Employers

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to listen to a range of views, but I genuinely think that Government Members should begin with an apology to employers, for a number of reasons. First of all, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury insulted them all a few weekends ago, basically saying that employers are not working people. It was a flat insult to the millions upon millions of people in family-run businesses, probably just like the parents of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who just gave a lecture on his views about employment and employability.

Fundamentally, small and medium-sized enterprises—hard-working family-run businesses—have always been the backbone of Britain and the British economy. I have a lot of time for the Minister. He is a great survivor, and he deserves some kind of accolade for his long-standing defence of his Government’s tax-grabbing, job-destroying policies, and even for his references to fiscal discipline—we can talk about that—but the Government need to wake up to the adverse impact of their economic policies for employment. We see devastating impacts on small businesses across the country and their ability to function. They are working hard and putting in long hours just to keep the lights on and manage their cash flow. The Government need to demonstrate some humility and acknowledge that right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Once again, “you” and “your” are not to be used when referencing colleagues.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not want to insult anybody, but it is important for Members to speak on these issues if they have credible experience of them—if they have set up a business and come from a business background. I am afraid that government has become a blunt instrument now. Things are far too binary. The Government are not even thinking through the overall impact of their decisions on local businesses, and then they come to the Dispatch Box defending broken pledges. This House should spend much more time talking about our pride in the nation’s businesses. They are the wealth creators and employers who give people a hand up in life. They give people economic security.

I will speak for my great county of Essex, because I do not think it gets enough airtime in this Chamber. We are a county of entrepreneurs. Despite the damage that this job-destroying, business-bashing, tax-grabbing Labour Government are doing to our economy, we are fighting hard to survive. We have a range of amazing businesses, and I will list them, because I think the House might have experienced some of the fine produce from Essex. Wilkin and Sons in Tiptree makes the jam that is in the Tea Room. Linden Lady chocolates, made in Copford, are sold in the House of Commons shop. There is a range of Essex farmers and food manufacturers, whom we all depend on. A colleague spoke about food security; that matters. Maldon Salt, a very famous brand, comes from my constituency as well.

On the Opposition Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) touched on pubs, salons and all those other employers that provide the gateway to jobs for young people. Those are the types of business that we must support—we absolutely need to give them a hand up right now. We need reductions in national insurance, and we must recognise that in a significant way. Businesses think that Labour Ministers have no idea about the fact that they are working 70 or 80 hours a week just to keep their businesses afloat. That work is to generate tax revenues that this wasteful and bloated socialist Government are, quite frankly, destroying in an unjustifiable way.

There must be a recognition, because businesses in my constituency feel let down by Labour and seriously want to fight back against the increase in national insurance, the red tape from the infamous Employment Rights Act 2026 and the taxes on family farms. Businesses are constantly facing a rising tax burden. Even the reliefs in the recent Budget, which Ministers want to gloat about, will not compensate for the overall pain that businesses are facing.

The Minister spoke about fiscal discipline, but fiscal discipline alongside high levels of borrowing and debt will not give the financial and economic stability that local businesses need in our country. Debt is not going down, and borrowing is going up. We know who pays for all that: businesses pay for it all. Ministers come and go—we all know that—and they can make whatever defence they wish, but the reality is that it is hard-pressed taxpayers who are constantly filling Government coffers right now for higher debt and borrowing. Businesses need some latitude and leeway—they really do. I implore and urge this Government to reconsider many of the policies that they are putting in place.

There is a silver lining; it is called the Finance Bill. When that sees the light of day on the Floor of this House, it will give Members the opportunity to challenge the Government to give headroom and breathing space to businesses by lowering taxes, being more responsible on national insurance contributions and freeing up businesses to employ more people. Importantly, it will give Members the opportunity to challenge the Government to give the British people the freedom to succeed and live their lives, completely unshackled from the burdensome taxes that this Government are constantly putting on them.

VAT: Independent Schools

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the reason why we have taken the tough decision to end tax breaks for private schools. It is to fund our education priorities, because we know that the way to improve opportunities for people right across this country is to make sure that our state schools can provide the best-quality education for all children.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The Minister was in a similar debate this morning, in which he heard a range of views. He is a Treasury Minister, not an Education Minister or the Education Secretary; will he commit to publishing an impact assessment on the overall cost of this policy? There were parents in the Gallery listening to the debate this morning, and it is clear that there will be a legal challenge to this policy. Will the Treasury also publish the potential cost of that legal challenge and the bill that his Department will be footing in order to meet it?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Member for her contribution. First, in terms of an impact assessment, while developing these policies, the Government have carefully considered the impact they will have on pupils and their families across the state and private sectors, as well as the impact they will have on state and private schools. In addition to having reviewed analysis published by third parties such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Government have conducted their own analysis of the likely impacts of these policies, which draws on a range of sources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is important to start by saying that this entire policy is dogmatic and rooted in the politics of envy—that really is self-evident. It comes from a self-serving socialist Government that are ignorant and blind to the harm that it will lead to for families up and down the country. In the time that I have, I would like to pose a series of questions directly to the Government. This is not only a bad policy; there has been no information on its implementation and what it means for private schools and state schools. That has been raised by shadow Front Benchers and I think we should get some transparency. I would like a response later on.

When the Minister responds, I would also like to hear the details of the costs caused by adding VAT to school fees and the cost of the removal of the business rates exemption. The House has a right to hear where the impact assessment is, what the fiscal projections will be and what the costs will be across every Government Department that is affected. That will be the Department for Education but also the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because it is local councils that will continue to pick up the costs.

I put a question about this next matter directly to the Exchequer Secretary, who was also in the Westminster Hall debate this morning. We know that legal action is coming, and I think that the Government should fess up and tell us what percentage of the DFE budget will be put aside to fund the legal challenge. There are parents out there who are so unhappy about this—we met some of them this morning—and they are adamant that they will pursue legal action.

