Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Hayes Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I was at Primark just ahead of the Budget, where we announced that we were going to take action on low-value imports. That was welcomed by Primark and many other retailers who are undercut by foreign importers that do not pay customs duty on what they bring into the country. Far from working against business, we are working in conjunction with business to grow our economy. Our economy exceeded expectations for growth last year, and I am confident that it will do the same this year too.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Conservatives may want to talk down Britain, but Bournemouth is building again, with a £350 million expansion at J. P. Morgan Chase following the Chancellor’s visit, a £100 million expansion planned by AFC Bournemouth, a £50 million airport upgrade, £26 million invested in Bournemouth and Poole College, £500 million provided for the Royal Bournemouth hospital development, and new land at Wessex Fields to build key worker housing and medical research facilities. Will the Chancellor continue to prioritise stability, bringing down costs, and the free trade that we need in our world, so that we can continue to protect and expand these investments into Bournemouth?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He did not mention the beautiful Bournemouth pier, which we visited together in August and where we enjoyed a very nice ice cream, but he did mention J.P. Morgan, which has announced record investment in its Bournemouth campus. It is employing a shedload of apprentices on that campus, helping it to grow its business, and after this year’s Budget, J. P. Morgan has announced a new building in Canary Wharf. [Interruption.] Maybe Opposition Front Benchers do not like apprentices, but this Government do, which is why we are backing them.
Business Rates
Tom Hayes Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Tomlinson
We have changed the tax rates, the multipliers, within the system so that a typical high street business may now pay 38p in the pound and an online retail giant may pay 51p in the pound on their rateable values. That is a significant underlying reform to the tax system that is here for good.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Business rates are complicated, and this new methodology particularly so. Businesses were always going to be in touch with MPs, and in our democracy we were going to talk it through with the Government to get to a better place. Today’s announcement shows that our democracy works and that representation works. I thank the hospitality sector business owners in Bournemouth East who have constructively engaged with me to get to that better place. We also, in this House, need to put party politics aside and recognise that business owners put their hearts and souls, and their blood, sweat and tears, into building something better. We all need to commit to doing something better on their behalf. Will the Minister continue to engage with me, on behalf of all hospitality, so that we can get the very best deal for them, and not just now but for the future?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement, persistence and advocacy on behalf of the businesses in his constituency. I know that he has had many conversations with businesses in his constituency, and he has been able to feed them directly to me as the Minister with responsibility for tax. I am sure that we will continue to have such conversations in the months and years to come.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Hayes Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Let us be clear: nobody’s business rate bills are trebling. If businesses come to talk to us about increases in their rateable values because of the unwinding of the effect of the pandemic, it is important that all of us, on both sides of the House, are clear that the Government have put in support to ensure that pubs and those that have seen their values go up will not see increases next year. If the pubs rateable value is more than £100,000, they will be capped at a 30% increase. If it is less, they will be capped at 15% or £800. That is £4 billion of support that this Government are providing.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
An independent and effective OBR is critical for our country, but it needs to do better. Why can the OBR not count? Why can it not forecast accurately, given that the economy grew 50% faster than it had predicted in March? Why can it not even publish the Budget document without making a dog’s breakfast of it? Is it not time for the OBR to properly price pro-growth measures and get behind our growth mindset?
James Murray
I can be clear that we are committed to the OBR’s independence as a forecaster and to the core role it plays within our fiscal framework. The Chancellor has also been clear, however, that forecasts are not our destiny. We will not let Britain be held back by the failures of the previous Government. At the Budget, the OBR revised upward its growth estimate for this year, and we are determined to exceed forecasts again.
OBR: Resignation of Chair
Tom Hayes Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
The OBR set out in black and white that the productivity downgrade reduced tax receipts by £16 billion, and identified the cause of that downgrade as the previous Government’s record in office, whether their slashing of public investment or their mishandling of Brexit. In her speech on 4 November, the Chancellor was clear that this productivity downgrade, combined with the clear need to increase headroom to build resilience in the public finances, would require everyone to make a contribution. That is what happened at the Budget.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was disappointed, as were my constituents, by the botched and premature release of the Budget on the OBR website, and I welcome the news that the OBR is welcoming in an expert in cyber-security. I sincerely hope that it is not the Leader of the Opposition—who, as we know, has form with accessing websites improperly. After all, the Conservatives really could not do without her.
