Summer Jobs

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

Completely. There is even now a tax on the great British holiday, which impacts my hon. Friend’s constituency, Mr Speaker’s and many others. The overnight visitor levy, known as the holiday tax, threatens my hon. Friend’s area, just as it threatens Whitby, Scarborough, Blackpool, Bournemouth, the Norfolk coast and even my county in the Lincolnshire Wolds. The Government call it “modest”, but the seaside landlady who is struggling to fill her rooms calls it the difference between a season that works and one that does not. UKHospitality has warned that this tax means that consumers visiting destinations in England are charged double the tax of visiting Paris and 70% more than in Barcelona or Rome. In effect, the Government’s half a billion-pound holiday tax represents little more than a self-inflicted trade tariff on domestic breaks, driving holidaymakers overseas.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Is it not the truth that we have a Government who simply do not understand business? They think that they can squeeze and squeeze, tax and tax, legislate against and tangle up in red tape the very businesses that we need to drive our economy, get the growth that the Government say they want and provide jobs and opportunities for working people and young people. They simply do not get it.

[Gareth Davies]

The facts are there for all to see. As I was saying, it is vital that we support the business community, and that includes small businesses. So often the narrative is about large multinationals, but it is SMEs and small business owners who drive our country forward and employ people across the country, especially young people.

Another thing that businesses in this country are facing is the now infamous Employment Rights Act 2025, which has created so much red tape that the corner café has to focus on hiring a lawyer before it hires a waiter. The Government have laid down so many requirements for employers who need to move underperforming employees on. Indeed, their own law says that after six months, employees are protected from unfair dismissal, but I have to ask, where were these protections for the poor old Prime Minister, with whom they dispatched over a single weekend on WhatsApp? He got less probation than a probationary barista. It is one rule for the shop floor and another rule for the Labour Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I did not know the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) is the shadow Deputy Chief Whip, but there we are. If the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham is upset I am terribly sorry, but I think he was taking my words in the way that I intended them.

I am sure that we can all remember our first summer job. Mine was in a newsagent/sweet shop. Others might have been behind a bar, which is very common, or working in a hotel. Wimbledon takes on 280 14 to 17-year-olds as ball boys and girls every year, plus many more young people in its bars and hospitality venues. The Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which should bring £150 million of extra investment into the city, will take on more than 3,000 volunteers and hundreds of temporary staff. The Edinburgh festivals will take on even more young people working across all the different events.

In tourism hotspots across the country, from Margate to Harrogate to Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate in York, in Bath, Stratford-upon-Avon, the Lake district, the Peak district and on the Jurassic coast, youngsters will be earning a wage for the very first time. That is a really important part of their social and personal development. We all know how important such jobs are to the whole economy. As several hon. Members have said already, getting their first experience of work teaches young people about the need to turn up on time, to look somebody in the face and engage with them, and to understand the rigours of work and stay until the end of the day.

The tourism industry meets domestic and international demand. We are still ambitious: we want to get to 50 million international visitors to the UK by 2030. Hospitality offers young people the chance to go from having no qualifications or experience to skilled staff member faster than any other sector in the UK, which is why it is so important.

[Wendy Morton]

If the situation is so rosy, will the Minister explain why youth unemployment among 16 to 17-year-olds is currently running at a staggering 30%—up from 24.7%?

[Chris Bryant]

I never said that the situation was all rosy; I said earlier that I am completely not complacent about the situation. I know the problems facing young people going into work that have been endemic in our economy for the last 15 to 20 years. A Conservative Member—I am sorry that I cannot remember who—asked earlier, “Isn’t university a fraud on young people?” Of course, it is really important to strike a balance between getting the experience to get into work rather than necessarily taking on an academic career. We have been keen to change that mix since we came into government.

I do not suppose that there is a single Labour Member who does not worry about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training—NEETs, as people have referred to them already. Alan Milburn’s report is a real wake-up call for us all. We are fully backing the review and will of course act on its recommendations when they finally appear. We want to make sure they are based on evidence, which is precisely what Alan Milburn is pursuing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I have heard about that issue in relation to some other antiques businesses that are basically lots of stalls or small shops inside a much larger, older building. The hon. Lady makes a decent point, and it is one of the things we will be considering as we look at the future of business rates.

We have also introduced permanently low tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000. This gives long-term certainty and support to the high street, and stands in marked contrast to the previous forms of relief, which created a yearly cliff edge that had been due to end entirely in April 2025. At the same time, we are increasing the hospitality support fund to £10 million, helping more businesses in this sector to grow and create more summer jobs. As hon. Members know, we have extended world cup opening hours and cut alcohol duty on draft pints. Despite being a Welshman, I very much hope that we have to do that rather more frequently over the next two weeks.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I still have an intervention to take from the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens from the SNP if he wants to have another go, but if not, I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Wendy Morton]

Does the Minister not accept that the schemes and programmes to do with the world cup—let us hope England stay in for as long as possible to help those businesses—are merely small sticking plasters? We need longer-term solutions for these industries that are much more sustainable.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I do not think England’s football prospects over the next few weeks are going to be the sole answer to the problem. That is why I have laid out a series of different areas in which we are already taking action, which I think will provide precisely the kind of long-term answers the sector needs. The Government have also protected the smallest businesses from the impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. That is really important, and is very rarely mentioned in Conservative speeches.