There are many other questions, such as about justification and the implications for local authorities, but I think the point about SEND is important. The House of Commons has published a note that says that for 2024-25, the previous Government had been increasing SEND funding to over £10.4 billion in real cash terms. Is that funding going to go up under this Government, in anticipation of the implications of this policy for children with special educational needs? That could include a growing demand for education, health and care plans. Local authorities are failing, and many of them are Labour authorities. Some of them have gone bankrupt as well in recent years.

There will be an impact on state schools, as they will have to accommodate additional pupils. We need some honesty and transparency around this. Class sizes are going to increase in state schools. How is that going to increase the educational outcomes of children attending state schools? How is that going to raise the bar and increase standards in state schools? We all believe in good educational outcomes for all children across the entire country and we want our education system to be first class and to serve all children, but fundamentally this is just an ill-thought-out policy that will have more costs associated with it and devastating impacts for children attending independent schools.

I ask the Minister in his summing up to show a little bit of humility—[Interruption]—and recognise the implications for these children. Labour Members are giggling, but actually this is about children and about the impact of this policy on children whose education will be affected.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas]

I will not give way. Independent schools should be seen as a British success story, both culturally and economically, instead of being discouraged and punished with the imposition of an education tax for socialist ideological principles. Most importantly, the human impact of the policy is stark. The failure of this education tax will not just be academic or financial; it will have a serious impact on families.

One parent wrote to me:

“As a widowed single mother who works full-time, I make enormous financial sacrifices to ensure my child can attend the same school from age 3 to 18. This stability is not only essential for my child’s development but also enables me to work and contribute to society. This proposed VAT would be devastating for families like mine.”

Another mother wrote to me and said,

“We also have a daughter who will need to start secondary school in two years. We had hoped for her to attend the same school as her brother but, with no scholarship likely and the addition of VAT, it is simply impossible. This is a painful realisation, and I worry that she will resent the opportunities that we couldn’t give her (but we could give her older sibling).”

We have yet to talk about the impact on special educational needs and disabilities education. This measure will cause particular problems for children who are in receipt of such bespoke education. Nationally, at least 130,000 pupils in independent schools receive SEND support in mainstream and specialist settings. That is 20% of the pupils in UK independent schools, which is slightly higher than the state school average. Independent schools help to provide additional value-adding capacity to SEND education.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On special educational needs, this measure will devastate many families around the country who make huge sacrifices. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us what mitigations and support will be given to local authorities to cover the cost and the pressures they face, particularly with shortages in special educational needs provision across the country?

Winter Fuel Payment

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Who would have thought that one of the first acts of this awful, cruel and ideological Labour Government would be to assault the nation’s pensioners by removing winter fuel payments? Let us be candid: the nation’s pensioners are falling victim to an ideological decision—a betrayal by Labour as it succumbs to shovelling gross amounts of public spending into the pockets of many of its union paymasters.

It is quite interesting—[Interruption.] No. I have a time limit; the hon. Member has already spoken. It is interesting that there has been so little transparency around finances and the fiscal choices that the Government have chosen to make. There has been no impact assessment, no honesty around the cost of all this to the Exchequer in the long run, and nothing about the administration of the household support fund. How have Labour Ministers made the spurious claim that they have had no choice in this decision? Bear in mind that the Government—so desperate are they to justify this brutal cut—claimed a couple of weeks ago that there would be a “run on the pound” without the decision, which is just extraordinary and speaks to their fiscal ineptitude.

I have a series of questions on the mitigations. First, it is right to encourage more pensioners to take up pension credit where they are entitled to it. I know from my time at the Department for Work and Pensions that many on the Conservative Benches have spent years encouraging pensioners to take up pension credit. We should know how the targeting will work and what the cost will be.

Secondly, in recent days the Government have been spinning, yet again, that those affected by the loss of the winter fuel payment will benefit from an estimated £400 rise in the state pension. Will the Minister confirm what the net real-terms impact will be on overall household incomes for those who are losing the benefit, and will he confirm how it will add up over time and what the actual cost will be?

Thirdly, concerns have been raised throughout the day that if pensioners cannot afford to heat their homes there will be a serious impact on health. We do not have an impact assessment, so can we have some honesty now? What are the costs to the NHS? The Government owe it to the British people to be honest about this. We have heard that the household support fund will be extended, but how exactly will that £500 million be funded? Who will pay for it?

Finally, there are so many unanswered questions. The Government must be honest and answer them. There has been a lack of transparency, with no impact assessment whatsoever. It is right that we hold the Government to account and that they are honest with British pensioners about their intentions, even on the future of the triple lock.

National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No.2) Bill

Priti Patel Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

There is quite a lot to say after the contributions from both Front Benchers, which I will come to in a minute. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I support the reduction in the rate of national insurance. I will use my time to discuss longer-term tax reforms that should be introduced.

Before I speak to the cuts and changes to national insurance that are the basis of this important Bill, I will, if I may, make some observations on the debate thus far having heard both Front Benchers. This is a very serious issue; we are speaking about fiscal matters that affect all our constituents across the United Kingdom, at a time when we should be really honest with the British people. We should level with them: taxes have gone up. I do not think that they want to hear trivial arguments from this House about who is outscoring whom. A degree of maturity is needed right now, because these have been difficult times, post-pandemic and off the back of Russia-Ukraine and everything that has followed. We need to look at what is being proposed in a constructive way. The irony of today’s debate—I will touch on wider public spending—is that tomorrow we will be here talking about estimates. Given the book and the numbers that I have gone through this morning, a lot more can be done to ensure that Government spending is much more efficient, but we will save discussion that for tomorrow.

