Summer Jobs
Nigel Huddleston Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I really do not get what the Labour party has against people enjoying themselves, having a bit of fun and spending some of their hard-earned cash on things that give them pleasure, whether that is having an occasional flutter on the horses, a drink in the pub with mates, a meal out with friends, a family holiday or indulging in a bit of retail therapy. But the Government—let us be in no doubt—have made policy decisions that have deliberately undermined those sectors, jeopardised the viability of once-thriving businesses and decimated the workforce, especially summer jobs. Labour has whacked up swathes of taxes and made it more difficult and expensive to hire people. Tourism, hospitality, leisure, pubs, bars, restaurants, sport, theme parks, casinos, events, nightclubs, shops, music and art venues all used to be dubbed part of the “fun economy.” Well, not under Labour. They are now the overburdened, overtaxed, struggling-to-survive economy.
We know that Labour Members are generally a glum bunch, but why do they want everybody else to be dragged down to their misery? Do Government Members have any idea what people in the country are saying, or who they are blaming for having to close their family businesses, for losing their jobs or for not having the opportunity of a summer job? I have been travelling across the country—that is how I got this tan; by actually getting out there and doing my job—listening to stakeholders, business owners, workers and industry bodies, from Wales to Scotland, St Ives to Skegness, the Cotswolds to Chester, and yesterday in Bognor. Indeed, it is the sunniest place in the country, as I found out yesterday.
This is what I heard: “Labour don’t understand business. They don’t care about business. Labour hate the private sector. They don’t understand because they have never had a proper job. They don’t understand the importance of cash flow. Have any of the Cabinet ever run their own business? They care more about people on welfare than about workers. They said they would not put up tax—they have. I will never trust them again”. That is what people are saying. [Interruption.] It is transparently clear that those on the Government Benches are not hearing this, which is why I am doing my job by telling them.
A coastal hotelier said to me, “I used to hire 10 people over the summer. I will be lucky this year to hire just one.” A restaurateur told me, “I advertised for two summer jobs. I had 270 applications.” Sadly, I heard many people say this well-known phrase: “I wouldn’t trust Labour to run a bath, never mind the country.” Those are not my words but the public’s—the eminently sensible British public, who we are listening to, and I wish the Government would too.
Labour MPs must surely be hearing the same things in their own constituencies, which begs the question: why are they allowing the Government to do so much damage in their constituencies? By raising national insurance, whacking up business rates, imposing more regulations and restrictions on the labour market, and failing to bring down energy costs, this Government have destroyed jobs, and especially summer jobs, all while whacking up spending on welfare.
Two pubs a day are closing down. StirrUps in Evesham in my constituency announced just this weekend it was closing because
“it has become impossible for us to continue operating”.
Another pub landlord told me that, despite looking busy and having a turnover of over £1 million, the pub is actually unprofitable and may soon have to close. Yesterday I met a small amusement park and seaside arcade operator, who told me he cannot afford even to open on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays now—and this is getting into peak season—because if he did, he would lose money because of higher taxes and higher energy costs, and he is not hiring as many summer workers either.
It used to be the case that people looking for summer jobs could just walk into a pub, bar or restaurant in a seaside resort or in London. That is not happening this year because of Labour policies. Of the nearly 200,000 jobs lost since the Chancellor’s first Budget, over 100,000 have been in tourism and hospitality. That is thousands of summer jobs that have not been created because of this Government’s policies, depriving thousands of young people of the opportunity of their first job.
And yet, in their infinite wisdom, as if the sector is not already taxed enough, the Government are planning to bring in a new tourism tax—despite the former tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is sitting opposite me, saying in the House of Commons previously that the tourism sector is already “taxed enough”. Despite the Government cutting the tourism marketing budget and the UK already being one of the most taxed countries in the world for travel and tourism, this Government think it will help the sector if they impose more taxes on it. Only a Labour Administration could genuinely believe that the answer to the sector’s problems is more taxes. It will be a disaster.