My question is about the cyber-security expert reporting back. When do the Government expect to hear back, and can we be assured that, in the interim, the OBR has got its security systems into the shape they need to be in?
James Murray
The Government take this matter very seriously indeed and will move urgently to take forward that recommendation of the report, working with the National Cyber Security Centre. Cyber-security is an important matter for the OBR, and indeed for all Government Departments and bodies all year round, but the forecast is especially market sensitive, so it is particularly important to ensure that it is not published prematurely. That is why we take so seriously what happened last week, what seems to have happened in the spring, and what may even have happened at previous fiscal events.
Taxes
Tom Hayes Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head—our motion probably does not fit the narrative that he is looking for.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland just said that neither he nor I know what is in the Budget. While that is technically correct, the Government have been flying many kites about what will be in this Budget, pretty much since the summer—more kites than Mary Poppins—and I think that gives us some indication of what will be in the Budget. As has been said, that has caused great uncertainty and worry. Businesses are either deciding not to invest because they are so worried about what will happen, or delaying investment decisions because of the Budget.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I would like to quote the chief executive of the CBI, who says:
“Scrapping the Climate Change Act would be a backwards step in achieving our shared objectives of reaching economic growth, boosting energy security, protecting our environment and making life healthier for future generations.”
The chief executive of Energy UK says:
“Treating the Climate Change Act as a political football is a surefire way to scare off investors.”
Does the hon. Gentleman support his party leader’s objective of scrapping the Climate Change Act 2008, given that these two respected authorities say that doing so would damage investment in our economy?
Gregory Stafford
I do not think I have mentioned the Climate Change Act, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. I think what my constituents want—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, and he is barracking me before I have even had a chance to answer. My constituents tell me that they want green policies and sensible moves to reduce carbon and pollution, but they do not want them to hobble our economy and hit them in their pockets at a very difficult time when they are being taxed to death by the Government. The owners of Rutland London in my constituency spoke to me about the Government’s much-vaunted policy paper “Backing your business: our plan for small and medium-sized businesses”, which came out recently. They said that the plan “while promised to cut red tape, lacks delivery details, relies on third-party co-operation, and depends on enforcement rather than details, plans or even an outline, none of which have been set out to us.” Once again, we have another supposedly amazing thing that this Government have done, but businesses do not want it.
During the general election, Labour told the public that it would not raise taxes—it said that 41 times. Then, as we have heard, the Government raised taxes to raise £40 billion. At that point we could have had a sensible discussion about how we were going to reduce the size of the state, reduce inefficiencies and increase productivity, but we had none of those discussions. Essentially, we had a tiny change to welfare, which this Government, because of their Back Benchers, could not get through.
While I disagree with the Labour Back Benchers on that, I am asking them now to find the backbone that made them stand up to their Front Bench last time and to do so again. If the Chancellor comes to this House and raises taxes on working people, I ask them to find that backbone and vote against the tax rise. Their constituents will thank them, and the country will thank them.
In the minute or two I have left, I want to focus on local leadership. I think it is incumbent on us as local leaders to meet and listen to constituents and businesses. That is why I am running a business roundtable next week, and I am very grateful that the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), is coming to speak at it. I recommend speaking to businesses not just because we are local leaders, but because Members on the Labour Benches would learn something. They would learn that their constituents are not in favour of this.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made some reference to our constituencies not being the same, but I can tell him that in my constituency, as I am sure is the case in his, there are business owners suffering, families struggling, farmers worried about what they will do with their taxes and small businesses that will be broken up because of this Government’s tax. There are also thousands upon thousands of people who have either lost their job or will not get into employment because of what this Government have done.
