royal Windsor racecourse and Legoland to smaller attractions, such as the Windsor Museum, French Brothers boat trips along the Thames, and Windsor Carriages. Because of the Windsor constituency’s exceptional features, it has some of the greatest high streets anywhere in the country. Our hospitality businesses turn over £600 million every year—one of the highest figures outside London—and the industry employs over 10,000 people locally. A huge part of that is down to tourism. People come from all over the world to walk through our town, and to enjoy refreshments after exploring Windsor castle or working up a thirst on a long walk.

The most recent statistics from the excellent Visit Windsor team highlight that 12.2% of the borough’s population are employed as a result of tourism. It is no surprise that one in 10 people in Windsor rely on the industry to make a living. There is a whole ecosystem of retail, hospitality and hotels that makes up the economic background of my town. All that stimulates the brilliant high streets and venues that make up our towns and villages. They are the subject of the debate, and I am afraid that all of them are feeling the pinch under this Labour Government.

My constituency goes well beyond its namesake town. That was evidenced in my most recent “best pub” competition. Over 32 pubs were put forward from across the constituency, and hundreds of my constituents voted. It is only right to give special mention to the winner,  The Swan in Clewer village, which is a great example of a community-led pub. I will not have time to talk about everything that makes The Swan special, but it has the Green Room school for special needs pupils, the Windsor cycle hub, a “chatter and natter” to tackle loneliness and social isolation, board games, the Stitch Gang for knitters, and a dog walkers’ group. However, the landlord, Mickey Foden-Andrews, whom I have met multiple times, stressed that while The Swan is well loved and used by the whole community, it is feeling all the pressures on our treasured pub industry, including from increased VAT, beer duty, business rates and now the extended producer responsibility tax.

I am sure that we have all been guilty of complaining about the cost of a pint, but we must recognise the huge overheads that pubs face just to keep their doors open, which include paying their staff, soaring electricity prices and alcohol duties. The increase in national insurance in last year’s Budget compounded all those pressures and hit the hospitality sector hard. The sector has suffered more than half—85,000—of all British job losses since the last Budget.

Pubs like The Swan provide a public service by bringing people together, letting neighbours check in on one another, hosting events and being a place to hash out ideas or discuss the politics of the day. On all my visits to pubs, hospitality and other high-street businesses, I hear that they are struggling, and Windsor is a relatively prosperous place with a clear unique selling point, so I am sure that such businesses will be struggling everywhere. That should come as no surprise. The increase in the minimum wage and national insurance, and the so-called new workers’ rights that are being brought in, are all incompatible with thriving high streets. \p Scott Arthur: The hon. Member is talking passionately and making many points that I agree with, but which constituents would he tell that they will not get that rise in the minimum wage? Will he tell his constituents that he opposes their getting that rise? \p Jack Rankin: The point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) that there are people who benefit from the minimum wage and new rights, but thousands of jobs will never exist as a result of the measures. We have to be cognisant of that in this House. All those measures are incompatible with a thriving high street and any aspiration to bring down welfare spending, as they are all job killers. \p Graham Stuart: We should be mindful that the last Labour Government, though they did not mean any ill, increased youth unemployment by 45%. That is the worst time for unemployment in life; at that point in life, it has a long-term, scarring, negative effect on people’s outcomes and opportunities, but the Government are doing the same again in the name of protecting workers. The people on the outside are the ones who pay the price. \p Jack Rankin: My right hon. Friend is right, as always. The best way to back workers in this country is to back our small businesses, and our hospitality businesses in particular, which provide so many jobs to our constituents. \p Caroline Voaden: Nearly 100,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality since the last Budget. Does the hon. Member agree that if that number of jobs had been lost in the steel industry or a car plant, it would have been front-page news day after day for weeks on end? Yet almost nothing is said about the jobs lost in hospitality, because they are dispersed right across the country, so they are almost invisible. Actually, an enormous number of jobs have been lost. \p Jack Rankin: I absolutely agree. It goes beyond that, because a lot of hospitality jobs are the first jobs that people do. We talk about youth unemployment; we need to get people into the pattern of earning a living, and to enable them to gain the softer skills of serving customers and getting up on time. As we all know, that is so important to young people’s development. That is a problem not only now but for the future.

What do my landlords, hotel managers and businesses on the high street tell me their biggest problem is? Business rates. That is why I welcome my party’s commitment to permanently scrapping business rates for all retail, leisure and hospitality businesses up to a £110,000 cap. \p Elsie Blundell: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Jack Rankin: I am afraid that I do not have time. That would lift 250,000 businesses out of business rates altogether, and it would provide essential relief to keep businesses afloat and money flowing through the local economy. The proposal is fully costed and follows our new golden economic rule. \p Lee Pitcher: Our high streets are the heart of our communities. They are where people meet, where local pride grows and where livelihoods are made. High streets have certainly struggled over the last decade, with vacant properties, antisocial behaviour and concerns about the impact of densely populated HMOs. I am certain that there will be further discussion on this matter today, and rightly so, because we must help our high streets to regain that buzz and splendour—they must once again become that hive of activity—that people associate with community shopping areas and places of the past. This Government have a huge role to play in making that happen and we have committed to supporting the injection of renewed life into our high streets.

Today I want to use my time, as others have done, to talk up our high streets—the remarkable staff, the shopkeepers, the landlords and landladies, and the volunteers—and to highlight the great work done by local businesses in my constituency. I want to show just how much our residents need to come out to our high streets in order to support our local economy and to experience the great things on offer. \p Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and shows himself to be a true champion for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. Does he agree that we all ought to talk up our high   streets? There is a danger that some on the Conservative Benches are failing to see that, and they are doing real damage to small businesses. \p Lee Pitcher: I could not agree more. We must be ambassadors and advocate for the wonderful innovation, ingenuity and entrepreneurship that business owners show along our high streets.

I also want to show today areas that the Government are already helping to revitalise, so I am going to take hon. Members on a small tour of places in my constituency: a Doncaster East and Isle of Axholme Monopoly tour. In Epworth, you will find a wonderful and diverse array of independent shops—Hatty’s Tea Room, the Cosy Cake Shop, Godiva Hair Loss and Wig Specialists, and Imelda’s—bringing people into the centre and supporting local jobs. In Crowle, Elizabeth Kate Bridal and Sadie’s Tea Room on the high street show how specialist independents and long-standing family businesses can thrive side by side.

Haxey has long benefited from a community of traditional pubs that helps keep the historic Haxey Hood alive; in fact, the Kings Arms has just unveiled a mural of the hood that many people come to see. In Rossington, Death by Fudge has grown from a kitchen idea into a much loved shop, proving that when small businesses find the right high street home, they thrive—and I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are definitely worse ways to go than death by Kinder. On a Friday, the Rossington market, straight opposite Death by Fudge, is always open and welcome to residents. This weekend I look forward to popping into the newly opened Thorne Park Café.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) mentioned shoplifting. It is hugely commendable how the shopkeepers in Thorne have come together. A great example is the Shop Watch scheme—a partnership between retailers and the neighbourhood policing team that is cutting retail crime and giving shopkeepers the confidence to trade. Reports show a 34% fall in shoplifting since the scheme started, with repeat offenders brought to justice. That is the kind of common-sense collaboration that keeps our high streets safe and welcoming for shoppers. \p Darren Paffey: On the issue of shoplifting, does my hon. Friend agree that the Tories are having a bad day with their memory? Not only have they forgotten that next to my seat of Southampton Itchen is Madam Deputy Speaker’s equally fine seat of Romsey and Southampton North, where twice I failed to persuade the people to vote for me; they are also forgetting what happened on their watch. They gave shoplifters a £200 free pass, which has brought violence and intimidation to our streets; that is in contrast with our plans to put more police back on the beat and get rid of that free pass. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the kind of change that Labour is making to my constituency and to his? \p Lee Pitcher: That is 100% the kind of change that a Labour Government make to our high streets.

In Bawtry, our traders have been flying the flag for our area at No. 11, engaging directly with the Chancellor on how small firms power local growth. That connection matters because it is about national decisions that are grounded in the reality of our market towns. Where else  can you visit the China Rose for an amazing Chinese banquet at a 40-year-young family-run business while listening to a little bit of Dolly Parton? But if you do visit, check out the website first, because the restaurant is not only open 9 to 5! At the Crown Hotel, you can have a coffee on a Sunday next to a saxophonist—that is not easy to say after a few beers, so stick to the coffee! And in Hatfield, independents like Kayna’s, 4 On The High Street and Ju Belle show what local enterprise can achieve.

Committed owners and real community spirit are keeping our high streets vibrant and resilient, and it is not just businesses but committed local volunteers who are making their communities better places to live—people like Leah Richmond in Lindholme, who has led a scheme to turn a traditional phone box into a mini library on the high street.

This Labour Government are matching that local energy with national action. We will invest £20 million in Rossington through the pride in place programme, allowing the neighbourhood to take charge of regeneration, reviving the high street and renewing our parks and public spaces. In Moorends, we have put levelling-up funding secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) and myself to good use, turning plans into projects that people can see and use, improving facilities for sport, families and community groups, and helping to unlock pride and opportunity. Part of that comes through investment in shop frontage areas to ensure that the environment is as wonderful and welcoming outside as the shops are inside—shops like Chris Huby Butchers, where I often go to buy mum her corned beef and spam of a weekend.

We will give our communities new powers to buy back beloved assets, use compulsory purchase to tackle long-term shop vacancy, and block the clustering of unwanted outlets where they undermine the character and safety of the high street. For large, empty sites, those powers will help to bring forward new health facilities and housing where appropriate. We are also backing businesses by cutting red tape by 25%, freeing up time and money for owners to grow.

I pay tribute to the shopkeepers, market traders and small business owners across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. Let me finish by extending an invite: come and visit the high streets in my constituency—spend your money in our shops, enjoy yourself, and delight in everything that Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme has to offer. \p Alison Griffiths: Our high streets are not just places to shop; they are the hearts of our communities. Yet every business I speak to in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tells me the same thing: they are unsure if they can survive another year of this Labour Government. Families are under pressure too, worried about keeping their jobs, paying their mortgages and affording the food shop. They are reining in spending: fewer coffees or pints, fewer meals out and fewer days out in venues like the brilliant Harbour Park in Littlehampton.

Last Friday, I sat down with the owner of Richard Pearce Hairdressing in Aldwick. He has worked for years to train the next generation, giving young people  their start in life, but the constant hammering on his overheads is relentless. He tells me that the current Government have lost all touch with local businesses and the impact of their policies. Under Labour: employer national insurance—up; cost of hiring—up; and energy bills—up.

Let us be clear about what is driving this. First, it is business rates. For shops, cafés and pubs, like the William Hardwicke in Bognor Regis and the Beresford in Middleton-on-Sea, business rates are a tax on just showing up. They punish the visible, but leave online giants untouched. The Conservatives would abolish business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure; Labour will not. \p Elsie Blundell: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Alison Griffiths: I am going to keep making some progress.

Secondly, let me turn to energy costs. Too many small businesses are paying bills far higher than they were just a few years ago. Green levies are a political choice and the result of the Government’s ideological pursuit of net zero by 2030. While big manufacturers get relief, high streets are footing the bill.

The third factor is retail crime. There is more shoplifting and more harassment, leaving more staff feeling unsafe at work. Behind every incident—like Clarkes Estates in Bognor Regis having its windows smashed—is a real cost to the bottom line in stolen stock, lost hours and rising insurance. We have plans to crack down on retail crime with tougher penalties and real consequences.

Finally, there is the family business tax and the Employment Rights Bill that will come back before the House tomorrow. These place unfair costs and uncertainty on the very employers, like Reynolds Furniture in Bognor Regis, that hold our high streets together. They are already under pressure, and we should be helping those who create jobs, not frightening them off. Yes, of course, workers must be protected, but those protections must not undermine the small businesses that provide the jobs in the first place.

Today I join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in urging Ministers to abolish business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, to cut energy bills for all small businesses, to tackle retail crime with tough consequences, and to scrap the unemployment rights Bill. Do these things and we can begin to restore confidence in high streets. Fail to do them and we will watch shutters fall, more shops disappear and more communities lose the places that make them feel like home. \p Connor Naismith: The subject of high streets is one that matters deeply in constituencies like Crewe and Nantwich, where the story of decline is slowly but surely being rewritten into one of renewal. For too long, our high streets were left behind. Fourteen years of Conservative government saw projects stall, shopfronts shuttered and absentee landlords allowed to hold back regeneration. In Crewe, the failed Royal Arcade redevelopment became the symbol of that neglect. Shops were demolished as part of a regeneration scheme, only for inflation, particularly construction inflation, to soar through the ceiling as a  result of Liz Truss’s mini-Budget—[Interruption.] This meant that the project failed and in Crewe we have been left with a wasteland. \p Amanda Martin: Every time we mention the name Liz Truss, we hear groans from the Conservatives Benches, but I am not sure that people in my constituency really want to hear those groans, given that their mortgages and rents have gone through the roof and that business are unable to borrow. \p Connor Naismith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Members do not like it, but what I am articulating is the lived reality of my constituents and the impact of the Conservatives’ record on the economy while in government.

The failure to tackle the root causes of decline was compounded by economic mismanagement that drove up construction costs and by the devastating loss of HS2, but I am pleased to report that Crewe is turning a corner. We are seeing real investment, real ambition and real pride returning to our town centre, and that transformation is visible. It is being led by local leaders, our community and our entrepreneurs, backed by the economic stability that this Labour Government are delivering. The Crewe market hall, for example, has been reborn. It is now a thriving hub of food, drink and entertainment. The Lyceum theatre, a jewel in our town, is now joined by the Lyceum Square, a modern development that complements its historic charm. Together, they anchor a growing cultural quarter, and that quarter is expanding. The former Dorothy Perkins and Burton unit on Market Street, once another empty shell and blight on the high street, now hosts Crewe Creates—a vibrant space for arts and culture. This shows what can happen when creativity meets opportunity. \p Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the importance of arts and culture in town centres, and of restoring and reclaiming historic buildings to bring a sense of place, to help small traders to flourish, and to bring arts activities to the public and footfall into our town centres. I would commend the work done by Reading borough council to create a similar hub in Reading town centre. I really hope that my hon. Friend continues with his great work. \p Connor Naismith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about restoring old buildings, and that is exactly what is taking place in Crewe.

Alongside this, a rolling programme of cultural events from Crewe town council and the Crewe business improvement district is helping to make our town an early contender for this Government’s first town of culture award. \p Gregory Stafford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Connor Naismith: I am going to make some progress.

Opportunity is exactly what the repurposing the high street grants delivered by our Labour council in Cheshire East has delivered. These are £30,000 grants for local entrepreneurs to renovate empty shop units, and they have empowered small and independent businesses to  take risks, fill empty units and breathe new life into our town centre. They have transformed vacant spaces into thriving ventures, and I invite Ministers to come to Crewe to see the impact for themselves and to consider whether the scheme could be a blueprint for a national roll-out, because it works. The scheme, alongside the Southern Gateway project, is a great example of public investment connecting the dots, creating vibrant public spaces and opening up opportunities for a new community of businesses to emerge on our once-neglected high street.

Businesses such as the Arena, the Ice and Fire tattoo studio and ABC Childcare are leading the way, and the upcoming Youth Zone, opening in spring 2026, will give young people a space to thrive right in the heart of our town centre. Even the old M&S unit, long a symbol of stagnation, now has a positive future under new ownership. It is a powerful metaphor for Crewe itself: written off by some but now ready to rise. We have seen investments in places such as the Mirion Street boxing club, supporting grassroots sport and building community resilience. These are the building blocks of a high street that works for everyone.

This is what happens when local leadership, community, ambition and targeted investment come together, rather than when we talk our communities down, as we have heard too often from Conservative Members. So I say to investors: come to Crewe. I say to artists and entrepreneurs: come to Crewe. I say to Government Ministers: come and see what happens when a town refuses to be left behind. As with our railway past, Crewe town centre is on the right track. \p Bradley Thomas: For decades, high streets have been more than a place to shop. They are a barometer of the economic and social vitality of the country and of the communities where they are located. They are a gauge of whether we are prospering or declining. They are the sweet spot on the Venn diagram of societal indicators and policy areas including economic confidence, aspiration, entrepreneurship, crime and confidence in policing, the prominence of institutions, the quality of the public realm and changing social habits.

Today, however, high streets across the country face existential threats from unaffordable costs, dwindling footfall, surging illicit activity and a loss of purpose. I know that that sentiment is not just mine; it is shared by many. An August 2025 UKHospitality survey revealed that 42% of people nationwide believed that their high street was worse than it was a year ago, with that statistic rising to 55% in suburban areas.

High streets are the cornerstone of British history. Their decline is not just economic; it is cultural. Their disappearance is a stark signal that the identity of many communities is also changing and, in many cases, eroding. In 2024, an average of 38 shops or stores closed every single day, with independent retailers accounting for 85% of those closures. We are allowing our proudly owned family-run shops and ambitious independents to be replaced by a sea of cheap e-vape outlets, barbers, charity shops and unregulated aesthetic clinics, many of which are linked to the black market. \p Ian Roome: So much of this debate focuses on high streets under a magnifying glass. In my constituency, one in five people work in the retail or wholesale sector. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if our shop fronts were a factory or a shipyard, the Government would be framing the challenge very differently? \p Bradley Thomas: I agree with the hon. Member. Earlier, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) made the point that because the losses in retail are dispersed thinly across the country, this erosion takes place in plain sight, but if the same thing were happening in an industry with a collective centre in one location, it would probably be viewed differently.

Our town centres need essential services such as banking hubs to compensate for the decrease in bank branches between 2010 and 2023, so that people of all generations can manage their finances. We need the heart of our cities, towns and villages to be restored and to thrive once again.

Let us look at the environment in which businesses are operating. National insurance changes hit sectors hard last year, and those that provide accessible careers, including hospitality, were hit hardest. Employers have to pay thousands of pounds more just to recruit people compared with a year and a half ago, and hospitality has seen job losses at the expense of some of the lowest paid in society, who have been unable to get a foot on the employment ladder. We know the economy is underperforming, and there were tax hikes of £40 billion in the Budget last year. The Chancellor promised that last year’s Budget was a one-off hit of a kind that would not be replicated again in this Parliament, yet the Government are facing the reality of their own choices, and their economic naiveté plays out once again.

A typical pub in my constituency pays £2,000 per month in additional costs, including hiked business rates, employment costs and, crucially, energy costs compared with this time last year. To put that into perspective, if a couple go to a pub and spend £80 on dinner and drinks, that pub would have to serve an extra 25 such bookings each month just to cover those additional costs. That is staggering. I speak to so many publicans and hospitality operators in my patch who tell me that next year is the critical year when they will have to decide whether to close their doors for good. They are literally on the brink and questioning their own survival.

There are other points that I want the Government to focus on and the Minister to address, particularly around the public realm. I would like the Government to focus acutely on how we can revitalise the quality of our public realm. That includes design codes, which should be mandatory for all local authorities. One of this Government’s first acts last year was to abandon the need for beautiful design as part of the national planning policy framework and to close the Office for Place. That is important, because if the quality of the public realm decays, our town centres will not be as attractive as they might otherwise be for private sector investment. With the closure of prominent banks on the high street, large historic buildings, which are often anchor points, fall into disarray and it is much harder to get occupants. That is why I am pleased to support the Conservative proposal to abolish business  rates for pubs, shops and hospitality. That would be a real shot in the arm for high streets up and down the country.

I am conscious of time, but I would like to touch on one other point that has not yet been mentioned, relating to the role that local councils can play. Local councils are great at kickstarting local economic activity, but for them to be empowered to act as catalysts in their local areas, we need to address the elephant in the room that is adult social care. While the Government focus on local government reorganisation, I implore them to think about that. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) shakes his head, but the reality is— \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: I welcome the hon. Member’s new interest in adult social care. The Dilnot report was delivered in 2011. What were the Conservatives doing for the subsequent 13 years while they were in government and not delivering meaningful change to social care? \p Bradley Thomas: That is a bit of a cheap jibe. If the hon. Member takes a look through Hansard, he will realise that I have taken an interest in social care for some time.

The reality is that councils across the country spend circa £7 out of every £10 on social care. It is important that society spends money on social care, but while the Government focus on local government reorganisation and social care continues to be a huge financial obligation for local authorities, less money can be spent on the public realm. We have to address that. We must address the long-term positioning of social care, where it is funded, and from which pot, in order to support councils and give them the best possible foundation for addressing the economic needs of their areas. \p Allison Gardner: I am delighted to take this opportunity to speak about Longton—a beloved town centre in my constituency that is very much on the up. I am excited that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), who is not in her place, has offered to visit. I am sure that she will be excited to find out about the wonderful work happening in Longton.

There is a real sense of momentum in Longton right now, and a growing confidence and pride in what the town has to offer. Much of that is thanks to the brilliant, award-winning team at our busy shopping centre Longton Exchange, led by Chris Ward, which is doing so much to breathe new life into the town centre. Its commitment has helped to support traders, attract new businesses and bring fresh energy to the heart of the community. The high street is absolutely the heart of Longton. It is where community life happens—where people bump into friends, visit our beautiful Victorian market, grab a coffee or pop into one of our many brilliant independent shops. When the high street thrives, everything else follows, and we are seeing that now with businesses like Kiln at Number 12, So Very Dog and the wonderful Crumbs bakery, which won the “Win a Shop” competition and has set up its brilliant new bakery in the exchange.

Longton has always been a creative town. From the world-renowned Belstaff, whose clothes are sold right across the globe, to the Gladstone pottery museum, home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, creativity is in our DNA. That spirit is alive and well today thanks to groups such as Urban Wilderness, which keeps art and imagination at the heart of the town. Its famous pig walk brings thousands of people to Longton every year—that magic footfall—as a joyful celebration of community and creativity that shows what is possible when people come together. Its passion for ground-up community leadership, hosting the Longton town forum to bring together local businesses and residents, is vital for the future of our town, and I support it in its aim to turn the old bank into a fabulous arts centre. We also have the fantastic Sheila Cowell and her team at the Longton community partnership, continuing to bring residents together and making Longton bloom.

We also see a real focus on supporting the next generation. Launch It, in our renovated town hall, does brilliant work helping young entrepreneurs turn their ideas into real businesses, giving them the confidence and practical support to get started. Tangible investment is starting to flow into the town, showing the difference that a Labour Government working with a Labour council makes. Stoke-on-Trent city council’s ongoing public realm works are helping to make Longton more welcoming, accessible and better connected, especially around the high street and market area.

With £1.5 million of pride in place funding being rolled out in Stoke-on-Trent thanks to this Labour Government, I will be working hard to ensure that Longton gets its fair share. That funding needs to build on the progress that is already being made locally, ensuring that my constituents’ priorities are reflected and acted on. It would be remiss of me not to mention Meir North and the £20 million of pride in place funding for that area. Meir North also has its high street, and I promise the residents there that, along with their councillor Lauren Davison, we will deliver on their asks to make it a safe and secure high street on Weston Road.

All that sits alongside the Labour Government’s wider commitment to invest in our high streets, restoring pride and prosperity to towns that have in the past been overlooked. With new community right to buy, compulsory purchase powers, lowered business rates and support for more neighbourhood policing, I am confident that the Government will ensure that Longton continues to have a strong local centre—somewhere that reflects its identity, supports small businesses and brings people together.

Of course, there are still challenges. The much-loved Crown Works stands as a reminder of Longton’s industrial past and its potential for renewal. Its long-awaited regeneration into housing is something the community is eager to see finally delivered. We must confront the problems that have blighted our high street, such as fires in old, neglected buildings and too many empty properties left to decay. Those issues cannot be ignored, and absent landlords must be held to account. Our town deserves better than to have its heritage and future put at risk.