A £2 per person, per night levy would add £56 to the cost of a one-week family holiday for four. That, in some cases, is more than the cost of the accommodation. UKHospitality polling has found that 57% of people said a £50 increase would put them off taking a holiday. It would particularly damage the shoulder season, which is so vital to sustaining the economies of our already challenged coastal resorts in non-peak months. There is also no guarantee that the money raised through such a levy would be reinvested into tourism promotion or the visitor economy overall. In other countries where tourism taxes exist, they are often accompanied by permanent lower VAT rates. There is huge concern, too, about scope creep and future rate increases.
As we enter the fag end of this Chancellor’s time in office, her legacy will be as the destroyer of jobs and of opportunities. Moreover, this economic disaster has been the result not of external circumstances or even genuine mistakes, but of deliberate and conscious policy decisions made by a Chancellor, a Prime Minister, a Government and a party who simply do not get business and do not have even the most basic grasp of economics. You cannot tax your way to growth. You cannot create jobs if you implement policies that make it more expensive and more difficult to hire people. You cannot say that you are on the side of workers if there is no work and, instead, you incentivise welfare.
Let us be clear: this Government have brought in some of the most anti-business—and therefore anti-worker—policies this country has ever seen. Labour has increased taxes by £62 billion in the last two Budgets—that is over £2,000 per household. We warned, business warned and even the Treasury warned that this Government’s tax hikes would jeopardise jobs. They did not listen. We warned that failure to deal with a ballooning welfare state would inevitably lead to even higher taxes. We warned that their unemployment Bill would inhibit hiring. They went ahead and pursued job-destroying policies anyway. The cost of keeping the unions happy has been the destruction of the hopes, aspirations and opportunities of a generation of young people.
It is of little consolation that the near 200,000 people who have already lost their jobs under Labour will soon be joined by the two leading architects of this economic havoc. Labour may be changing leader, but the problem is that it will still be Labour—big Government, high tax, living beyond its means and anti-business. It will still be Labour, spending other people’s money since 1900. As has already been mentioned, this Government are well on their way to securing the unenviable record of every Labour Government since the second world war leaving office with unemployment higher than when they started.
If anything, the indicators are that the new Labour leader and, if rumours are correct, the new Chancellor will be even more anti-business. It is the private sector, business and especially the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, including thousands of small family-run businesses, that are paying the price for Labour’s mistakes and poor judgment. The damage is falling particularly hard on the young, because tourism, hospitality and retail jobs skew young.
I know that we are all in disbelief at the recent Office for National Statistics figures revealing the true scale of youth unemployment, which has risen to 16.2% among 16 to 24-year-olds. Astonishingly, that is even higher than during and following the pandemic. We have also heard several hon. Members talk about the 1 million NEETs. The Government’s recent announcement about subsidies for employing young people in hospitality would not be necessary if they had not done so much damage to the sector in the first place.
We Conservatives know that the best thing we can do for working people and to lift people out of poverty is to help them get a job. We have a far better record on doing that than Labour. Look at the improvements in educational standards under the Conservatives and on jobs. Between 2010 and 2014, Conservative-led Governments oversaw the creation of 4 million jobs, an average of 800 a day. This Government are destroying jobs to the tune of hundreds a day. Overall, unemployment has risen to 5% from January to March 2026. Job losses and youth unemployment are the inevitable, expected and entirely predictable consequence of Labour anti-business policies.
There is an alternative: a pro-business, low-regulation, low-tax Conservative alternative. We are developing policies based on the sound Conservative values and principles of smaller Government, lower tax, personal responsibility, living within our means, defending our borders and protecting our citizens. We Conservatives are the party of business, aspiration, opportunity and enterprise. Those are sound Conservative values and they are sound British values. Before Government Members object, I know that we made mistakes: we make mistakes when we drift away from those values, but we will not be doing that again. The difference between Labour and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives get the country into trouble when we drift away from our values, but Labour get the country into trouble when it sticks to its values.
On policy development, the vast majority of businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure space would benefit from our policy of 100% business rates relief. Our plan would benefit 250,000 businesses and cover bills up to £100,000.