This is an important Bill. It follows clearly the decisions that previous Conservative Chancellors have taken to reduce the taxes taken from national insurance. Members who review the details of successive Budgets since May 2010 will note that the Government have progressively reduced the national insurance tax burden in recent years—Members may recall that the employee threshold level was £5,725 back in 2010, so that has been the trend. Two years ago, the increase in the primary threshold jumped from £9,568 to align with the tax-free threshold—with which I like to think we in this House are all familiar—of £12,570 in 2022-23. That 2022 change alone has already put around £330 per person back into the pockets of hard-working families. The changes at the autumn statement—which, if I remember rightly, were well debated on the Conservative side of the House, while the Opposition were a little absent—meant that average earners would be around £900 better off.

Alongside that, I also welcome the reduction in NICs for those who are self-employed. As an Essex MP, the majority of my constituents are self-employed. Over 80% of my constituents work in self-employed small and medium-sized firms. Those who are self-employed and pay class 4 contributions, including many of my constituents, make a huge contribution to our economy. We should reflect on that. More always needs to be done—that is fact—to grow the economy, on supply-side reforms, and to stimulate employment, but the measure is huge for those people because it gives them security in employment, and that is a fundamental principle that we should all work to. It is a big difference and tax cut.

The impact of raising the income tax-free threshold from the £6,475 in 2010 to £12,570 today was significant because it was worth over £1,000, or 20% of the £6,095 increase. The £900 average from the cuts to national insurance in the last two fiscal events is significant. We should all recognise what that means not just for the economy but for the money in people’s pockets. Those measures will have helped taxpayers to keep around £2,400 more of the money they earn. Let me be frank: that is not just good; it is valued and welcome. As colleagues have already touched on, those are timeless Conservative values that fulfil our mission to deliver economic freedoms and lower taxes, notwithstanding the tax backdrop of recent years.

I listened to the Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), and I always welcome his contributions and enjoy our debates. Our approach to national insurance and easing the burden contrasts with what we saw under the previous Labour Governments, when we saw increases. We need to work collectively to be on the side of hard-pressed families right now. That is absolutely crucial. I could go back to the Budgets of Gordon Brown and list some of the calamities that took place, but what is the point? We have to speak about the fiscal—[Interruption.] No, we have to speak about the fiscal footprint that we have now, about the Budget resolutions that we voted on last night, and about this Bill in particular. It is really important that we stand by our record, our commitment to lowering taxes on income, and our ambition to go further.

This will be a debate—I have no doubt about that. I have stood in this Chamber before saying that we should go further on tax reforms, and I believe that. I have even suggested previously that we look at merging NI and income tax, and previous Conservative Governments have looked at that as well. As all Members know, including Opposition Front Benchers, it is not straightforward; it is complicated, and some of the points that have been raised today indicate why. However, I believe that we have to continue on this pathway. Without recapping the Budget debate that we have had in recent days, it contains important fiscal measures that mean that the public will be better off, including the fuel freeze, but the direction of travel is also important. Treasury Front Benchers hear a lot from me and other Members about this issue, and I know they would like to go further in reducing the tax burden. They know my personal views on public spending, which I believe is far too high right now and needs addressing, but we also need to think about long-term reform.

If I may, I will touch on the ambition expressed by the Chancellor to end the double taxation on jobs, and the suggestion that national insurance is either phased out or subject to reform. I have been a long-standing campaigner for lower and simplified taxes, and I am on the record as having even looked in the past at a merger. George Osborne looked at that during his chancellorship, as did the Office of Tax Simplification—that is well documented and on the record. Although those plans were not taken forward because of the complexities I have touched on, it is important that those debates continue, because we need to simplify our tax system in this country. As Conservatives, we must always look to do that; we must always stand up for not just lower taxes, but simplifying the tax system. I say that as the new tax year is due to begin, with people still getting letters from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. For businesses in particular, the burdens that they face and the complexities involved in tax returns are mind-blowing.

Both national insurance and income tax are taxes on income, and the thresholds at which they are both paid are now aligned at £12,500 per year. That is something that we need to look at—I have made that point before. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) touched on the contributory principle of national insurance as set out in the National Insurance Act 1911 and further measures following the second world war. Those measures were brought in to support health and medical benefits and unemployment benefits, and the receipts raised are paid into the national insurance fund investment account. That distinction in the way that national insurance is raised and dealt with, compared with other taxes—which end up in the consolidated fund—has stood the test of time. I think all Treasury Ministers, those on the Front Bench today and others, recognise that. That distinction is ingrained in the fabric of our tax system and the thoughts of many of our constituents.

We are now starting the debate about lower taxes and how we can simplify the tax system, and I genuinely believe that this is an important Bill. It is a very important signal in terms of supporting the self-employed and hard-pressed families around the country, and the Government’s direction of travel is very welcome. Through this debate, we are starting to provide a clear, distinct Conservative way forward and Conservative approach. We have had debates over the past week about high-tax, high-spending policies; those debates and discussions are not going to go away. Public spending is over £1.2 trillion. We have to be mature in the debates we have in this House, and about how as a Government we prioritise public investment but spend taxpayers’ money wisely. I am pleased that this Bill has been brought forward, and I hope it will start a positive direction of travel when it comes to reducing the overall tax burden on hard-pressed families.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I welcome the reduction in the tax on jobs. The level of overall taxation in our country is too high. The reason it is so high is primarily the huge expenditure the country, by general agreement, incurred to tackle the covid lockdown. This is why I find the Opposition’s criticism of this Government’s tax record so difficult to grasp. After all, they wanted us to lock down tougher and they wanted us to lock down for longer. While a lot of money was rightly offered by this Government to individuals and companies to replace their lost incomes —colossal expenditure on a scale we have never seen before—Labour wanted to spend more on those causes, as well as wanting the lockdown to go on for so much longer.

What we demonstrated was that if we lock down a country for a year or more, stop a very large number of people earning their livings or livelihoods at all, and close down a large number of companies for the duration and maybe for longer, it is an extremely costly process. Of course, we needed to offset that to prevent a complete collapse in the economy and to sustain some lifestyles for those who otherwise would have no income. So we as a nation have this burden of extra expenditure, which we are now having to tackle by tax levels that are higher than we like.