Despite those many challenges, the people remain resilient, creative and proud. That is why I am leading a preliminary Longton town centre masterplan, ensuring that businesses and customers have a say in how their town centre is regenerated for them, by them and with them. I have run out of time, but I have every confidence that Longton’s best days are ahead. \p Liz Jarvis: Britain’s high streets are the beating hearts of our communities. They serve as social hubs, cultural landmarks and vital sources of jobs and prosperity. Yet in my constituency, as in the rest of the country, our high streets are under immense pressure. Local residents are concerned when they see empty shopfronts in the town centre and in our local shopping centre.

As we know, the growth of online shopping has changed the culture of retail, and that trend has only worsened as a result of the pandemic. According to Eastleigh business improvement district, footfall in Eastleigh town centre is 56% below pre-pandemic figures, which shows the depth of the decline that our high street has faced. Cuts to local bus services by Conservative-controlled Hampshire county council have left many residents without bus services. The impact on our high streets has been an afterthought for the county council, and our local businesses are starting to feel it.

It is not just declining footfall hurting our local businesses; there is also the growing threat of retail crime. According to the Office for National Statistics, shoplifting increased by 13% in the year ending June 2025. I recently met a local retailer who had been the victim of shoplifting and lost thousands of pounds-worth of stock. We have all heard stories of staff members at retail shops being subjected to verbal abuse. The Government must tackle that issue head-on and with more urgency. We need a return to proper community policing to deal with that type of crime, which is why I have long campaigned for the reopening of Eastleigh police station.

Pubs—of which there are 32 in my constituency—are perhaps the greatest symbol of our high streets. They are vital social gathering hubs for people to come together and feel part of their community. According to the British Beer and Pub Association, increases in costs after last year’s Budget mean that pubs now face a 9p loss per pint unless they raise prices by 21p. If the Government continue on this path, we risk losing the very pubs that enrich our high streets. \p Sarah Dyke: The Loft bar in Street—a locally owned and run business—contributes so much to the social fabric of the town but has been crippled by business rates and rocketing utility and national insurance costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must support the hospitality sector, through the fundamental reform of business rates, so that it can thrive? \p Liz Jarvis: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will address shortly.

Independent businesses face an incredibly tough environment. The reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief from 75% to 40% effectively leaves small  businesses subsidising large chains. We are incredibly lucky to have many thriving independent businesses in Eastleigh, including AC Models, O’Briens, Artisan, the Coffee Cabin and Choices sandwiches. My constituent David, who is the owner of Steam Town Brew Co., told me that higher staffing costs are hitting his business hard. The employer national insurance contributions increase disincentivises businesses from investing in local jobs.

I have also spoken with local hairdressers, including Jemma from Jemma George Hair Artistry and Jane from Elite Salon in Chandler’s Ford, about the challenges they are facing. They are worried about structural flaws in the VAT system for labour-intensive businesses, challenges to the employer model within the industry, and the lingering impact of the covid pandemic. Those small businesses enrich our high streets, but they are having to fight so hard and work incredibly long hours to make themselves viable. We should be celebrating entrepreneurship, not putting more roadblocks in their way.

The previous Government left business rates unreformed, negotiated a disastrous Brexit deal, and oversaw a massive spiral in energy costs, rents and interest rates, all of which piled incredible pressure on high street businesses. So many of the challenges that those businesses are facing have been caused by policy choices made over the past decade. For all of the Reform party’s showboating, we have seen no coherent plan from it. Indeed, its Members have not even bothered to show up to this debate.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for business rates to be replaced with a commercial landowner levy, so that we tax the land value, not the productive investment. That would give struggling high streets the breathing space that they desperately need. It is wrong that households and high streets are being punished while big banks, gambling companies and social media giants get away without paying their fair share. We must shift the tax burden away from small and medium-sized businesses and on to those with the broadest shoulders.

Our communities deserve better than short-term stunts and uncosted Tory headlines. They deserve a long-term plan to revive our high streets, restore pride in our towns and put small businesses at the centre of Britain’s economic recovery. \p Lloyd Hatton: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate for the very simple reason that my first job was on the high street in the town centre, in Weymouth, where I grew up. I do not like to talk about it too often, but it was at the particularly popular and well-loved fish and chip shop, the Marlboro. It is clear to me that the high street in Weymouth has struggled in the time since then. A lot of the challenges facing the high street began before the covid pandemic. It is right to acknowledge the pandemic’s devastating impact on high streets, but much of the damage was delivered before it, by the previous Conservative Government. If the House will indulge me, I will set out in a little more detail exactly how I feel we can revitalise our high streets, especially in Weymouth town centre and on Portland.

First, the Weymouth Museum Trust received over £40,000 of new funding in September, paving the way for it to be able to maintain a temporary pop-up museum  in Weymouth town centre. I am grateful that the Labour Government chose to invest in Weymouth museum, which is a fantastic hub that celebrates our history and heritage, showcasing everything that is special about our town. However, that funding is just a short-term solution. We urgently need to move Weymouth museum back into Brewers Quay in the heart of Weymouth—a much more suitable permanent home for it. I look forward to working closely with the developers, Dorset council, local businesses, the museum trust and, of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to do just that. I know that we can return the museum to Brewers Quay. It is clear that, if we want to revitalise our high streets, including in Weymouth, we need effective partnership between businesses, charities, the council and national Government in backing our local museums. \p Allison Gardner: Does my hon. Friend agree that increased accessibility for people with disabilities is a crucial aspect of town centre regeneration that would unlock the power of the purple pound? If we make the high street accessible for disabled people, we make it accessible for everyone. \p Lloyd Hatton: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Making places in the town centre accessible—be they local museums or other institutions—is essential to making them a success.

I know that Ministers understand the importance of supporting heritage and our local museums, so I look forward to working closely with them and cracking on with the important work of restoring Weymouth museum at Brewers Quay.

Secondly, I have been working closely with Treasury Ministers finally to deliver a world-class attraction in Eden Portland—or MEMO Portland, as it is officially known. That project has been in the pipeline for many years—successive Conservative Ministers unfortunately failed to recognise its huge potential—and it could breathe new life into the economy on Portland. If delivered, the project could boost Portland’s small businesses, attract new visitors to the island, secure well-paid jobs and create a truly unique attraction that celebrates our Jurassic coast and educates visitors about biodiversity.

It is clear that Eden Portland could be a significant anchor institution, attracting new visitors not just to Portland but to the whole of Dorset. The brilliant Eden Project down in Cornwall is a proven success story, so I am eager to see the Eden Portland proposals delivered so that we can realise similar benefits in my part of the world. Local businesses across Weymouth and Portland tell me time and again that Eden Portland could create a year-round visitor economy, meaning that shops, cafés, pubs, hotels and restaurants feel the benefits of increased visitor numbers outside the summer season and school holidays. If built, Eden Portland can be the anchor institution that we desperately need in Weymouth and Portland, delivering year-round benefits to the local economy. I will continue to do everything I can, working alongside the Treasury, to secure the funding needed finally to deliver that exciting project as soon as possible.

I look forward to working with this Labour Government to finally deliver a Weymouth cultural and visitor centre at the Old Rectory building. Years of under-investment in Weymouth by the previous Conservative Government  mean that we have never had a dedicated venue to showcase art, music and culture. We urgently need a stand-alone space in our vibrant town to do just that. If opened, this centre would be a landmark venue offering a year-round programme of exhibitions, performances and community and educational events. If you have been to Dorset, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that there are so many successful artists, musicians, photographers and creatives who all richly deserve a venue like this in Weymouth. Many other seaside towns have celebrated and leant into an art and culture offering. \p Ian Roome: As a frequent visitor to Weymouth, I have seen the dog-friendly sticker scheme in the businesses on the high street. Does the hon. Member agree that making high street businesses dog-friendly helps to increase their profits? It has certainly cost me a bob or two when I have gone into shops that allow me to take my dog in with me. \p Lloyd Hatton: I thank the hon. Member for his custom and for investing in Weymouth. As the proud owner of a Newfoundland, I know that dogs get us out, get us spending and get us on the high street.

To conclude, towns like Margate, Folkestone and Falmouth have championed art and culture, and it has boosted the high street and drawn visitors into those seaside towns. I now want to see the same happen in Weymouth. Unsurprisingly, I will be banging the drum for a new cultural and visitor centre at the Rectory building in Weymouth. This project is just another way that we can breathe new life into Weymouth’s town centre and attract new businesses and visitors to our town. As I have hopefully made clear today, there are so many exciting projects on the cards. \p Gregory Stafford: I have listened to the hon. Member’s speech very carefully, but I think I missed him mentioning the £19.5 million of levelling-up funding that Weymouth got in 2023 under the last Conservative Government. \p Lloyd Hatton: That money went unspent by the previous Conservative administration at Dorset council. It now falls to me and the new administration at Dorset council to spend that money wisely, which we are doing. I remind the hon. Member that this Labour Government have just invested £20 million in Weymouth as part of the pride in place programme. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. After the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes. However, it might be helpful if I draw every Member’s attention to page 5 of “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”, specifically as it pertains to interventions. It is rude to come into the Chamber and intervene when you have not been here for the majority of the debate. \p Iain Duncan Smith: It is good that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) finally remembered the  money given to his area by the last Government, even though it has not been spent, which is a double pleasure for him; I am sure he will find another way to spend it.

I speak today to support the key high street shopping areas in my constituency: the Mount, Hatch Lane, Highams Park, Station Road, Woodford Broadway and George Lane. Each one of them now suffers as a result of a whole lot of different problems, some of which have been going on for a long time and some of which are more recent issues that have erupted as a result of Government policy.

There has been a slow, progressive increase in difficulties on the high street under many Governments, even though Governments have tried to do different things. What this Government have done is not helpful. The Minister spoke about the difficulties that high streets face and all the things the Government want to do for them, but they have decided to introduce higher national insurance contributions. More importantly, in a way, the Government have also lowered the starting point for paying national insurance, which has been a body blow to small shops and retailers in all our constituencies. \p Charlie Dewhirst: Andy Rafter, owner of the award-winning Rafters greengrocers in Driffield, was telling me just this morning that the bill he has received as a result of his national insurance contribution increase is £30,000 a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that deters investment, deters future employment and is just bad for businesses on our high street? \p Iain Duncan Smith: I instinctively agree with my hon. Friend’s constituent, even though I have never met him, but I wish him well—I was worried that I should have remembered meeting him, but I realise now that I have not, so there is no early onset.

If the Government really wanted to raise national insurance, surely they should have made a major change by not imposing it on small retail outfits, and certainly not small shops and shopkeepers. It has been a disaster, frankly, and it has added massively to the bills. Another huge problem for these businesses is the rise in electricity costs, which is not necessarily to do with the strike price of gas but is massively down to the fact that we are now charged huge amounts on our bills simply to subsidise the unbelievably high-paced drive to get to net zero, which will affect many of them.

I recommend that the Government look again at the hospitality sector, which has lost 100,000 jobs. As has been said, 100,000 jobs lost in any other industry would have been a major issue debated on the Floor of the House. It is a huge number. This is an industry where many people start their businesses, and these pubs, restaurants and so on are high points on our high streets.

Added to all this, Labour councils seem incapable of understanding why parking charges are a real problem for these businesses. The council in my area now levies very restrictive parking charges on high streets. The trouble is that many high street businesses rely on passing trade—somebody who wants to get one thing pulls in for 15 minutes of free parking, goes over to another shop and buys something there before getting back into their car. Free parking encourages people to  do that. My high streets—particularly Station Road—have seen a significant fall-off in trade simply because of those parking charges being imposed. It is not helpful. \p Adam Thompson: In my area, the Conservative administration brought in a parking charge after Labour campaigned extensively for free parking. I was reassured by the local council recently, because the data showed that parking charges actually made no difference at all to footfall. Could the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that, in many areas, small parking charges do not make an awful lot of difference? \p Iain Duncan Smith: I do not have a Conservative council to criticise, although I would criticise it if it had done that. It was a Labour council that introduced these charges, and they have had a dramatic effect on those who would have come to shops. A small bookshop that has been there for many years is now thinking about calling it a day. That is a real problem, and it is bonkers to add that to the other problems these businesses have.

Something that ruins high streets and causes real problems is the inability of local authorities to control the number of adult gaming centres on the high street. I and many others are campaigning to get the Government to allow local authorities to make a decision about that, rather than being overridden. I hope the Government will look at that in due course.

The big thing that is affecting our high streets above all else is the crime and shoplifting going on. We have had a huge problem in our main shopping centres. These people go into shops and are violent. They threaten the shopkeepers, who are often pressed to the wall while they take thousands of pounds—this is not £1 or £2; thousands of pounds of goods are robbed from shop shelves. Those who are shopping are also threatened, and it drives people out of the high street.

We have tried hard to bring this all together, so that the shops report the crime and the police are there for it, but despite that, this crime is still rising. One of the biggest problems is that when a shoplifter is arrested, they say that they wish to be tried in the Crown court. They know full well that the backlog in the Crown court is so great that they will be out on the street again that afternoon. The Government should consider carefully whether shoplifters should be allowed to do that, and whether magistrates courts, which do not have a backlog, should be doing summary charges on shoplifters in criminal cases—with limits, obviously—which would get them off the street that day, not back on the streets committing crime again. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Iain Duncan Smith: I cannot give way again because the hon. Gentleman does not have a minute to give me—sorry about that. Otherwise, I would have loved to give way.

That kind of shoplifting is a major problem, and I want to know that the Government will do what is necessary to bring the levels down. As long as crime is at such a huge scale on our high streets, we will lose more and more people and see more shops close. I ask the Government simply to think again about the national  insurance charges, the level of business rates, and the nature of crime on our high streets. Those are the three main things driving people away from the high streets, mostly into shopping centres, which are not where we want them. We want people on our high streets, which are really important and vital to our communities. \p Laurence Turner: I was initially surprised to see this motion on the Order Paper, given that it is essentially a resubmission of a motion previous submitted by the Opposition and rejected by the House in February, but I should not have been. After all, they do say that culprits often return to the scene of the offence, and when it comes to the current parlous state of many of our high streets, the Conservative party is especially culpable. But really we should be grateful: today’s debate has been an opportunity to talk about the high streets in many of our constituencies that were so badly let down under 14 years of Conservative administration.

Northfield high street is home to some excellent and specialised vendors, but the street is tired in too many places, and problems relating to homelessness, addiction, shoplifting and other forms of crime stretch back many years. Three years ago, it looked as if the tide would turn, when great hopes—encouraged locally and nationally by the Conservatives—were raised over round 2 of the levelling-up fund. A bid was prepared for £11 million to regenerate the high street, but those hopes were cruelly dashed and not one penny of that funding was allocated to the city of Birmingham. Instead, much of that funding was redirected to leafier and more affluent parts of the country, as the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) so memorably boasted.

Our high streets are still dealing with the legacy of the hollowing out of West Midlands police in the 2010s, when the force lost 1,200 police officers and police community support officers. The local authority suffered the sharpest cuts to spending power of any unitary council over the past decade. Attempts were made to distract our constituents from the slow deterioration, with grand visions of schemes that were as solid as the wind. Five years ago, the then Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, published a transport map of the region as part of his election campaign. It detailed a prospective new metro line down Bristol road and through Northfield high street, but that metro extension was not mentioned again after the election and, as far as I can tell, no serious development work was ever done on the idea.

I have had to spend too much time since last July chasing ghost trains, spectral station upgrades, and phantom tram lines, and that approach has continued today with the will-o’-the-wisp pledge to abolish rates completely. That will not convince a single business in any of our constituencies. That is why today’s motion is so risible: it is the political equivalent of returning once more to kick the cracked paving stones, the empty units, and the broken bus stops that the Conservative party left behind.

I am glad that, under Labour, progress is now being made. Capital funding has been secured for infrastructure works on our transport network, which will mean more  money in people’s pockets and greater footfall. Crucially, £20 million has been committed over 10 years to the Hawkesley estate through the pride in place funding. I am grateful to the Minister with responsibility for high streets, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), for promising to visit the constituency. When she does, we will talk with local businesses about credible policies that will assist their current position. These are real measures that will help businesses, not the fantasies of Conservative Members, who broke Britain but have come to the House today with not a hint of self-criticism, with no credibility and with no shame.

I will finish with a few words about the Employment Rights Bill—I draw attention to my connection with the GMB trade union. It is welcome that the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Conservative motion seeks to strike out the words about the Employment Rights Bill. I hope that represents a change in approach, and that Liberal Democrat Members will not again line up with the Tories and Reform when the Bill returns to the Division Lobbies tomorrow night. \p Aphra Brandreth: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like so many people across Chester South and Eddisbury, I rely on our local high street for all sorts of everyday things, from popping to the shops for groceries, to grabbing a coffee with a friend, getting a haircut, posting a parcel, or simply seeing familiar faces and feeling connected. The high street is where community happens; it is where local life comes together.

In recent weeks and months, however, countless local businesses I have spoken to say that they are working incredibly hard but struggling under the weight of rising costs, red tape and taxes. At a time when we know that the Chancellor is preparing her Budget for later in the month, this debate is more important than ever, because it already looks worryingly likely that we are heading for yet another business-busting Budget from this Labour Government. Perhaps today those on the Government Front Bench will listen carefully not just to the voices of Opposition Members, but to the small business owners in Chester South and Eddisbury who keep our high streets alive.

In my constituency there are no large supermarkets, no banks and no big chain restaurants. Our high streets are not just part of community life; they provide vital services. Supporting them is not optional, but essential. Let me give an example. No high street is really complete without a pub. Yet this Labour Government’s decisions have left the hospitality sector reeling. Last year, the Chancellor cut business rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, meaning that the average pub has seen its rates bill rise from around £4,000 to over £9,600 a year. Add to that the rise in employer national insurance contributions, and the frustration felt by many businesses that the burdens imposed by the Employment Rights Bill will, in practice, do the opposite of what is intended, and instead of protecting jobs, it risks making them harder to provide. This Government have created a perfect storm for pubs and hospitality businesses. \p Iain Duncan Smith: One of the biggest problems with the Employment Rights Bill is the day-one rights that it introduces, which will remove the flexibility that allows employers to decide whether someone is the right hire or not. \p Aphra Brandreth: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is one that businesses have raised with me directly. They all want to do the right thing, but they need the flexibility to be able to employ in different circumstances.

Just last week I met Richard, who runs several independent pubs across Cheshire, including the Boars Head near Wybunbury. Like many landlords, his biggest worry is not just his own business, but his staff. Because of higher costs and new employment burdens, he has been forced to make difficult choices. He is concerned that he will not be able to offer part-time jobs this Christmas to give young people some extra cash—and, more importantly, some experience—and help him meet the demands of the festive season. \p Joe Robertson: My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about pubs. Does she agree that one of the best ways to support pubs is to give them a fair excise regime, and that that falls on the Government? \p Aphra Brandreth: Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an important point. Supporting pubs is vital, because they really are at the heart of many of our high streets. Since last year’s Budget, tens of thousands of jobs have disappeared across hospitality and retail. That is Labour’s record, and it shows exactly why we need a Government who understand business, back enterprise and believe in delivering growth.

Another vital high-street service is the post office. As there is no bank in my constituency, post offices are indispensable, but many struggle to keep their doors open. When the branch in Kelsall shut, I launched a petition to save it; I am grateful for the support of nearly 350 residents who added their names to the petition. I have since met representatives of the post office, which is actively seeking a new location, but as our high streets shrink, and as local businesses face mounting pressures as a result of the damaging policies of this Labour Government, finding suitable premises is increasingly difficult. \p Rebecca Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Aphra Brandreth: I will make progress.

In Malpas, the post office recently closed with no notice at all. After sustained community pressure, thanks to the dedication of our hard-working local councillor Rachel Williams, and through further discussions with Post Office Ltd, it has thankfully reopened, although at present it operates without cash services. I continue to work with it on restoring the full range of facilities, so that the many people who rely on them every day will again be able to access them.

I want to end on a positive note, supporting our Conservative vision of how we can restore and revitalise our high streets. Businesses in my constituency have welcomed the plan set out by the shadow Chancellor  and the Leader of the Opposition, particularly our commitment to permanent, 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors. \p John Slinger: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Aphra Brandreth: I am sorry; I need to make progress.

That policy would support around 250,000 businesses nationwide. As the Chancellor prepares her Budget for later this month, I say to her and her Ministers: “Step outside Westminster this Friday. Walk down your local high street. Speak to the shopkeepers, the publicans, the hairdressers and the café owners. Listen to their concerns, and put them at the centre of your Budget.” They should support this Conservative motion, which will deliver for our communities and our high streets. \p Anna Dixon: I am very fortunate to represent the beautiful villages across the Shipley constituency, including Baildon, Menston, Burley-in-Wharfedale, Wilsden, Harden, Cullingworth and Eldwick. These communities are thriving because they have village halls; churches, like Wesleys in Baildon; post offices, like the community post office run by volunteers in Wilsden; pubs, like the Malt Shovel in Menston; local Co-operative supermarkets; and many independent cafés and shops. I will focus on the two main towns, Bingley and Shipley.

Bingley is a historical market town. It has a thriving arts centre that has recently benefited from upgrades after receiving grassroots arts funding. Bingley’s anchor business is the famous Damart factory, which makes thermal underwear. It hosts community events, and has hosted a fantastic exhibition for Bradford 2025. There are new charitable enterprises, such as the Brick Bank café, and independent shops, such as Luscombe’s, Hedgehog Organics and Eldwick Creamery, as well as cafés such as the Craft House, the Loft and the Lounge.

At the heart of the town is Bingley pool, which sadly remains closed due to the devastating cuts that the Tories made, over 14 years, to local councils such as Bradford council, and due to the previous Conservative Government’s false promises of levelling-up funding, which never materialised. By contrast, this Government have committed millions through the pride in place programme, and are rebalancing the amount of money for councils like Bradford. They are giving more power and money to local communities. I am keen for the Minister to say more about how Labour is strengthening the community right to buy, which will make it easier for local communities to take on and run facilities such as Bingley pool.

Let me turn to Shipley town centre. While there are some brilliant businesses there, it was really neglected under the Tories; there were vacant shops and many charity shops, banks closed, crime was up, and shoplifters were free to commit crime with no consequences. I congratulate Bradford council on delivering a fantastic upgrade to the market square, and I also congratulate this Labour Government on increasing neighbourhood policing, which led to a summer crackdown on street drinking and new powers to crack down on retail crime. Unlike other areas we have heard about today, we are  seeing new pubs opening, such as Reconnection in Shipley, which opened just this weekend under the ownership of Beth and Nathan, who already run a successful pub in Baildon. I hope that the Minister agrees that high streets like Shipley’s are on the up; we have a Labour Government and a Labour council finally working together.

There is huge potential in Shipley to increase footfall. It is well connected to Leeds and Bradford by train, and now that this Labour Government are getting the trains back into public ownership, we will see improved services and better affordability. It is vital that we build more housing on brownfield sites, such as the riverside in Saltaire and the old Ian Clough Hall in Baildon, so that more people live near and on our high streets. We should also convert excess commercial, retail and office spaces into much-needed social and affordable homes. I hope the Minister will set out how Homes England funding and planning reforms will unlock those sites, stimulate growth on our high streets, and reverse the situation that we faced under the Tory Government, when so few homes were built.

To sum up, places and town centres like those in Bingley and Shipley have huge potential. After 14 years of neglect and decline under the Tories, this Government are supporting our high streets, so that they can thrive once again. \p Cameron Thomas: For 30 years, MJ’s Gym has been central to the Northway and Tewkesbury communities. It is one of those gritty local gyms with a playlist 10,000 songs long, where men and women of all ages train out a hard day’s work. I met Chris for the first time a few months back. He tries to keep MJ’s running in his spare time while he works as an electrician, but because of decisions made by this Government, he is struggling to keep MJ’s solvent. I do not want to lose MJ’s and all its history to another sterile gym chain.