Turning to a few key points made by colleagues during the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) rightly made an important point about the much-maligned soft skills that are vital to career development and the importance of giving young people experience. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) revealed that he was once a grave-digger—I am sure there is a joke in there somewhere about the current state of the Labour party, but I have not worked it out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made an important point about international comparisons and lessons learned from places such as the Netherlands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke passionately about tourism and mentioned the respected body PASC, which I too have worked with in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) highlighted how retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are facing challenges on multiple fronts, and that they can appear to be very busy and need more workers, but they simply cannot afford to hire more people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned that she got 50p per hour in her first job—I am afraid I must be a little bit younger, as I got 99p per hour for my first job. She made an important point about there being 700,000 graduates unemployed at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) highlighted the need for Government often to get out of the way. Again, that is a very sensible, decent and proper Conservative value. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) highlighted the disconnect between the Minister’s opening speech and the reality of what is happening out there in the real world. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden)—I welcome him to his place—highlighted the damaging experience of the tourism tax in Scotland and how many business owners are actually earning far less than the minimum wage. That is a very important point.
My hon. Friends the Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and for Mid Bedfordshire made the important point that they have experience of floor sweeping. That will be of extreme value, because we need to do a huge amount in cleaning up the mess made by this Government on the economy, but we are up to the task. We are the only party up to the task, because the Conservative party is the only genuinely pro-business party left in British politics. By backing business, we are backing workers, and that is backing Britain. Please join us in doing so.
Seasonal Work
Nigel Huddleston Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets Government policies that are making seasonal, flexible and part-time work more difficult; notes that these policies particularly impact young people who are likely to start their first job in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors, and specifically regrets Government policy to increase business rates on the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors; further regrets the Employment Rights Bill, with its provisions on guaranteed hours, and late notice cancellation of shifts, which will effectively destroy seasonal, flexible and part-time work; also regrets raising the rate of employer National Insurance contributions; regrets that 84,000 jobs in the hospitality sector have therefore been lost; and calls on the Government to cut public expenditure in order to abolish business rates for thousands of high street businesses, and not to proceed with the Employment Rights Bill so that it is easier for young people to get their first job, and easier for people to move from receiving welfare into work.
Last year’s Budget, with its increases in national insurance contributions, increases in business rates and inflation-busting pay rises, led to more than 180,000 job losses, because it increased the cost of labour. Most economists, and indeed most sensible people, understand that when you increase the price of something, there is less demand for it. By increasing the cost of jobs, Labour caused unemployment—yet this year, fully aware of rising unemployment, the Chancellor remarkably came back for more. Along with her colleagues in the Cabinet, she is imposing even more costs on business through the unemployment Bill, with more regulations and a whole new set of taxes, like the tourism tax. These decisions will do even more damage, snatching the opportunity of a first job, a seasonal job or an entire career from young people—and, indeed, people of all ages.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
On the tourism tax, only a couple of months ago, in response to a question that I had posed, the then Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said, “We think they have been taxed enough.” Is it a surprise to Opposition Members to see a tourism tax being brought forward?
Nigel Huddleston
Yes, indeed; my hon. Friend makes an important point. I was here when the Minister said that. He said that there were “no plans” to bring in a tax—although clearly there were, because a few weeks later, one was brought in—and that the sector had been “taxed enough”. Well, I agree with that Minister, and I therefore do not agree with the Chancellor.
Not content with the damage to businesses and jobs done in last year’s Budget, this year the Chancellor decided to go even further in her latest Budget, and went for the pockets of working people directly by making them pay more tax. That was a clear manifesto breach. Working people are paying the price for this Government’s inability to tackle the ballooning welfare bill, and to control the unions and their own Back Benchers. The Budget was not about the economy; it was all about internal party management. It is appalling that we have a Chancellor who appears to be willing to see thousands of our constituents lose their jobs, as long as she saves hers. In short, the Budget was a £26 billion tax hike on working people to pay for Labour's welfare spending. Last year’s Budget destroyed jobs; this latest one disincentivised work. It takes a special kind of incompetence to destabilise both the demand and the supply of labour simultaneously, but this Government have somehow managed to do just that.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Is not the truth that we have a Government with no business experience who think that they can simply push the costs down to businesses, squeeze and squeeze them, and they will pass the price on to customers? They will have no customers. There will be no businesses. There will be no jobs.