We are at this very important point where the higher taxes are all in place—some of them are doing their job, and some of them will disappoint because higher tax rates do not always deliver the extra revenue that Treasury and OBR planners seem to think they will—and the Government are rightly saying, from the autumn statement through this Budget and on to future fiscal events, as they are now called, that we want to get back to getting the level of taxation and the burden of the rates down. It does not mean that we want to reduce the amount of taxation—indeed, the Government, understandably, want to collect a lot more taxation, as do the Opposition—but the fundamental policy debate is about how best to do that, and it is surely right that we are going to have a more prosperous economy and more public expenditure can be afforded if we have tax levels that promote growth, particularly if we reduce the taxation that is otherwise a big burden on work, on enterprise and innovation, and on small companies and the self-employed.

I am delighted that the self-employed have been included in the national insurance cuts in both the autumn statement and this Budget, but I still think the Government need to reform or push back the changes they made to IR35. We have lost 800,000 self-employed over the covid period. Some of that is because of the damage the covid lockdown has done, but some of it is deliberate tax policy in telling people that they cannot be self-employed, or so undermining the credibility of their status as self-employed in the eyes of others that they do not get the contracts they used to get from businesses that are nervous about the tax issue.

I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to find time to look again at the second part of the self-employment package. I welcome the national insurance part, but I think we need to look at IR35, because we need that extra capacity. It would be good to get back some or all of those 800,000, and to add many new ones—younger ones—to that crucial army, because I am sure all Members in the House, being honest, would agree that the self-employed make such a valuable contribution in our constituencies.

[Priti Patel]

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that over the decades we have seen such a fall or drop-off in individuals starting their own business, younger people in particular, because of these concerns about the tax burden, how regulated it is and how difficult it is? By dealing with the whole long-standing issue of IR35, we could open up a new marketplace and encourage a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business leaders to come in and really help to grow the economy.

[John Redwood]

I largely agree with my right hon. Friend, but if we look at the numbers, I think the fall-off was from 2020 to 2024. Prior to that, with good Conservative policies and lower taxes, we were growing the self-employed army very noticeably, and it was making a very important contribution to general growth and the way all our local communities are serviced. It is so often self-employed people who allow us to make personal contact in a way that large companies do not seem to want any more. They are the people who turn up in the evening or at the weekend, if necessary, to get work done, and they are the people who wrestle with the increasingly impossible streets created by Labour and Liberal Democrat councils, which make it more difficult for them to get their vans around.

Wine Duty

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Will Quince]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to champion the cause of the Wine Society, which is based in his constituency. There is both a significant cost implication and an administrative burden for such organisations, so the impact of these changes should not be understated.

The easement that is set to end on 1 February 2025 will affect wine businesses ranging from major retailers such as the big supermarkets to specialist retailers such as Majestic. However, as my right hon. Friend has just alluded to, there are also thousands of independent wine merchants who have all said that having to implement fully the strength-based system would impose significant costs, running to many millions of pounds, both in the short term and once the necessary systems are established.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his great speech. We are constituency neighbours and he knows that it is not just wine merchants that will be affected but thousands of wine businesses across the UK. We have a strong and flourishing wine sector, but this regime has failed to meet one of the original key objectives that the Treasury sought to establish, which was to make the system easier to administer. Instead, unit labelling and ABV is putting a burden on producers and merchants, which means that they face pricing and cost implications. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is increasing red tape at a time when the Government should be doing much more to reduce it and ease the costs and the burdens of regulation for businesses?

[Will Quince]

My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right to raise that issue, and she has long championed cutting the red tape and bureaucracy that British businesses face. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) said, this unintended consequence means that business faces not just extra cost but the significant administrative burden that comes with cost and time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) is right to point out that the new system is not simpler or fairer and that it has a huge cost implication.

Coastal Tourism and Hospitality: Fiscal Support

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Selaine Saxby]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his contribution; it is as if we both speak to the same group! I agree entirely with his contribution, as I so often do. I am very keen that Devon hospitality businesses, right the way across and down the peninsula, can benefit, and that the Minister will hear our asks.

We cannot underestimate the pandemic’s impact on businesses. The hospitality sector came out of covid-19 heavily indebted. I hope that the financial sector can look at what more can be done to support hospitality businesses to repay their debts, which currently stand at £8 billion in bank debt and £2 billion in landlord debt. The pandemic harmed hospitality businesses and made their recovery much more difficult.

Although I warmly welcome the small business rate relief that was introduced in the autumn statement, which provided some support, up to two thirds of hospitality businesses find themselves excluded—not due to generating immense profits, but because they operate in larger premises in high-footfall areas. Consequently, the impending 6.7% rise in business rates and skyrocketing wage costs present a daunting prospect for the survival of many businesses.

While I applaud the Government’s commitment to creating a higher-wage economy, it is crucial to acknowledge the unique challenges faced by hospitality businesses, especially those based in coastal areas like my North Devon constituency, which are often small in scale, seasonal and working to tight margins. These businesses anticipate a 17% increase in staffing costs from April, with 98% of them expressing concern about how to manage the impact of the upcoming national living wage hike. Many of the businesses that should have benefited the most from the small business rate relief actually face wage rises in the hospitality sector that far exceed the business rate relief itself.

We are already seeing hospitality businesses contracting their hours and reducing the number of staff they employ or the hours that they work. Far too many of our pubs are now open at weekends only or cannot find chefs, so have some nights without food service, which reduces their profitability even further.

Although the national living wage hike was warmly welcomed by the hard-working teams who work across our hospitality businesses, it is a headache for business owners, who themselves frequently earn significantly less than the national living wage, due to the extensive hours they work and a reliance on their businesses’ ever- declining profitability to pay their wage. Far too many of our hospitality businesses face a crunch this April. Too many of the sums that we do up here rely on a 35-hour working week. Hospitality is a 24/7 business, and in remote coastal areas with low unemployment, such as my North Devon constituency, many members of staff are also much younger. The increase in the national living wage will hit those businesses particularly hard.