I said that I would talk about tourism. I know that the Conservative party dislikes the idea of the tourism levy, and I have heard businesses complain about it as well—hotels in particular, but other parts of the sector too. I also worry that businesses are already facing a heavy tax burden, and I do not particularly want to increase it, but let us not exaggerate. First, all we are considering doing is allowing mayors to introduce a local levy. Some areas have already done so on a voluntary basis, and have done so very successfully. It seems extraordinary to forbid them from doing so, especially if they ensure that all the money raised goes into projects that support the tourism and hospitality sector. In certain instances where mayors want to introduce such a levy, it could be a real opportunity to drive forward economic opportunity in that sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). In so many debates, we learn a little about colleagues on both sides of the House, and this one gives us the opportunity to reflect on the summer jobs that many of us had. I think back to my first job—this will probably show how old I am now.

[Mr Mohindra]

Twenty-one!

[Wendy Morton]

I will take 21 any day. My first job paid the grand sum of 50p an hour. At the end of the week, when I got my pay packet—it was a pay packet in those days; there was no bank transfer—I felt quite wealthy. For the first time, I had a bit of money of my own; I could spend it on what I wanted, instead of having to ask the bank of mum and dad for money.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

That was liberating.

[Wendy Morton]

It really was, but it was more than that. It got me used to the whole mindset of going to work: getting up, being there for a certain time, and asking, “Is there anything else I can do?” My job was waitressing, and the usual pot-washing. Alongside that, when I was old enough, I learned how to pull a pint. My sister did the same, as did other youngsters from our village and the local towns. The employer was fantastic; he would pick up those who did not have transport and whose parents could not take them, and he made sure they got home as well. To me, that was a responsible employer.

That job gave me confidence. I was forced to speak to people in a restaurant environment, and had to handle cash and bookings—really important skills. The biggest skill of all was feeling confident that I could go out and work. We talk about working people; I very much think that the Conservative party is the party of working people. We have outnumbered Labour Members in this debate.

When I was growing up, there was always an expectation that we would go through education and then go out to work. If we wanted something, we worked for it. That was the way that we were brought up. Today’s debate has highlighted something quite sad: young people today do not have the same number of opportunities to get a summer job. This is about gaining not just money, but experience. I speak to so many employers, and have done for some time, about the importance of employability. Too often, I hear that employers small and large want to take on young people, but those young people do not have all the skills. That is not their fault; it is because they have not had the summer job, or a newspaper round or whatever, which helps that little bit when starting a job.

We need to take a long hard look at the employment market, and we need to look at what has happened in the last couple of years. We have heard today that youth unemployment is running at 14.5% for 18-to-24 year olds, up from 12% in 2024. Youth employment for those aged between 16 and 17 is at a staggering 30%, up from 24.7%. I read that 700,000 graduates are out of work and claiming benefits. There is something wrong there.

We encourage young people to go through education and to go to university, and then they struggle to find employment. That is partly because unemployment is high, but it is also because of the burdens being placed on our businesses. We talk a lot about large businesses, but often, the SMEs and the micro-businesses—the lifeblood of local communities and high streets that I have the pleasure of representing across Aldridge Brownhills—are being buried in red tape. They have seen employers’ national insurance hiked, they are being blocked from employing under-16s, and they are suffering as a result of high energy costs.

Any business that we go to will talk about the hike in energy costs, and for an energy-intensive industry, that hike is particularly difficult. In my constituency, we have a lot of brick makers; in the west midlands, brick making and the ceramics industry are really important. Although Denby is not in my constituency, who does not like picking up a piece of Denby pottery and seeing “Made in England” proudly stamped underneath? We are losing those businesses, which means that we are losing opportunities for young people, the opportunity to grow our economy and develop more skills, and our manufacturing capability, which is important.

We saw during covid how important it was to have sovereign, UK-based manufacturing capacity and capability when we needed to manufacture the critical covid vaccines. That surely should have taught us something. We have to build up more home-made skills. I also urge the Government to look at skills and opportunities for young people and, more broadly, at what skillset we need for today and for the future. We talk about the opportunities that artificial intelligence will bring, but it will also bring challenges to some sectors. The big question is: are we ready for that? I do not think that we have done nearly enough thinking to get us to that point. We have to do that now, to make sure that we are developing the right skills. For years, people who did an apprenticeship in engineering or plumbing were seen as not earning as much as the graduates who had been to university and got the high-tech jobs. There were also the toolmakers—[Laughter.] We can laugh about toolmakers, but in the west midlands there is a history of toolmaking. My point is that AI will not be able to replace all those skills. We need to look at what we need in future, and our education system—our schools, universities and colleges—need to make sure that we are all working together.

Critical to that conversation is business, and not just big business. I come back to my point about small business. We started our business many years ago with something called enterprise allowance. My husband had an idea, and the enterprise allowance paid us £40 a week. It did not seem like much at the time but, my goodness, we felt that the Government were backing us to create an income, a living and a business.

We need much more backing and confidence for our business community. It is time that we created a culture that supports businesses—one where “business” is not the bad word. Business is not bad. It is not bad to make a profit, because that profit is so often put back into the business, into employment and into the young people who, we all agree, we want to nurture and encourage, so that they can get into employment, get a job and a skill, and have a bright future.

Seasonal Work

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

Yes, indeed; my hon. Friend makes an important point. I was here when the Minister said that. He said that there were “no plans” to bring in a tax—although clearly there were, because a few weeks later, one was brought in—and that the sector had been “taxed enough”. Well, I agree with that Minister, and I therefore do not agree with the Chancellor.