It is time for this Government to act—stop tinkering, stop the gimmicks, and stop punishing hard-working families and small businesses. This country deserves more than promises. It deserves action, certainty, and a Government who are on the side of those who work, innovate and contribute every day. What we need from the Chancellor in two weeks’ time is a Budget that actually invests in growth, supports jobs, protects household incomes and cuts the red tape on businesses that I described earlier.
I urge the Minister to take this opportunity seriously and ensure that the Chancellor and the Government listen to their constituents and my constituents and produce a Budget that restores confidence, ambition and hope in this nation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Hayes Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
How will the Government help to fund the green infrastructure that we need, as through the coastal energy partnership that I helped to set up in Bournemouth, with Great British Energy taking on early stage project development and the National Wealth Fund making those critical long-term investments?
James Murray
Through our investments in the National Wealth Fund, Great British Energy, the British Business Bank and UK Export Finance, we are using every lever the Government have to support businesses to thrive—in stark contrast with the previous Government, which left them high and dry.
Stamp Duty Land Tax
Tom Hayes Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Ashley Fox
That is another valuable point. This tax cut benefits not just the housing market but the jobs market, and therefore the whole economy. Our politics ought to empower people, not load them with additional burdens. This is an important measure for young people, because, as we acknowledge, they face higher costs and more competition for housing than their parents did.
To be credible, we must explain how we will pay for this measure. That is a valid question, and, unlike some parties in this place, we will not make promises without a plan for delivery. The measure is possible as part of a wider package of economic reform, spending discipline and growth creation. The Government were elected on a policy of “going for growth”, yet everything that they do seems designed to bring about the opposite. A jobs tax makes it more expensive to employ people; higher business rates make it more expensive to conduct business in a property; the changes in agricultural and business property relief—increasing inheritance tax—reduce investment by family businesses; and the Employment Rights Bill makes it more expensive, time-consuming and difficult to employ people. The Government have turned on the spending taps and levied record levels of tax, while at the same time implementing measures that increase unemployment and make Britain less competitive. Every Labour Government has led to higher unemployment, and it is deeply regrettable that in every month since the general election, unemployment has risen. I do not think that the Government are malevolent; they simply have no clue about how business works.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Conservative party’s position on the green economy is now to remove some of the support for it. Figures show that the green economy is growing by around 10%; it is fuelling job creation and often provides better-paid jobs. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is in the economy’s interests to cut the legs out from underneath the green economy?
Sir Ashley Fox
Well, I am amazed to hear that the real economy is growing by 10%. That must be a forecaster I have not heard of! We believe it is possible to cut welfare spending. In fact, a few months ago, the hon. Gentleman’s party believed it was possible. The Government put forward a modest proposal to reduce welfare spending by £5 billion, which had our support, yet, unfortunately, at the first whiff of rebellion, the Chancellor caved. That shows that the Government have no idea how finance works, how business works or how confidence works. They undermined their credibility by being unable to undertake even the smallest reform.
We can announce the abolition of stamp duty because we have promised to put Britain on a different track. Our golden rule means that, for every pound we make in savings, half will go on reducing the deficit and paying down our debts. We will reduce spending by £47 billion a year, and have announced plans to do so. About half of that will come from cutting the welfare bill, including stopping the ballooning bill for Motability cars for those with mild mental health issues. Some £8 billion of savings will come from reducing the civil service to the size it was before the pandemic. We will save money by closing asylum hotels, reserving other benefits to UK nationals, and coming to a more credible position on net zero.
By taking those tough choices, we can cut taxes and help the economy. We estimate that abolishing stamp duty will cost £9 billion, which is set against the savings we have outlined. By pledging to remove it, we are signalling that we believe in growth, in enterprise and in enabling every citizen to build their future.
Property Taxes
Tom Hayes Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Once again, the Government are showing that they do not understand and do not value pensioners and the sacrifice that they have made. Everyone—pensioners, farmers and business owners—is seen as a cash cow for this Government.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Conservative Government raised taxes 25 times in the last Parliament. How many of those tax rises did the hon. Gentleman oppose?