One key ask today is for a cut in the lower rate of employer national insurance contributions to 10% and consideration of increasing the threshold in order to share the burden of this policy between business and Government, but the biggest ask from my hospitality businesses across North Devon—I had the pleasure of chatting to many landlords in some of the fabulous pubs back home during the recess—is because their VAT burden is too high. In the hospitality sector, VAT is significantly higher than it is elsewhere in Europe, putting us at a competitive disadvantage. During covid, we saw huge success from the reduction in VAT for the hospitality sector. In that time, 70% of hospitality businesses benefiting from the VAT cut passed it on to consumers, in order to keep prices low. A hugely successful local pub shared its figures with me. With a turnover of just over £1 million, it is paying 25% in tax just in VAT and employment taxes. That is a quarter of a million pounds going to the Exchequer before payment of bills and wages, and payments to suppliers, are even considered.

Last year, we lost 3,000 hospitality venues in the UK, and I am concerned that if the Government do not take further action to share the burden of this tax cost, we may lose even more this year. Unfortunately, there is one recent case in my North Devon constituency; Broomhill Estate is closing due to VAT costs. I thank Alex Kleiner for all his work and for letting me know how much of an impact a reduction in VAT from 20% to 15% would have made to his business. I heard directly from Alex, a business owner, that there would have been three benefits: a reduction in absolute VAT; an impact on cashflow; and an uplift in footfall because of more attractive pricing, although that is harder to quantify. He said in

“4 out of the past 7 quarters 5% VAT reduction would have completely offset my electricity bill.”

Unfortunately, in this instance any changes to VAT will come too late for such an important landmark in North Devon.

Although I know that it is a big ask, I hope that the Treasury might again consider a reduction in the VAT rate for the hospitality and tourism sectors—to 12.5%—as that would help them to overcome the above inflation increases in tax and the national living wage, avoid further inflationary price spikes and unlock investment. The measure aligns with international standards, stimulating tourism and offering domestic tourists a more affordable alternative to travelling abroad. I am confident that not every publican and hotelier is wrong in telling me that this is the one measure that would help them the most. A cut—even a temporary one—would be a boost.

For so many coastal communities, their tourism industry has changed since the hotels were built in the Victorian era. Many have large properties that may not benefit from all-year-round occupation, particularly in those communities where swathes of the tourist attractions, shops and restaurants have closed for the winter because of the VAT threshold issue. Hospitality businesses rely on space to host people and therefore have larger premises in high-footfall areas. Businesses in the industry will often hit the upper rateable value band at a far lower turnover or profitability than others. The hospitality sector pays 2.5% of turnover on business rates, which is 10 times that of banks and insurers. I hope the Treasury is looking at the introduction of a cap on the increase in the large property business rates multiplier at 3% in England, aligning with the expected inflation rate in April. Additionally, I hope the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales pass on the benefits of that relief in full.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend, first, for securing the debate and secondly, for her compelling fiscal case for the reforms that, frankly, are essential. We have been here in recent weeks talking about the same thing. In addition to fiscal measures, does my hon. Friend agree that we need supply-side reforms for coastal communities? Many of our constituents in coastal communities feel isolated. She has spoken about labour market shortages. We need to make sure that we have public services, NHS doctors, education, employment and banking facilities in those communities that serve their purpose, make those places healthy and help them to thrive, therefore increasing the footfall for the hospitality trade as well as the employment market for hospitality.

[Selaine Saxby]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend that there are many asks for our coastal communities; I have spared the Minister the rest of mine this afternoon. While I am here, however, it would be remiss of me not to mention alcohol duty. The freeze on that duty at the autumn statement was welcome, but it does not directly help our much-loved pubs, which have reported significant price increases from brewers and other producers despite the freeze. A reduction in VAT would leave the choice to pass on and/or reinvest in the hands of the retailer and not with the multinational brewery in the case of alcohol. I have continuously supported the Campaign for Real Ale’s campaign, as it would play a crucial role in stopping our many vibrant pubs and hospitality businesses going under. Whatever the scheme, a reduction bringing us in line with the clear majority of our European neighbours—permanently or even temporarily—would be a lifeline for our hospitality venues.

While talking about great pubs, I will take the opportunity to highlight The Bell Inn at Chittlehampton, as well as Chittlehampton Village Shop, which serves excellent tea and cake; both are finalists in the Countryside Alliance awards, and voting is now open for anyone who would like to help them along.

The potential of the hospitality sector to contribute to economic growth cannot be overstated. UKHospitality’s economic evidence submitted to the Treasury outlines the conditions required for growth, estimating the creation of 500,000 new jobs by 2029 and an annual growth rate of up to 6%. I hope the Treasury will carefully examine the evidence and arguments presented, recognising the immense potential that the hospitality and tourism sector holds for the UK. By supporting the sector, we not only ensure the prosperity of businesses but contribute to increased tax revenues that fund essential public services.

I am hugely reassured to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire here today, as he has been to see us and understands so much more about our tourism and hospitality sector, particularly in remote coastal locations such as my beautiful North Devon constituency. I hope that may influence some of those critical Budget decisions.

Hospitality Sector: Fiscal Support

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) on securing a very important debate.

The tourism and hospitality sector in Essex is valued at just over £3.5 billion, and supports over 60,000 jobs. In the debate thus far, we have heard about the enormous contribution made by the sector across the United Kingdom. With the spring Budget approaching, it would be remiss of me not to make my representations to the Minister and His Majesty’s Treasury; I want to press the Treasury, and outline why further fiscal measures are needed in support of the hospitality sector and wider areas.