Will says that the Cleeve Bookshop is only viable in the current economic climate because it is kept afloat by online sales. I do not want to lose the Cleeve Bookshop to another chain store. Lauren is sustaining Bumpyland Softplay using the wages that she earns from her full-time job. As well as giving our children somewhere to play and build their social skills, she is employing young people in their first jobs. I have already spoken, frequently and at length, in support of my hospitality sector. Needless to say, the businesses in that sector need the Government to change course, too.

My high streets in Bishops Cleeve, Tewkesbury and Winchcombe have soul and character, and are worth preserving. However, if the Government do not change course, we will lose them forever. Clearly, support for small businesses should not come at the cost of further cuts to public spending, as proposed in the motion that the Conservatives have tabled today. None of us has any economic lessons to learn from the party that drove our local services to ruin. Therefore, will the Government take reasonable steps, such as increasing the digital services tax and the online gambling tax, so that they can reverse their employer national insurance contributions hike and create a new, lower-rate NIC band to lower the cost of employing part-time staff? \p Amanda Martin: It takes some audacity, or maybe amnesia, for the Conservatives to table a motion about our high streets, given the absolute mess that they left them in after 14 long, depressing years in government. They say, “Let’s look forward, not back,” but those years cannot be wiped away by the people of my city—the cuts were too deep, and the damage was too much. Portsmouth is a proud city, but in Portsmouth North, we have seen what neglect looks like up close. Once-vibrant shopping parades and community spaces were left to decline on the Conservatives’ watch. Allaway Avenue, London Road north end, Cosham high street and the Hilsea shopping areas—to name a few once-bustling local centres—have been blighted by empty shops or inappropriate ones selling counterfeit or stolen goods, as well as by vandalism and illegal employment.

Local businesses tell me the same story again and again: despite being in charge, the Conservatives did nothing. Businesses closed, trade dropped, rents and rates remained high, footfall fell, and basic safety and cleanliness were ignored. One shopkeeper in Cosham told me last summer that

“We’ve had three break-ins this year alone. We reported it, but no one came.”

Data from Portsmouth neighbourhood police backs that up. Recorded incidents of shoplifting and intimidation of local shop owners increased by 30% between 2019 and 2023. Police officers were doing their very best, but under the Tories, law and order was neglected, under-resourced and overstretched for far too long, but there is hope. Under this Labour Government, the situation is changing.

Through the safer streets campaign, and now that we have neighbourhood officers, we have seen targeted action in Portsmouth North that has delivered a dramatic downfall in crime in key areas. Links between police and retailers have improved, and modern technology is being used. UK Partners Against Crime is working in partnership with our high street retailers. Neighbourhood officers such as PC Ben Treed and PC Hannah Kelleher need and deserve real credit for tackling antisocial behaviour and protecting our shopkeepers and residents. It is a privilege to go with them on their rounds. \p Paul Holmes: The hon. Lady is right to recognise the advances made as a result of our having named neighbourhood officers. Will she therefore congratulate the Conservative police and crime commissioner, Donna Jones, who brought in that policy before the hon. Lady’s Government did? \p Amanda Martin: I welcome the work of my PCC, particularly on retail crime and in rolling out UKPAC.

The police officers I have mentioned deserve real credit, and with proper investment and community backing, they can finally do the job that the experts want them to do. That is why the initiatives I have described, alongside the pride in place programme, are so vital for my city. Portsmouth North has been awarded £20 million to breathe life back into local high streets and communities in Paulsgrove. That funding will go directly towards regenerating community spaces, improving safety and supporting the local  economy. Importantly, how that money is spent will be decided by the community—the people who know the area best.

We already see progress being made by a Labour Government acting on behalf of our communities—in education, in our NHS and in our armed forces. Local residents have told me that they finally feel hopeful that their neighbourhood will receive the investment and respect that it needs and deserves.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), whose outstanding campaign for high-street renewal has inspired so many of us. It was her work that encouraged me to launch my own local initiative, the “Back Our High Streets—Stop Dodgy Shops” campaign. The campaign tackles an issue that has plagued communities like mine for too long: the rise of so-called dodgy shops—unregulated outlets selling counterfeit goods and illegal vapes, massage parlours and barbers, often operating outside proper licensing and safety standards and shirking their tax responsibilities, leaving an unfair playing field for those who do follow the rules. \p Anna Dixon: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the number of pop-up shops and illegal traders on the high street. I am running a petition about the antisocial use of fireworks; does she agree that more needs to be done to stop their illegal sale in pop-up shops? \p Amanda Martin: Absolutely. Such shops are unregulated and potentially not paying their taxes, unlike other businesses on the same high streets. They drive down the quality of our high streets, put legitimate traders out of business, and create environments where antisocial behaviour can flourish. I am working closely with Portsmouth city council’s trading standards team and Portsmouth police to ensure that enforcement action is taken, including raids and seizures. We need to push councils to use the powers proposed in the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill; to work with communities; and to take compulsory purchase opportunities, so that we replace empty units with genuine local businesses and community spaces. This is about restoring pride, safety and opportunity to our local shopping areas.

However, our high streets are not just about shops. In a changing world of retail, we can and should ensure that retail, leisure, hospitality, personal services and houses sit together, because high streets are places where people come together and find friendship, conversation and connection. Supporting them is central to rebuilding vibrant, safe and welcoming communities. Conservative Members talk today about “reviving” our high streets, but it is a Labour Government and a Labour MP who are actually doing that in my city—investing in people, working with small and medium-sized enterprises, hospitality and leisure, and rebuilding our communities. We are ensuring that local pride has national action.

Let me end by thanking residents, volunteers, tradespeople, retailers, those who work for small and medium-sized enterprises and community groups in Portsmouth. They are out there every single day keeping our high streets alive, and their pride and persistence are the heartbeat of our communities. With this Labour Government and two Labour MPs, they finally have partners in Westminster who share their ambition, their  passion and their pride in our city—and we are not stopping there, because we want to reach the heights and become the City of Culture. \p Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), whose passion I always admire, even if I rarely follow or agree with her arguments.

From the day you start your business until the day you pass it on, Labour simply sees a target to tax. Labour Members have shown that today. By contrast, Conservatives see a dream to back. Labour makes it harder to start a business, takes more from you as you grow, and leaves a tax bill for your children when you are gone. We on this side of the House back entrepreneurs. We give them the freedom to build, the tools to invest, and the chance to pass their success to the next generation. That is what our plan will deliver to get Britain working again.

Starting a business is a leap of faith, taken by someone with an idea and the determination to make it work. Conservatives understand that, because many of us have started and run our own businesses. Sadly, just one Cabinet Minister can say the same. I do not think that Labour Members detest enterprise and business; they just do not understand it, and see it as something that they must relentlessly tap. In 14 years under the Conservatives, the number of businesses grew by 1.1 million. We have built businesses, so we know what it takes to make them grow. This Government have not, and it shows.

I am sure that Members across the House love going into schools in their constituencies. The ones in Beverley and Holderness are brimming with budding entrepreneurs —young people full of ideas but lacking the tools to turn them into reality. Research by the Federation of Small Businesses found that, while 60% of young people want to own a business, only 16% ever will. \p Joe Robertson: The British Retail Consortium has warned that £7 billion of costs have been put on to businesses because of national insurance contributions levied by this Government, and the Chancellor’s attitude was to say, “Well, the NHS is working.” Does she really think that the hospital budget should rest on the entrepreneurs in our constituencies? \p Graham Stuart: We see it in speech after speech from Labour Members. Perhaps it is because of the careers they have had. They think the key to unlocking the high street, or indeed the wider economy, is public investment. It is not; it is about government getting out of the way. Of course we need a facilitating local and national government, but here are the fundamentals: it is not their money—the money of government—which businesses are allowed to have; and it is not their space, which businesses are allowed to occupy. It is our space—the people’s space—and government is there to facilitate and support, humbly. But humility is something that the Labour party never seems to display when it comes to dealing with business. All it ever does is seek to tax it. \p Jim McMahon: rose— \p Graham Stuart: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect. \p Jim McMahon: On the basis of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, he must support a rise in the national living wage. That is the purest form of a contract between the employer and the employee and, of course, that money goes straight back into the local economies in the towns that he speaks about. \p Graham Stuart: Of course, we did lift the minimum wage by more than, I think, any other Government. But if we go too far and do what this Government did with young people—making them cost the same as older people, even though they have no experience—funnily enough, they do not get a job.

Of course, Government Members trumpet about the Employment Rights Bill: “Oh, we are providing all these rights for workers!” That is not much use if people are pushed out of the labour market. I thought the Labour party was supposed to care about the marginalised. Well, the marginalised are the people who are missing out—not your fat, union-backed workers getting vast pay at vast cost. Billions were spent paying off the union paymasters of the Labour Government, while young people are once again disadvantaged, and people who are far away from the labour market because of mental health or other issues are pushed further away from it.

Let me give the House an example from my constituency. It does not get much more rural or isolated than down in Kilnsea, just above Spurn point, and if you go to the Crown & Anchor there and speak to those publicans, you will hear that it is this Government, not 14 years of the Conservatives, who have increased their taxes, meaning that they are not taking on a young person—a young person who would have had their first chance. I know those guys are absolutely committed to finding people who are far away from the labour market, providing a nurturing environment and helping them get into work, but that dream is being killed by the Labour party.

I spoke to Viki Foster, careers leader at Withernsea high school, who shared how valuable the right business support in schools can be, and how much more schools could do if they had the resources to match. Our plan will launch business challenges in schools, introduce entrepreneur-led mentoring schemes and provide seed funding from government, so that we can unlock the potential of the next generation. There is a role for government, but it is in facilitating. We have got to make sure that government does not crush and oppress business, but supports it instead.

Starting a business is one thing, but keeping it going is another. Around 60% of businesses fail within the first three years. They need our support, because when Toll Gavel in Beverley or Market Place in Hedon thrive, that creates jobs, boosts spending and drives stronger growth for Britain.

Labour just does not seem to get it. From listening to the speeches today, there seems to be no limit to the amount of tax the Government think can be imposed on business—as long as it is channelled into public investment in their particular constituencies, they think that will grow the economy. They can come here to trumpet and name a vast number of public investments, but if the overall position is that young people are further away from the labour market than they were before, if entrepreneurs and people who would have had high-growth businesses are moving abroad, and if high  net worth individuals are dissuaded from working hard in this country, or, worse still, move abroad, then all of us are poorer—our high streets in particular. \p Joe Powell: My residents care deeply about our high streets. From Earl’s Court Road to Queensway, and from Notting Hill Gate to Portobello Road, those high streets have a lot of potential but were put through the wringer by the previous Conservative Government. We had empty units, unconstrained rows of slot machine casinos, and the rise of vape shops, candy shops, Harry Potter shops and barbers squeezing out legitimate businesses. Banks closed, with no coherent Government response, and neighbourhood police budgets were slashed. We have seen the rise of shoplifting, attacks on retail staff and, of course, wages flatlining for a decade. People have less money in their pockets to spend on the high streets, thanks to the mini-Budget. As revealed by London Centric, we have even had snail farms cropping up across the country to take advantage of tax loopholes. That is a symbol of the Tory economy: sluggish, brittle and hard-to-swallow molluscs taking up retail space and pushing out legitimate businesses.

Change is needed, and it is coming not just from the Government but from communities. I pay tribute to the residents and councillors in Earl’s Court who joined forces with me to block a 24/7 licence for an adult gaming centre. That is a precedent that I hope will apply to other casinos and slot machine proposals, and I welcome the Government introducing new powers to say no to new betting shops, vape shops and others that degrade our high streets. The planning system can prevent those outfits from opening in the first place, and I am encouraged to hear that Treasury colleagues are looking at how to step up enforcement. The National Crime Agency’s Operation Machinize hit hundreds of barber shops and other cash-intensive businesses suspected of illicit activity.

I was astonished that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), dismissed the arguments on tax evasion, given the harms that it causes to legitimate businesses. At one end of the spectrum, we have businesses linked to serious and organised crime, hiding the proceeds of the drugs trade and washing that money through our high streets. At the other end, we have VAT evasion, business rate evasion and dodgy trading practices. I commend Westminster city council for cracking down on the candy shops on Oxford Street and across our city—a pioneering council supporting our high streets where its predecessor failed.

I want to make the House aware of a particularly nefarious practice that has caught on. A shady organisation will pop up, with directors who have no idea what they are in control of. The organisation then fleeces the taxpayer and sells the public a dodgy product. Before it can be held accountable, the leadership changes and the organisation reappears under a new brand. This is not just the Conservative party’s strategy, but the practice of phoenixing. I welcome Treasury Ministers’ previous commitment to go further on this practice by boosting HMRC to include community harm in its evaluation of whether to take on cases, and encouraging the Insolvency  Service to do more to get back taxpayers’ money. Adding those practices on enforcement and planning to the suite of other things that this Government are doing to support our high streets is the way that we will work with our communities to revitalise them and to bring their high streets back to life. \p Rebecca Smith: Napoleon’s famous remark that “England is a nation of shopkeepers” was meant as an insult. However, for many of us up and down these isles, the high street and its many small businesses are a source of immense pride. My constituency is home to one of the highest concentrations of small businesses in the country, with more than 3,000 operating locally. Although not all are on the high street, they are all part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem that makes up the local economy.

I have seen at first hand the sacrifices that SME owners right across my constituency make day in, day out: the sleepless nights as financial pressures hit; the long hours away from family, working six or seven days a week; and people’s Herculean efforts to make sure that they might even take a holiday. Those are the challenges facing the self-employed, the sole traders, the family business and the small team.

For over 30 years, my parents had their own small business, which is called Mainly Kitchens. They made huge sacrifices. Dad worked six days a week. They survived the recessions of the 1980s and the financial crash in the early noughties. Because of their financial prudence, they had a business to sell to my brother when Dad retired. Britain is built off the back of small businesses like those in my constituency and the one owned by my family. They account for 99.2% of the business population, employ 16.9 million Britons—60% of private sector jobs—and contribute £2.8 trillion to the UK economy.

Many of these businesses can be found on high streets like the Broadway and the Ridgeway in my constituency—businesses including Therapy Hair and Beauty Boutique, owned by Effi and her husband Daniel; the new Plymstock post office, which postmaster Steven Boyd has opened this month, taking a huge risk at a time of great uncertainty; and Tubb pharmacy in Newton Ferrers.

There are also many off-the-high-street businesses in my constituency, such as Serpells farm stores, owned by Scott. That is a classic example of a business that is a critical part of the local rural economy, and which, because of the Labour Government’s Budget decisions, has had to stop hiring new staff as employment costs rise. In addition, it is experiencing a doubling in its business rates, not the reduction that was promised by the Chancellor. For the avoidance of doubt, the jobs that are not being given are to the young people we have heard much about this afternoon.

The contribution of small businesses cannot be measured purely in pounds sterling. Our high streets form the centre of our communities, and are places where generations have shopped, socialised and worked. For many, the decline of the high street is the clearest sign of the nation’s decline, so it is surprising that this Labour Government seem so determined to kill Britain’s entrepreneurial spirit.

The Labour Government’s business rates reform is nowhere to be seen. Subsequent Treasury reforms have raised concerns that larger businesses, which act as anchor tenants by drawing people to town centres, may be forced to close, which has an impact on smaller retailers by cutting the number of visitors to high streets. This was compounded by the Chancellor’s £40 billion tax raid, funded off the back of hard-working small business owners. Thanks to the small business rates relief brought in by the previous Government, a third of properties were taken out of business rates all together, but this Labour Government seem intent on undoing that progress.

Finally, last week I visited Bidfood UK in Lee Mill, which raised with me serious concerns about the knock-on effects of these rising costs on food wholesalers. This is important because wholesalers play a key role in connecting food producers with local shops, restaurants and public services. The pressures they face from increased operating costs and changes to business rates risk driving prices higher throughout the entire food supply chain, ultimately placing additional strain on small business owners and putting our high streets at risk. If this is not taken seriously by the Government, the impact on food costs and inflation will be huge. The one thing I would love to hear from the Minister about is the point on food wholesalers; in that respect, what is he going to do at the big end to make sure that our high streets remain intact? \p Elsie Blundell: It is unusual that I find myself agreeing with the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), but it is high time that we discuss our local high streets in this place. I would gently say, however, that doing so requires us to look back at the record of the Conservatives during their time in government, and frankly, when it comes to our high streets, it is a record they should be ashamed of. Coming to the House feigning indignation and refusing to accept any responsibility for the damage they have done will really get under the skin of my constituents.

Fourteen years of hollow funding commitments, with antisocial behaviour out of control and the scars of neglect visible across our high streets, but the Conservatives instead choose to come here to talk down the Employment Rights Bill, which is a critical piece of legislation that will protect the very workers who have a stake in our high streets. If they are satisfied with workers remaining in deeply insecure employment—like those at Tetrosyl in Greater Manchester, who are facing the prospect of fire and rehire as we speak—they should just come out and say so.

The people of Heywood and Middleton North are resilient. They are grafters and they care deeply about their local community. They know that the challenges facing our high streets will not be overcome overnight, and that for us to rebuild that image of a bustling local centre—an image that invokes a sense of real pride—there must first come investment not just of capital, but of responsibility and confidence. This is where we need to meet people halfway. Too many people look at their high streets and see a landscape they no longer recognise. Where we once saw the trading of local produce, in recent years we have seen the proliferation of illicit  goods that not only perpetuate antisocial behaviour on our streets, but run down public health and corrode our towns from the inside.

My constituents refuse to buy into the defeatism that Opposition parties feed off. We recognise the strengths and assets that underpin our diverse communities, and I am proud to stand alongside this Labour Government, who are finally providing the means for local people to take back their high streets. I am delighted that my borough is a beneficiary of pride in place impact funding and I thank Ministers for their engagement with me in recent weeks. I was proud to host a community meeting at Burnside community centre in Middleton, where I heard decisive calls from local people on the changes they want to see for their local amenities and their high streets. Unlike the previous Government, which deliberately moved money away from areas of most acute need, this Labour Government are working in tandem with local councils and local people to revive the assets that our towns are built on. This investment, which should be allocated to Middleton, coupled with the community right to buy and compulsory purchase powers, will allow communities to seize untapped assets and turn around shops, pubs and buildings in disrepair. We are empowering local councils to block unwanted shops, from vape shops to dodgy barbers.

This Government understand the challenge before us—the shattered trust we need to rebuild. Rather than capitulate to the declinist narratives that suit the Opposition parties all too well, we are cracking on and delivering change, and coming at this from all sides. Through tangible and lasting investment from national Government to the cutting of local red tape, and through the talent, grit and innovation of the people and businesses I represent, I know that the best days of our high streets lie ahead. \p Adam Dance: I want to raise the concerns of fantastic businesses in the Yeovil constituency. The current Government’s employer national insurance increase will damage high street businesses. Shaun, who runs Lanes Hotel in West Coker, put it better than I ever could:

“At a time when we needed help,”

the Chancellor

“has chosen to give us another kicking. We are sick of it”.

That is why we Liberal Democrats oppose the unfair jobs tax that has hit small businesses hard in rural areas like mine.

Andrew, who was the landlord of the Cat Head Inn in Chiselborough, which has sadly now closed, wrote to me to point out that the business rates system is “fundamentally outdated”. He is right and changes to the system keep getting kicked down the road. I urge the Government to replace the broken business rates with a commercial landowner levy as soon as possible. The system would be based purely on the value of the land where the business is located, shifting responsibility for tax from businesses to commercial landlords.

This would not be a debate about high streets without mentioning banks and banking hubs. We were able to get one in Crewkerne in my constituency, but Chard and Ilminster were denied banking hubs despite having the same needs—in some cases greater. That is why assessment criteria for banking hubs must include the  need for in-person banking services and financial advice. The Government must also be a bit more ambitious and push for far more than 300 banking hubs over five years. That is hardly any, considering there are 650 constituencies.

Small businesses in the area, including the Acorn café, have told me that antisocial behaviour in Yeovil is negatively affecting footfall and trade. That is why we need the Government to invest more in community policing in rural areas. Rural areas seem to get missed off the list. We have heard that many times today and we have been overlooked for far too long.

Finally, for rural communities such as those in Yeovil, a huge issue nowadays is just being able to get to your local high street. Public transport is a nightmare, shown by the constant issues with the cancelled No. 11 bus. That is why most people drive, but parking is also an issue. Local business owners, such as Jane who owns Café 50 and the owner of the Mad Hatter, are really worried about the potential closure of car parks in Yeovil and the impact on footfall and revenue. \p Gregory Stafford: I have a similar problem in Farnham. We are being hit by the headwinds of what is going on nationally, but the Farnham infrastructure programme means there is disruption locally. Now, we all welcome the outcome, but what we have a problem with is Lib Dem-run Waverley council whacking up car parking charges, which is deterring people. Can the hon. Gentleman have a word with his colleagues in Waverley to stop that? \p Adam Dance: One reason why house building on some of our car parks is being proposed is because of the Government’s underfunding of rural areas. I agree that parking charges are a problem. We have the same issue in Somerset. They are having to be levelled out because of the unitary council, which the hon. Gentleman’s Conservative Government pushed on Somerset council. Parking is a massive issue and charges do sometimes deter people from coming to our constituency. I know that is not the council’s intention, so I urge them to take on those concerns and think again, but Somerset also needs more money from central Government for better rural public transport and roads. For too long our high streets have been left to decline. That must change. \p Adam Thompson: Like people around the country, my constituents are tired of watching their high streets decline. They are tired of seeing good, local businesses close, replaced by dodgy barbers, vape shops, betting shops, or worse: nothing at all, with the shop left to rot. The decline in our high streets is a political choice that was made knowingly by the Conservative party over 14 years. The Conservatives stripped our local councils of power, defunded them and prevented them from intervening on their own high streets. The Conservatives have brought forward an Opposition day debate on an issue that they themselves powerfully undermined for more than a decade.

I am proud that this Government are taking a different approach. Through the pride in place funding, residents of Cotmanhay in my constituency are receiving £20 million to invest in their community over 10 years. When I met Cotmanhay residents at a community meeting the weekend  before last, I was struck by their enthusiasm and general desire to improve our community. Many people in Cotmanhay are brimming with ideas of how to revitalise the area and, for the first time, they are being listened to and given the power to make the changes that they want to see in their area.

I am also pleased that councils will finally be given greater power to say no to fake barbers, vape shops and bookies, which we all know are covers for the drugs industry. Councils will be able to seize boarded-up shops, save derelict pubs and create space for genuine, innovative businesses that will revive our high streets. Strong local government and community empowerment are the best ways that we can revitalise our high streets. Residents ultimately know best what their towns need. \p Gideon Amos: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should also look at the police having the power to close illegal shops and stop them trading immediately, rather than having to take lengthy processes through the courts before they can be closed down? \p Adam Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very reasonable point, although I think it is probably more a question for the ministerial team than for me.

I am extremely proud to work with Labour-controlled Erewash borough council, which has been taking a lot of firm action recently on our declining high street. Since taking control of the council just two and a half years ago, the Labour council has been tackling absentee landlords and negligent property owners, including those responsible for the decaying Wigfalls building on Bath Street in Ilkeston, which has been decrepit for more than 20 years. The owners have been given a clear choice: invest in their properties, with council support, and show pride in our town centres, or face enforcement through a section 215 clean-up order.

My colleagues on the council have also massively expanded the council’s shop signage grant, offering local businesses up to £2,000 for new signage. The scheme has been extended beyond our immediate local centres—beyond the hubs in Ilkeston and Long Eaton—including Cotmanhay, Kirk Hallam and Sawley. It will help us to brighten our towns and villages and to support small, independent businesses across the borough with direct intervention.