Gregory Stafford
I do not want to correct the hon. Gentleman, but I was not here to oppose or support any of them. I gently remind him—I use the word “gently” because I know that the Minister loves the word “gently”, so I have used it twice now—that there was a pandemic that had to be dealt with, and that had to be funded. There was a war in Ukraine, and dealing with that had to be funded. As we have gone back in history a bit, let me add that we also had to deal with the deficit that the last Labour Government left us. That is the reality of the situation.
Taxes
Tom Hayes Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I can make a very short speech today, Madam Deputy Speaker, because my right hon. Friend, the shadow Chancellor, in his brilliant speech at the beginning of this debate, set things out so clearly. There are common themes running through both Opposition debates today. The first is that the Government have lost control of expenditure and the second one, which I want to develop very briefly, is that the Executive have failed to listen with appropriate care to what people in this House have said.
On the first of these points, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said in an eloquent intervention just a few minutes ago that the Government need to work out how to fix last week’s fiasco with the welfare Bill. Far from saving money, this is virtually now another spending measure. It is important to remember that as the former Chancellor my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) set out clearly, had we been successful in winning the last election, we would have reduced the number of working-age welfare recipients to pre-covid levels, thus saving £49 billion by the end of this Parliament.
The reason I focus on this welfare issue is that it is welfare expenditure with which this Government must get to grips, and they have failed to learn the lessons of the past. I was a very junior welfare Minister in what was then the Department of Social Security between 1995 and 1997. I learned two very important rules, which this Government would do well to consider. On both, it is clear that welfare reform is extremely difficult. The first is that we cannot take away from poor people benefits that they are already receiving. I think I am right in saying that no Conservative Government have ever reduced disability benefits in payment. But Labour did not absorb that vital lesson, which is why they got into so much trouble last week.
The second rule is that if a Government want to reduce the benefits bill, there are only really two ways of doing it. The first is to freeze the level of benefits; that has been done in the past, and it means not falling into the trap that the Government fell into last week. The second is to narrow the gateway into those benefits for future recipients. I urge the Government to absorb these important rules, because they will have to return to the issue of welfare expenditure if they are to make any progress at all on the economy.
I hugely praise the rebellion last week by Labour Back Benchers. They have hopefully taught the Executive a most useful lesson: listen to Back Benchers with respect and close attention. As a former Chief Whip, however, I deprecate rebellions unless I am involved in them. It usually takes years for the Executive to get into the habit of treating their Back Benchers with contempt and derision as unelected Downing Street special advisers strut up and down Whitehall, but this lot—this Government —managed to accomplish it extraordinarily quickly. They have learned the hard way not to treat their Back Benchers and elected Members with so little respect.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Since working at Oxfam and campaigning for tax justice, I have admired the right hon. Gentleman’s work. Were the Conservative party to listen to him, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), it could find its way back to a centrist position, which would be of benefit to our country. Will he acknowledge that this Government had a difficult inheritance; that since we came to power, we have faced a changed world, with tariffs, trade wars, sluggish global growth, rising authoritarianism and democratic backsliding; and that as a result, this Government have a harder job? Will he acknowledge that, so we can start to think about how we take forward shared improvements?
Sir Andrew Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman brings me elegantly to my final point. Having praised Labour Back Benchers and encouraged them to speak out, my one ask is that they now stand up for the election pledge, clearly set out in their manifesto, to restore development spending to 0.7%. I ask them to show the same zeal and enthusiasm as they did on welfare for bringing back the 0.7%. Inexplicably and astonishingly, their Prime Minister has cut the figure from the 0.5% they, alas, inherited from us down to 0.3%, and it is already causing massive difficulties, of which the hon. Member, with his background in Oxfam, will be fully aware.
When the House comes back in September, I urge the hon. Member, particularly given his experience, to join other Back Benchers in saying to the Executive, “We will not put up with this. We said in our election manifesto that we would restore development spending to 0.7%, and in the same way that we showed the Government Front Benchers that they could not proceed as they planned with welfare, they cannot proceed as they plan to with development spending.” I urge Labour Back Benchers to ensure that this rethink takes place in the autumn, when the folly of what has happened will be even clearer.