Across Essex, but specifically in my constituency, there is a strong case for lowering the tax burden on hospitality. We have already heard that is also the case for other parts of the country. We all have fantastic businesses in our constituencies; mine specifically has Colchester Zoo, the Langford Museum of Power, the Tiptree Tea Rooms—which most colleagues will know about—and many other venues, including a lot of hospitality and wedding venues, which did receive support from the Government throughout the pandemic. I pay tribute to those businesses because they have not only been resilient during the pandemic, but learned to adapt so that they can continue to grow and diversify.

Leisure businesses and attractions clearly suffer from volatility in the economy, and it is important that we do everything possible to support them, hence my modest call—and the collective modest call—for changes to the tax regime that we know would make the difference between businesses closing and surviving.

But although this is about surviving, it is also about thriving and growing; we already know about the impact on retail in our town centres and we have seen pressures in our local communities, but we need the sector to be vibrant and thriving. Central to that—and I make no apology to the Minister for saying that this is what we need—is a better labour market strategy. We have heard about labour shortages throughout this debate. I have been consistent, in my time not just in Parliament but in Government, in saying that I do not think it is right to associate or link our trade deals with automatic visas and some of the schemes proposed; I think we should have a better labour market strategy. We have to invest in the sector, grow the talent and pay people properly. We have a real epidemic of low wages in hospitality, and that is simply not good enough.

I would welcome the Government considering the whole issue of business rates, and I have also made representations on this previously. The freeze in the small business rates multiplier has been welcome, and I think it is vital, but we need a strategic, longer-term approach so that businesses can plan ahead, invest in the bricks and mortar of the properties they buy or lease, and look at how they can grow. With that, the 75% rates relief is welcome, but when reliefs of that size are removed, it clearly places seismic pressures on cashflows. We have to look at the sector from a basic day-to-day perspective and think about what this means for cash flows. Hospitality businesses operate with very tight margins, and they are having to absorb so many costs that they automatically pass on to their customers. I know that the Minister and the Treasury have heard me speak about this issue before, but we really need to look at it.

The case for reducing VAT has been made very clearly and I support it; we have seen so many issues around VAT levels, and their impact on hospitality and tourism. I absolutely support the case made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for reducing VAT on shopping and tourism; there is really big argument for that. VAT is complex and we need to do much more to simplify our tax system, as the Minister has heard me say many times. We need a tax system that supports tourism and hospitality.

I am a great believer in encouraging overseas visitors to our amazing country—more so than perhaps other countries in the world. In Essex, we are always open for business, and one of our prized assets is of course Stansted airport. I praise its 24% growth in passenger numbers last year to nearly 28 million. It has massive and exciting expansion plans—I have also always supported expansion at Heathrow airport—and should be commended for supporting employment and apprenticeships. We need our airports to attract more tourism not just to Essex but to Britain; this is about the health and wellbeing of our country. I am therefore making the case to the Minister and pressing the Government yet again to re-examine their approach to tax-free shopping for overseas visitors, and to duty free at arrivals and air passenger duty—there is a long-standing argument in that regard. The case for tax-free shopping has been made many times in this Chamber and the main Chamber, and it will bring in huge dividends.

It is important to reflect, with the spring Budget coming up—that is why we are having this debate and everyone is making representations. I genuinely believe in making changes, as they could result in another £4 billion into our economy on the shopping side of things, but the principle of cutting tax and reducing the tax burden is also one of the most effective ways in which we can grow and support the hospitality sector, and that means more growth and more sustainability.

I urge the Minister and the Chancellor to take the maximalist approach—using the fiscal levers at their disposal to really support these businesses across all constituencies of the United Kingdom. They are the backbone of our economy and many of our communities, so of course we want them to thrive and grow.

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

We now come to Front-Bench speakers, who have around 10 minutes each, which should allow the sponsoring Member to sum up at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

The Minister mentioned UKHospitality and Kate Nicholls and the way they have come together. Clearly, there are problems with labour markets in the hospitality sector, and there have been for many years—it is not a new phenomenon. What are the barriers to UKHospitality and the Treasury working together to create a labour market strategy for the hospitality sector?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Again, these are ongoing conversations across multiple Government Departments. In my former capacity as tourism Minister, I certainly had extensive conversations. There were sub-working groups at UKHospitality identifying areas for further work. That has had some impact, including through apprenticeship schemes. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to highlight this issue. We have debated Brexit, which probably goes slightly beyond the current remit, although I understand the impact—and, by the way, the opportunities that come from that. My right hon. Friend is right that we need to focus on the domestic skills agenda. The hospitality and leisure sector contributes to one in five new jobs, so it is absolutely pivotal to that.

If hon. Members will forgive me, I will try to get through some of my speech—and not try your patience too much, Ms Bardell—because I am not even on page 1 yet.

Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2023

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 General Committees

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend has embarrassed me, because he just summarised my eight pages of notes in one paragraph. He is absolutely correct. If we do not do this, hundreds of thousands of businesses across the country—those with a rateable value of between £15,000 and £51,000—would effectively have to pay far higher rates than they otherwise would, and that is the core purpose of the discussion today. I should probably sit down there, but I will carry on just a little bit for the edification of others who probably do not get the principles as keenly, enthusiastically and quickly as my hon. Friend.

The secondary purpose of the regulations is to extend the scope of the small business multiplier to include unoccupied properties, charities and properties on the central list—which I will explain in a moment—with a rateable value below £51,000 and which do not currently receive full rates relief. This will level the playing field for all types of properties, promoting consistency in the system; in other words, it is a simplification. Those properties that move to the small business multiplier for the first time will also receive a tax cut worth around £5 million in total per year.

Hon. Members may appreciate a very brief reminder of the business rates multiplier and what it is. The multiplier is the tax rate used to calculate business rates. The relevant multiplier is multiplied by the yearly rental value of a property, known as rateable value, to calculate its business rates bill before any reliefs are applied. As I have mentioned, there are two multipliers in operation—the small business multiplier and the standard multiplier. The legislative default is for both multipliers to rise by consumer price index inflation each year, but the Government took action at autumn statement 2023 to freeze the small business multiplier for the fourth consecutive year, protecting over 1 million ratepayers from an increase in bills.