The measures this Government are taking to empower local councils and finally end the scandal of underfunding in councils across the north and the midlands will strengthen the hand of dedicated local authorities such as Erewash and communities such as Cotmanhay in the fight against empty town centres. It is time for us to focus on innovation over stagnation, on the grassroots over national diktat and on pride over neglect. I am deeply proud that this is the Labour Government’s approach. \p Damian Hinds: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is natural in these debates that we repeatedly hear phrases like “lifeblood” and “beating heart”, because colleagues across the House love our town and village centres; they are the essence of our local communities. For me, that means principal towns like Alton and Petersfield and  substantial villages like Liss, Four Marks, Clanfield, Horndean and Rowlands Castle. Why do we care? Of course, it is important to have the provision of goods and services for our residents, but mostly it is because these are the places that bring people together; they stop isolation, form social bonds and give life and form to the idea of community.

Lots of different things are needed for a successful high street. There is the physical environment and its aesthetic appeal, which Members have mentioned. I pay tribute to those who give up their time voluntarily to maintain and improve that landscape, including litter pickers such as those from the Alton Society, the Petersfield Society and the brilliantly named Rubbish Singers.

A good events calendar can really make a difference and can go a long way. I think you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is hard to beat an events calendar like that of Alton in Hampshire. It is about having cultural assets, such as Petersfield museum. In fact, this morning the Culture, Media and Sport Committee heard about the role of heritage buildings in creating a sense of place. It is about initiatives that bring people into the town centre, such as Dementia-friendly Alton and “Health on the High Street”. There must be wider community facilities, including libraries and nurseries—in fact, anything that just brings people to that specific place.

Most of all, it is about people and the shops, cafés, pubs and restaurants that they work in. The great British high street still has a lot going for it, but it faces some very difficult headwinds, principally from out-of-town shopping and online shopping and home delivery. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not blame the Labour Government for either of those things. They are forces that our country and the world has been dealing with for quite some time—and we can add to those more recently the indirect effect on banking, as a couple of colleagues have mentioned. \p Rachel Gilmour: I am very lucky in my constituency to have a thriving high street in Minehead. It was obvious when I was wandering around doing my Small Business Saturday that the strength of the independent traders is what makes Minehead high street particularly successful and a thriving part of my constituency. Does the hon. Member agree with that point? \p Damian Hinds: I largely agree. In truth, it is a blend. Having distinctive independent traders is what sets all our towns apart; it makes them unique and it makes us very proud of them. But customers want both those independent traders and some brand-name retailers, and there is nothing wrong with being a brand-name retailer. The secret comes from having a combination of both.

I was just saying that I want to join in with what other colleagues have said about the need for banking. On the need to review the criteria, I think it is the Financial Conduct Authority that sets the criteria. As this development in banking goes further, we need to ensure that towns the size of Petersfield in my constituency have a business banking facility that is open at least five days a week, and I hope that the Government can look at that with the FCA.

Given the headwinds that our high streets face, the most important thing we need is more people to come into those places. Efforts to create more residential  accommodation in town centres, which the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) talked about, are useful, as is maximising the use of brownfield land. Most people coming into town centres are coming in for a purpose, and we need to be hospitable to them. Walking and cycling are great, but we must remember that most people are still coming in by car, especially in an area like mine, and we must make sure that it works for them too. \p Mike Kane: The hon. Member is making a very impressive speech. Cultural institutions are also important for our high streets. I note that it is the 200th anniversary of the death of Jane Austen, who lived in Chawton House in Alton in his constituency. Hopefully that will help to regenerate his high street as well. \p Damian Hinds: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I might return the favour by mentioning the Robert Bolt theatre, which I think is in his constituency. Colleagues will know of “A Man for All Seasons”, and the hon. Gentleman is something of a man for all seasons himself.

As well as bringing more people into the town centre, I think the No. 1 imperative right now is to address the cost of doing business and employing people. There are good arguments against every tax—anyone who has ever worked at the Treasury will know that—and that is why we end up having a blend of lots of different taxes. Business rates are an especially bad tax, because it is a fixed cost being to imposed on businesses. That makes it harder to turn a profit, and crucially it deters new people from coming into business.

In the case of retail and hospitality, we must remember that as well as their roles as businesses, they are volume employers—two of the three biggest volume employers. As well as being the home of workers, they are a big source of customers who will use other businesses.

There was a bit of talk about the national living wage and so on. Of course, it is good that the national living wage goes up. The point is that when that is done at the same time as other things that impose further costs on business, making it harder to employ people, we will see an effect. We are already seeing damage, not in mass lay-offs but in marginal hiring decisions, with employers not taking on some Saturday help and not offering some extra hours. In fact, we see some pubs closing earlier than they would do ordinarily. I am afraid that will all become worse with the Employment Rights Bill, and the biggest impact will be on those furthest from or newest to the labour market. I encourage the Government to think again. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. There will be an immediate three-minute time limit. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Calder Valley is a string of communities. From Brighouse to Elland and from Hebden Bridge to Todmorden, each town has its own character and pride, shaped by its high street. But after 14 years of Conservative government, too many of our local high streets were left in decline. In Calderdale, we lost nearly a quarter of our pubs between 2010 and 2018, and more than 10,000 hospitality venues  closed across the country. That was before the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. The Conservatives had chance after chance to deal with that, which is why their debating how we will best clean up their mess came as a bit of a shock today.

The voices of local businesses tell the same story. In my business survey, 85% of high street businesses said that there was not enough support under the last Government. The Conservatives fell asleep at the wheel, too busy fighting among themselves and swapping leaders every year, with a new business Minister or community Minister every five minutes.

The world has changed, and the high street is changing with it. Although internet retailers are hoovering up customers, successful businesses are those that can innovate, offer value, curation and experiences—the entrepreneurial spirit. But in order to deliver that we need a Government who talk to small businesses and not just the big actors.

Calder Valley is one of the most entrepreneurial places in the country. We have the highest business density in West Yorkshire, and over the past five years people have created 6.5% more businesses, which is well above the national average and a testament to the character of my community. But, instead of backing that energy, the Tories left productivity to stagnate, costs to spiral and small businesses to struggle on their own. Nowhere is that clearer than on high streets up and down the country. For too many people, the story of their town centre is boarded up shops, which, if they are lucky, are replaced by vape shops and bookies. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: It is unfortunately a similar story in parts of my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree it is striking that the one word we have not heard from Conservative Members in the debate for everything they have done is “sorry”? \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Absolutely. There is a complete lack of contrition about the Conservative legacy of neglect. The Tories let our valued pubs and shops close.

I once explained to an American friend—they have a different culture—the difference between pubs and bars: a bar is just somewhere you go to drink, but a pub is your community living room. That is why this Labour Government are giving communities the right to buy a much-loved pub, post office or community hall that is under threat. Local people can step in and save businesses. That was pioneered by the then unique community ownership scheme that took over the Fox & Goose in Hebden Bridge.

This Labour Government are cutting red tape and tackling late payments so that businesses can focus on serving customers, rather than fighting to survive. It is not just that the vast majority of our high street businesses in my survey said that they want to grow, and they can do with the right support; they told me that they chose to be in Calder Valley because of the brilliant community spirit that makes our places special. It is the same spirit that Sally Wainwright has put on our screens with “Happy Valley” and “Riot Women”. I know that every community represented across this House has its own story, its own community spirit and its own pride. Labour is backing that pride.

The Labour Government know that local communities matter, and they require real capital, not failed platitudes from across the House. This is about pride: pride in towns, pride in communities and pride in place. The Conservatives left our high streets to die. Labour will bring them back to life town by town, community by community, in Calder Valley and across the country. \p Gregory Stafford: Picture this: Downing Street, a hub of activity, alive with purpose, people moving with intent, heated debate and entrepreneurship at every turn. You look confused, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not talking about the Downing Street here in SW1, but Downing Street in Farnham, where the high street starts and where the most heated debate is over whether the Farnham infrastructure project will ever end and the concerns about the local Lib Dems whacking up car parking charges at the same time.

The other big debate is about how high streets will survive the headwinds of tax rises that this Government have thrown against them time and again. From hospitality to leisure and retail, the high streets of Farnham, Haslemere, Liphook and the new town centre in Bordon are hives of business activity. Some 98% of the businesses across my constituency are small or medium-sized enterprises, providing the backbone of our local economy and the foundation of community life. \p Peter Fortune: My wonderful constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill is also home to many SMEs, and they tell me that they are being punished because of the irresponsible decisions taken by this Labour Government. Does my hon. Friend agree? \p Gregory Stafford: I entirely agree. The truth is that Labour does not have the backing of small and medium-sized businesses because it is stifling growth with its costly net zero commitments, layers of red tape, changes to the living wage, cuts to business rate relief, the Employment Rights Bill and higher national insurance contributions. That is a toxic cocktail designed to choke off enterprise and ambition.

The Conservatives have a very good record on supporting local businesses. Just think back to the pandemic, when we delivered 100% business rates relief for many businesses. Indeed, when we left office last year, business rates relief was at 75%. Yet what did Labour do? As soon as it came in, it slashed that relief to just 40%, which is absolutely crippling for small businesses in my constituency. That is why I am proud and pleased that we have announced the abolition of business rates altogether, meaning that nearly a quarter of a million businesses will benefit. Financed by the golden rule, that is responsible, sustainable and, most importantly, pro-growth.

An hon. Member on the Government Benches argued that removing the rates will let landlords raise rents, but that assumes a balanced market. The reality is oversupply, with retail space outstripping demand. Abolishing business rates will therefore not drive up rents, but will make high streets more sustainable. The Brightwells development in Farnham, in my constituency, proves the point.

When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited my constituency last week, we met Steve at Hamilton’s, Mario at Serina, and Julian at The Castle pub. All three said the same thing: business rates are crippling,  HMRC’s red tape is growing and energy bills are too high. That is why I am delighted that we have a plan to scrap business rates and cut energy bills for those small businesses.

In Bordon, in my constituency, we are working intensely to ensure that the new high street and town centre can thrive. We are making progress, but that progress will be undermined by this Government’s attack on business. These are not just businesses; they are the heartbeat of our community. They train young people, they create jobs and they invest in the place they call home. I am also afraid that the disconnect that Labour shows nationally is echoed by the Liberal Democrats in my area. They simply do not understand the struggles that our high streets face under this Government and therefore have no empathy for our local businesses.

High streets are not just the commercial zones; they are social, and the social and economic soul of our towns. Supporting them requires a Government willing to protect essential services, invest in rural areas and cut through the bureaucracy that holds small businesses back. Conservatives understand that if we back ambition, we build prosperity. If we bury it in bureaucracy, we destroy it. Our high streets and the communities that they serve deserve better than that. \p Polly Billington: I am grateful, in particular, to see the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) back in his place. I was particularly struck by the significant intellectual differences between him and those of us on the Government side of the House about the importance of the public realm and investment in our communities in order for those places to flourish.

I think that most of us on the Government Benches understand that we cannot look to the horizon and seize those opportunities of entrepreneurialism unless we are secure in ourselves and our communities and have those assets available. That is why the investment in our national health service is so important. There has been no assessment from the Conservatives of the importance or the potential or actual costs to business of days off due to sickness. Long waiting lists have caused insecurity and uncertainty in small businesses in my community, increasing both costs through staff absences and pressure on management.

It is important for us to have security as well as flexibility in our employment market. Indeed, the small business owner Carly Cannings, who runs the Happy Business School, has said that our Employment Rights Bill is

“a set in the right direction towards raising standards.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 28, Q22.]

I know that responsible business owners want to ensure that they can recruit and retain staff. That is vital in small communities such as mine, where our high streets have been hollowed out. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members could learn from that not-very-famous left winger, Henry Ford, who put up his workers’ wages so that they could afford to buy his cars? \p Polly Billington: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

Other consequences of the past 14 years for our high streets include retail crime. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is no longer in his place, because he spoke strongly about the consequences of shoplifting. Shoplifting rose by 70% under the last Conservative Government, with 2,000 incidents a day in 2023-24. With that record, the Conservatives need to recognise that they are significantly responsible, rather than complaining about what is happening now.

I know that there is a significant issue with energy costs, because it is often raised with me by small businesses in my constituency. The reversal of the Conservatives’ commitment to net zero means that they would be risking a shift away from renewables, but it is renewables that will help us to shift off the gas price. The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness should know that well.

The reality is that the public realm matters when we are talking about ensuring that we have a thriving high street. For example, there are now fewer buses. In Thanet we have seen bus services cut dramatically—by 7 million bus miles in Kent alone since 2020—and fewer police lead to the kinds of situations that we have seen. We also have insecure work with low pay, and fire and rehire. \p Alison Hume: Coastal communities such as Scarborough, which have benefited from the safer streets initiative, have seen incidents of antisocial behaviour drop by 23% this year compared with the previous summer. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government, by tackling antisocial behaviour, are breathing new life into our high streets and restoring pride in our neighbourhoods? \p Polly Billington: I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been striking in my community to see the local social energy of our businesses, particularly in Ramsgate, coming together to help tackle antisocial behaviour, work with the police and bear down on some of the worst excesses of the consequences of the last 14 years.

We also need to be aware of the consequences for small businesses of the fear and uncertainty brought on by the chaos of Brexit. The botched Brexit deal has had a direct impact on my communities, particularly through the loss of our language schools in places such as Ramsgate and Broadstairs. Not all of them have been impacted, but some of them have, and that reduces the footfall on our high streets. That is a direct consequence of failures by the Conservatives.

Ramsgate High Street, for example, has a 24% vacancy rate, as I mentioned earlier. The British Property Federation, when confronted with that statistic, suggested that that meant the people who owned the businesses were simply economically irrational. Well, there seems to be a lot of economic irrationality, which needs to be countered by people who understand the importance of shaping our places—hence our community compulsory auction leases and powers for local authorities such as Thanet to control the proliferation of vape shops and gambling centres. I am sure that the Minister will note my concern that there would be a greater appetite for compulsory purchase if we had a better funding settlement for places such as Thanet when these things come to pass.

Of course we need to reform business rates. We know that they are disproportionately impacting on hospitality enterprises in places, such as my constituency, that rely significantly on the seasonal tourist economy, but I emphasise again the importance of the ability of communities themselves to shape their high streets, from Ramsgate Space and Margate Town Action Group— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call Gagan Mohindra. \p Gagan Mohindra: As many have said, our high streets are the heart of our communities. From small retail and hospitality ventures that allow people the opportunity to own their own business, to post offices and pharmacies where the more vulnerable can go to see a familiar face and get support, to our pubs, where people have gathered together for years, our high streets give us everything we need. We must support them, not restrict them.

I spend much of my time in South West Hertfordshire on local high streets, hearing at first hand from many business owners about the struggles that they face due to Labour’s increase in national insurance contributions, and their worries about the upcoming Employment Rights Bill. \p Gregory Stafford: My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the problems facing high streets. One of my constituents, a publican, told me that things were worse than during covid, because at least there was financial support during covid. Now, pubs and other hospitality businesses are being hung out to dry. \p Gagan Mohindra: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The small businesses that I speak to say that they feel abandoned by this Government. They face high energy bills and rents, and poor footfall. They have been harmed by Labour’s decisions, and have ever-growing worries about the Budget later this month.

We already know that hospitality is struggling. One in five high street premises are empty, and 100,000 hospitality jobs have been lost since Labour’s Budget. Two thirds of those jobs lost were done by 18 to 24-year-olds. That is simply not sustainable. Business owners do not want that to happen, but they have no choice. A third of businesses are reducing their opening hours as they simply cannot afford to staff up. They include Kitchen Croxley in my constituency, which warned me that as a result of Labour’s policy changes, job losses are inevitable, if it is to keep its doors open.

Businesses of all sizes are affected. Hubs, a franchise owner in my constituency, made me aware that due to Labour’s national insurance contributions increases, his NICs amounted to £138,000 for April to September. He has been warned that his contributions could increase to over £275,000 for the business’s first full-year cycle. That franchise owner is creating 90 local jobs and filling a large high-street unit that sat unoccupied for over a year and a half. It simply seems unfair. Business owners are willing to contribute their fair share—they are investing significant amounts in our high streets—and they should not be penalised for trying to grow their business.

The spirits industry disproportionally faces the effects of these policies; it has contributed £676 million less in taxes than expected, despite the rise in alcohol duty. One business in Kings Langley, Fells, which employs over 70 people in the area and regularly supports charitable causes in the community, faces mounting costs and regulatory burdens. It urges a freeze in duty rates to mitigate the need for further price increases. We are talking about an industry that contributed over £75 billion to the UK economy in 2022, according to the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. Why are we stifling it?

This summer, I spent a week visiting pubs across South West Hertfordshire, to see how they are being affected by Labour’s decision making. I spoke with Nick, the manager of the Coach and Horses in Rickmansworth, who told me that the rises in the minimum wage and NICs have made staffing incredibly difficult. As I have said before, many businesses sympathise with the need to ensure job security and good working conditions. However, that comes at the cost of rising prices, which just pushes the issue on to customers. Rising prices lead to fewer people visiting pubs and putting their money back into the community. \p Graham Stuart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor would do well to consider a draught beer duty relief? We brought one in when we were in government. It could be balanced up by taxes elsewhere. It would ensure that our locals were supported, instead of facing ever greater costs. \p Gagan Mohindra: My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Members on all sides of the House claim to support pubs, but our policy means that our position is a lot stronger than this Labour Government’s. As I have said before, where this Labour Government get it right, they will have our support. They should not be fearful of changing direction—I will not use the word “U-turn”, because they have done a few of them already. We will absolutely support them changing direction for the better.

Post offices remain critical to our high streets. They are a credible and trustworthy high-street brand, and a place where constituents regularly see a friendly face. I represent seven post offices in South West Hertfordshire and visit them regularly, including the one in Croxley Green, which I visited just two weeks ago. I have seen in person how busy postmasters serve the community. Many postmasters see their regulars frequently; they are often the first to see how their customers are  doing.

Post offices have evolved to provide services that go beyond just post. Many now also provide banking services, owing to the closure of high-street banks. Danny, the postmaster at the Rickmansworth branch, is able to offer enhanced banking services. Without them, my constituents would be stuck waiting for unreliable buses to travel to their nearest bank, just to access their money.

In 2023, when we were in government, we extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme. We will reverse this Government’s decision not to support our high streets. When it comes to helping our high streets, I look forward to support from across the House, rather than political point scoring. \p Caroline Voaden: This debate has reminded me of the maiden speeches we heard last year. We have had a really good tour of the country, taking in Animal shops, fun palaces and all sorts of stuff.

It has been great to talk about high streets, which are more than just shopping streets. They shape how people feel about where they live. When high streets are thriving, people take pride in their towns and feel a real sense of optimism about their area and, by extension, the country. When shops, cafés and pubs are closing, that optimism fades, leaving people discouraged and looking for change.

If the Government want people to feel that their lives are improving and their communities are thriving, and if they want people to feel hopeful and optimistic, supporting the high street must be a priority. That will not only help our traders and shops survive, but help restore pride in our towns. It will ensure that people are invested in the future of their communities and, by extension, the country, rather than being drawn to alternative voices offering quick fixes. I hope that that will be an incentive for the Government to rethink those of their measures that have been hitting the high street.

I am really proud to represent a constituency with fantastic high streets, including in Kingsbridge, Brixham, Modbury, Dartmouth, Salcombe and, of course, Totnes, which is widely praised for its unique high street, on which I was a trader in one of my past lives. As attractive as those streets are, in reality, all the traders are struggling. As many Members have said, the increase in national insurance contributions has hit those businesses hard. One small café in Brixham faces an extra £15,000 in national insurance costs this year. That is just unmanageable for a small café. I was told by a larger restaurant—part of a chain of 17 successful restaurants, which act as a magnet, bringing people to communities across south-west England—that the cost of the increases is equivalent to the money that would be spent opening a new restaurant, and opening a new restaurant would revitalise another town. That is so damaging. Not only is the NIC rise causing hardship, but the reduction in business rates relief from 75% to 40%, combined with the abolition of the cap, effectively leaves small businesses subsidising large chains.

I am running out of time, but I would just like to add that eight pubs are closing every week, and nearly 100,000 hospitality jobs have been lost since the Budget. If that happened in any other industry, it would be headline news, but the Government seem oblivious to what is happening. We call on the Government to exempt hospitality SMEs from the employer national insurance contributions increase, and to consult on creating a new band, from £5,000, to reduce the cost of employing part-time and seasonal staff, who are absolutely vital to the hospitality industry. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Matt Vickers: I thank the shadow Business and Trade Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), for ably setting out the Conservative case for restoring our high streets, and the costs and consequences of the  Government’s decisions. As a former Woolies worker, and having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail, I am particularly passionate about our high streets and their role as the lifeblood of our local communities.

We have heard brilliant examples from right hon. and hon. Members of fantastic high-street businesses in their communities. Few will be as incredible as those in Yarm, Stockton and Thornaby, but valid points were made. We heard about the huge threat to the full English in greasy spoon cafés across the country, but price rises for mushrooms, tomatoes and bacon pale into significance when compared with Labour’s slashing of small business rates relief, its job tax and its unemployment rights Bill. From Bognor Regis to Windsor, and from Doncaster to Crewe, we see the butcher’s, the baker’s and—less frequently—the candlestick maker’s. Our high streets apparently offer everything, from wigs to corned beef and spam, and Members are rightly clearly proud of them.

One of the messages we have heard today is, “Shop local and support local small businesses,” but another message was heard loud and clear. It probably came from Members on both sides of the Chamber. It is a message that is familiar to any Member who engages with local small businesses: our high streets face an existential threat, and the problem is compounded by the choices of this Government. We are a nation of shopkeepers. \p Bradley Thomas: My hon. Friend is making a good point. As I often point out to my constituents when talking about the future of the high street—the situation will be similar in other constituencies—there are approximately 50,000 households in my constituency, and if each one of those spends £5 per week supporting a local business, that is £1 million per month that stays in the local economy. If we multiply that, it becomes quite powerful support for local businesses, and helps their long-term vitality. \p Matt Vickers: It is a clear message: “Stop scrolling through Amazon, and go buy local—it’ll benefit your local economy greatly.”

High streets define places. Their success allows us to feel pride in our towns. They are a place where people come together. They help us to tackle social isolation, and they are often the place where people get their first job, and their last. The retail, hospitality and leisure sector employs 5.8 million people, and generates billions of pounds for our economy. \p Amanda Martin: Does the shadow Minister agree that those 5.8 million people deserve a decent wage, deserve to know what hours they are working, and deserve proper sick pay? \p Matt Vickers: My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs made a very good point: we do not support workers by bankrupting their employer. In the nine months before this Government took office, 22,000 jobs were created in the hospitality sector, and in the nine months since the last Budget, 100,000 people lost their job—their ability to provide for their family, and to live out their aspirations and dreams. That is a disgrace.

The sector is also the natural home of social mobility. It allows people to climb and achieve incredible things. There are so many stories of people who started by stacking shelves and serving coffee, and who went on to reach the boardroom. Without doubt, our high streets are really struggling. The truth is that they were battered by the Chancellor’s Budget last autumn—a £25 billion tax bombshell on British businesses and jobs, as a result of measures including the jobs tax and the slashing of small business rates relief.

Conservative Members understand that businesses need to be supported, not tied up in red tape and taxed into extinction. If this Labour Government do not change course, we risk making our high streets unrecognisable and unrecoverable. The problems are clear for all to see: higher taxes, punitive business rates, soaring energy costs, rising crime and more red tape and paperwork for employers. The Government must take urgent action to fix that. \p Laurence Turner: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; he is being generous with his time. I wonder if he could clarify his party’s position on the Employment Rights Bill. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), said that a Conservative Government would seek to repeal what he called the most damaging elements of the Bill. Could he set out for us which measures they welcome and would retain? \p Matt Vickers: Basically, Labour’s trade union paymasters seem to have written a large part of the Bill. In fact, we found a really rare thing today: one employer on the face of the earth who apparently supports the Bill was mentioned earlier, but of course, they were not British.