Not content with the damage to businesses and jobs done in last year’s Budget, this year the Chancellor decided to go even further in her latest Budget, and went for the pockets of working people directly by making them pay more tax. That was a clear manifesto breach. Working people are paying the price for this Government’s inability to tackle the ballooning welfare bill, and to control the unions and their own Back Benchers. The Budget was not about the economy; it was all about internal party management. It is appalling that we have a Chancellor who appears to be willing to see thousands of our constituents lose their jobs, as long as she saves hers. In short, the Budget was a £26 billion tax hike on working people to pay for Labour's welfare spending. Last year’s Budget destroyed jobs; this latest one disincentivised work. It takes a special kind of incompetence to destabilise both the demand and the supply of labour simultaneously, but this Government have somehow managed to do just that.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Is not the truth that we have a Government with no business experience who think that they can simply push the costs down to businesses, squeeze and squeeze them, and they will pass the price on to customers? They will have no customers. There will be no businesses. There will be no jobs.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. It is quite remarkable, following the Budget, to hear Labour MPs say to their constituents, “We have helped you out. We have reduced costs.” If they talk to their constituents, they will find that the very opposite happened.

Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is demonstrating what a doughty campaigner she is for her constituents in the north-east of Scotland. I agree with everything she has said, and I will develop some of those points.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

We have a similar issue in the west midlands, although it is not entirely a rural area. On the edge of Birmingham in my constituency, battery energy storage systems are being imposed upon local communities. What was green belt is now being defined as grey belt. Local communities feel that they get all the pain and no gain, and they have no say at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to sit down and have a real rethink?

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend is right. She has consistently raised this issue in the Commons, and I know how passionately she feels about it on behalf of her constituents. I will come on to battery storage shortly.

It is important that alternatives are considered. For example, rather than overhead cables, why is underground cabling not being considered? That proposal has been simply dismissed on cost. [Interruption.] I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he is dismissing these concerns out of hand. He is laughing and scoffing. These are real concerns that my constituents feel passionately about. I would be grateful if he showed the same respect that I give to him for the concerns that I am raising on behalf of the people of the Scottish Borders, the highlands and the north-east of Scotland. These concerns are legitimate and I would be grateful if he treated them as such.

The proposals for underground cabling have been dismissed by ScottishPower Energy Networks on cost grounds alone. It may be more expensive for the developer, but what is the cost of destroying our natural environment forever? Rather than using the route through the Scottish Borders, why can we not use the route of the existing cross-border electricity infrastructure following the M74 motorway and railway corridor?

Throughout the process, SPEN has not listened to our local communities in the way we would have hoped. It is another example of decision makers in cities with little regard for the people and landscapes affected. I have organised a number of extremely well-attended public meetings about the cross-border connection and some of the other infrastructure projects being proposed. We have set up the Action Against Pylons: Scottish Borders Alliance, a voluntary coalition of 10 independent community action groups made up of people who live along the proposed route of the pylons and the other infrastructure projects being imposed on us—the people whose lives are going to be made a misery if this project goes ahead. Local people are coming together to fight the plans: there are too many people to mention, but I wish to pay tribute to a few of them. Edward Kellow and Rosi Lister put in many hours of hard work to get the group up and running. Campaigners such as Rory Steel and local councillors Leagh Douglas and Julie Pirone have done much to raise public awareness, alongside many others. As a group, we invited SPEN and representatives of the Scottish Government to walk the proposed route of the pylons, to come and see the landscape and communities that will be most impacted by their plans, and to hear the concerns of local residents. It was a perfectly reasonable request but they refused. It seems that the people who live in the areas most affected are secondary to SPEN’s plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

It is entirely ridiculous; the hon. Member is absolutely right. The thing about nuclear is that it often builds communities around it that respect the role it plays in the energy mix. Generations of people have worked at these power stations—they often start as apprentices and are still there decades later—so we do not disagree on that point. We should be building nuclear in Scotland, and I hope the SNP either loses in May so that we can change the position, or that the SNP changes its position. There are no SNP Members here today to answer that point.

The second point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk is the role of rooftop solar. We will be saying much more about that, but in the solar road map, we are clear that we should be building on every rooftop possible. It is a no-brainer, and there is support right across the country for it. Wherever we can put solar panels on rooftops—warehouses, car parks, supermarkets and so on—we should. That is why, in England, we have been funding schools and hospitals to do so. We would have liked to do it in Scotland as well, but once again the Scottish Government did not want to partner with us on that project, so it is for them to take that forward.

I will now reflect on what we are trying to achieve, because it is important not to forget the overall ambition for where our energy system needs to be. Every piece of infrastructure that we build across the country, whether it is wind turbines, solar panels or network infrastructure, is critical to protecting this country from future price spikes, like those that have hit households so much.

However, on infrastructure and the network in particular, there is a wider question about decades of under-investment in our grid, which has been holding back not just our energy system from working as we would want but economic growth. I gently challenge the hon. Gentleman’s points on AI and data centres. I understand the challenge they present, but they are also a huge economic opportunity. Right across the country, we are seeing good economic growth prospects being closed down because we do not have the grid connections that would allow them to be switched on. They are going to other countries as a result, so we need to fix this issue.

Delivering any infrastructure, whether it is energy, prisons or hospitals, involves tough choices, trade-offs and local impacts. That is precisely why we have a robust planning system. It is not a cop-out to say that I am not responsible for planning decisions in Scotland, and the hon. Gentleman knows that. It is for the Scottish Government to answer for the planning and consenting decisions they have made in Scotland, but every individual project is assessed independently and fairly through the Scottish planning system for proposals in Scotland.

If there are specific points about consultations not being done effectively, I am very happy to receive correspondence on that from the hon. Gentleman. It is for the Scottish Government, as part of their planning process, to follow that through, but I am happy to facilitate the exchange of that information.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Employment Rights Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Ahead of getting into the detail of the many amendments before us, which the Minister rattled through in just 10 minutes, let me say that overnight we learned that the Government are moving the responsibilities of one quango to another. They are moving the responsibilities of the Payment Systems Regulator to the Financial Conduct Authority, putting one quango into another. Conveniently, they already share a building. The Prime Minister has hailed that as “the latest step” in the Government’s attempt to “kick-start economic growth”, though the amendments we are discussing do the very opposite.