Nigel Huddleston
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. It is quite remarkable, following the Budget, to hear Labour MPs say to their constituents, “We have helped you out. We have reduced costs.” If they talk to their constituents, they will find that the very opposite happened.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Like me, the shadow Secretary of State will have been out in the constituency speaking to small businesses, and I am sure that Labour MPs will have been doing the same over the weekend. A local publican told me that that she would have to lay off staff in January because of the extra taxes that the Chancellor had come back for—more taxes, though she said at the last Budget that she would not introduce more. I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State has had the same experience when talking to hospitality businesses, which particularly employ young people.
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The hospitality sector has been particularly hard-hit by Labour’s damaging economic policies. Many of us who were out on small business Saturday spoke to a number of those businesses, and unfortunately, UKHospitality fears that there could be a further 100,000 job losses because of Labour’s policies.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Matt Allum, who runs the Cricketers and two other pubs in my constituency, is devastated by this Budget, having been clobbered last year with the NIC increases, but thinks that our policy of relieving smaller businesses and high street businesses of business rates would make all the difference. Could my hon. Friend persuade the Government to adopt that policy during this debate?
Nigel Huddleston
I suspect that during the debate we will hear many names of great pubs, and I will try to visit as many of them as I can, as long as they still survive—but my hon. Friend is right: there is an alternative course of action here. There is a Conservative, pro-business economic policy that we can advocate. Later in my speech, I will mention some of the numbers to show the appalling impact on pubs in particular.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Like many of my Labour colleagues, I was out talking to small high-street businesses at the weekend, specifically in Saltaire, in my constituency. For many of them, the permanent reduction in business rates announced by the Chancellor is very welcome. They are not being hit by property re-evaluations and they will be getting those business rate reductions, and they welcome the levelling of the playing field with the online giants. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to pay for his party’s unfunded proposals?
Nigel Huddleston
I suggest that the hon. Lady talk to those constituents again. I do not think one has to be a sparkling economist to work out that when something has gone up, it is higher, not lower. Those people are not getting a permanent reduction in business rates. The numbers are going up. That is basic economics and facts.
It is part-time seasonal and temporary workers, young workers and people in sectors such as food production, tourism, retail and hospitality who are being hit particularly hard, but perhaps that should not surprise us. As many Members have already pointed out, Labour just does not understand economics, business, or incentives.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for introducing this incredibly important debate. I must say, with respect, that the Government will have a lot to answer.
In the Northern Ireland agrifood sector, the licensing process is so laborious that it is putting people off, which means that when we need workers in the sector, we do not get them. The hon. Gentleman is right to put forward the case for hospitality, but may I put forward the case for those in the Northern Ireland agrifood sector, who are also under great pressure, and who will be disadvantaged by the Government’s system?
Nigel Huddleston
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. We see that the hospitality sector is hard-hit, because numbers for the sector are easily available, and there have been a great many reports about the job losses there, but multiple sectors will be hit by these changes. As he points out, the problem is not just the tax hit but the regulatory burden, and that reinforces my point that the Government do not understand business.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
In 2023, just under 4,600 licensed premises closed down across the UK. Was the 2024 Labour Budget to blame for that?
Nigel Huddleston
No, the pandemic was largely to blame for that, but to ensure that we recovered from the pandemic, and to help save lives and livelihoods, which included supporting the hospitality sector, the Government spent £400 billion, so I am afraid I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Of course, few members of the Cabinet have ever worked in the private sector, and I do not think any of them have actually run their own business—maybe one.
Chris Vince
Conservative Members will know my background and work career, because I mention that I used to be a teacher every time I speak. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that many in his party talk about education but have not been teachers. Does he not recognise that, as Members of Parliament, we bring the experience of the people we speak to? He spoke about Conservative Members getting out and talking to businesses. Does he not recognise that we bring to this House the experiences of the people we represent? The argument that we cannot talk about business because we have not worked in business is a nonsense.
Nigel Huddleston
Members of Parliament may not have to work in business, but I expect every one to come to this House and advocate for business.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
As my hon. Friend will remember, it was wonderful to see the King and the President of the United States sit down at Windsor recently. What was particularly striking was that, on the British side, only the King had run a business—he ran the Duchy of Cornwall. Nobody else had run a business. On the American side, everybody had run a business. Is that not quite a stark contrast?