In my constituency in Stockton, almost every time I visit a small business owner, they tell me the same story: since the Chancellor’s Budget, they have had to let staff go or reduce their hours; they have had to put up prices, and some are now considering whether there is any future at all for their business. As the chief exec of UKHospitality has said, pubs, bars and restaurants are already closing earlier because of the jobs tax, and more than 200 leading hospitality businesses have written to the Chancellor to warn that her decisions will force companies to cut jobs and reconsider investment.

Too many businesses are closing. Too many jobs are being lost. Boarded-up high streets will eat away at the pride people can have in their communities and town centres. Throughout today’s debate, we have heard Labour MP after Labour MP—soon, I am sure, to be followed by the Minister—talk about the virtues of their Government’s policies. I have to ask them, have they seriously had a conversation with the small businesses on their local high street about the challenges they face?

We are now just a couple of weeks away from the Chancellor’s next Budget. She has the opportunity to change course, yet this morning we heard the same old story, with the Chancellor laying the groundwork for more tax rises—another nail in the coffin of our high streets, alongside people and businesses across the country. But we on the Conservative Benches have a clear plan for stronger high streets. First, we would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure  businesses. That would benefit a quarter of a million businesses—savings that would not only help them thrive, but could be reinvested in better premises, low prices, and more jobs. It would lift thousands of businesses out of business rates all together. \p Graham Stuart: Is my hon. Friend as shocked as I am to find that the Liberal Democrats have joined their comrades in Labour in saying that not a penny can be saved from public expenditure, and instead more taxes must be imposed on businesses that are already struggling with the weight? \p Matt Vickers: They need to go back on YouTube—we’ll encourage a bit of online interaction—and listen to that fantastic speech from the Leader of the Opposition about the £47 billion of savings that can be made, that will be supported by the public, and that can help us balance the books and save high street businesses.

Another issue facing businesses that has been highlighted by many hon. Members is the impact of energy bills. Britain has the highest electricity prices in the world. It does not have to be this way. The situation is making our high street businesses less competitive and stifling economic growth. That is why we would axe the carbon tax and scrap net zero subsidies to reduce the cost of electricity. That would of course benefit consumers, but also businesses; the average restaurant would save £5,100 a year.

The third point in relation to our plan for stronger high streets is stronger policing. Under this Labour Government, crime is on the rise in high streets across the country, eroding community trust and public safety. It is having a huge impact on our high streets. Indeed, just a few weeks ago I met Costa Coffee, a well-known high street chain. Despite its huge resources, its representatives told me that they face constant thefts, and even ram-raids to steal sandwiches and drinks—an unbelievable situation.

Even Greggs—one of the nation’s favourites, and mine—has had to start locking up its sandwiches, soft drinks and sausages rolls in some locations, because of prolific shoplifting. In fact, shoplifting has risen by 20% in this Labour Government’s first year in office. That is the highest figure since modern records began, but it is no surprise because police numbers are falling. There are 1,316 fewer police officers since this Labour Government came to power.

As part of our plan, we will hire 10,000 extra police officers backed by £800 million in funding. We will end Labour’s early release scheme to keep criminals behind bars, introduce intense police hotspot patrolling in areas to cover serious violent crime and robbery, and treble stop and search to take knives and weapons off our streets. We will also redirect resources to catch real criminals, abolishing non-crime hate incidents so that police can spend 60,000 more hours policing our streets and not our tweets. \p Kevin Bonavia: Will the shadow Minister confirm that under the previous Conservative Administration, thieves could get £200 worth of goods with impunity, and that has changed under this Government? \p Matt Vickers: That is a complete and utter myth. The hon. Gentleman will be able to check the Government facts and stats that will confirm that 90% of all cases of  people charged with shop theft related to goods under £200—would he believe it? Indeed, I have a question for him and I will let him answer: could he name a single police force in the country that had a policy of not actioning thefts of under £200? \p Kevin Bonavia: I am very happy to intervene. We are talking about changing the status quo under the hon. Gentleman’s Government. \p Matt Vickers: Not a single police force in the country had that policy, and 90% of all cases with charges for shop theft involved goods under the value of £200. That is a fact, and what the hon. Gentleman says is a myth.

At the heart of our high streets lies entrepreneurship—those incredible people who get up early, take the risks and build something. They create jobs, wealth and opportunity. This Labour Government have spent the last year making it harder to start a business. That means that now just one in four young people who want to start a business do so, as highlighted by the Federation of Small Businesses.

We need to cut red tape so that our businesses can breathe again. We need to make it easier for entrepreneurs to open a bank account and engage with HMRC, and we need to expand business coaching in schools. It is no surprise that those on the Government Benches just do not get it; just one member of the Cabinet has started their own business, and less than half of them have ever worked in the private sector.

Let me conclude with this point. The high street is suffering. As a result, people who have invested their lives in creating businesses are suffering, those youngsters who might have been able to get their first job on the high street are suffering, and those older people who felt pride in their town for years and decades are now watching as shops are boarded up and they are suffering too. Analysis of insolvency notices has revealed that businesses are closing at the fastest rate since the world economic crash, and as a result 17% more people are without a job.

Tonight is a chance to join the Conservatives in backing the people who work hard and do the right thing. Any Member of this House who wants to support our high streets, the entrepreneurs who work hard and do the right thing, and more job opportunities for people—young and old—and any Member who wants to ensure that people can continue to have pride in their town centres should support the motion and our plan for stronger high streets. I commend the motion to the House. \p Blair McDougall: It has been a pleasure to listen and respond to this passionate debate. Before we get into the things on which we may disagree, I should say that it has been really interesting to hear how many times people have used metaphors like “heart and soul” and “backbone” when talking about their local high streets and local businesses.

This issue is personal to us; it is about how we feel about the places we live in. As a former retail worker, I remember the customers who would come in and maybe pay more than they would at the big supermarket because they got that personal touch. I remember the  elderly customers who would come in, and I knew that I was perhaps the only other human being that they had had a conversation with that day. This is about entrepreneurship and business, but, as someone said, it is also about the soul of our communities.

It has been fantastic to listen to so many Members talking with great pride about high streets and businesses in their communities. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) invited us to Downing Street; I hope that is the only time that a right winger invites me to Downing Street for some years to come. We had a cultural trip to Weymouth and heard about the exciting plans there. I may also have a pint at the Swan in Windsor next time I go to Legoland with my children.

As someone who is no stranger to the sweet trolley, I look forward to the Cosy Cake Shop and Death by Fudge in Doncaster and also to another pint at the Fox & Goose and the T-Bar; I do not remember terribly much about the last time I was in there, because I was on a stag do. So much pride has been expressed, and I hope that everyone in the Chamber will repeat that pride in their local high street in a few days’ time on Small Business Saturday, because it helps to drive footfall and to support those local people.

We heard lots of talk from Members across the House. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) raised the issue of business rates and business rates reform. The Government are to remove barriers to investment, and to help businesses to succeed and grow. Reforming business rates was a key manifesto pledge, and it is one that we are going to fulfil.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), for whom I have some affection, and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), both quoted Napoleon—I do not know if that was a signal that they are not going to cross the Floor to Reform. I will be slightly more patriotic and quote Nelson: we cannot “turn a blind eye” to the cost of the tax measures that the Conservatives set out. Fiscal credibility and sustainability are not abstract concepts. Because we got the public finances under control, small businesses across this country have lower borrowing costs, and because of those interest rates, people across the country have more money in their pockets. We need a real plan, not a fantasy, which is why we will introduce permanently lower business rates for retail and hospitality in the Budget. \p Luke Evans: I previously tried to ask about the Government amendment that is going to be voted on, because it explicitly states that the administrative burdens of regulation for businesses will be cut by 25%. I have two questions: what is that 25% of and how will it be judged, and will it be from before or after the Employment Rights Bill comes into law? I put those questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), but she dodged it and decided to attack the Opposition. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me, because it is key information for the vote on the amendment. \p Blair McDougall: We made it clear a few days ago that we plan to reduce the administrative cost of the regulatory burden by nearly £6 billion, and that is what we will do. Conservative Members have spoken about  the Employment Rights Bill and their intention to repeal it, but they are forgetting that that Bill will set up a single regulator for the labour market, which will actually reduce red tape for businesses across the country. \p Damian Hinds: Let me try to help the Minister, because Conservative Members are very keen to know the answer, and probably many of his colleagues are keen to know it too. It is one thing to say, “We would like to reduce the cost by 25%”—sure you would! The question is: how do the Government think they are going to realise savings of 25%? \p Chris Bryant: Why— \p Luke Evans: It’s your amendment, Chris! That is what you are voting for. \p Damian Hinds: It is the Government amendment in an Opposition day debate. How are those 25% savings going to be realised? \p Blair McDougall: In a moment, I will come to our plans to reduce the mountain of red tape that the right hon. Member’s Government left us with, and to reduce the cost of that red tape.

Conservative Member after Conservative Member spoke about the Employment Rights Bill. I should say at the outset that we want the rights in that Bill to be fit for the 21st century—the last time that we properly reviewed our employment law and the relationship between employer and employee was in the last century. However, I am astonished that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches do not seem to see the connection between how much money people have in their pockets and the ability of their local high streets to thrive. Giving people more secure work and higher wages means that the money in their pockets ends up in the tills of local businesses. \p Thomas Tugendhat: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way—he is a friend, and he is a great man, but he is entirely wrong on this question. The argument he is making is a correct one, which is why I advocate for lowering taxes. However, this Government have raised taxes and rates for businesses, and if we are to believe what the Chancellor has been saying this morning, we have all been warned that she is about to raise taxes on individuals as well. That is costing us all, because people are reining in their spending in anticipation of being poorer. \p Blair McDougall: I will return the compliment to my right hon. Friend before I disagree with him. This is the problem; there is a certain cheek to the Conservative party leaving us a burning building and then criticising us for reaching for the fire hose. We had to stabilise the public finances—and again, that is not abstract. The Conservatives have to learn the lesson—here comes the groan—from the Liz Truss Budget. They have to learn that lesson, because this is not abstract for businesses.

Returning to the issue of stripping out the costs of red tape, in March the Government pledged in our regulation action plan to cut the cost of regulatory burdens by 25%. At the regional investment summit last  month, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Business Secretary made a great start on that, creating an additional £230 million of savings for businesses by changing the requirements on directors’ reports for businesses of any size. \p Graham Stuart: As the Minister will be aware, according to the Government, that figure is less than 5% of the cost imposed on business by the Employment Rights Bill. \p Blair McDougall: The cost of the Employment Rights Bill is around 0.4% of wage costs across the country, and the additional help that the Bill provides will have a huge impact on small businesses and high streets.

Many Members raised the issue of crime, but let me reassure the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who spoke of the character of local areas, and suggested that there should be greater local powers to control the spread of gambling shops. We intend to deal with that when time allows.

For 10 years we waited for a small business strategy, and in July we introduced one. We are taking action on late payments for businesses, on access to finance and on cutting red tape. Across this Government there is an urgency—it is there today, and I wish it had been there before—to support small businesses and help to get our high streets back on their feet.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 321.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

Question agreed to.

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

Resolved,

That this House recognises the need to rejuvenate high streets following 14 years of decline under the previous Administration; welcomes the Government’s action to restore Pride in Place backed by £5 billion to support 339 locations to empower communities to drive meaningful change in their local area, including high streets; supports local communities being given new powers to tackle vacancies, and prevent new betting and vape shops in their areas, including the ability to auction off persistently empty premises through High Street Rental Auctions; further welcomes the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that will ban upwards-only rent reviews in commercial leases, helping to create fairer rental conditions; endorses the Government’s support for property owners; also welcomes that from April 2026, eligible retail, hospitality, and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 will benefit from permanently lower business rates multipliers; welcomes the Plan for Small Businesses which supports high street small businesses as the backbone of local economies and which commits to cut the administrative burden of regulation for businesses by 25%; and further recognises that the Employment Rights Bill will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many small businesses already offer their workers to all. \p Judith Cummins: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected either of the amendments tabled. I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Helen Whately: I beg to move,

That this House regrets the failure of the Government to get people off welfare and into work; believes that reforming the welfare system is a moral mission; and therefore calls on the Government to take urgent action to fix Britain’s welfare system by restricting welfare for non-UK citizens, stopping benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions, increasing the number of face-to-face assessments, reforming the Motability Scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle, and retaining the two-child benefit cap, to get people into employment and build a stronger economy.

All of us surely remember our first job and the moment we got our first paycheque. I was 16, I got paid £40 and I bought myself a pair of shoes. They were nothing fancy, but I remember that feeling. It was the first time I had money in my pocket that I had earned to spend how I pleased. It was a moment of liberation from which there was no going back. Of course, as we get older, it is not so simple. We have more obligations and bills to pay, but the basic fact is the same. Having a job and paying our own way is how we get independence, freedom and agency. We can make our own choices and have a chance to build up our financial security. Not every job takes us on a path paved with gold, but if we are not in work, we do not even have a chance of changing our fortune.

Millions of people up and down the country know what I am talking about. They are the people who get up each morning and go to work, or the people who go to work every evening if they are doing a night shift, while some people are doing both to make ends meet. However, it is not everyone: in fact, it is not a lot of people. Let us look at the numbers. There are 6.5 million people of working age on out-of-work benefits, nearly 1 million young people are not in any form of employment, education or training, and every single day 5,000 people are signing on to long-term sickness benefits with no requirement to work. Those numbers should worry all of us in this place. They are not just statistics; we are talking about people—mums, dads, women in their 50s, young men in their 20s—who are missing out, sat at home rather than at work, and waiting for the handout to drop into their bank account rather than out there putting their shoulder to the wheel.

For every person on benefits and out of work, there are many more who suffer the consequences of worklessness, such as the increasing number of children who are growing up in workless households. More than 1 million children across our country have neither the income nor the culture of work, so worklessness gets passed from one generation to the next, stunting life chances—opportunities, prosperity and longevity—in every sense of the word.

This applies to entire communities: there are large parts of our country where being on benefits is not a rarity, it has become the norm. From our great cities such as Birmingham and Liverpool to historic seaside  towns such as Blackpool, around a quarter of the population are in out-of-work benefits. Drop into some of the poorest areas of those cities and you will find communities where the majority of people are on benefits. Think what that means in practice along a street, door after door. And watch out if you are the odd one out actually trying to go to work, as I heard on one of my visits recently. A whole family were yelling at their son, who was trying to break the cycle of worklessness, because his 7 am alarm clock was disturbing their sleep.

As shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I travel the country talking to people and finding out the facts on the ground. One story that stuck with me is about a young man in his 20s from Bridgend in Wales. He is on benefits, but he got a place on a course at the local college—the exact course he wanted to do. It had the potential to give him skills and transform his life. It could have got him off benefits and into work at the job he really wanted to do, but it did not happen. Why? Because he was terrified of being worse off—that he would lose his personal independence payment and end up broke. That is wrong. And let us be frank: his story is not a one-off. It is going on all around the country. Everywhere, every day, people are deciding they are better off on benefits.

Our welfare system should be a safety net but it has become a welfare trap, condemning people to live off the state rather than off their elbow grease. Of course, help should be there for people who are unable to work or who need a lot of support to do so. In fact, if the system worked better, it might be able to help some people—those who really need it—more. Instead, we have many thousands of people making rational decisions to claim benefits rather than work, the benefits bill rocketing, and still people who are disabled facing a struggle to get help and make ends meet. \p Sarah Smith: Does the hon. Lady not recognise that personal independence payment is not a benefit paid on your ability to work—it is paid regardless—so providing that case study is perhaps not the most appropriate to making the argument she is trying progress? \p Helen Whately: Of course I know that, but if the hon. Lady had talked to as many people who receive PIP as I have, she would know that many people worry that if they go into training or work, they will then, when they are reassessed, lose their PIP. Even though in theory, yes, you can work if you can while you are getting PIP, people worry that because they are working it will be then be seen as them not actually needing it and that they do not actually have that level of health problem. That is why at the moment it is acting, in the way in works, as a barrier and a disincentive to work, and that is why it needs reform.

Reforming welfare is not cruel to people on benefits—quite the opposite. What is cruel is ducking the challenge, accepting the status quo and continuing to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on keeping people on benefits, but that is exactly what the Labour party is doing. Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister and the former Work and Pensions Secretary did have a go at doing something about it. They set out some welfare cuts—rushed and poorly thought-through, as I said at the time—but their Back Benchers were having none of  it. We have never seen anything like it. It was the very definition of shambles in this Chamber. Right in the middle of the debate, their savings Bill became a spending Bill, with the Government frantically making concessions that we still live with, such as the Timms review into PIP.

I have a great deal of respect for the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), but what hope can we have for his review when it was conceived as a bargaining chip to buy off angry Back Benchers? It has taken months to even kick off the review and months to come up with the terms of reference. Now we have them, we see that welfare savings are off the table. And yes, I said “savings”, a word the Secretary of State was careful to steer clear of in questions last week. What a situation this is.

The Chancellor keeps talking about welfare savings; she did so again this morning. However, the review by the Minister for Social Security and Disability ruled out making any savings. The Secretary of State will not even utter the word. Who will win this argument? Will it be the hapless Chancellor with her back against the wall or the wily Welfare Secretary playing a longer game?

While Ministers spar behind the political scenes, the clock is ticking and the benefits bill keeps heading up and up towards £100 billion, with no prospect of the Government slowing that trajectory, let alone actually getting it down. Instead, as the Chancellor as good as told us this morning, the Government will turn to tax rises to fund welfare and more job-destroying, growth-killing policies, reducing opportunities and saddling future generations with the bill, leaving them to pay it off for decades to come. The Government have not only given up on saving money; they have given up on millions of people across Britain. \p Oliver Ryan: On savings and leaving the next generation with a bill, can the hon. Lady remind the House just how much the now shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), increased Department for Work and Pensions spending on welfare during his time in the Department? The figure I have on the tip of my tongue is somewhere north of £30 billion. Could she comment on that? \p Helen Whately: The hon. Gentleman thinks he is so clever, but I am sorry to say this is a whole lot more serious than that. [Interruption.] I am glad Labour Members liked that. The fact is, if the hon. Gentleman looked a little further than his time in politics, back to 2010, he would know that the welfare bill and unemployment figures came down, and that we had the huge reform of universal credit, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which made a huge difference. [Interruption.] As has been chuntered by those on the Government Front Bench, yes, of course, the pandemic made a difference. We had a set of reforms going on, and then those on the Front Bench and some of their predecessors—there has been a certain amount of turnover—came in and gave up on those reforms. Where are we now? There are no savings and no plans to get people off welfare and into work.

However, it does not have to be this way. The country knows that this is not working, and people want change. They want a fairer system: one where people who do the right thing are rewarded; where work does pay; where people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their family makes sense; where there is help for those who need it, but not for just anyone who might fancy it; and where welfare is a safety net, not a way of life. It might be hard for Members on the Government Benches to hear, but this is what people out there want. They want it now—let us get on with it.

The Conservatives have set out our common-sense proposals to start fixing the welfare system. We would stop sickness benefits for people with lower-level mental health conditions like anxiety and reform Motability, putting an end to taxpayer-funded cars for people who have conditions like ADHD and tennis elbow. We would bring back face-to-face assessments, which are going down under this Labour Government, and change the sick note system so that it does not just funnel people out of the office and on to benefits. We would prioritise Brits in our welfare system, stopping people with indefinite and limited leave to remain claiming benefits. Of course, we also believe in retaining the two-child benefit cap, because it is fiscally responsible and fair. Removing the cap would cost more than £3 billion and would be deeply unfair on families who are not on benefits—the couples who decide they cannot afford another child, but would pay taxes for someone else to do just that. The Conservatives are the only party fully committed to the two-child benefit cap—no ifs, no buts. \p Stephen Timms: I have read somewhere that the list of things the hon. Lady has gone through would, the Conservatives estimate, save £23 billion. Part of that is from housing benefit. Can she tell us how much of the £23 billion would be saved from housing benefit? \p Helen Whately: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. As he says, we have earmarked potential savings of £23 billion, and housing benefit is one area. There is the other set of savings that I have just gone through. I am very happy to go through some of our sums and how we have got to those figures with him. As I have said to him, I believe that this Government should be picking up on our suggestions, because that is how they could bring down the welfare bill and avoid what we saw the Chancellor clearly rolling the pitch for this morning: tax rises at the Budget.

Times are hard. I do not want the Government to put up taxes. I do not want them to keep spending other people’s money on welfare, because we all know that one day it will run out. I do not want them to keep people living a life on benefits rather than being in work. That is why I have been so clear about what they could and should do.

I have heard Labour Back Benchers say in this Chamber, “I didn’t come here to cut benefits”, and that is why we have offered to help. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and I have made a big offer to the Government. We will help them make welfare savings, and we will work with them in good faith to get the welfare bill down and get people off welfare and into work. Labour Back Benchers do not want to make the tough decisions on welfare, but our door is open. We will  work with the Government in the national interest. It is not too late to make those bold decisions and make serious savings. A vote for our motion is a vote to get Britain’s welfare system back on track, to get the welfare bill under control, and to set out on a moral mission to get millions off welfare and into work. \p Stephen Timms: I enjoyed listening to the shadow Secretary of State’s fierce critique of the state of the benefits system that was left behind after 14 years of Tory government. She made some good points about it. By contrast, this Government are building a welfare system that is proactive and pro-work, has opportunity at its heart, and will change lives for the better—in rather the way she suggested that the system needs. For every person we can help into good work, it will mean a better life for them and better mental health and finances. It will be better for the public purse as well.

Getting people off welfare and into work requires an active approach, and we do have a plan. The system left behind by the last Government of passive benefit processing was simply not up to the job. That is why they left behind, as the shadow Secretary of State said, nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, and 2.8 million people economically inactive through long-term ill health. We are determined to put those failures right. \p Marsha de Cordova: My right hon. Friend is making a great introduction, because the Conservatives clearly need to be reminded of their failures over 14 years in government. During their time in office, the disability employment gap remained stubbornly at 30%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only this Labour Government who will do all they can to ensure that disabled people have opportunities for work? \p Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The disability employment gap fell steadily under the previous Labour Government, but it has been stuck at about 30% ever since 2010. There was one moment in those 14 long years of Tory rule when it looked as though they planned to do something about it. In the middle of the 2015 general election campaign, David Cameron announced a target of halving the disability employment gap. It was like they suddenly woke up at that moment, but as soon as that election had been safely won, they scrapped the target. They just went back to passive benefit processing again. \p Jim Shannon: The Minister is a good man, and I mean that sincerely. I think he understands and shares the faith that I have when it comes to looking after those who are less well off. Every day in my office I meet constituents who have disabilities or complex health needs, anxiety and depression or severe mobility issues and people whose health problems are impacting their families. They are burdened with financial pressures. Those who cannot cope with life must not be penalised. Can the Minister reassure us that the vulnerable will not become a target for the Government or indeed anyone in this Chamber? \p Stephen Timms: Yes, I can. I will come on to talk about that in a couple of minutes.

In contrast to the passive approach of the last Government, we will be active. We are investing in and joining up work, health and skills support. We have brought adult skills and apprenticeships, further education, training and careers into the DWP so that we are better able to give people the skills to thrive in today’s economy and to enable them to move into good secure jobs. \p Bradley Thomas: At the minute, an estimated 13 million households in this country—just over 50% of all households—are net recipients from the state, rather than net contributors to it. What would the Minister expect that figure to be by the end of this Parliament? \p Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes another interesting reflection on the state of the system left behind by 14 years of Tory government. We are going to be making progress, as I said.