The Chancellor said:

“The regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of choking off innovation, investment and growth”,

but that is precisely what the Bill does. I do not know how the Government can say that with a straight face when, as we stand here today, blocking regulatory burdens cost every business in the land—small, medium or large—£5 billion.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

In the Chamber yesterday, it was quite clear that the Minister and his team did not fully understand the definition of a small business. I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister does understand it. Does he agree that that is fundamental to understanding why the balance of this legislation is wrong?

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes a superb point, as she always does. Every single small business that I have talked to in my constituency is very concerned about the measures in this—

“Chapter 4A

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The Minister is rattling off a whole list of amendments that appear to have come after the legislation has gone through Committee. Does he not understand that that creates a massive burden on many businesses? Would it not be better to accept that the Government have gone a little overboard with the Bill and to start afresh with proper consultation with businesses at ground level?

[Justin Madders]

The reason why we are putting so many amendments down is because we have been consulting and working with businesses, and that is why we have so much to say today. It was a Labour party commitment to launch an Employment Rights Bill within 100 days of taking office, and I am proud that we have delivered on that commitment and that we have this Bill here today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

Listening to the debate, it is clear that there are Conservative Members who understand business, and who come to this place with years of experience—[Interruption.] If Labour Members would stop heckling for one moment, they might start to listen. If we want to increase productivity, that is about employees, but it is also about employers being able to invest in their staff through training, contracts, plant and machinery. It is a whole raft of things, none of which we can do if businesses are stifled with red tape and employment law, or measures that are basically about law through the courts.

[Greg Smith]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The crux of what she says is the difference between the approach of Conservative Members to economy and the way that Labour Members, and those on the other left-wing Benches, look at the economy. The left of British politics tends to view everything through the lens of business being bad, of all employers seeking to exploit their workforces, and of an image of a Victorian factory from a novel of that era. In reality, we must recognise the symbiotic relationship between employer and employee, because we do not grow the economy without things working in both their interests. The Bill seeks to tip the balance too far in one direction, forgetting that that will take away the incentive for employers—the wealth creators—to get on and grow.

Let me move to new clause 84 and amendment 284. Conservative Members have absolutely no issue with the right to request flexible working. Indeed, Conservatives in government passed the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023. That made it easier for employees to make flexible working requests, gave them a statutory right to do so, and required employers to consider and discuss any requests made by their employee more quickly. That legislation appears to be working. Indeed, the Regulatory Policy Committee has said that

“there is little evidence presented that employers are rejecting requests unreasonably.”

North Staffordshire Ceramics Industry: Energy Costs

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Williams]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for attending my first Westminster Hall debate. As always, he raises some important points. I remember the old days of Stoke, when we actually had bottle kilns attached to our local schools, giving people their first opportunities to learn a skill. Sadly, those have all gone, but the point about getting people interested in the sector and learning skills is a valid one.

I am delighted that last year Stoke-on-Trent was awarded world craft city status for our ceramics heritage. Many people will be familiar with our household names in tableware. I have spoken before about our “turnover club”, where people pick up the plates and look at their provenance. I have explained in the past that my mum and my grandad worked in the potbanks of Tunstall and Burslem—namely, at H&R Johnson and Dunn Bennett & Co.

However, many people do not realise that ceramics shape every aspect of our lives. Ceramics companies manufacture the clay bricks, roof tiles and pipes that we need for our homes.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

There is another sector alongside pots and roof tiles: bricks. I wanted to come in on that point as the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. We have Ibstock—looking to the future, a huge amount of investment is going into the Ibstock factory in Aldridge—and Wienerberger. I think one of the challenges—the hon. Member may agree with me—is that this sector is really impacted by energy costs, so we have to continue to look at how to support the energy-intensive sector in every way we can, because this is the future.

[David Williams]

I thank the right hon. Member for those comments. I know that she has spoken passionately about this matter in the past, and I will come on to the point about the need to support companies with their energy bills.

I was talking about how ceramics have an impact on our everyday life. Without refractories, we would not have the ability to make steel, glass and other high-temperature products. Without ceramics, we would have no cars, no buses and no mobile phones—what a scary idea. Without advanced ceramics, we would have no aircraft, defence or medical equipment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I certainly join him in congratulating those local businesses on their work and, indeed, all Members of Parliament on the work that they do on their constituency days to champion and support local businesses. The Government’s agenda includes long-term reform of business rates to create permanently low business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. The launch of high-street rental auctions, getting rid of derelict property in town centres, is also hugely exciting. The business growth service is predominantly about recognising that although the Government do a lot, businesses can often find it hard to access exactly what they need. I have looked around the world—to the US and its Small Business Administration, and to Singapore and its Enterprise Singapore, for example—to discover the best models. That is what we will take forward in 2025, and I find it a hugely exciting agenda.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Last Saturday was indeed Small Business Saturday. It was an opportunity for us to celebrate and support the many small businesses in our constituencies. However, too many of them are really worried about the increase in national insurance contributions—the £25 billion jobs tax—and there is simply no easy answer for them. They cannot just put up their prices, so they are looking at staffing levels. Why are the Government so against aspiration, and how do they think they will improve productivity and deliver growth in the economy?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Conservative Members know what they left behind, and I have not heard any of them offer an alternative. The specific answer to the right hon. Member’s question is that employment allowance was doubled in the Budget and the threshold was taken off. That is why 1 million, mainly smaller, businesses are paying less or the same in national insurance contributions as they were before the Budget. She should tell the House how the Conservative party would pay for the infected blood scandal—the victims of which we are all committed to compensating—Post Office compensation, support for the steel industry, and the advanced manufacturing plan that we inherited, because none of that was in our departmental budget. We are fixing the foundations with long-term public investment and an agenda based on higher business investment and better, stronger economic growth in every part of the UK.

