Family Businesses

Andrew Lewin Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we see that in the surveys to which I referred; business confidence is at virtually an all-time low.

Before this whirlwind of disaster visited us, we had a calmer time during the general election. It was a Labour party on best behaviour with business, a Labour party with a manifesto that sought to reassure business—indeed, it explicitly ruled out the possibility of an increase in national insurance—and a Labour party on the prawn cocktail circuit, countenancing canapés and calm, with the breathy seduction of the former shadow Chancellor and the now Business Secretary hopping about in the background dispensing free legal advice to whoever cared to listen. With Labour, everything seemed possible; business would be safe in its tender hands—but it was not. Trust was destroyed, and the wrong decisions were taken. Why? Because those on the Government Front Bench have not a jot of real-world business experience. In fact, fewer than half of those around the Cabinet table have any experience in the private sector whatsoever. Far from being the natural party of business, this is the most anti-business Government in modern political history.

Surveys by the British Chambers of Commerce show that tax is now the No. 1 concern of businesses. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, in the last quarter of last year, business confidence hit the lowest level ever recorded in its surveys, save for the pandemic. It is almost as if the only way that small businesses are created today is through the shrinkage of larger ones.

Firms are being crushed by the wrong policies. Take the national insurance measure, which, despite having not yet commenced—it comes in in April—is already driving down employment and driving up prices and inflation. It is a ticking tax time bomb waiting to go off in early April. It will affect the lowest paid the hardest, with those in part-time work bearing the brunt of this measure, and it will impact those in labour-intensive sectors. UKHospitality found that three quarters of a million more jobs will be subject to national insurance as a direct effect of this Government’s plans. According to Young’s, the brewer, the policy will add an extra 20p to the price of a pint.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed concern for people on lower wages, and I hope he will therefore welcome the decision announced at the Dispatch Box by this Labour Government to increase the living wage by 6.7% from April.

[Mel Stride]

As the party that increased the personal allowance, doubling it between 2010 and the present day, taking millions of people out of tax altogether, and that brought in the national living wage, we have done a great deal to support the lowest paid in our society in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewin]

My hon. Friend is talking about the importance of sustainable funding, and I completely agree. It is fascinating that the last Government had a business rate relief system, which was a good one, but had nothing in the Budget for it at all, so they planned to cancel it entirely. That is why we are now in this situation.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that, under the previous Government, there was a series of cliff edges and one-year extensions that provided no stability whatsoever to businesses trying to plan investment, hiring or expansion decisions. That is why we have decided to extend the relief that the previous Government were due to end in April 2025 for one further year, before introducing permanently lower rates from April 2026.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend makes a sensible point, and the issues that he raises are reflected in my constituency. That is one of the major barriers to getting jobs and spending into our high streets.

If the Budget last year had failed to raise money for investment in public services, it would have been like changing the colour of the shovel before continuing to dig a hole in the same old ditch. We could not prolong the failed approach of the past 14 years. We can add to that the disgraceful situation that awaited the incoming Labour Government. For all the sound and fury that we have heard from the Conservatives, there is little mystery about that now. Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR, told the Treasury Committee:

“When we had a high-trust relationship with the Treasury those things were being well managed, and managed within the total. That system very clearly broke down.”

He said that

“there was about £9.5 billion-worth of net pressure on Departments’ budgets, which they did not disclose to us…which under the law and under the Act they should have done.”

The decisions that awaited the incoming Government on public sector pay, which is the other element of the £22 billion, had been ducked and delayed until after the election. [Interruption.] We need to be clear on that. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) indicates from a sedentary position. He will know about the situation with the School Teachers Review Body. Conservative Ministers already knew about the STRB’s recommendations and that the recommendations of the other review bodies tend to be similar.

Given that the pay year starts not in July or even at the beginning of the election period but in April, why were those recommendations delayed? Because Conservative Ministers and their Departments were late to submit the remit letters and evidence. The Office for Manpower Economics has been clear on that point:

“The work of the PRBs is demand led and essentially non-negotiable—departments set the remits and timetables.”

That is the truth of the matter. The additional costs were always coming, and the only reason they came seven months into an election year is that Conservative Ministers were content for them to be so delayed.

Conservative Members claim that they would not have accepted those recommendations, but they have not said at any point what their offer to public sector workers would have been. I wonder whether any Conservative Member wants to tell us today what their offer would have been, if not 5.5%, had they won the election. It should not be a hard question to answer. What would the difference be in the pay packets of nurses, teachers and members of the armed forces? I would be very happy to take an intervention on that point. [Interruption.] They cannot answer the question.

[Andrew Lewin]

In the absence of an intervention from the Conservatives, I say for the record that this has been a hugely important week for the House with the increase in defence spending, and it was so important that Labour gave a 6% pay rise to members of the armed forces—the biggest in 20 years.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend makes his point as well as it could be made, and I thank him for his intervention.

Let us not forget the costs that the previous Government inflicted upon businesses. Their botched EU withdrawal policies have meant up to £7.5 billion in costs from customs checks alone according to HMRC, £1 billion from higher energy trading costs, and a further £1 billion from the cost of chemical regulations in that sector every single year. One former Conservative Prime Minister said something like, “Screw business.” At least we can say that he lived up to his word on that.

The motion is not a serious proposition. I hope that the House rejects it.