Our plan will help deliver our ambition not just for jobs but for national renewal by building new homes, making the NHS fit for the future and powering the shift to green energy. Among people of working age, those with low or no qualifications are some 2.5 times more likely to be out of work than those who are better qualified. Just closing that gap would mean a million extra people in work.

But skills are not the only barrier; for many, it is ill health, and we are determined to get people back to work and back to good health. We will open up more opportunities for people who have been out of work because of ill health in the past with WorkWell employment advisers embedded directly in healthcare teams, from GP surgeries to mental health services. \p Luke Evans: Will the Minister give way? \p Stephen Timms: I will make a bit more headway first.

Connect to Work will go to the end of the decade to support 300,000 disabled people and people with health and other complex barriers to employment to get into and get on in work. Our Pathways to Work guarantee, backed by an additional £1 billion a year by the end of the decade, will bring all that together with personalised work, health and skills support for anybody on out-of-work benefits with a health condition or disability who wants that support.

We already have 1,000 new Pathways to Work advisers in place, working in jobcentres across the country to help disabled people. A few weeks ago I met a couple of them in Edinburgh, and they told me of the positive reactions from the people they ring up. The system gave up on those people years ago, but we have not given up on them. \p Luke Evans: The Minister mentioned WorkWell, which is a fantastic scheme introduced in 2023 that dealt with 59,000 people through £64 million of Conservative Government investment. I am glad that the Government are taking that forward and looking to expand it. My concern as a GP is about trying to get more people on the premises. Where will the work coaches go when premises do not have the space? That delivery is really important. Will he explain what has happened from the pilots to where we are now and how this will be taken forward? \p Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman raises a good, practical point. Quite a lot of GP surgeries certainly do have space and welcome work coaches or an adviser on to the premises, but he is right that that does not work everywhere, so we need to be flexible and have a local approach for each area. That is what Connect to Work will deliver.

We also need to stop people from falling out of work unnecessarily in the first place due to ill health. Stopping work is often not in the interests of either the employee or the employer, but far too often it happens by default. Therefore, Sir Charlie Mayfield has been leading the Keep Britain Working review on how Government and businesses can work together for more inclusive, healthier workplaces. He will report his findings very soon.

This active approach is particularly important for young people, as the shadow Secretary of State suggested in her opening remarks. After 14 years, so many were left not in employment, education or training, and being out of work for a long time at the start of what should be working life does long-term damage to their health, earnings potential and prospects. There are obviously consequences for the social security system as well.

If we do not get somebody on a productive path early on, it can be really hard to change course further down the line, so we are expanding the number of youth hubs, partnering with sports clubs to get help to people in the community and developing a youth guarantee to ensure that 18 to 21-year-olds are earning or learning. As the Chancellor announced last month, learning from the success of Labour’s future jobs scheme, that will include a jobs guarantee. Our youth guarantee trailblazers are up and running, innovating and testing out the best ways to join up support and make the most of young people’s talent and potential, from mental health support to flexible work experience sessions. Those trailblazers will inform the national roll-out of the guarantee so that everybody has the chance to start off their working lives on the right foot.

We are reforming jobcentres by introducing the jobs and careers service: a universal service, moving away from one-size-fits-all and offering much more personalised support. We are also testing changes to the claimant commitment as we look to free up work coaches. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I am listening carefully to everything the Minister says, including about being productive. The key for him is that for the first time sickness benefit is now within universal credit, which also includes all other benefits. That gives a face-to-face opportunity with all these staff. As he gets more people back to work—particularly those who have mental health problems such as depression and anxiety, for which work is a health treatment, as the health service will say—does he anticipate calculating on the back of that whether any money will be saved as a result? If so, will he at some stage come up with a plan for saving that money? \p Stephen Timms: I do envisage that, as people get back to work, there will be savings on social security. I think we will see at the Budget projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility of future moves into employment as a result of the changes that we are making, and savings will certainly arise. We want our work coaches, as the right hon. Gentleman has just  pointed out, to spend less time on bureaucracy and more time on what they do best, which is giving people the benefit of their expertise and helping people move closer to work.

Good work will also be a key part of the child poverty strategy, which we will bring forward by the end of the year. We will tackle child poverty by increasing family incomes, reducing family costs, building financial resilience and improving local support. Some people will remember that I took the Child Poverty Act 2010 through Parliament, with all-party support at the time. It was quickly scrapped by the coalition Government and the number of children growing up in poverty has gone up by 900,000 since then. Welfare spending has also rocketed. Reducing both child poverty and welfare spending are not opposites. \p Luke Charters: Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the benefit to the labour market of the roll-out of 30 hours of free childcare? I met a single mum in my constituency who is taking on more hours to support her family. That will help her children get out of poverty, thanks to this Government’s efforts. \p Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a welcome and much-needed step.

The early years are crucial to somebody’s life chances. Ensuring that children grow up happy, healthy and able to fulfil their potential is certainly, to borrow a phrase from the motion, “a moral mission”. However, it is also about reducing demand on social security, instead of sitting on our hands like the last Government and leaving the system to pick up higher costs further down the line.

The child poverty strategy will build on our cross-Government approach to lifting people out of poverty through rolling out free breakfast clubs, raising the national minimum wage and, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) points out, expanding free childcare and free school meals to all families on universal credit. It will be an ambitious strategy and in developing it we will consider all the levers available to give every child the best start in life.

To make work pay: that was what universal credit was intended to do. Yet it was left with perverse disincentives to work in the system, forcing people, as many did, to aspire to be classified as sick in order to qualify for a higher payment. We have addressed that by rebalancing the payments in universal credit, alongside other reforms. The system should not force people to aspire to be classified as sick; it should promote and encourage work and provide support to make work feasible.

As the shadow Secretary of State kindly mentioned, we are progressing the review, which I am responsible for. \p Luke Evans: Will the Minister give way? \p Stephen Timms: I will make a little more headway. The review will be co-produced with disabled people, to ensure that the system supports disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through work. We will also carry out more face-to-face assessments over the next year, boosting the number of health professionals working in assessment centres. Face-to-face assessments were  stopped for understandable reasons during the pandemic, but they were never really brought back. The places where they were carried out were sold off and we are having to reinstate and rebuild that service. \p Jerome Mayhew: The Minister talks about perverse disincentives and aspiring to be classified as sick. Does he accept that, with sickness benefits, someone will get £2,500 more than if they are on the national living wage full time? If that is the case, which it is, what is his plan to reverse that perverse disincentive? \p Stephen Timms: We have made major changes in the Universal Credit Act 2025, which will take effect in April of next year. We are making the changes that are needed.

Lastly, when building a more active welfare system, we need to ensure that every penny we spend goes on the support that it is designed to provide. That is why the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill is working its way back through this House under the guidance of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), as we speak. In that Bill, there are new powers for the Department to tackle fraud and error, so that we can realise £1.5 billion in benefits by 2029-30. Those are among wider measures that we expect will save £9.6 billion over the same period. That is needed, given that on the previous Government’s watch, in 2023-24, fraud against the public sector stood at an estimated £55 billion. In the same year, benefit fraud alone was £7.3 billion. There is a lot to be done. \p Carla Lockhart: Nothing frustrates genuine welfare claimants more than seeing claimants who are not deserving, or who are defrauding the system. In Northern Ireland, the cost of fraud is £240 million per annum and, to be honest, that is just the tip of the iceberg, given the restrictions around investigations. In Northern Ireland, the Communities Minister has started naming and shaming. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be a UK-wide strategy on fraud to ensure that those in real need do not miss out? \p Stephen Timms: It is vital that we make sure that those in real need do not miss out, and I can reassure the hon. Lady that I am in fairly regular contact with her colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly. These are certainly things that the two Governments need to discuss. \p Jim Allister: Will the Minister give way? \p Stephen Timms: I am going to make a bit more progress.

We have seen what happens when social security is not managed properly. We have seen the consequences for child poverty and for the many thousands denied the opportunity to work—people who want to work, and who could work, with the right support. We are taking action now to give people the best chances in life, so that they can support themselves and their family. We are delivering on our plan to make work pay, including by removing the work disincentives from universal credit. We are joining up support, so that people get proper help into work. We are giving children and young people  the best possible start in life and are setting them up to succeed in future. Unlike the previous Government, we are not resigned to failure. We are investing in success, in work, in health, and in skills support to provide hope for a better future. We are actively helping people along their own path to work, and creating an opportunity welfare state. We have made a great start, but there is a huge amount still to do, and I welcome this chance to seek the House’s support for our mission. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling. \p Steve Darling: It is important that the House, first of all, reflects on where the Conservatives left our community when they left power. We should reflect on the fact that the number of people who are economically inactive has gone up from 2.1 million in 2019 to 2.8 million. The fact that the bill for incapacity benefits has gone up from £34 billion to £51 billion is quite shocking. It is interesting that the Conservatives feel able to share their pearls of wisdom with the Chamber after leaving the world in such a sorry state. The Conservatives have climbed into the gutter to produce the proposals before us this evening; Disraeli and Peel must be turning in their graves.

There are some real challenges. We need a true culture change, both in the benefit system and in the employment world, to help people get into work. That culture change should involve us taking a trauma-informed approach, in the DWP, in our civil service and in our society, so that we can help people who can work into work.

I would also like to reflect on the sorry state in which the Conservatives left our NHS after they starved it of cash and failed to invest in it for many years. It is a great pity that so many residents came to me in my first year as MP for Torbay to tell me that they were unable to have the operations they required, due to the Conservatives’ lack of investment over many years. They bled money out of the capital system to cover the costs of revenue. That is utterly shameful. Torbay hospital continues to crumble and, sadly, under the new Labour Government, we still see £250 million of in-year cuts to our NHS services. While the Conservatives undermine those with mental health challenges, Devon partnership NHS trust is set for £21 million in cuts. \p Luke Evans: It was the Conservative Government who brought in the mental health investment standard to ensure parity for mental health. It is this Government who made the capital cut the hon. Gentleman mentions, and who are not meeting the standard. I am intrigued; why does he think that there is so much difficulty understanding that, and why are the Labour Government making cuts to mental health payments? \p Steve Darling: I thank the hon. Member. I reflect on the savage cuts made to public health spending. I would particularly mention the number of people who sleep rough on our streets. I campaigned on the issue as a young Liberal, more than 30 years ago. Sadly, those rough sleepers are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the challenges in our society. The cuts faced by the Devon partnership trust are a real challenge.

I want to move on to Access to Work. Ministers have said on the record that it is one of the Government’s best kept secrets, but I fear that it has not performed as strongly as it could in driving people into work. In fact, I and others have real concerns that changes to the system could undermine it. Someone with a disability is 50% more likely to be out of work. A quarter of people who are registered blind are in work. That clearly means that 75% are out of work—those are shocking figures.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Charlie Mayfield report on how we can engage appropriately with the employment world, and on the positive lessons that can be learned from our nearby colleagues in Europe. I look forward to that coming forward, but perhaps the Government put the cart before the horse; the report should have been undertaken before the Employment Rights Bill was progressed.

Finally, I come to a policy that Liberal Democrats have voted against on three occasions in this Parliament: the two-child limit and the benefits cap. What choice was there for the widow and her children? I am shocked that the Conservatives have such heartlessness that they are turning their backs on those individuals. Some 4.5 million children—that is, every third child—live in poverty in the United Kingdom. In a visit that I made to Barton Hill academy in recent years, I asked the kids what they liked and did not like about Torbay. Their answers were not so much about things like litter; they were more about mum and dad not being able to make ends meet. I wonder how many of those youngsters were impacted by the two-child limit.

In conclusion, there are elements of the Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome, such as the ability that it will give us to manage the benefits bill, and a return to face-to-face assessments where possible, but others are totally derisible. We see the benefit system as being akin to our NHS: it should be there to support people in living their best life. We will therefore not support the motion. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Luke Akehurst. \p Luke Akehurst: It is beyond belief that Conservative Members have chosen today to shine a spotlight on the subject of welfare, when their record on it is one of failure, chaos and incompetence. Under the previous Conservative Government, welfare spending ballooned out of control. The final Office for Budget Responsibility forecast on their watch projected that annual welfare spending would increase by close to £100 billion by 2028-29. That is enough to fund the entire NHS for a year, but instead, the money was spent patching up the consequences of Conservative failure.

The Conservatives now want to run from their record. The Leader of the Opposition has even called for a “totally different approach” to welfare from the one that she supported when in government. So who did she appoint as her shadow Chancellor? The right hon. Member  for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride)—the very Member who, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, oversaw the overspending. When the Conservatives say that they have changed, I say: look at their Front Bench—the architects of failure are still drawing up plans.

And what a failure it was. On the shadow Chancellor’s watch, more than 800,000 people left the labour market. What does it say about a Government when hundreds of thousands of people give up on looking for work? Those people had lost hope. That is not just money lost in tax revenue—it is a parent who can no longer work because they are on an NHS waiting list; it is a young person with mental health challenges, left behind by cuts to mental health services. \p Andrew Murrison: I am listening, as always, to the hon. Gentleman’s wise words—he presents his case very well—but, honestly, has he forgotten the pandemic? Will he give any credit to the then Government for managing it? Does he talk to his constituents, and all the businesses that are still going thanks to the work done at that time? With regard to his attacks on the Conservatives, will he just grow up? I hope to goodness that Labour never has to manage what we had to manage, but if it does, I hope that it manages it even half as well. \p Luke Akehurst: Obviously, the pandemic was a factor, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot blame every Government policy failure on external factors. All Governments must deal with external factors.

Unpaid carers are having to leave their jobs because the Conservatives never fixed social care. Behind every one of those 800,000 people who are outside the labour market is a tragic story of wasted opportunity and a Conservative Government who looked the other way. That abject failure hits constituencies like mine the hardest; North Durham has more economically inactive people than the national average.

Let us contrast that with the record of this Labour Government in our first year in office. Economic inactivity has fallen and employment is up: 730,000 more people are in work, and 360,000 fewer working-age people have been out of work and not looking for work since we entered office. That is 360,000 stories of lives moving forward, new parents able to get back to the workplace, people off NHS waiting lists thanks to our record investment, and young people accessing training. Behind every one of those stories is a Labour Government who refused to accept wasted opportunity.

There is still so much left to do to fix the mess that we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and the rest of the Conservative party, but I am proud to support a Labour Government who want to help people into work, so that they can get on with their lives. \p Peter Bedford: The welfare bill is out of control. A system with laudable aims that was designed to act as a safety net for those who fall on hard times now threatens not only the nation’s finances but the spirt of hard work and self-reliance. That is why I will support the motion.

My Conservative colleagues and I believe in fairness. We are the party of the strivers—the men and women who rise early, work long hours and provide for their families. The shopkeeper who opens up before dawn, the construction workers on site in all weathers, and the parents balancing multiple jobs—these are the people who make Britain great. They keep our economy going and our communities alive. This Government are letting people down. People see many others gaming the system, while their taxes continue to rise to fund a welfare bill that has spiralled out of control.

Of course, I understand that there must always be a safety net—I say that as someone who has lived experience of being on the breadline growing up—but this safety net has turned into a fishing net, with a culture that promotes the idea that it is okay not to work, that it is fine for others to pay for our lifestyle choices and that it is acceptable to rely on the state forever. Since the general election, we have seen over 1 million more people added to universal credit—1 million more people. For all the Government’s talk of saving the NHS and helping people back into work, the numbers tell a different story. \p Luke Charters: First, I congratulate the hon. Member, because I think his audience here in the Chamber is bigger than his party leader’s for her speech on welfare earlier today. Could he look back to his party’s record in government when it comes to the NHS? As the intelligent man I think he is—I consider him a friend—does he agree that larger NHS waiting lists, which his party left, increase the benefit bill? Does he agree with that easy-to-accept premise? \p Peter Bedford: When the Conservatives left office, there were just 2 million people on universal credit for health-related reasons. Today, that number stands at 3 million—a remarkable increase that highlights the sheer lack of action by this Government to get welfare under control. It tells the younger generation that aspiration is no longer the British way and that it is easier to depend on the state than to strive.

While the Government continue to spend, it is our constituents—hard-pressed taxpayers—who are footing the bill. We in this House would be wise to remember that there is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money. Unfortunately, taxpayers are getting a rough deal. Our approach is different. Only the Conservative party is on the side of the taxpayer. The Government published proposals to save £5 billion in welfare spending. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Conservative Members talking about what they would do in government is like me talking about having the ability to take a penalty in a world cup final. The Conservatives left us with 1.4 million PIP claimants for mental health reasons and 1.2 million on mental health waiting lists—that is 217,000 people in the midlands, where the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is. \p Peter Bedford: Anyway, to go back to the £5 billion of welfare savings the Government proposed, that was a small but important step in the right direction that we on the Conservative Benches would have supported. Embarrassingly, they conceded to the hard left in the  Labour party, so we are now in the perverse position that their welfare changes will invariably end up costing the taxpayer more and not achieve even the smallest of savings they intended. Other parties that claim to be fiscally conservative are now openly supporting the removal of the two-child benefit cap—a move that undermines the very principle of personal responsibility. \p Jerome Mayhew: The Minister for Social Security and Disability, who is no longer in his place, was in the extraordinary position of starting a debate arguing that he needed to save £4.5 billion and ending the debate saying he needed to spend an additional £300 million. Was that not a bit odd? \p Peter Bedford: My hon. Friend makes his point perfectly. \p Antonia Bance: On the two-child benefit cap, will the hon. Member give way? \p Peter Bedford: Oh, go on then. \p Antonia Bance: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Do some children deserve to go hungry? \p Peter Bedford: Of course not.

We on the Conservative Benches know that the hard-pressed taxpayer deserves better. I am proud that the shadow Secretary of State has outlined tough but fair proposals to cut the welfare bill. Our plan to make work pay and to stop the unfair gaming of the system would make savings of £23 billion for the Exchequer.

First, we will clamp down on the ridiculous system that enables people with mild health conditions to receive thousands of pounds from the state, when people with the exact same conditions go out to work and pay their dues. Secondly, we will reduce fraud and error in the system by bringing back face-to-face assessments, which are a means of ensuring that support is in the right hands. Finally, we will restrict benefits for non-UK nationals. We all know that migrants are attracted to the UK, because of our welfare system perhaps being too generous. \p Antonia Bance: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point? \p Peter Bedford: I am not giving way.

The welfare system should be there for British people who need it, not for others who perhaps just want it, and Conservative Members will never apologise for believing in aspiration over dependency. \p Jeevun Sandher: Today’s motion represents the same failed punitive and cruel social security system that the Conservative party had for 14 years—a system that did not help people into good jobs or get social security spending down, and that led only to destitution. By contrast, our approach is to create good jobs, get good training in place, and help people into those jobs.

Let’s talk about the record of the Conservative party. Let’s talk about the rise in employment. The rise in employment was not among those who they punished. Non-graduate employment fell from about 73% when we were last in office, to 68% when the Conservatives left office. The rise in jobs was not among the non-graduates  who they were punishing or those who they drove into destitution; the people who took those jobs were the increasing number of graduates. What was the cruelty that they put forward? They were measures that saw someone sanctioned because they went to their wife’s funeral, or that saw someone get punished because they went to a job interview—sanction after sanction, cruelty after cruelty.

It is the same with the Conservatives’ cuts—cuts that led to 3 million foodbank parcels being handed out. I did not know what a food bank was when I was growing up, yet every one of us in the Chamber knows what they are today. We see the growing destitution and homelessness before us, but what we did not see was any improvement in our country. There was no economic growth, and no extra good jobs. Cruelty and futility—that was the record of the Conservative party.

Think about where we are today. What do we need to do to ensure that people have decent jobs? We know that to live a decent life, a working family is this country needs to include two parents earning about £35,000 each, yet in 80% of this country the average wage is less than that. About 40% of full-time jobs pay less than £35,000. Going beyond that—[Interruption.] Would someone on the Opposition Benches like to intervene? \p Oliver Ryan: To quote the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend thinks he is “so clever”, arguing with facts! Those facts are not particularly appreciated by those on the Conservative Benches. Does he agree that what is important in this debate is the people who were left destitute by the policies of 14 years of Conservative government? \p Jeevun Sandher: I could not agree more. When we go forward and think about how to create a good life for people, we first need to create good jobs, but we also need to ensure that people have the training and support they need to get there. That is exactly what this Government are doing.

We are creating good jobs by working with the private sector through our industrial strategy, and ensuring that the private sector gets the support it needs to work with businesses and—yes, of course—with trade unions. We are ensuring that there are good jobs for people to get into in the green economy and healthcare. We are creating the good jobs that people need and, more than that, the training they need. Through our work on the social security system, we are making sure that people can try work without the fear of losing their social security payments. That is the difference between us and the Conservative party. It is a difference in values.

We believe that every single person should be able to afford to live a decent life, that we should create good jobs for them to move into, and that the job of the Government is to work with the private sector to create those jobs directly, so that people can work and earn a decent wage. We are not about being punitive or cruel, and our measures will not lead to more destitution. That is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. I am proud to be on these Benches; I do not know how they feel today. \p Sarah Bool: Every one of us in this Chamber, and generations of MPs before us, want to help and improve the lives of our constituents. That is why this debate is so important, and we really have to tackle it.

The issues with welfare go back generations. We talk about the welfare state as we know it now, coming in after the second world war with Clement Attlee and the establishment of the NHS, but the history of welfare goes back so much further. The National Insurance Act 1911 introduced insurance against sickness, invalidity and—unusually at that time—unemployment. We can even go back even further than that, to Henry VIII and the abolition of the monasteries; it was the monasteries that used to provide charity and care for the infirm and the needy. Since then, we have seen the development of welfare in various forms, and it is something that we have all struggled with. We saw it with the development of the Poor Law and the friendly societies. It has been an area of great change and it has been going on for generations.

I appreciate that anyone coming to this topic comes with the best of intentions. I think there is consensus that welfare reform is needed, but the way in which the provision of welfare is developed at the moment is entirely damaging both to the public purse and to those who are caught in the welfare net. Today’s welfare state has become like the modern-day helicopter parent. For those who do not know, a helicopter parent is one who hovers over their child like a helicopter in every aspect of their life, managing their experiences and feeling that they always need to be involved in order to solve problems. But we know that is not healthy for the child. They can feel smothered, are unable to develop and become trapped. That is what is happening with our current welfare system; it is trapping people and not giving them opportunities. \p Sarah Smith: I recently met a constituent who was made unemployed in 2020 during the covid pandemic, and she has struggled ever since to find and hold down a job. She has an autism diagnosis, and it is only since this Government started improving the system that she has had access to a disability-trained job coach, who has supported her to get some volunteering and move into a college course; she now has a job ahead of her. That is what we are doing to grasp the system and tackle its challenges. \p Sarah Bool: I am very sorry that that was the experience faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent, but it is good that she has managed to get the opportunity to work. That is the thing; that is the difference. Changes need to be made. We have come to the Chamber today to try to find a route through this issue for all of us. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has offered help.

I have a big issue with the language being used in this Chamber all the time. This is a very difficult and sometimes uncomfortable conversation, but it is absolutely essential that we take the action needed. Sentiments like “living within your means”, which I think all our constituents have to do from day to day, should not be replaced by words like “austerity” and then the idea slammed down. That is not helpful to any debate or any of our constituents.

We always ask our constituents to look after their money—money in, money out—and the Government have to do the same. This depends on what our own views of the Government are. There are those who want the Government to be involved in absolutely every element of everyone’s lives—and so be it, but do expect cost rises, inefficiencies and abuse of the system. The most compassionate thing is to put people on the path to take their own opportunities, to have their own jobs and to grow. That is the place we are trying to get to. Sometimes we are too involved, and we are not creating the system of fairness that we all seek.