Budget Resolutions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We have heard talk from Labour Members of a circular economy. Well, this is entirely circular. As the OBR observes, the measure does not add to growth, and as my right hon. Friend mentioned, three quarters of the burden will fall on the low-paid. The Labour party has a distinguished record on these matters, and if Labour Members are serious and thoughtful about this, they will interrogate their Front-Benchers in much greater depth, because the measure will result in lower-paid, poorer jobs—and it will be much harder for people to get on the jobs ladder in the first place.

There is an enormous number of unanswered questions. The impact on GPs is uncosted.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

And on charities.

[Andrew Griffith]

Indeed, there will be an impact on charities and the third sector—those who care for us at the most difficult points in life. On Friday, I met representatives from a charity in my constituency that cares for those with dementia. Its income is fixed, its needs are ever present, and as a result of this Labour Budget, it simply does not know how it will balance its books.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the Budget debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on making her maiden speech, and wish her well.

Last Wednesday, we sat in this Chamber to listen to the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises, and as each day has gone by, we have witnessed the mask slip from this Labour Government. Even before the Budget, we saw the Chancellor start to set out her stall with the callous cutting of the winter fuel allowance, and just this week Labour has attacked students with a monumental hike in tuition fees—a tax on aspiration and on young people and their hard-working families. As the week has gone by, we have seen the Budget unravel as manifesto promise after promise has been broken. I have constituents —from pensioners and farmers to businesses, charities, community organisations, GPs and many more—coming to me with anxiety and worries.

My local farmers are devastated. Promises made to them have been broken with no consultation, giving them no opportunity to plan. The Government have shown that they are no friend of the farmer, the producer of our food and the guardian of our countryside. Farmers have gone from food heroes during covid to being abandoned in the cold. The Government seem to have failed to grasp that family farms are not only farms; they are much more. Family farmers invest in their businesses for the long term, for the next generation. The Government need to keep their promises, reverse the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, and abolish what I and others now term the family farm tax.

[Graham Stuart]

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way that this Government are serially breaking all the promises they made during the election is corrosive for our politics?

[Wendy Morton]

Absolutely. Small businesses also face a tax on aspiration and entrepreneurship. Inheritance tax will be the death of enterprise. The increases to employer national insurance and the minimum wage will stymie growth and investment. Inflation looks set to be higher than growth under the Chancellor’s measures. In fact, far from this being a Budget for growth, the measures set out by the Chancellor will be a hindrance.

If we put all this together, who does it hit? Working people. Even the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted that on TV. Think, too, of the jobs for working people that will be lost, or never even created, thanks to the Budget of broken promises. This is a Budget that punishes pensioners, destroys our countryside, chases after our motorists, denies working families and their children choice over education, and saddles young people with more student debt. It is a Budget about ever-increasing spending, ever-higher taxes and an ever-expanding state. Prosperity has never been the result of the state handing out more taxpayer money; it has come from empowering businesses, entrepreneurs and families, and it is about enabling opportunity.

Once upon a time, Labour would have been thought of as the party of working people, but not now. Far from fixing the foundations, it is digging an even bigger hole.

International Women’s Day: Language in Politics

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this important debate on language in politics, which gives us an opportunity to mark International Women’s Day.

As the 431st female Member of Parliament, the first female MP for my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency and the first female Conservative Chief Whip, I start by stressing the importance of increasing female participation in politics. Sadly, women face many barriers to entering a career in politics. One of those barriers is the often unpleasant and abusive language to which they are subjected. This is totally unacceptable and it cannot, and must not, be tolerated. We have to work constantly to change that.

This is a cross-party debate and, to set the scene for my speech, I start with this quote:

“elect me for what I am and not for what I was born.”—[Official Report, 27 April 1992; Vol. 207, c. 15.]

Those are the notable words of the late Betty Boothroyd when she became the first female Speaker of the House of Commons. Her initial entry into politics was not easy. It took her five attempts to be elected as an MP, which is something with which many of us will be familiar. It took me three attempts to make it to Parliament.

Historically, the House of Commons has often been seen as a man’s world. It has often been compared to a private gentlemen’s club, and it was only with the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 after world war one, underpinned by the suffragette movement, that women were allowed to stand as candidates and be elected as MPs. As we know, the first sitting female MP was Nancy Astor, who was elected as a Conservative MP in 1919. Since then, we have undoubtedly made progress, and by the 1960s no one doubted that women should be part of the political process. Yet here we are in February 2024 with 226 female MPs in the House of Commons, which is 35% of all MPs—that is hardly reflective of our country. The Conservative party currently has 88 female MPs. Although that is a triumphant leap from the days when Nancy Astor was the sole female MP, it is still only 25% of all Conservative MPs.

With women clearly under-represented in Parliament, we have to ask the question: why? One decisive factor as to why many women choose not to enter politics at all is its aggressive and intimidating nature. Sadly, Parliament and politics all too often remain overwhelmingly masculine in culture, language and space. Even after 100 years in politics, many female politicians continue to suffer from bullying, harassment, misogyny and sexism, both in this place and beyond. To see that, we can just take a look at the toxic nature of Prime Minister’s questions some weeks, where women have been known to be called “stupid woman” and have even been told to “Calm down, dear”, in an insulting and often patronising tone. Surprisingly, when we look in the guidance on “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”, we see that although it contains a section titled “Parliamentary language”, there is not a single mention of sexist language being inappropriate. I know that Mr Speaker is doing a huge amount of work to change the culture and behaviour in this place, but perhaps that is something else we could seek to look at a little further.