Nigel Huddleston
My right hon. Friend is correct: having people who have run a business is good for Government. I am sorry to hear that Labour Members do not believe that their Cabinet would be better if there were a few more pro-business people in it. I can assure him that most of his constituents agree.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I have some affection for the hon. Gentleman, and he has a lovely smile. Can he tell me how many members of the shadow Cabinet—or Conservative Members who serve on the Opposition Front Bench—have ever had to sustain a long-term position on low-paid, insecure work while raising a family? Those voices are equally important in this debate.
Nigel Huddleston
I, too, have a great deal of affection for the hon. Gentleman; we go back quite a long way from when we were elected. We need to recognise that there are Members on both sides of the House who come from poor or modest backgrounds, and it is simply not true to say that the Conservative Benches are full of posh people and the Labour Benches are not. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the House in trying to give an alternative impression.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
From one state school boy to another state school boy—we were also the first in our families to go to university—does my hon. Friend agree that we all have gaps in our knowledge, understanding and experience, but that the way you fill them is by asking the people who practise in a sector and listening to what they have to say? You should not just tell them that they are wrong and you are right because you are the Government, and you should change when the facts urge a change upon you.
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. As I say, the onus is on all of us in this place to make sure that we listen, learn and advocate on others’ behalf.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Nigel Huddleston
I will give way one more time, and then I will make a bit of progress.
Antonia Bance
While we are being nice to the hon. Gentleman, I think with affection of the times we have sat together on the “Politics Midlands” sofa. For the benefit of the House, will he tell us how many zero-hours workers he has spoken to in preparation for his speech today?
Nigel Huddleston
I have spoken to a few zero-hours workers, and many of them are not happy with the Government’s policy, because it is going to make some of them unemployed.
Of course, the one thing that we do know about Labour Governments is that they know how to spend other people’s money. They have no idea how wealth is created and how the money that pays for our public services is generated in the first place, but they certainly know how to tax and spend. We have seen tax increases of £66 billion in just two Budgets, and tens of billions of pounds in additional debt. As Margaret Thatcher said,
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Hon. Members—
John Slinger
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Conservative Members often talk about wealth creators. Of course business people and entrepreneurs are wealth creators, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that wealth is also created by the public services and infrastructure that we need, which has to be paid for?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman’s final words are key: how are public services paid for? The top 1% of income tax payers in this country pay 29% of all income tax. It is estimated that the Labour Government’s policies have led to 16,000 of the wealthiest people in this country leaving—equivalent to a third of a million to half a million average taxpayers. The burden, therefore, is spread on the others. Instead of demonising some of the wealthiest people, who make an incredible contribution to our public services, maybe the Government should thank them.
Dr Luke Evans
It is not just wealthy people who have left. We know from the Office for National Statistics data that 257,000 Brits have gone—it had been estimated at 70,000—of whom about two thirds to three quarters are under the age of 35. We are losing young people to the rest of the world because of the implications of not being able to get a job in this country.
Nigel Huddleston
Yet more common sense is coming from those on this side of the Chamber, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, it is young people in particular who do not have confidence in this Government and are fleeing.
It is clear that I do not have particularly high regard for Labour’s economic competence, but even I did not expect the Government to be running out of money quite so quickly. I expected them to be bad, but I did not expect them to be this bad. It does not give me any political joy to say that, because my constituents and their constituents are paying the price for Labour’s incompetence through higher taxes and, in many cases, with their jobs and livelihoods. I genuinely wish that they were better at government, but that is wishful thinking, because here is another hard truth about Labour: despite the party’s name and the false advocacy for working people, every Labour Government since the second world war have left office with unemployment higher than when they started, leaving the Conservatives to clear up their mess.
We Conservatives know that the best thing we can do for working people, and to lift people out of poverty, is to help them get a job, and we have a far better record than Labour in doing that. Between 2010 and 2024, Conservative-led Governments oversaw the creation of 4 million jobs—an average of 800 a day. This Government are destroying jobs by the tune of hundreds per day.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
We know what the Government want to do to support tourism and hospitality: they want to get those on welfare to work in that sector, despite the fact that some of those people are on welfare because the Government have taxed tourism. Does my hon. Friend think that that is socialism or incompetence?