Given the sums of money that we are talking about, it is even more imperative that we grasp this nettle. It cannot be right or fair that sickness benefit pays £2,500 more a year than the amount received by someone living on the national living wage. A responsible Government have to take proper action to tackle this issue. That is why the Conservative party has come forward with proposals that would reduce spending by £23 billion, through our plan to deliver £47 billion of savings.

The pen sits with the Government. It is entirely with them to take these actions—the actions that constituents are asking for. Rather than dismissing our solutions, as Government Members have constantly done today, perhaps the Government should take some of them on, take up our offer for help and improve the welfare system. \p Brian Leishman: Although I currently sit as an independent MP, I am still a proud member of the Labour party. Instead of preoccupying myself with the stances, opinions and views of other parties, which I have absolutely no control over whatsoever, all I care about is where Labour is and what Labour does.

I wholeheartedly agree with any Labour party member whenever they say that our party’s mission and reason for being is to lift people out of poverty—after all, that is one of the main reasons why I joined. In 2024, 411 Labour Members were elected to provide change. It was an effective campaign message, but 16 months on, we still have the wicked and cruel two-child benefit cap. There have been promises that the Government are looking at lifting that cap and will do so when the fiscal situation allows and improves, but ultimately, it still has not been done.

I regularly hear Members on my side of the House shouting “14 years!” and pointing the finger. I understand the roleplaying and game-playing that is involved, and with respect to all Members, everyone knows that the Conservative Government—in my opinion, certainly—was a cruel shambles for the past 14 years, one that punched down on the most vulnerable people in society. However, they are out; we are in. We are a Labour Government, but it is things like retaining the two-child benefit cap that we are being judged on. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention—no?

If Members think I am wrong or making life awkward, what I say to colleagues is, “Have a look at the polls. Listen to what people are saying.” What I hear from people on the doorstep and when I am out campaigning is anger at things like the two-child benefit cap, winter fuel, the treatment of the WASPI women, and welfare cuts. When will the leadership appreciate that the people  impacted by those things are our people—our class? Instead of chasing disaffected Tory right-wing votes, what about looking after our core vote?

The bottom line is that we must do more to lift people out of poverty and improve living standards. To not do so is a poverty of ambition. We are the Labour party, and we are in government; go and govern by real Labour party values. \p Ashley Fox: Britain’s welfare system was created as a safety net. It is a system designed to protect people who face hardship through no fault of their own, but today, that net is becoming a trap—for individuals, for families, and for this country. Any welfare system must be fair, providing support for those who truly need it and a reward for those who do the right thing—who get up in the morning, go to work and provide for their families. Right now, too many people feel that doing the right thing is punished, not rewarded. Under Labour, Britain has stopped working, because for too many, it has stopped making sense to work. There are good fiscal reasons why we Conservatives plan to cut welfare spending by £23 billion, but there is also a moral argument. By making work pay less and welfare pay more, the Government are incentivising welfare over work, which is profoundly unfair.

One of the best examples is the two-child benefit cap. We all know that the Chancellor is going to announce its removal in the Budget, and will no doubt be supported by the Liberal Democrats, by Reform UK and by other high-spending left-wing parties. She will do so because she and the Prime Minister are terrified of their own Back Benchers. The Prime Minister now says that the welfare reforms he is carrying out strike “the right balance”. Who does he think believes that? He is like brave Sir Robin in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. Brave Sir Keir ran away—bravely ran away. When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled; bravest of the brave, Sir Keir. He was forced to retreat and turn a Bill designed to save money into one that actually cost the taxpayer more.

Why are we Conservatives committed to keeping the two-child benefit cap? It is not just because there is a limit on what the state can afford; it is also a question of fairness. Millions of families across Britain make careful choices about whether or not they can afford a child. Why should a taxpayer who has decided that they cannot afford a third or subsequent child be asked to subsidise one for someone who is not working? \p Antonia Bance: One of my constituents lost her husband after they had made a decision to have three children together, as working taxpayers. Her husband had died, and she needed the help for which she had contributed: was that a lifestyle choice? \p Ashley Fox: When we design welfare rules, it has to be for the whole economy and all our people, and I believe that the two-child benefit cap is fair.

Under this Labour Government, unemployment has risen every month since they took office; 5,000 people a day are now signing on for sickness benefits, and, thanks in part to the Chancellor’s jobs tax, the number of graduate jobs has fallen by a third; and what is the Government’s response? It is more tax, more borrowing, more spending, and more excuses. When the Chancellor  breaks her promise and raises taxes again in the Budget, what will be her excuse? Will it be 14 years of Conservative government? Will it be this mythical black hole that only she and her Back Benchers can see? The Office for Budget Responsibility cannot find it. Perhaps it will be the pandemic, or perhaps it is all because of Brexit. The Chancellor’s excuses are growing increasingly thin, and the people who elect us know that. They know that it is the Chancellor’s fault.

We will cut welfare spending by focusing support on those who truly need it, not those who can work but choose not to. We will use those savings to get the economy working again for individuals and for businesses. We will scrap punitive taxes on family businesses, family farms and local shops. We will abolish stamp duty, because when people can buy a home and when businesses can hire and grow, Britain prospers. We respect the fact that taxpayers already paying too much. We respect small businesses that cannot just pass on additional costs to someone else, and we respect the next generation, who deserve to inherit opportunity and not just the debts of this Labour Government. \p Christopher Vince: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) —who has just left the Chamber—for speaking without notes, which I think is commendable.

You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my mind is currently dominated by thoughts about babies. It is incredible that human babies are so reliant on their parents and guardians to feed them, clothe them, bath them and keep them warm. That led me to consider how, given its humble beginnings, the human race has been so successful, creating societies, creating communities and—if I may give a local plug—creating the fibre-optic cable in Harlow. Then I realised that it was because of exactly these vulnerabilities that human beings formed societies and communities. It is not only human nature for us to support one another; it is essential. I believe it was Mahatma Gandhi who said that a society should be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable.

The original motion claims that it is a moral duty to stop benefits for certain people. I must be honest and say that I do not like that wording, although I recognise the need for welfare reform. I feel that there needs to be a great deal more meat on the bones: what do the Opposition mean by “lower-level” mental health issues? The motion also refers to the Government’s “failure” to get people on benefits back into work. I mean, come on! Give us a chance. Let me gently point out that inactivity increased on the Conservatives’ watch, and the United Kingdom was the only G7 country whose employment rate was still lower than it had been before the pandemic.

I support the Government’s aim to get people back into work, and I welcome the inactivity trailblazer scheme, whose purpose is to design local solutions to tackle this issue. I will talk later about having been a teacher, because I do that in every speech, but having worked for a homelessness charity, I know that the reasons for which people are out of work for long periods are complex and often vary, so those local solutions are very important. \p Ashley Fox: On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Christopher Vince: I am going to make some progress, but I must get to my “teacher” point. I may have mentioned a few times in the House that I used to be a teacher. When I visit Harlow’s schools and colleges, I am blown away by our talented young people. I want the best for them: high-quality jobs, and an ambition that does not stop at a glass ceiling and a lifetime on benefits.

I genuinely believe that getting people into meaningful employment can and will help some of the mental health issues that people suffer from. I have seen that in my work for a homelessness charity. I therefore welcome getting employment advisers into GP surgeries and mental health institutions.

One way to get people back into work is by getting NHS waiting lists down. I know a number of self-employed people in Harlow who are really struggling because of the huge impact that long waiting lists have on them getting back to work. This Government are funding our NHS not just for now, but for the future.

I gently add that the number of people claiming unemployment benefits has actually gone down over the last year under this Government, which we should welcome. I also welcome the review into PIP, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is leading the charge on that important piece of work. \p Fred Thomas: We have heard a lot of nonsense from the Conservatives; we have had a nursery rhyme and the claim from the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) that the first instance of welfare in this country was the monasteries under Henry VIII. But to take that example, when Thomas Cromwell came in to advise King Henry VIII, he realised that they were not working and needed reform. It was extremely difficult. That Government passed two very difficult Acts of Parliament to dissolve those monasteries and to get the wealth back out to people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficult act of Government is actually to reform these things, rather than just to complain about them retrospectively? \p Christopher Vince: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. I cannot pretend to be a huge historian—I do not know a great deal about the selling of the monasteries—but I take his point about the difficult decisions that Governments need to make, and that reform is really important. There are so many things that have been left for us to look at in terms of reform. As a former teacher—I always mention it—special educational needs and disabilities reform is obviously a huge one that needs to be on the agenda.

As I was saying, I welcome the review into PIP being led by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham. After I left teaching, I worked for a homeless charity and had to help clients with PIP forms; they are cumbersome. I would encourage people from my constituency to participate in that review, either through the formal process or by writing to me. I will make sure that their feedback gets to my right hon. Friend.

The one thing in the Conservative motion that I would agree with is the need for more face-to-face assessments. It is right to say that the number of assessments went  down because of covid—of course it did—but it is important that we get back to those face-to-face PIP assessments.

Finally, one of my top priorities in this place is to ensure that all young people in Harlow have the opportunity and aspiration to succeed, not just for the good of the community and our society, but for themselves. \p James Wild: A few hon. Members in this debate have mentioned the record of the last Government, so it is worth putting on the record that, under the last Government, 4 million jobs were created, youth unemployment was halved and a million more disabled people moved into work. Sadly, under this Government, we have already seen unemployment rise every single month that they have been in office. They are going to have the record that every Labour Government have had—of leaving unemployment higher than they inherited. The number of people on health and sickness benefits is also increasing significantly. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed on to long-term sickness benefits every day, which is double the rate pre covid.

Simply put, our welfare system is not sustainable, nor fair. It is not fair for taxpayers and it is not fair for people who are left on benefits, without the support that they need. Yet Labour Members have blocked welfare reforms, and the Prime Minister and Chancellor clearly lack the backbone to get on with this urgent work. The Chancellor’s panicked speech this morning underlined that serious welfare reform is not any part of their agenda.

It should be common cause across the House that we understand the value and dignity of work. The moral case for change mentioned in our motion could not be clearer: we must protect the vulnerable and help those who can work to get the support to do so, because work is not just about pay; it is about pride, personal responsibility and the health benefits that come from it. Yet this Government are failing to help people who want work to find it. A welfare system worthy of the name should help people up, not hold them down. We will judge this Government by their record. Unemployment, as I have said, is increasing, and sickness claims are going up.

Helping people is why, when we were in government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) introduced universal credit to simplify welfare and reward work, which halved unemployment between 2010 and the pandemic. We were making real progress. Of course, the pandemic created a real challenge for us and we saw a rise in claims, particularly for mental health. The shadow Chancellor, whose name has been taken in vain, actually put in place a number of reforms that were going to drive down the claims that were coming through. He put in place universal support to help people. He put in place WorkWell, a great scheme that has been effective in Norfolk.

The big point is that welfare spending on health and disability benefits is set to hit £100 billion by the end of this Parliament—a point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst)—which is twice what we spend on defence. Yet what do we see? We see a Government with no serious intent to bring the total down.  Indeed, the PIP review that has been announced, which will not report for ages, specifically excludes savings from its terms of reference.

Despite increasing taxes, the Government are apparently going to lift the two-child policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) has already made a good argument for why that should not happen, so I will not repeat it, but it prompts the question of why the Government, despite critiquing the last Government for apparently spending too much on welfare, do not have a plan to do anything. They could look at the plan that the shadow Secretary of State has set out, which would deliver £23 billion across the board. We should be guided by Conservative principles: living within our means, protecting the most vulnerable, and making sure that work always pays and that those who can work do so.

We have a duty to ensure that the system is fair and sustainable. From the moment that Labour Members blocked their own reforms, we have seen a Government with no ideas and a Chancellor who is clear that spending restraint does not form any part of her plans. Taxes are going up and welfare spending is going up, but there is an alternative: back our motion and build a welfare system that truly works for Britain. \p Oliver Ryan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute briefly on this huge topic. While I am glad to discuss welfare reform, I am perplexed as to why the Conservatives would want to do so, given their completely disastrous record. In response to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), I wonder whether he has read the plans for their £23 billion-worth of welfare cuts, on the back of the fag packet on which it is displayed, because there are no details to speak of on things such as housing benefit, which was raised by the Minister beforehand.

I do not even think it is brass neck any more from the Conservatives; it is just desperate. Their hope is that we forget what they left us only last year, and forget what they were like in government: employment is lower than before the pandemic; 10 million households are now net recipients of Government support; 4.5 million children are growing up in poverty; 2.8 million people have been left languishing on waiting lists and out of work; and 1 million young people are out of work and have been left jobless in the first straits of their lives—all while we have record welfare spending, with billions of pounds spent every year on failure. Indeed, when the shadow Chancellor was at DWP—I made this point earlier—we saw the biggest rise in welfare spending since records began in 1996, including £33 billion in one year alone.

The Conservatives have zero credibility on this issue and a record of expensive failure. It is a disastrous legacy, which they ought to be utterly ashamed of. They left people in this country languishing on benefits and left out of work, and left us to pick up the bill for years to come. I have touched on their plan, so I will not say any more on that, but it feels a bit like standing next to an arsonist who is watching a house on fire and complaining, “Someone should really put that out,” having started the fire.

I am short of time, but I want to say something about reform—real reform, not the turquoise Tories of Reform UK, who I notice are not here for the debate  and who I believe would destroy the welfare system as we understand it. We all know that welfare spending must come down, and we all want to get people into work—young people, disabled people and those who can, want and should work. The current system—the Conservatives’ system—does not enjoy public support system because of the Tories’ failure, and risks undermining the whole welfare state and social contract as we know it; hence our reforms earlier this year. If we believe in helping those who really need it—the disabled, the sick and those unable to work, whom the welfare state is designed for—we must make the tough choices that the Conservatives did not make over 14 years.

The current front door for the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose, and I am glad that we are doing away with it, but neither is the assessment for personal independence payments, as it is considered by many to be out of date and unfit for the modern wave of claimants living with mental health conditions and likewise. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on whether more reform in this area would be welcome and will come.

The arguments made for reform, which were explored in the papers earlier this year, still stand. Too many people are rolling on to PIP, too many are failing and falling out of work ill, and too many, having done so, are not re-entering the jobs market. So I am glad that we are stimulating more people into work through measures such as our £1 billion Pathways to Work guarantee. Because of the sheer number of applicants and particularly of successful applicants since the pandemic, we have to consider the appropriateness of some of the thresholds for people currently applying for PIP to ensure that the support is still there for those who really need it. \p Kirsty Blackman: It is interesting to hear what is being put forward, considering that this lot on the Conservative Benches created the welfare system that we currently have, and that lot on the Labour Benches are keeping it going. The reality is that the mini-Budget that massively changed house prices and meant mortgage interest rates went through the roof has contributed to the cost of living crisis. The reality is that Brexit has meant that we are all worse off. The reality is that, with a UK Labour Government now, the economy is not growing: there is no creation of jobs and, for example, we still have a massive issue with productivity. We still have an incredibly broken system, and the problem is Westminster—it is all of you; every one of you on both sides has contributed to the current system.

People are not standing up today to talk about the fact that we have child poverty, and to say that what the welfare system should be doing is improving that system so we do not have so much child poverty. Child poverty is reducing in Scotland. However, the child poverty strategy was pushed back from the spring to the autumn, and now the Minister for Social Security and Disability is saying that it will be the end of the year. When he stood up, he said he was going to seek the support of the House for the Government’s mission, but he is not actually going to do so. What he is going to do tonight is vote against the Tory motion. The Government have not put forward an amendment laying out their plans for what they intend to do.

The Tory motion is a complete and total mess. The Tories seem to be trying to assign value to humans. They seem to be saying, “As long as you’re earning a significant amount of money, you were born in the UK and you’re a British citizen, you’re okay. If you are not—if you don’t fit in those boxes—you are somehow less valuable.”

Both sides have been making the argument that people are either getting universal credit and other benefits or they are in work, but those two things are not mutually exclusive. For a significant number of people, work does not pay. The income of a significant number of people has to be supported by the welfare system, because the economy that both sides have created means they are not getting enough money to be able to pay for the basic things they need. The price of butter, olive oil, potatoes and rice has gone through the roof, and people cannot afford their energy bills because of rampant inflation, which continues, and the cost of living crisis continues to bite because wages have not kept pace with those prices.

The current welfare system is not reducing poverty, but it also has to support people currently in work because they are not getting enough money. If the Conservatives are assigning value to humans—saying that people who are not UK citizens do not necessarily deserve benefits—they are going to be having very interesting conversations with expats in Spain and Canada, with which we have reciprocal social security arrangements. They will be immensely furious that they will no longer be eligible for any of the support they receive from those Governments, and I think it is bizarre for the Conservatives to support such a position, given how many of those expats are Conservative voters who are going to be monumentally stuffed as a result of the Tory position.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we are here listening to the Conservatives, who created this system, arguing about how terrible it is. What we should be doing— \p Johanna Baxter: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Kirsty Blackman: No, thank you.

What we should be doing in the Budget and in the child poverty strategy is talking about how the welfare system should support people and about how the welfare system fails to support people. I wish the Minister for Social Security and Disability well in his work co-producing his report, but the welfare system is currently broken, and that is not because the costs are spiralling out of control. The welfare system is currently broken because people are being demonised simply for claiming enough to live on. \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call the shadow Minister. \p Rebecca Smith: I want to start the debate by acknowledging the fact that many Members here do not know that much about me. The debate so far, with this caricature of Conservatives who do not care, has saddened me. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place,  I am entirely motivated by social justice and care for the most vulnerable, as are many colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend who founded the Centre for Social Justice, which I know feeds in a huge amount of work to what the Labour party is doing. So I just want to set the record straight. We just differ in how we help. We are also that voice for the voiceless, the hard-working individuals and families who want the system to be fair for them, as well as for the most vulnerable. That is why I believe that reforming Britain’s welfare system is a moral imperative.

As Conservatives, we believe in the dignity of work. We believe that work provides purpose, independence and, ultimately, a path from poverty to prosperity. We want to empower people to take control of their own lives, not abandon them to a lifetime on benefits. But right now, as we have heard multiple times this afternoon, work simply does not pay. A person on sickness benefits can get between £2,500 and £5,000 more per year than a worker on the minimum wage, which is something that my constituents have been at pains to ensure that I am aware of. They are hard-working business owners who cannot believe that those figures mean that somebody working is often less well-off than somebody who is not. Faced with such a disparity, it is easy to understand why living off welfare is a more attractive option for many.

I am a Conservative because I believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. I see our welfare system as a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as has been mentioned several times in the debate. However, that safety net has reached its breaking point. By 2030, around £1 in every £4 of income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits. That is nearly £100 billion—an eyewatering sum that surpasses our entire defence budget. Only the Conservatives have a realistic and sustainable plan for reforming the welfare system. We will get more people into work, while providing support for those facing genuine need.

When our Government left office, over 4 million more people were in work than in 2010. \p Luke Akehurst: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Rebecca Smith: I am going to make some progress, if I may.

Youth unemployment had fallen by nearly 380,000, giving far more young people the security of a meaningful career. However, under this Government, the unemployment rate is set to reach 5% by next year, compared with 4.1% a year ago. We have already heard that graduate jobs have gone down by a third since last year, and we have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training.

So far, Labour has shown little appetite for making tough decisions. As we have already seen, the Prime Minister’s plan to reduce welfare spending ended with a U-turn, with key measures being ditched in a last-minute attempt to win over his own MPs. I do not think I will ever forget the day the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill became simply the Universal Credit Bill mid debate—a parliamentary pantomime, or even a farce, that encapsulates the Labour party’s inability to take welfare reform seriously.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has admitted that his much-anticipated review being conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Timms review, will not involve any welfare cuts. That means that our public spending will continue to rise, running out of control, and taxes will inevitably rise at the next Budget. Labour is now staring at a £9.3 billion welfare black hole. Scrapping the personal independence payment reforms alone will cost £4.5 billion by 2030.

To truly encourage people into work, we need to look at long-term solutions. It is easy to dish out sickness benefits. It is harder to provide the right combination of physical and psychological support to ensure that people facing challenges can keep or find meaningful employment. Yet these are the solutions we owe it to people to deliver, offering them a chance at a better future, one that is not entirely reliant on the state. That is why the Conservatives have set out a clear plan that will reduce the welfare bill by £23 billion. We urge the Government to consider our proposals.

First, we must prioritise British citizens in our welfare system. That means making the system fairer and preventing non-UK citizens from claiming benefits such as universal credit, the personal independence payment and the carer’s allowance.

Secondly, we must stop benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed off work sick every single day. This figure has ballooned to twice the size it was last year, mainly because thousands of people are signing up to benefits for less severe mental health issues, including anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. \p Luke Evans: One of the concerns I have when we discuss mental health in this place is the confusion between mental health and mental wellbeing. Everyone has mental wellbeing challenges—we saw that in the pandemic—but not everyone has a mental health issue. It is absolutely normal, for example, to get very anxious going to a driving test; it is not normal to have that response going to the supermarket. Those two things need different responses and different treatment; some might need support and help into the workforce, while medical support is needed for those with serious mental health issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that we acknowledge this discrepancy when we debate the issue, to ensure that we get the policies right for both the patient and the taxpayer? \p Rebecca Smith: I bow to my hon. Friend’s medical wisdom. I agree that we need to give people hope and ensure that our policies tackle the most severe mental health problems. However, if is mental wellbeing that we are talking about, we need to do more to ensure that people have the skills and tools to stay in work, so that they can enjoy the future that they can have.

Given the right support, many people benefit enormously from the social interaction and sense of achievement that comes from regular employment. Holding down a job provides a sense of agency, and breaks the cycle of dependency. Enabling access to benefits for those whom we should be encouraging to work feels perverse and is a dereliction of duty.

Thirdly, we must increase face-to-face assessments for disability benefits. Since the covid-19 restrictions, the number of face-to-face assessments has tanked, with 90% now happening over the phone. This is unacceptable, and has opened the door to so-called sickfluencers, who are coaching people online on the right words to say to get the maximum amount of benefit. Insisting on in-person appointments will mitigate this issue. With the Chancellor now beginning to blame covid for the economic challenges she faces, other Departments should be free to acknowledge the same and crack on with changing things back—in this case, to in-person assessments.

Fourthly, we must reform the Motability scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle. \p Luke Akehurst: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Rebecca Smith: Sorry; I am going to continue.

Motability is a lifeline for those with serious mobility issues, yet under Labour, Motability costs have surged by almost 10%. \p Daniel Francis: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Rebecca Smith: I am going to continue because I am running out of time.

We will stop taxpayers subsidising new cars for people with ADHD and tennis elbow, and will ensure that the scheme is targeted at those with genuine mobility issues. It is not compassionate to pretend that our welfare system can solve everyone’s problems. If we continue turning a blind eye to misuses of the system, it will not be robust enough to help those who need it most.

Lastly, we must keep the two-child benefit cap in order to encourage people into work and to strengthen our economy. Having parents with a stable job is the best foundation from which a child can better their prospects in life. Of course we want children and families to thrive, but fairness requires that families on benefits should face the same decisions as those in work about whether they can afford another child. The Conservatives are the only party that believes in keeping the cap and living within our means; Labour, Reform and the Liberal Democrats would all scrap it, costing £3.5 billion by the end of this decade. As I have said before, scrapping the two-child benefit cap, like rolling out universal free school breakfasts, is a sticking plaster at best that will not tackle the root causes of poverty—something that I believe we all want to do.