Bradley Thomas
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is absolutely spot on. The message to the Government is clear: they cannot tax their way to prosperity.
Bradley Thomas
I will not; I have been generous with interventions.
More than half of business owners nationally are planning to, or have made, further cuts to staff numbers in response to increased employer national insurance contributions. In May, 109,000 jobs were lost in a single month. When we tax jobs out of existence, the fiscal rules are not merely stretched; they are shattered. The Chancellor will have either to break her campaign promises and raise taxes, or admit that her rules are broken. Either way, it means that working families and working people across the country will pay the price.
A fortnight ago, the Government rejected calls to protect those whose only income is the state pension from paying income tax. This retirement tax will hit 1 million of our lowest-income pensioners. This is not wealth; they are modest, often meagre incomes relied upon to heat homes, buy food and see a doctor. One in five single pensioners has no other income beyond the state pension and basic benefits, yet to fill a fiscal hole that they have created, the Government resist the plea of their most vulnerable citizens.
Bradley Thomas
I will not give way; I have been generous in taking interventions.
As the Chancellor grows increasingly desperate to save the sinking ship of her fiscal rules, there is now rumour of a wealth tax to compound the Government’s contempt for not only working people, but industry leaders and innovators. That is not conjecture. Only last week, Lord Kinnock said that Labour should be “willing to explore” such disastrous measures. Let us be honest: a wealth tax really means a tax on hard-working people. It means an attack on pensions and on people who have done the right thing and want a sense of fairness, and anyone who has accrued anything will pay the price.
Bradley Thomas
I have explained that I will not give way any further.
The nation deserves better. It deserves a Government who trust enterprise, rein in the bloated state and live within their means. I urge the House to support the motion and send a clear message: scrap the jobs tax, fix the welfare overburden, protect pensioners and give working Britain the honest, sensible Conservative growth plan it deserves.
John Glen
No, I will a bit of progress now. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, even though he did not give way to me earlier.
The Chancellor came to the Treasury Committee in November. She said, “We have now set the envelope for spending for this Parliament, and we will not be coming back for more tax increases or, indeed, more borrowing. We now need to live within the means that we have set ourselves in the Budget and in the allocations of those spending totals.” What has happened in a year? Of course, I recognise that events occur, and I have referred to those under the previous Government. They do present challenges, but the Labour party’s fundamental problem is understanding the effect of high burdens of tax on wealth creators and their motivation to employ people and to invest in the productive capacity of the economy—more jobs and more tax revenues from lower rates. This Government are saying that we can do a little bit more on national insurance; that we can just put a few more burdens of regulation; that the long-term capital investment of £190 billion will transform our economy.
However, what I hear from businesses in Salisbury—small or large—is that the motivation to grow a business, to employ more people, and to say that they are determined to do so because there are some rewards from that is rapidly diminishing. What we hear is speculation about which additional taxes will be imposed after the next three months. Today, Government Members have suggested equalisation of capital gains tax, a flat rate of pension relief, a wealth tax, or higher bands of council tax—although they may have been ruled out. The overall effect on top of what we have already had is for businesses to say, “I’m not going to do this anymore.” We have now had two consecutive months of negative growth. That may well continue, which is bad for everyone. It is bad for the capacity that we have as a country to invest in the transformation that we all seek to deliver on—some things we will agree on—and it is not sustainable if the Government do not recognise that businesses will not grow and expand if that tax level rises beyond a certain amount.
Tom Hayes
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way, particularly as I apparently did not give way to him. I did not realise that it was he who was trying to intervene on me, otherwise I would have given way.
I recognise what the right hon. Member is saying about covid. I think that as a country we have not yet come to the terms with the true impact of covid and we will not do so for a long time, because it still feels very near to us. As a new Member of this House, I take the point that we ought to understand the true impacts. The concern for me and perhaps for other colleagues is that by trying to focus only on covid, and not on the economic and fiscal impact of Liz Truss—I know that he was talking about the political impact—we will never learn the lessons of the Liz Truss moment, and we just do not want to lose sight of the lessons that can be learned.