Nigel Huddleston
I think my hon. Friend knows my answer to that. It is ironic—it would be laughable if it was not so sad—that the Government announced over the weekend that they will introduce subsidies to create jobs, because if they did a better job at running the economy, jobs would be created anyway. I will come back to this issue in a moment.
On the record of the last Government, we took millions of people out of paying income tax. We increased the tax-free allowance from £6,475, which we inherited under Labour, to £12,570. As soon as we were in a position, following the pandemic, to start reducing taxes, that is exactly what we did. We reduced national insurance on workers from 12% to 10%, and then from 10% to 8%, with a plan to eliminate employee national insurance altogether and, of course, align the thresholds.
Labour talked about backing business when in opposition, but they are doing no such thing in government. In the Budget, the Chancellor had the brass neck to say that she was helping the hospitality industry with business rates. In reality, hotels, pubs, theme parks, restaurants, cafés are all seeing an increase in their business rates, as are the wider retail and leisure sectors. Investment in hospitality and tourism is already being paused or diverted overseas due to the UK’s rising costs and regulatory environment.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that a typical pub in my constituency is paying around £2,500 per month more than it was 12 months ago? Let me briefly put that into context. Assuming that couples go in and spend £100, pubs have to clear 25 additional sittings, just to clear their costs. How are they going to survive?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. I think the increase in costs for the average pub over the next few years—I have the figures and will come to them in a minute—is equivalent to needing to serve an extra 10,000 pints. How many pubs will be able to do that?
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Epping Forest is home to some wonderful pubs and hospitality businesses, such as The Bull and the Queen Vic in Theydon Bois, the Theydon Oak, and Mila in Loughton. I hope he will join me in congratulating Mila on reaching the final of the British kebab awards next year. Does he agree that it is only through the Conservatives’ approach of scrapping business rates and supporting our high streets that these fantastic businesses will be able to survive and then thrive in the future?
Nigel Huddleston
Absolutely. Again, my hon. Friend is a great advocate for the hospitality and leisure sector. He is absolutely right that there are alternative approaches to backing businesses and enabling them to succeed and generate taxes and employment. I add my congratulations on the British kebab awards. As a big fan of kebabs, I will have to visit at some point.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Budget and the previous one have been hammer blows to our already flagging high streets? Does he also recognise that the only retail premises that can currently be exempted from business rates are those that are listed and unoccupied? That introduces perverse consequences for the tone and texture of our high streets. By abolishing business rates, we will remove that perversity, and the look and feel and the vibrancy of our high streets should be improved.
Nigel Huddleston
Again, my right hon. Friend is correct. Of course, it is not just the tax policies, but the wraparound—the devil in the detail of what can and cannot be included in various exemptions—that causes some perhaps unintended or indeed intended consequences. I think we all care very much about the future of our high streets, which is exactly why, at conference, we announced the retail, hospitality and leisure relief.
As I have said, the Chancellor had the brass neck to say she was helping the hospitality industry with business rates. The Government were doing no such thing; they were increasing business rates considerably. While hospitality is the UK’s largest employer of 16 to 24-year-olds, these cost pressures directly threaten in particular youth employment. New analysis from UKHospitality reveals that small hospitality venues alone will see business rates rise by £318 million over three years, and subsectors—such as pubs, which are often mentioned in this debate—will see a whopping increase. The average pub’s business rates, even with the reduced multiplier and transitional relief, will increase by 15% next year, which is an extra £1,400. In 2027-28, an average pub’s rates will be £4,500 higher, and in 2028-29, £7,000 higher. In total over three years, the average pub will pay an extra £12,900. An average hotel will be paying an extra £28,900 in rates next year. In 2027-28, it will be £65,000 higher, and in 2028-29, £111,000 higher. In total over three years, an average hotel’s rates bill will increase by over £200,000—just in time, no doubt, for it also to face the dreaded new tourism tax.