By returning to sustainable levels of welfare spending, a Conservative Government will build a stronger economy. These welfare savings will enable us to axe stamp duty on primary residences, helping first-time buyers to get on to the property ladder. We will introduce a permanent 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, enabling a quarter of a million businesses to invest in better premises, more staff and lower prices. We will deliver a £5,000 first jobs bonus, giving a boost to young people’s savings or home deposit.

The Conservatives are the party that backs ordinary working people who play by the rules, while Labour seems bent on making our country into a welfare state with an economy attached. We urge the Government to  reform the welfare system. They must continue to provide support for those who need it, while refusing to consign people to a lifetime on benefits. \p Andrew Western: The reason why we are having this debate is straightforward: the welfare system is broken. We have begun the job of fixing it, but the fact is that the system was broken by the Conservatives. They oversaw 14 years of failure on welfare until they were kicked out last year. \p Johanna Baxter: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take no lectures from the people who broke the system in the first place? In Scotland, one in six young people are not in education, employment or training; 12,000 Scots have been stuck on NHS waiting lists for over two years, and 8,300 people are economically inactive in Renfrewshire alone due to ill health. Far from lecturing us, should Conservative Members not look at themselves first? \p Andrew Western: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. [Laughter.] I see Members are surprised to learn that. She passionately makes the case that neither the SNP nor the Conservatives should be listened to on this issue. If I were in the Conservatives’ position, I might want to shy away from the subject, given their unenviable record. Their Government left us with a social security system that traps on benefits hundreds of thousands who could work and want to work. Fraud against the public sector was at eye-watering levels; some of the Department for Work and Pension’s powers to tackle fraud were over 20 years out of date; and a generation of young people have been neglected—there was a shameful rise in child poverty, and nearly a million young people were left out of work, education or training.

The Conservatives ignored every warning light on the dashboard while they drove down opportunity and drove up inactivity. They delivered the worst of all worlds, and now they have the cheek to come to this place and preach fiscal rectitude. We are cleaning up the mess that they left behind.

Let me turn to comments made in the debate, beginning with those by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). She talked of generations of families experiencing persistent worklessness, but this is a system that the Conservatives built. She gave an example of a young man in Bridgend who she says “fears” that he would be worse off in work, but who created that system? Where has that disincentive come from? The Conservatives entrenched that fear.

I fundamentally disagree with the shadow Secretary of State’s analysis, because the personal independence payment is an enabler of work for many people. It is there to meet the additional costs of disability and help disabled people with day-to-day living costs, and it helps many of them get to and from the workplace. She talked about the trajectory of welfare spend, but who set us on that trajectory? We heard that covid was to blame, yet 2022, 2023 and the first half of 2024 were not the ideal time to begin addressing the issue. Funnily enough, that ideal time was from July 2024. The Conservatives are running from their record, and they are right to do so.

We heard that the number of face-to-face assessments is too low. I absolutely agree that the number of face-to-face assessments needs to increase, but the shadow Secretary of State would do well to remember that the contracts we are signed up to were signed by the Conservatives, and they commit the contractors to 20% of assessments being face-to-face. This is the problem.

We also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who is not in his place. He was right to highlight the shocking way that economic inactivity spiralled between 2019 and 2024, and to reference the state of the national health service. However, I will briefly correct his suggestion that NHS spending is being cut under the Government. We are increasing day-to-day NHS spending in real terms by £18.5 billion by 2028-29.

The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), whom I like very much, congratulated the shadow Secretary of State on her £23 billion package of savings. I hope he shares my concern about the fact that the shadow Secretary of State was unable to say how much of that was coming from proposed changes to housing benefit. I hope that he noted the same irony that I did: earlier, the shadow Secretary of State responded to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) by telling him that he thought he was so clever for knowing his statistics. If only she could say the same of herself.

We then heard from the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), who espoused the virtues of living within our means. That would have had significantly more clout had the Conservative party done the same in the welfare space in recent years.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said that Britain under Labour had stopped working. I remind him that over 700,000 more people are in work now than were before the election, and economic inactivity is down by 363,000. \p Ashley Fox: Will the Minister give way? \p Andrew Western: I will not. The hon. Member said that we should respect the next generation and respect the fact, too, that taxes are too high, but the Conservatives left almost a million young people out of work and many trapped in a housing crisis, and they left the highest tax burden since the second world war.

As ever, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) gave a passionate speech about child poverty. I share her concerns about levels of child poverty, but it is my understanding that her SNP Government in Scotland missed their interim child poverty target in 2023-24.

I turn to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). We face each other a lot across the Dispatch Box, and I know that she cares—I do not question that—but we fundamentally disagree on the best way to help people, and that is particularly shown by the motion before us. Let us go through it. It begins:

“this House regrets the failure of the Government to get people off welfare and into work”.

That was a failure of their Government. It continues:

“believes that reforming the welfare system is a moral mission”—

yes, the Conservatives do believe that, now that they are in opposition—

“and therefore calls on the Government to take urgent action to fix Britain’s welfare system by restricting welfare for non-UK citizens”.

They have given no explanation, either in any of their speeches or in the text of the motion, of who that applies to. That is vague. Does it include those covered by the withdrawal agreement, those here under the Ukraine and Afghan schemes, or just those who came over as part of the Boris wave? Without such specificity, how could anyone support the motion?

The same applies to the proposal to stop benefits for those with

“lower-level mental health conditions”.

Again, that phrase is poorly defined. What are lower-level mental health conditions? PIP is not condition-based, at any rate, and we would hope that the Conservative party would know that, because it created that benefit. The Opposition then call for an increase in the number of “face-to-face assessments”. As I said, we are keen to achieve that, and we will do so, but we are constrained by the contracts that they signed, which restrict face-to-face assessments to just 20%.

The motion mentions

“reforming the Motability Scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle”.

Again, what is a “serious” disability? It is impossible to know from the text of the motion, or indeed from any of the speeches made. The motion then mentions

“retaining the two-child benefit cap”.

Hon. Members across the House are well aware that we will shortly bring forward our child poverty strategy, and that all levers available are under consideration, so we could never support that statement at this stage.

All that is rounded off with the line:

“to get people into employment and build a stronger economy.”

What a joke when we consider that the Conservatives left us as the only G7 country with a lower employment rate than we had before the pandemic. The motion, like the plan that it aims to underline, is not worth the paper that it is written on. I urge all Members to oppose it.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 403.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 16 September, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to. \p Tom Gordon: I present a petition on behalf of British national overseas passport holders in my constituency and beyond. The petition

“Declares that altering the 5+1 settlement route for British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders, which currently allows them to apply for Indefinite Leave to remain after 5 years and citizenship a year after that,”

which could be changed by the Government, would be

“unfair…on a community of nearly 150,000 people who have made the UK their home following China’s imposition of a National Security Law on Hong Kong in 2020, and are largely expecting to become eligible for indefinite leave within the next year”.

Locally in Harrogate and Knaresborough, we have a thriving Hongkonger community that contributes in all walks of life. I am personally grateful to Albert Kam, who has helped round up over 300 signatures for the petition.

The petitioners

“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change course and keep the current 5+1 settlement route in place for those British National (Overseas) visa holders already residing in the UK, to ensure that they can continue to settle”

and contribute in their new lives in the UK.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that altering the 5+1 settlement route for British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders, which currently allows them to apply for Indefinite Leave to remain after 5 years and citizenship a year after that, but would likely be changed to 10 years under current plans, would be an unfair change on a community of nearly 150,000 people who have made the UK their home following China's imposition of a National Security Law on Hong Kong in 2020, and are largely expecting to become eligible for indefinite leave within the next year; and further declares that the changes will severely disrupt the dignity and stability of this group of people who are subject to transnational repression from China.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change course and keep the current 5+1 settlement route in place for those British National (Overseas) visa holders already residing in the UK, to ensure that they can continue to settle into their new lives in the UK.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003125] \p Alison Hume: I rise to present a petition on specialist treatment for stroke patients at Scarborough hospital. It declares that

“Scarborough Hospital should once again provide specialist emergency assessment, investigation, treatment and care for patients who are potentially suffering from, or have suffered from, an acute stroke”.

Currently, my constituents have to travel more than 40 miles on the traffic-choked A64 to be assessed and treated in York.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Scarborough and Whitby,

Declares that Scarborough Hospital should once again provide specialist emergency assessment, investigation, treatment and care for patients who are potentially suffering from, or have suffered from, an acute stroke; and further declares that this is to avoid the need for patients to be transported, over 40 miles and often many more, to York Hospital from the East Coast region, and so that they do not undergo a lengthy and slow journey causing unnecessarily excessive clinical delays to their management out with current national guidelines, and so that their friends and relatives are able to readily visit them at a time of distress and need.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to ensure that Scarborough Hospital can again offer timely and accessible emergency care to acute stroke patients in Scarborough, Whitby, and the East Coast catchment area.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003127] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gregor Poynton.) \p Brian Mathew: We are in Remembrance Week, when we remember the dead of past wars. Right now in Sudan, a war as murderous and horrible as anything the world has faced is shattering the lives of civilians, of children, of women and of men, in ways we can scarcely countenance.

I have secured this debate because what is going on in Sudan cannot continue. The fall of the city of El Fasher, after a brutal 18-month siege, is the latest disaster in what the Foreign Secretary accurately described at the weekend as

“the largest humanitarian crisis in the 21st century.”

Over the past week, reports have been coming in of executions, forced expulsions and organised massacres—the evidence of which is literally visible from space, with images of carnage and bodies strewn in the streets. Conditions in El Fasher have been described as “apocalyptic”. However, this was not unexpected. Tragically, it was very much predicted, with warnings from numerous sources. Descriptions of El Fasher as another Srebrenica are not misplaced, although they are in many ways worse. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and for all his work across Africa before coming to this place. I respect him greatly for his desire for human betterment.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I have spoken and asked questions about Sudan some 14 times in the past year—as have others—because I am acutely aware of the precarious situation for Christians in the region. Christians have been murdered in the beastliness and wickedness that is happening. Patients and staff have been murdered in hospital. I have consistently asked the Government to step up support for those who are being targeted because of their faith. It grieves me greatly, it grieves the hon. Gentleman greatly, it grieves us all greatly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must use any and all methods at our disposal to help those desperately needy and innocent people as a matter of urgency? \p Brian Mathew: I thank the hon. Member for his kind comments. I agree with him, and I hope to put forward some ideas that may prove useful.

There are no United Nations peacekeepers on hand even to witness the killings. Current events are a continuation of a calculated political strategy to destroy and ethnically cleanse a province that gives its name to one of the tribes —namely the Fur. The Zaghawa, Berti and Masalit tribes have been similarly targeted in a strategy that began, arguably, well over 20 years ago. Despite the commendable efforts to improve international accountability—including through support for the International Criminal Court and UN fact-finding missions—as well as the efforts of many Members here and our UK aid programme to raise awareness and support the Sudanese people, what has been done so far is clearly not enough. \p Warinder Juss: Over 30 million people now need humanitarian aid in Sudan, and millions more have been displaced, with countless others living in fear, hunger and deprivation. Does the hon. Member agree that this crisis has been overlooked for far too long and that, for the sake of humanity, we need to turn our attention to Sudan and do what we can to provide aid and support to those who so desperately need it? \p Brian Mathew: I heartily agree with the hon. Member.

Humanitarian workers are also under threat, and I commend the work being done as we speak by groups like Doctors without Borders—MSF—and the International Committee of the Red Cross. MSF has been treating hundreds fleeing El Fasher over the last week, including men, women and children suffering from severe malnutrition, gunshot wounds and other injuries linked to beatings and torture. As a former aid worker who has lived and worked in Sudan, although many years ago, I want to express my deep sadness over the killing of five Sudanese Red Crescent Society volunteers in Bara, North Kordofan. Humanitarian workers are often the first and sometimes only responders for people in desperate situations around the world, and they selflessly give their time and skills, as well as their courage and compassion. My heart goes out to their families. \p Ian Roome: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does he agree that part of the great tragedy of Sudan has been the way it is unfairly overshadowed by conflicts happening elsewhere in the world, and we should be less squeamish about pointing that out to the public here in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world? \p Brian Mathew: I totally agree; we need to be far more outspoken on this issue. \p Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. When I read the transcript from the International Development Committee, I was struck by the contribution from Liz Ditchburn, who said that the Government’s approach to this was not sufficiently structured and that there needed to be focus and strategy. Does he agree that we need to convene such focus and strategy in this place in order to have a comprehensive response? \p Brian Mathew: I very much agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope that my speech will bring some ideas to the floor.

The Government need to be bolder, more direct and proactive in their work to support Sudan and the Sudanese people. As UN Security Council penholder on Sudan and lead in the core group on Sudan at the UN Human Rights Council for the protection of civilians, it is our duty to try every possible avenue to push for peace and change. I am sure we are all glad to see the recent announcement from the Foreign Secretary that £5 million in aid will be going to Sudan, in addition to the £120 million already allocated this financial year, with £2 million specifically going to support survivors of sexual violence. This conflict has been particularly devasting for the women and girls subjected to that violence. They often have no potential recourse, justice or even access to the most basic health services after being attacked.

We need to look to the future and to recommendations from the sources that predicted the ongoing violence. Protection Approaches, an organisation that repeatedly predicted the potential for extreme violence in El Fasher, has pointed to the city of Tawila as a next step in the trajectory of the Rapid Support Forces’ strategy. \p Navendu Mishra: I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for doing so much on this issue. In January 2025, the Biden Administration said they judged that the RSF and associated militias had committed genocide in Sudan. I have had a number of constituents from the Sudanese community in Stockport and across Greater Manchester contact me about the horrors taking place in Sudan. Does the hon. Member agree that our own Government should make a similar assessment? \p Brian Mathew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree with him. Will the Government do for Tawila what was not done for El Geneina, Zamzam, or El Fasher, and recognise its precariousness before it is too late? Will the Government use every diplomatic pressure and avenue available to secure guarantees that humanitarian assistance and aid can be delivered unimpeded? \p Anneliese Dodds: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important debate, and to everyone who has participated. He mentioned impediments to aid, and he will be aware that the most recent, very disturbing IPC assessment showed that famine is taking place in El Fasher and Kadugli. That came out after the quad statement from the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE. On the subject of diplomatic pressure, does the hon. Member agree it is important that the UK uses its influence with those quad members, to say that they must pressure the belligerents to stop blocking that much needed aid in this famine situation? \p Brian Mathew: I completely agree with the right hon. Lady and thank her for raising that point. A third of children under five in El Fasher are suffering from acute malnutrition, and some are resorting to eating animal feed and plant waste to survive. I would hope that everything possible will be done to allow humanitarian corridors to open for civilians to leave besieged areas, and to be assured they are not going from the frying pan into the fire. The supply of weaponry and military equipment is the oxygen keeping this conflict alive, and we as penholder should lead efforts to impose a binding, enforceable arms embargo across all of Sudan. \p Richard Foord: My hon. Friend urges an arms embargo, and for the UK to use its role as penholder at the UN Security Council, but Martin Griffiths has said that peace is likely to come out of the region through powers such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Does my hon. Friend think that the UK should be using its bilateral relations with those countries to bring peace? \p Brian Mathew: I know my hon. Friend has military expertise so I thank him for his points. Crucially, we must also suspend arms sales to the United Arab Emirates. The fact that British-made weapons, tools and equipment could be flowing into the hands of those perpetrating these actions is terrible beyond words, and I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who said that equipment made on our soil must never end up in the hands of those committing such atrocities. \p Monica Harding: My hon. Friend raises an important point in his powerful speech, and I would like to take it further. Even if British-made weaponry is not being diverted and ending up on the battlefield in Sudan, the UK is still breaching sections 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of its own arms export licensing criteria. Those rules not only prohibit the export of weapons that are proven to be misused, but they also restrict their sale to any country that may use arms to violate international humanitarian law. Does my hon. Friend agree that in exporting arms to the UAE, the Government have been acting contrary to international humanitarian law, and that we must stop selling arms to the UAE? \p Brian Mathew: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that this business with arms is stopped. The atrocities that we are witnessing through the news, with the work of Barbara Plett Usher at the BBC, others at The Guardian and Al Jazeera, and through social media trickling through the media blackout, will be remembered for generations. El Fasher, like Srebrenica before it, will sadly likely stand as a symbol of what happens when the world turns a blind eye. \p John Slinger: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. He has mentioned Srebrenica and the Bosnian conflict twice. Does he agree that in years gone by, conflicts causing immense humanitarian suffering, death and carnage resulted in international, UN-mandated military forces protecting civilians and humanitarian corridors? Is it not a reflection on the sorry state of international affairs that that does not even seem to be on the table as an option, despite this being the greatest humanitarian crisis that the world faces right now? \p Brian Mathew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; the world needs to wake up. As the penholder, we have the means and the moral responsibility to act and ensure that we and the rest of the world do not turn our backs on Sudan once more. \p Al Pinkerton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important debate. I have been to Srebrenica, and I was in Sudan in 2022. As I travelled with my research team to the northern Nubian desert, our path was blocked by the presence of the Wagner Group, which was training the RSF militia and extracting vast quantities of gold. This is an internationalised civil war. Does my hon. Friend agree that an internationalised civil war requires an internationalised solution? Britain is morally bound to play a leading role in assembling a coalition of the willing. \p Brian Mathew: I agree with my hon. Friend.

I call on the Government to follow on from the London Sudan conference held in April and hold a Lancaster House-style peace conference for all the parties to the conflict. They must hold it in a place of safety, on neutral ground, where peace in Sudan and the means to achieve it can be fully debated and a way forward can be found for peace, reconciliation and rebuilding. Some may say that such a journey is impossible, but if we do not try, we will not succeed. If a journey begins with a single step, let this be such a step. We cannot and must not allow the killing, torture and rape to continue. \p Martin Wrigley: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this really important topic. I suggest one additional thing he might feel that he needs to add: a sense of urgency to get this solution in place. Does he agree? \p Brian Mathew: I totally agree. I thank my hon. Friend for that point. With that, I will conclude my remarks. \p Seema Malhotra: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing this debate at such a critical moment for Sudan, which I know will be a matter of concern not only to this House and to his constituents, but to all our constituents across the country. I also thank him for his contribution to this morning’s Westminster Hall debate on official development assistance —I know there are Members here who also spoke in that debate. I acknowledge his work on the International Development Committee and his work in aid prior to entering this House. I thank the other hon. Members who have contributed to this debate.

The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes will have followed the urgent question on Sudan in the House last week, to which the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), replied. I am responding on his behalf tonight.

I recognise the seriousness of the situation that we are witnessing. The conflict has left more than 30 million people in need of urgent help in what is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Supporting Sudan remains a vital and top priority for this Government. We have heard a number of contributions about freedom of religion and belief, so perhaps I can briefly speak to that issue before I continue my remarks. \p Carla Lockhart: The United Kingdom has always stood as a defender of human rights. I say this with deep conviction: how many burned churches and murdered worshippers in Nigeria and Sudan will it take before we call this what it is: namely, a campaign to exterminate Christians? British aid must never bankroll corruption or indifference. Will the Minister urgently press the Governments of Sudan and Nigeria to protect all citizens, but particularly Christians, and ensure that our aid goes towards addressing their needs? \p Seema Malhotra: I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. Perhaps I can reassure her by saying that the UK remains extremely concerned about the persecution of individuals on the basis of their religion or belief, a  point that has also been made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) during the debate. We have strongly condemned the violence in El Fasher and north Darfur, as well as attacks on places of worship, including in other countries across the world. We also regularly use our role as leader of the core group on Sudan at the Human Rights Council to advocate for the protection of civilians in line with international law, including the right to freedom of religion and belief.

Turning to some of the other points that have been made, as has been referred to, we have recently seen advances by the Rapid Support Forces into El Fasher, accompanied by shocking reports of mass murder and rape. Last week, the Foreign Secretary condemned the horrific massacre at the Saudi maternity hospital, as well as the murder of five very courageous humanitarian workers, and called on the RSF to urgently facilitate rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access across El Fasher. That point has been made extremely powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who has raised this issue and the need to support action in Sudan several times in recent weeks. I thank her for her contributions.

As the United Nations Security Council penholder, we called an urgent council meeting on 30 October to respond to the worsening crisis, and penned a press statement condemning the RSF’s assault. Last week we mobilised £23 million in emergency aid for El Fasher, and on 1 November the Foreign Secretary announced a further £5 million to help get food, clean water and medical supplies to over 100,000 people in north Darfur. Our special representative to Sudan, Richard Crowder, remains in contact with the RSF and its political alliance, Tasis, pressing for restraint and reminding it of its obligations under international law. We are also talking to international partners, calling on those who have influence over the parties to use it to urge restraint and bring them to the table.

The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes made a very important point when he said that this cannot go on—we need to find a way to establish a ceasefire and ensure that we have a political solution. As such, our approach to Sudan is based on three pillars: first, pushing for that permanent ceasefire and supporting a civilian-led transition; secondly, securing unimpeded humanitarian access in order to deliver lifesaving aid; and thirdly, protecting civilians and ensuring accountability.

In April, as has also been referred to, the UK convened the London Sudan conference, alongside co-hosts France, Germany, the EU and the African Union. That conference brought together a broad coalition of international partners to build consensus on protecting civilians, improving humanitarian access and ending the conflict.

We have sustained the momentum built by the conference, and at the UN General Assembly in September the Foreign Secretary hosted high-level events, alongside our conference co-hosts, refocusing global attention on the crisis and the urgent need for action. That call for a continuation of global attention has been echoed by a number of Members this evening. The UK special representative for Sudan has maintained regular engagement with Sudanese civil society—including the anti-war coalition Sumud—and has done so, for instance, through the Sudan stability and growth programme, which aims to support Sudan on the path to an inclusive, resilient and  peaceful political settlement. UK support has helped to establish Sudan’s largest pro-democracy coalition, and has included work with 200 women to shape a national political dialogue. \p Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said, but can she tell me how the UK is approaching the UAE, especially in relation to the supply of arms and the use of mercenaries who are being deployed into Sudan? \p Seema Malhotra: I should first make it clear—as the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, did recently—that we take very seriously allegations that UK-made military equipment may have been transferred to Sudan in breach of the UK arms embargo. The UK has one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world. There is no evidence in recent reporting of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan, and there are no current export licences for the equipment reported on. However, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) may wish to continue to raise her concerns with my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

The UK continues to emphasise that external support for warring parties only fuels the conflict, and we urge all actors to press for that vital political solution. We welcome the Quad’s efforts to secure an immediate three-month ceasefire, and to end this terrible suffering. Conversations continue with members of the Quad and others across the international community. \p Tessa Munt: rose— \p James Naish: rose— \p Seema Malhotra: I am conscious of time and will continue my speech, although I may be able to give way in due course.

On humanitarian aid, the UK remains one of the largest donors to Sudan, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that funding to Sudan will be protected for the next three years. At the London Sudan conference in April, we also announced £120 million in new funding to reach more than 650,000 people with food, cash, water, sanitation and nutritional support this year. In May, Baroness Chapman announced a further £36 million for Sudanese refugees in Chad to help to ease the regional burden of displacement, and UK aid has already reached 2.5 million people since the conflict began. Last year alone, we treated more than 98,000 children for malnutrition, gave 744,000 people access to clean water, and supported 71,000 victims of international humanitarian law violations with cash assistance. \p Tessa Munt: Will the Minister give way, on that point? \p Seema Malhotra: I will, very briefly. \p Tessa Munt: Returning to the conference, is the Minister absolutely certain that all the actors in the region were part of the conference? There has been reference to the United Arab Emirates, and there are other actors in that region who did not seem to be on the list of people she mentioned who might have been here in April. \p Seema Malhotra: We continue to work with the members of the Quad, and with others across the international community. In our role as penholder we continue to engage with the international community, because we need to see a ceasefire and a political solution. \p Sarah Champion: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Seema Malhotra: I will try to give way later. In relation to support from the UK—

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).