The regulations must be made as a result of the passing of the Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 in October.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend acknowledge that these regulations, and the overarching principle on business rates that he is leading, are helping to secure more jobs in our communities, particularly in constituencies like Witham, where small and medium-sized businesses are at the forefront, with a presence on the high streets, recruiting and employing people? That is, of course, vital to our economic health and wellbeing.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. I know, and have experienced in many debates, what a champion she has been for small businesses, including in her constituency. She is absolutely right: we want to ensure that the tax level is appropriate but not overly burdensome. Some reliefs that we have given in retail, hospitality and leisure over the past years have been precisely to ensure that such businesses can operate on a level playing field, operate efficiently, and create jobs, economic activity and the all-important tax revenues that we need for a sustainable economy. At the heart of the matter is business success and jobs—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right—and that is what this Government are laser-focused on delivering.

The Non-Domestic Rating Act implemented important reforms to the business rates system, which were announced following the 2020 business rates review. The headline measure of the Act was more frequent revaluations. It also introduced a new improvement relief for those who raise the value of their properties through qualifying improvements and several other measures. Most relevant to this debate, the Act made a series of changes to the administration of the business rates multiplier to streamline and improve the system. One such change granted the Government the power to set the threshold for which properties pay which multiplier in secondary legislation; and as these new reforms will come into force from the 2024-25 financial year, the Government must bring forward these regulations in order to maintain the threshold for which properties pay which multiplier at its existing level: £51,000 rateable value.

If the regulations were not passed, the small business multiplier would instead only apply to businesses in receipt of small business rates relief, which would constitute a tax hike for hundreds of thousands of businesses whose properties have a rateable value of between £15,000 and £51,000—exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay.

The regulations also widen the eligibility for the small business multiplier, including unoccupied properties, charities and central list properties within its scope for the first time. That brings those properties in line with occupied properties, maintaining consistency across the entire system. The proposal to bring unoccupied properties and charities within the small business multiplier was initially made in the technical consultation following the business rates review, and the Government committed to the change in the summary of responses to that document in March 2023. To promote consistency, we have decided to bring properties on the central list—the centrally managed list of properties that span multiple local authorities areas, including, for example, utilities pipelines—within the scope of the small business multiplier. There are a relatively small number of such properties, but we believe this point of consistency is important.

What this instrument does therefore is very simple: the regulations continue and extend Government policy, setting the threshold for which all property types pay the small business rates multiplier at below £51,000, unless they are subject to full relief. Properties of £51,000 or above will be subject to the standard multiplier. In short, the regulations will largely maintain the status quo for the vast majority of ratepayers. The £51,000 threshold will remain where it has been for the past six years. The regulations will ensure continuity under the legislative reforms made by the Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023, and I therefore commend them to the Committee.

Finance Bill

Priti Patel Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I praise and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on bringing forward the Bill. As we have previously discussed, it will implement the important measures set out in the autumn statement.

We have already debated some of the key measures that were included in the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill, which was considered in the other place yesterday. I do not want to go over the arguments on fiscal drag and lower taxes, as I have set out my views previously, but I commend the Government for bringing forward those measures quickly and in the right way, as they will go some way to easing the tax pressures the public are feeling.

My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are well versed in my views on the tax burden, so I will not go on about how about I feel about that or measures we can bring in going forward. However, I would like to press them to ensure that we think about long-term provisions and that the next Finance Bill goes further by raising thresholds for income tax, including for higher-rate taxpayers, and for national insurance.

It is worth noting that in the Budget after the general election of summer 2015, the then Chancellor outlined plans to increase the tax-free threshold to the equivalent of 30 hours’ pay at the national living wage. The new £11.44 national living wage rate for 2024 commences in April, so if the tax-free threshold rose to cover 30 hours per week next year, that would equate to £17,000 to £18,000, rather than remaining at £12,570 through to 2028, as currently planned. I press my right hon. Friends to keep that under review—thankfully, all tax measures are under review—and to prioritise uplifts to those thresholds, because we believe in enabling people to keep more of their earnings.

At the same time, when we see GDP figures not growing as fast as they could, as we have today, it is important to focus on how we can grow the economy much more, and with that people’s incomes. We want to see more growth in those GDP figures, but they represent the impact of high interest rates and what they mean for inflation. High interest and inflation have placed a burden on businesses and households. The Bill outlines reductions in business taxation that are well timed and well placed but, as ever, they need to be kept under review. Businesses grow the economy by employing more people, which helps economic growth, and that is the space where we, as a Government and a country, want to be.

It will not surprise my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I wish to speak to certain clauses, as I have spoken about clauses on business taxes in the past. I want to focus on the provisions in clause 21 and schedule 12 of the Bill, on pillar two and the global minimum corporation tax measures that we are adopting. I have been on record about this previously, but the Minister is also well aware of my long-standing concerns over the implementation of pillar two measures. Binding ourselves to pillar two undermines our fiscal sovereignty and risks deterring investment into our country. I labour this point because we have just seen the publication of our GDP growth forecasts. Obviously there will be revisions in our growth forecasts, even by financial institutions, and we should be mindful of that, but this measure undermines our competitiveness. It is known that some 130 countries have signed up to pillar two, but, unlike the UK, barely a quarter of them are implementing it at the end of the year. Given our economic backdrop and GDP forecasts, I would rather see a delay in the implementation of this measure.

A written parliamentary answer earlier this month shows that just 30 countries are implementing this measure at the same time as we are. They will be followed by Japan in April, and then Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Hong Kong and Singapore from January 2025. We also know that the US, our big economic ally, is not likely to implement the measure, so by pressing ahead with this fiscal measure, we are basically limiting the scope that we give ourselves—oxygen, basically—to develop and grow.