Labour’s unemployment Bill will do nothing but impose thousands of pounds in extra costs on businesses across the country—not to mention the ricochet impact on temporary and seasonal jobs.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
On the tourism tax, which will come on top of the increase in business rates, I spoke last week to Catherine, from the Navigator hotel, who is in despair at these additional costs. She fears for the future of her hotel and, indeed, for the 10 employees who work in that hotel. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give her?
Nigel Huddleston
The tourism tax is an appalling tax, which we have said will do immense damage to an already overtaxed industry. As my hon. Friend will be aware, a consultation is going on, and we all need to encourage our constituents, particularly those working in these sectors, to participate in that consultation to ensure that Labour does not do the damage we fear it may do to an already hit sector.
Of course, many sectors of the economy rely on seasonal employment during peak times, whether that is food production sectors during peak picking and growing seasons, retailers in the run-up to Christmas, or the hospitality and tourism industry over peak summer season and during school holidays. However, if the Minister and Labour MPs had actually been engaging with and listening to businesses in their constituencies or across the country since they came to power, they would know the frustration that so many of those businesses feel. They want to employ more people, especially young people, and to give learning and skills development opportunities—perhaps providing people with their first job—but they have been unable to do so because Labour’s policies are making it unaffordable for them to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) pointed out how bizarre is it that the Government announced plans over the weekend—note, Madam Deputy Speaker, over the weekend, not to this House—to help young people with skills building opportunities in hospitality, care and construction through taxpayer-funded Government schemes. Those are the very industries that the Government are undermining with their own tax policies. If the Government did not attack these industries, businesses would be generating such opportunities and jobs of their own volition, not needing Government handouts. Rather than spend £820 million using public money to help create jobs that may not be sustainable, surely it would have made more sense not to have taxed the hospitality, construction or care sectors in the first place. Even hospices were not exempt from the national insurance increases.
Tom Tugendhat
There is a fundamental misunderstanding between the Conservative Members and Labour Members. Labour Members seem to believe that the Government create jobs, wealth and everything, but we recognise that individuals get up in the morning to group together into what we call companies, and they come up with ideas, stretch themselves and try different ideas. Some of them succeed and some of them fail, but relieving the pressure on them is not somehow letting them get away with something, but enabling them to express the freedom of the ideas they have.
A second fundamental misunderstanding is that this is not about who has had job experience and who has not; it is who has had an HR department and who has not. The problem is not that those on the Labour side of the House are bad people or good people—as we all know, there are bad and good people on both sides—but that, in reality, someone with experience of a business that has only ever had an HR department, or only ever been large enough to look at different in-year cost savings in such a sense, is not the same as someone trying to pay for one person, two people or three people. Actually, 80% of businesses in this country have fewer than 10 employees, and we are talking about them.
Nigel Huddleston
My right hon. Friend again makes some really important points not only with specific examples, but about the fundamental difference in political and economic philosophy between the Conservative side and the Labour side of the Chamber. We believe in personal responsibility, low tax, small Government, living within one’s means and being unapologetically pro-business because we recognise that the private sector generates jobs and the economic activity that pays for our vital public services. Labour Members are agreed on the complete opposite. We recognise that, as the Leader of the Opposition has said many times, we get into difficulty when we stray too far away from these things—we let down the country and the economy when we stray from our principles—but Labour lets down the country and destroys the economy when it sticks to its principles.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
On the hon. Member’s point about the employment of young people, in Northern Ireland we have one of the highest levels—if not the highest level—of youth unemployment and young people not in education, employment or training. Would he agree with me that the Budget absolutely hammers any prospect of young people being employed in hospitality or tourism, for example?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady has obviously been speaking to her constituents and businesses in her constituency, and young people are of course extremely disappointed and feel let down by this Government and their economic philosophy. That is why the Budget announcement followed by this other announcement—“Oh, we’re now going to kind of help them a little bit with some public money”—is just bizarre. It shows that they do not get basic economics, and that is hitting young people in particular.
Gareth Snell
Under a Conservative council and a Conservative Government, Stoke-on-Trent had one of highest levels—if not the highest level—of NEETs anywhere in the country. The number is now coming down, but what does the hon. Member think was the reason why my city had to endure that under his Government and his council? Would he accept that it was partly because economic growth was not felt equitably across this country, and that economic growth that takes place only in one part of the country is equally as damaging as much of what he is professing is damaging today?