This language issue extends beyond the Chamber and to all forms of communications and settings, be it social media, mobile phones, tweets or WhatsApp messages. This abusive language has to be unacceptable, and I urge all Members of Parliament, on both sides, to report it and call it out. Many female MPs have been subjected to hate messages on their Twitter posts—we have heard some examples of that this afternoon—and, sadly, some have even received death threats. That is why I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of a £31 million package to counter threats to MPs’ security, which includes cyber-security advice and a dedicated named police contact. That is fundamental to protecting and upholding our democracy. As the Home Secretary recently said, no MP should have to accept threats or harassment as “part of the job”. That applies to all MPs, but it applies to female MPs in particular.

Some people may perceive politics to be centred around assertiveness and power, but I believe that it is slightly different; empathy, compassion and our respect must also be at the very core of it too. We see that just by looking at the role of women in the peace and security agenda. I believe that if we all remembered why we entered politics in the first place, which is to strive to make a positive change for society, we would all be treated with more respect. Most importantly, more women would be encouraged to enter politics.

Like everyone else here today, I hope that in the near future not just 50% of all MPs will be women, but that at least 50% of all MPs will be female. When my party has an organisation called “Men2Win”, I know we will have succeeded. Fairly representing our population is where we need to get to; we need everyone to be treated with dignity and respect at all times. I still pinch myself when I come into this place. I remember how I felt the first day I sat on the green Benches. It was then, and still is, the biggest privilege and honour of my life to be a Member of Parliament and to serve the community that elected me, Aldridge-Brownhills.

Charity Lottery Fundraising Caps

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of removing the caps on charity lottery fundraising.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to bring forward this debate on the important work of Britain’s charity lotteries. I must first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a vice-president of the Lotteries Council. The charity lottery sector is worthy of Members’ time, as I am confident today’s contributions will demonstrate, and I am grateful to Members present. As I found when researching the debate, the interest of Members from across the House is evident from Hansard and, as I am sure the Minister is aware, from the number of questions to his Department on this important topic.

Back in 2017, the now Lord Bellingham secured a Westminster Hall debate on the future of society lotteries and the limits on prize values. I remember it well because I attended. The debate was well supported by Members from all sides of the House. A little over six months after that debate, the Government concluded their consultation on society lottery reform, and recommended that the maximum draw prize increase to £500,000, that the draw limit be raised to £5 million and, most importantly, that the annual cap increase to £100 million. In 2020, a revised annual limit came into effect, albeit that it was a reduced amount of £50 million.

Today, charity lotteries, or social lotteries, as they are more formally known, generate over £400 million a year for charities and good causes the length and breadth of Great Britain, meaning they constitute a significant funding stream for many well known charities and local community groups alike. I am sure we will hear from Members today about some of their local charities that benefit from those lotteries. Charity lotteries are regulated via the Gambling Act 2005 and are subject to heavy bureaucratic burdens, though the national lottery is not. For example, charity lotteries are subject to stringent caps on annual sales, caps on sales in each individual draw, and caps on the prizes that operators are allowed to offer, and there is rightly a statutory minimum return to good causes—I completely agree with that.

To put it simply, despite existing to fund charities and good causes, the sector is mired in exactly the sort of red tape that our Conservative Government should be focused on eliminating. To be honest, given that charity lotteries predate the national lottery by at least three decades, it is somewhat baffling as to why such a heavy regulatory burden exists at all. From the mid-2000s, the idea took hold in some quarters that the national lottery required protection from charity lotteries, and that is a myth that I am keen to see debunked on the basis of the available evidence. For example, years of Gambling Commission industry statistics show continued growth in sales, and returns to good causes from both sectors have reached record levels.

The recent Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on the national lottery explicitly acknowledged that charity lotteries do not negatively impact the national lottery, and called out the oddly hostile attitude that Camelot has shown to the sector over the years. It is imperative that we do not lose sight of the fact that when both sectors thrive, it is the charities and good causes in all our constituencies that stand to benefit the most. The complementary nature of both funding streams cannot be understated—sorry, overstated; we must ensure Hansard gets that right.

I am sure that many Members present will be familiar with the People’s Postcode Lottery through their constituency or the effectiveness of its advertising, which, as well as admirably shining a spotlight on supported charities, has been known to feature the likes of Jason Donovan. I am certainly aware of fantastic work done in my constituency by a number of organisations that are in receipt of funding from the People’s Postcode Lottery. Such organisations help to deliver vital funding for voluntary sector groups of all sizes.

Funding has been delivered locally to RicNic, Walsall’s “own the stage” project, which provides drama-based classroom resources and workshops to get children to participate in the arts; the Canal & River Trust, which has restored the Black Cock bridge, a Victorian bridge that was built in around 1880 in Walsall Wood, over the Daw End Branch canal; the Royal Voluntary Service, which operates locally from Brownhills Memorial Hall on Litchfield Road, a building known locally as the Memo, where the RVS runs groups who help elderly and vulnerable people to keep active and socially engaged; the Walsall-based Cats Protection, which also has a retail base in my constituency; and Manor Farm Community Association, which was awarded funding for the Silver Connections outreach programme for older people. I could go on, Mr Gray, but I will not. I hope I have given you a flavour of the type of organisations in receipt of this support, and I am sure you have some in your constituency.

Given the huge benefits of those and many other organisations to communities across my constituency—a pattern that I know is mirrored in constituencies right across the country—I am proud to play my part as a champion of the low-risk, not-for-profit charity lottery sector, which exists to fund good causes, some of which I have just name-checked. That is the reason why I felt it was important to secure today’s debate.