When the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 went through Parliament last year, it contained more than 150 clauses, which were spread over two parts, with a further five schedules, covering 170 pages in total. Many of us remember carrying those weighty tomes into the Chamber and flicking through all the pages. There was a large and complex change in tax laws. But despite that legislation being passed in the summer, this Bill makes even further changes to pillar two and the domestic top-up levels. Clause 21 and schedule 12, which cover those changes, span 55 pages and include multiple amendments to the Finance (No. 2) Act passed only a few months ago. I recall saying that the amendments alone would generate more complexity to the system. I say politely to those on the Front Bench that the 55 pages here point to the complex nature of the matter. The fact that we are amending something that went through the House not that long ago says it all.

No impact assessment has been provided of these measures, which give effect to the accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2023. Companies and partnerships will be impacted by the changes coming into effect in less than three weeks’ time, even though the Bill will not receive Royal Assent until next year. We must be cognisant of the burdens that we are again putting on businesses. I am no fan of accountants, but by putting more burdens on to businesses, we are increasing their dependency on accountants and on process, which we should be freeing them from. I ask the Minister to provide us with further details as to why these changes are needed when the previous Finance Act was passed only earlier this year, and with an impact assessment of them.

I would like to understand the merits of the global minimum income tax, and I hope that, in the same way that all tax is under review, Ministers will consider removing all the provisions from our statute book in due course, because other countries will not follow suit or are delaying implementing some of these measures.

I wish to comment on clause 2, relating to research and development tax credits. It merges the current R&D expenditure credit with the small and medium-sized enterprises scheme. These tax credits help and support businesses to invest and take risks, and, importantly, to innovate and grow, set up jobs and employ people. I have previously raised the concerns that some businesses have about the complexity of claiming them and the processes that they experience. I am aware of many businesses that have spent more than a year having their claims investigated, with multiple rounds of questions and inquiries from HMRC officials. There are many live cases, which I will not reflect on now, but previous Treasury Ministers have committed to hold discussions on them.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. In Staffordshire, which is a manufacturing powerhouse, R&D tax credits are vital in driving productivity in manufacturing businesses. Does she agree that it would be good to hear those on the Front Bench make a commitment to reviewing and slimming down that scheme, so that it actually gets those small businesses embracing it and getting the investment that we need?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. The scheme was set up for a very good reason, which is, effectively, to support entrepreneurism and innovation and to grow businesses. Now we are seeing those businesses saddled with bureaucracy and burdens. What is worrying is the number of small businesses that have been under investigation by HMRC for over a year, as that is now having a detrimental impact on their performance. As a representative not just of Witham, but of Essex as a whole, I can see businesses that have now come together to make wider representations to HMRC and the Treasury about that. I hope that those on the Front Bench will learn from some of these experiences and look at how we can evolve and adapt the process, so that the scheme can revert back to its original premise of supporting businesses. As I have said many times, the only way is Essex. Essex is a county of entrepreneurs and they are the ones who are feeling the pressures.

In his summing up, will the Minister outline the operational aspect of these changes? In particular, what interactions is he having with HMRC about some of the cases that have been under investigation for more than a year, and the impact that that is having on those smaller businesses? At the end of the day, they are SMEs that are not able to grow their businesses because of these inquiries and investigations. Naturally, that has an impact on the profits that they can then reinvest in their businesses.

I also wish to make a few comments on air passenger duty and the provisions in clause 24. Many of us in this House have spoken about air passenger duty for many years. I have been a long-standing campaigner for reform of this tax to encourage and support economic growth. It is ironic that we are having this debate on a day when the GDP figures have come out as they have. I believe in globalisation—in the sense of more global competition—and in our being more open to the world when it comes to those global dynamic markets.

We should also make travel more competitive and affordable for families, especially as they are struggling with the impact of the cost of living. Reforms that have taken place under previous Conservative Chancellors have been welcome. I query the small increase in the APD rates for 2024-25 in the Bill. Back in the summer, in his speech on net zero, the Prime Minister pledged to scrap plans for new taxes on flying, but the Bill provides for an increase in APD rates, ranging from 50p to £6 per flight. Although they are small increases, they are still increases. They are lower than the rate of inflation planned for and assumed in previous Government statements and OBR forecasts, which is to be welcomed. Therefore, any clarification on what is happening with APD going forward is welcome. Again, that is important for certainty and also for forecast purposes.

On the subject of air travel, I am disappointed that the autumn statement and this Finance Bill do not contain reforms to end the so-called tourism tax. I was one of the few Members to speak on that during the Humble Address debate. If we look at London, our great city, we can see that, at this time of the year, it is a magnet for tourism and for people coming from overseas. It is great for our businesses, great for our country and great for our brands—our British brands and our small brands. Our tourism sector and shopping and retail businesses are losing out to their European competitors as a result of the removal of the VAT refund and the VAT-free shopping and arrangements that had previously been in place. I think that we can reintroduce those measures. In the last debate, those on the Front Bench committed to looking at dynamic modelling in this area, and some external reviews of the potential revenue base. It would be a boost for business and jobs, and we should be looking at all measures to boost economic growth and competition. There are plenty of reports and studies out there. I do not want to labour the point; I know that those on the Front Bench will be aware of them.

It is winter, and we are heading towards a spring fiscal statement. Since 2010, the Government have consistently kept fuel duty down, cutting and freezing rates. This is an opportune moment to remind the public what the Government have achieved on that alone, because it is very important. Families, businesses and households depend upon it, and I very much hope that we will continue to stand up for the measures that we have put in place historically. I urge the Government to commit to maintaining the 5p reduction, and perhaps even to go further where there is fiscal headroom. Finding fiscal headroom is difficult, but sometimes—I say this as a former Treasury Minister—it can be found when we really look for it.

As the Bill passes through the House and is subject to further scrutiny, I know that my colleagues on the Front Bench and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is dedicated to dealing with the difficult fiscal challenges that we face, will be focused on unleashing future growth by reducing taxes and, importantly, empowering the very businesses that employ people and keep people in their jobs for long-term economic security.