John Glen
Absolutely. [Interruption.] I am told that I ought not to take any more interventions, but I will say that Liz Truss’s insight about the imperative for growth was right; we do need to look for growth. What she did not do was examine the conditions to do that in a way that the market could understand, and it had catastrophic effects.
We now have a Labour Government, and we now have working people being massively affected by tax changes. We have Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, saying that as a reaction to the national insurance changes, businesses have made changes to employment—that means firing people—and we have Paul Johnson downgrading growth prospects, alongside virtually every other independent analyst.
The winter fuel payments were an absolute disgrace. The changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief were put on my desk at every fiscal event, but one just has to say no, because they are the wrong thing to do. The political capital that has been lost by the Government and the damage to their reputation for their stewardship of the economy is catastrophic. I say to those on the Labour Benches that we are facing some really tough challenges as we approach the next Budget. The choices that this Government need to make on taxes will define their future. What happened last week was the worst possible situation.
Several times today we have been asked, “What would you do?” What we would have done and what we would do now is take a root-and-branch look at the welfare system to see what the Government should do. We would focus on the most vulnerable and look after them well. We would recognise that one of the legacies of covid is that the pathway into benefits has gone fundamentally wrong and the country cannot afford it. Unless we grip that major driver of costs for this country, we shall see taxes rise and rise to meet those iron-clad fiscal rules, and we will be in a spiral of decline.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Members across the House will be familiar with the winter of discontent. In 1979—the year our Chancellor was born—the Labour Government were at the behest of their union paymasters, and refuse piled up across the country. Fast-forward 46 years: we are a year into the Chancellor’s term of office, and we have before us a summer of anxiety. We have a long and seemingly hot summer ahead of us, with the spectre of impending taxes looming. In a desperate and flawed attempt to paper over the financial chasm of Labour’s own making, the Government are targeting the hard-working people they vowed to stand for.
What has happened in Labour’s first year in office? Well, my farmers are reeling from the raid on their cash-poor industry through changes to APR and BPR, national insurance and the withdrawal of the SFI, to name but a few. The Government ask them to diversify and invest in growing their business, while simultaneously taxing them for the privilege.
The Carrdus school in South Northamptonshire is closing as a direct result of the VAT raids and the national insurance rises. Families who work hard and invest in their children’s education have been punished. Students have been displaced, teachers have lost their jobs, and standards have been hit.
Hospitality owners have said they cannot risk expansion; they are just about surviving as it stands. This year alone, over 1,000 pubs across the UK have closed—220 since April. Beauty salons and hair industry businesses in my constituency have been calling me in because they cannot take on any more apprenticeships. If things continue as they are, there will, the British Hair Consortium says, be no apprentice starts in 2027. What a legacy for this Labour Government.
Pensioners in my constituency were hit first by the removal of the winter fuel allowance, and they now face the prospect of being taxed on their pension for the first time, which is also a terrible disgrace. We have learnt a crucial lesson after a year of this Government: they are the embodiment of the phrase, “Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.” They have had years in opposition to come up with a plan, and they have failed miserably. They keep asking us what we might do. Is that because they are seeking advice from the more fiscally prudent and wise side of the House?
Sarah Bool
I can certainly give you more.
The Minister and Government Members rarely want to listen, but I raise these points on behalf of my constituents, who have asked me to do this. I implore the Government: if they want growth, they must take this summer to think again about how to achieve it, or it will be an autumn of anguish.
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
Tom Hayes Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I spent a week in Leeds at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum, banging the drum for Bournemouth and the south-west to say that we are open for business with this Labour Government. Investors and builders are responding. They are encouraged by the pension, regulatory and planning reforms and by this infrastructure approach, but we need more investment. We have £1.6 million going into Bournemouth and Poole college, £500 million into two new NHS buildings and £230 million into water upgrades, but we need more. Will the Chief Secretary meet me and Dorset MPs to consider how we will take forward this place-based approach towards investment, so that Dorset can benefit?