In addition to confirming the complementary nature of charity lotteries, the DCMS Committee report to which I referred made clear recommendations on empowering charity lottery operators to set their own prize limits of up to £500,000, and on ensuring a level playing field with unregulated prize draws. Those are important recommendations that I would like the Government to adopt as policy. I urge my good friend the Minister and the Government to remove the annual sales cap on charity lotteries without further delay, to ensure that this vital fundraising stream can maximise its charitable returns. It is open to Ministers to deliver that crucial reform, and most of the other reforms I have mentioned, by way of a statutory instrument. I do not believe it needs parliamentary legislation, so I hope that the Government can find time for that.

An analysis undertaken by the People’s Postcode Lottery demonstrates that the £50 million annual sales cap on the sector is restricting the funding that can be provided to 40 large charity partners, depriving them of millions of pounds in funding annually. That is despite the success of the brand in generating lottery ticket sales well in excess of the £50 million permitted annually per licence. Newly released analysis shows that over the next five years, caps on annual sales will deprive more than 70 People’s Postcode Lottery-supported charities of some £200 million in vital funding. It almost goes without saying that charities can ill afford to lose those funds.

I was astonished when I heard that the People’s Postcode Lottery has to operate a structure encompassing over 40 individual gambling licences in order to comply with the law on annual sales limits. That creates a heavy burden of duplication, which constrains the scale and flexibility of the funds so generously raised by the lottery’s players. The over-regulation of charity lotteries means that some well-known charities—for example, Girlguiding, Keep Britain Tidy, Young Lives vs Cancer, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Royal Voluntary Service—are losing out. Put simply, the sector is mired in needless red tape that could easily be removed by us in the House of Commons with Government support.

The Government previously committed to a £100 million annual sales limit for charity lotteries. However, if they removed the cap completely instead of increasing it, that would benefit not only the largest operators but smaller charity lotteries such as Essex & Herts Air Ambulance and the local hospice lotteries. It would be a more efficient use of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s time, as it would remove the need to revisit the sales cap frequently. Operators such as those that I mentioned could also shed the additional licences associated with the requirements of the Gambling Act 2005, which operators say are difficult and costly for small not-for-profit lotteries to navigate.

It is completely unclear why the sales limits exist. In fact, the Gambling Commission is on record as saying that it has been

“unable to uncover any reference as to why these limits were put in place”. 

The sales limits cannot affect player behaviour in any way, so they do not impact on sales, but they have a negative impact on the charities that receive funding, and they add to the bureaucracy for lottery operators. It seems counterproductive to continue limiting charities’ income in such a blunt manner, particularly at a time of growing charitable need.

Removing charity lotteries’ annual sales limits could better equip the third sector to support those most in need, without costing the Treasury or the taxpayers a single penny. That makes the argument even more compelling. I put it to the Minister that this aspect of the debate is very much worthy of the Chancellor’s consideration, as the change would be cost-neutral fiscally. Perhaps the Minister will put a good word in with the Chancellor ahead of the autumn statement.

As I draw my contribution to a conclusion, I draw attention to the striking support that lifting the cap on charity lotteries and these common-sense sector reforms have attracted from colleagues from across this House, as we see today. That speaks volumes about the value of the charity sector, and of charity lottery reform. I acknowledge that the Government have shown themselves willing to act in support of Britain’s charity lottery sector in recent years—my good friend the Minister comes from a background of fundraising in the charity sector. I commend the reforms to date, but it is clear that further action is required now.

I recognise that the Government have to manage many competing priorities, but charity lottery reform can be undertaken via a simple statutory instrument, or by including the changes in any new gambling Act. Reform has the support of over 100 of Britain’s best-known charities, the sector itself and Members from across the House. I politely call on the Minister to please prioritise action on this worthy issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate and I thank everybody who has taken part. It has been good to take some time out from the complexities of the gambling White Paper and the questions about levies, betting terminals, casinos and loot boxes, and instead hear about and discuss the fantastic work of the society lottery sector, the great things that it does and the funding that it provides. That includes organisations such as the air ambulances, hospice lotteries, Age UK, the Royal British Legion and so many others up and down the country.

As I said in the House recently, in a previous role I set up a society lottery for the hospice that I used to work at, so I understand the important contribution that society lotteries make to charities’ incomes. I am absolutely committed to doing everything that I can to make sure that charities get as much money as they can. That is precisely why I fought for the £100 million with the Treasury: I went into battle to help with the current situation that many charities, which have been so brilliantly celebrated today, are facing.

Through my wider ministerial role, I have seen at first hand the real impact that funding from charity lottery players has in supporting a huge range of good causes, and it often sits alongside grants from the national lottery. For example, just last week I visited the London LGBTQ+ Community Centre in Blackfriars, which receives funding from the National Lottery Community Fund. Ahead of the Eurovision final in Liverpool, I saw the support that the fund had given to Daisy Inclusive UK for the work it is doing with youth social action groups in that city.

Members have articulated the tremendous amount of work that goes on in their constituencies. Indeed, the People’s Postcode Lottery has supported a range of projects in my constituency, including some that have been mentioned—the Woodland Trust, Magic Breakfast and Farsley Community Orchard. I also recognise the fact that many good causes receive funding from both the national lottery and society lotteries. The V&A in Dundee received over £19 million from the national lottery and £1.2 million from the People’s Postcode Lottery.

As Members will be aware, following a comprehensive consultation, which received more than 1,500 responses, the Government legislated in 2020 to introduce a wide package of reforms to the framework that governs society lotteries, and as a result of those reforms we significantly increased the annual sales limit, from £10 million to £50 million. For many charities that are running their own lotteries, there is plenty of headroom there, but I will come to some of the specific issues shortly.