Nigel Huddleston
I do agree with some the principles the hon. Gentleman articulates about the need for economic growth outside the M25 as well. London is a great dynamo—it needs to be London-plus—but we do need to make sure we grow across the country. That was, of course, exactly the point of the levelling-up agenda. However, I am afraid we cannot have this wishful thinking of forgetting that both the economic crisis in 2008 and of course the pandemic and other global crises had a major impact on the economy, and therefore economies around the world were challenged. The difference now is that our economy is doing badly uniquely because of Labour Government decisions. That is the difference.
The national insurance increases in last year’s Budget alone cost the hospitality industry more than £1 billion. The business rates increases that it now faces make matters even worse. This is not so much giving with one hand and taking with the other; it is giving with one hand, then punching them in the face and giving them a good kicking when they are down on the ground. That is an appalling attitude to take towards business, but that is this Government’s attitude.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Just last week, I visited one of the many fantastic cafés in my constituency. The hard-working owner told me that she had chosen not to take on a young Saturday worker as a direct result of the increase in business rates. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that this Government’s policies are directly affecting employment for young people in Chester South and Eddisbury, and across the country?
Nigel Huddleston
Yes. I had the pleasure of visiting a café in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I sincerely hope she is not referring to the one that we visited. This is a common theme across the country, and we hear it on way too many occasions. What is interesting is that the owners of these often very small business feel guilty that they cannot employ people in the way that they would want to—they cannot provide Christmas jobs and so on. They should not feel guilty about that; the Government should feel guilty about that.
Bradley Thomas
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the tax rises and the additional cost burden that is causing a lack of confidence? That lack of confidence is in itself probably the most corrosive aspect of all, because once that is entrenched it is very hard to unpick, particularly when businesses repeatedly face a Government who are doing the exact opposite of what they pledged in their manifesto.
Nigel Huddleston
Yes. My hon. Friend knows that confidence is a major driver of economic activity. When the public, consumers and businesses do not have confidence, things fall apart. Without a significant change of direction, I am afraid I cannot see confidence returning. As I said, I do not get any joy in saying that. I want the Government to get their act together. I want them to be economically competent for the sake of our constituents.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was interested in him suggesting that it was Labour’s principles that are causing the problem. Which bit of our plan for small and medium-sized businesses, action to tackle late payments, reducing regulatory burdens and expanding access to finance does he disagree with?
Nigel Huddleston
This is just noise. The hon. Lady needs to speak to businesses in her constituency—[Interruption.] The facts are the national insurance increases, the business rates increases and the additional burdens on businesses. If anybody on the Government Benches can name any major business organisation that welcomes the employment Bill—the unemployment Bill, as we call it—I would welcome them doing so now, but I do not think they can. They are anti-business: that is the point. The Conservatives are pro-business, they are anti-business. The principle is key: to be pro-business means to be pro-workers and pro-public sector, because that is how the taxes are generated. The Government have the exact different—
Nigel Huddleston
I won’t. I will give way in a moment to somebody behind me, but I am aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am on the final stretch.
I can only assume the Labour Government just do not understand the negative impact their tax policies are having on tourism, hospitality and leisure, because to do such harm willingly is pure economic vandalism. The Government’s lack of understanding of the private sector and how jobs are created beggars belief.
None of this would be necessary with a competent, pro-business Government. There is an alternative: a pro-business Conservative alternative that backs business, that wants the private sector to succeed, that backs entrepreneurs and wealth creators, and has policies that enable job creation and economic growth through policies such as 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure. Instead, the Government have decided on an economic strategy that punishes enterprise, burdens the taxpayer, disincentivises work, increases dependency on welfare and grows the size of the public sector. That is the wrong strategy.
The Labour Government are destroying the economy. They promised change at the last election. Well, we certainly got it: slower growth, higher taxes, higher spending, more debt, more welfare and higher unemployment. Time and again, Labour has betrayed the trust of the British public and we on the Conservative Benches will not tire of holding this disastrous Labour Government to account for their utter incompetence. The country cannot afford three more years of this. Britain deserves better.