We also increased the draw sales limit from £4 million to £5 million, which was warmly welcomed by the sector, and the increases also enabled lotteries to offer a prize of up to £500,000. I believe that package of reforms struck the right balance to achieve the best possible outcome at that time. It is important to remember that there were different stakeholders with different perspectives and priorities then. Some wanted us to go further, and called for an increase in the sales limit to £100 million and a maximum prize limit of £1 million, but others thought we had gone too far and felt that those increases would have a negative impact on, say, the national lottery and the good causes it funds.

[Wendy Morton]

I think we all recognise and welcome the changes that the Government made at the time, but having listened to the Minister I want to press him on two points. First, does he accept that there is a place for both the national lottery and the society lotteries? We are not talking about either/or; it is not competition. When we get it right, both sectors can benefit.

Secondly, I appreciate that when there is a consultation there will be lots of different stakeholders to accommodate, but when it comes to the People’s Postcode Lottery specifically, the issue is that charities are being negatively impacted and that, with a bit of tweaking and adjustment from the Government, charities could benefit a lot more.

[Stuart Andrew]

I take those two points. I absolutely agree that society lotteries and the national lottery can coexist; they have done throughout the existence of the national lottery. I will come to the point about the People’s Postcode Lottery in a moment.

Just last week, I met the current operator of the national lottery. It reminded me that the national lottery was purposefully set up to be the most efficient way to get money to good causes. It is important to remember that since it began in 1994, more than £47 billion has been raised for good causes. That is significant, and it equates to the national lottery raising more than £30 million each week. The majority of that funding goes straight to the heart of all our communities. We obviously need to ensure that that continues, because it delivers to a diverse range of groups and organisations in our communities. Given my wider portfolio, I know it is also critical for sport provision and elite sports. It is important to think about that.

In recent months I have learned a great deal about the complexities of transitioning from one national lottery licence to another and about transitioning for the first time to a new operator. It is clear that our objective for the lottery sector is for the national lottery and society lotteries to thrive together. It is also important to remember that our Secretary of State has a statutory duty to enable national lottery receipts to be maximised, and the continued growth of society lotteries needs to sit alongside that.

From the evidence that I have seen, we seem to have got the balance right to date, but, as with most things, there may be a tipping point, and I continue to bear that in mind. We last reviewed the 2020 reforms 12 months after they were implemented. We concluded that there was not yet enough available evidence to determine the full effect of the changes, and we wanted to see more substantive data over a longer period before considering any further changes. It still feels like the right approach to me, but I strongly believe that an evidence-based approach is always the right one. That is why we got the gambling White Paper into a good place: because it was all based on evidence.

We also want to make sure that the regulatory requirements placed on society lotteries are proportionate to their size. Should we enable society lotteries to sell £100 million-worth of tickets each year, we would also need to consider whether the largest lotteries should have placed on them further requirements, such as on the level of information they provide to consumers, and whether the percentage of sales they return to good causes should increase. It is important that we make those challenges too and look at some of the comparisons. I want to make sure that not just one area sees an increase but there is also an increase to charities.

The guiding principle, then and now, is that the regulatory framework regime that governs society lotteries should encourage the maximum return to good causes, and that the licensing regime should be light, protecting players without placing unnecessary burdens on operators. We will continue to work with the Gambling Commission as it keeps the sector and the case for further changes under review.

It is also not certain, when we look at the detail, that a further increase to the sales limit would necessarily result in a significant increase in funding for good causes. For example, despite a five-fold increase in the annual sales limit in 2020, I understand that what the People’s Postcode Lottery returned to good causes did not increase by nearly the same amount. We have to consider such things, so evidence and the consideration of conditions are important. For those who ask me to make further changes immediately, even if there were robust evidence to do so, there are processes that we are obliged to follow.

[Wendy Morton]

May I press the Minister a little more on that? If he is not willing to deal with it immediately, would he look at it as a matter of urgency, given the number of charities that are being detrimentally affected?

[Stuart Andrew]

My right hon. Friend has obviously seen a copy of my speech, because I am coming to that in a moment. We will need to carry out a consultation—we have to do that— take account of those views, study the evidence, seek the views of other Government Departments and find time in a busy parliamentary schedule to bring any proposals to the House. It is not as simple as might sometimes be portrayed. Nevertheless, I have heard in the debate, and throughout my time in post, that there is a desire for us to be clearer about when any such review may take place, so I will ask officials in the Department to consider the matter in more detail with the Gambling Commission to see what is realistic. I will provide an update in the autumn to those who have attended this debate.

As I said, I met the People’s Postcode Lottery just this morning, and my priority remains delivering our ambitious commitments in the gambling White Paper, because I think there is some serious work that needs to be done there. I am also keen to ensure the smooth transition of the fourth national lottery licence and to make swift progress on the horserace betting levy review, which is really important. In this morning’s meeting, the People’s Postcode Lottery recognised the considerable work that we are trying to get through.

The consideration of any further changes to the framework for society lotteries needs to be considered in the context I have set out, but I have committed to continue to explore what flexibility there already is within the system to get us through the interim period ahead of any further detailed review. In the meantime, I am confident that, thanks to the millions of people who enjoy playing the lottery or buying a scratchcard, both society lotteries and the national lottery will continue to raise much-needed funding that benefits so many people. For many independent society lotteries there is plenty of headroom. I recognise many of the points that have been made about the specifics of the People’s Postcode Lottery and assure Members that I will keep a close eye on the matter.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for responding to the debate, and I am equally grateful to everyone who has contributed. The message was very clear: we understand the value of the charities and the work they do in our communities. I welcome, and look forward to receiving, the autumn update. However, although I understand the importance of the gambling White Paper and know that we have to get that right, some of the women in this place—and gentlemen—will continue to gently push the Minister, because we are so passionate about this. I also recognise the passion that the Minister has for the charity sector, given his experience before he came to this place.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of removing the caps on charity lottery fundraising.