PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Seasonal Work - 10 December 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the Opposition spokesperson to move the motion.

I beg to move,

That this House regrets Government policies that are making seasonal, flexible and part-time work more difficult; notes that these policies particularly impact young people who are likely to start their first job in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors, and specifically regrets Government policy to increase business rates on the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors; further regrets the Employment Rights Bill, with its provisions on guaranteed hours, and late notice cancellation of shifts, which will effectively destroy seasonal, flexible and part-time work; also regrets raising the rate of employer National Insurance contributions; regrets that 84,000 jobs in the hospitality sector have therefore been lost; and calls on the Government to cut public expenditure in order to abolish business rates for thousands of high street businesses, and not to proceed with the Employment Rights Bill so that it is easier for young people to get their first job, and easier for people to move from receiving welfare into work.

Last year’s Budget, with its increases in national insurance contributions, increases in business rates and inflation-busting pay rises, led to more than 180,000 job losses, because it increased the cost of labour. Most economists, and indeed most sensible people, understand that when you increase the price of something, there is less demand for it. By increasing the cost of jobs, Labour caused unemployment—yet this year, fully aware of rising unemployment, the Chancellor remarkably came back for more. Along with her colleagues in the Cabinet, she is imposing even more costs on business through the unemployment Bill, with more regulations and a whole new set of taxes, like the tourism tax. These decisions will do even more damage, snatching the opportunity of a first job, a seasonal job or an entire career from young people—and, indeed, people of all ages.

On the tourism tax, only a couple of months ago, in response to a question that I had posed, the then Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said, “We think they have been taxed enough.” Is it a surprise to Opposition Members to see a tourism tax being brought forward?

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.

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.

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.

Like me, the shadow Secretary of State will have been out in the constituency speaking to small businesses, and I am sure that Labour MPs will have been doing the same over the weekend. A local publican told me that that she would have to lay off staff in January because of the extra taxes that the Chancellor had come back for—more taxes, though she said at the last Budget that she would not introduce more. I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State has had the same experience when talking to hospitality businesses, which particularly employ young people.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The hospitality sector has been particularly hard-hit by Labour’s damaging economic policies. Many of us who were out on small business Saturday spoke to a number of those businesses, and unfortunately, UKHospitality fears that there could be a further 100,000 job losses because of Labour’s policies.

Matt Allum, who runs the Cricketers and two other pubs in my constituency, is devastated by this Budget, having been clobbered last year with the NIC increases, but thinks that our policy of relieving smaller businesses and high street businesses of business rates would make all the difference. Could my hon. Friend persuade the Government to adopt that policy during this debate?

I suspect that during the debate we will hear many names of great pubs, and I will try to visit as many of them as I can, as long as they still survive—but my hon. Friend is right: there is an alternative course of action here. There is a Conservative, pro-business economic policy that we can advocate. Later in my speech, I will mention some of the numbers to show the appalling impact on pubs in particular.

Like many of my Labour colleagues, I was out talking to small high-street businesses at the weekend, specifically in Saltaire, in my constituency. For many of them, the permanent reduction in business rates announced by the Chancellor is very welcome. They are not being hit by property re-evaluations and they will be getting those business rate reductions, and they welcome the levelling of the playing field with the online giants. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to pay for his party’s unfunded proposals?

I suggest that the hon. Lady talk to those constituents again. I do not think one has to be a sparkling economist to work out that when something has gone up, it is higher, not lower. Those people are not getting a permanent reduction in business rates. The numbers are going up. That is basic economics and facts.

It is part-time seasonal and temporary workers, young workers and people in sectors such as food production, tourism, retail and hospitality who are being hit particularly hard, but perhaps that should not surprise us. As many Members have already pointed out, Labour just does not understand economics, business, or incentives.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for introducing this incredibly important debate. I must say, with respect, that the Government will have a lot to answer.

In the Northern Ireland agrifood sector, the licensing process is so laborious that it is putting people off, which means that when we need workers in the sector, we do not get them. The hon. Gentleman is right to put forward the case for hospitality, but may I put forward the case for those in the Northern Ireland agrifood sector, who are also under great pressure, and who will be disadvantaged by the Government’s system?

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. We see that the hospitality sector is hard-hit, because numbers for the sector are easily available, and there have been a great many reports about the job losses there, but multiple sectors will be hit by these changes. As he points out, the problem is not just the tax hit but the regulatory burden, and that reinforces my point that the Government do not understand business.

In 2023, just under 4,600 licensed premises closed down across the UK. Was the 2024 Labour Budget to blame for that?

No, the pandemic was largely to blame for that, but to ensure that we recovered from the pandemic, and to help save lives and livelihoods, which included supporting the hospitality sector, the Government spent £400 billion, so I am afraid I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Of course, few members of the Cabinet have ever worked in the private sector, and I do not think any of them have actually run their own business—maybe one.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can correct me.

Conservative Members will know my background and work career, because I mention that I used to be a teacher every time I speak. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that many in his party talk about education but have not been teachers. Does he not recognise that, as Members of Parliament, we bring the experience of the people we speak to? He spoke about Conservative Members getting out and talking to businesses. Does he not recognise that we bring to this House the experiences of the people we represent? The argument that we cannot talk about business because we have not worked in business is a nonsense.

Members of Parliament may not have to work in business, but I expect every one to come to this House and advocate for business.

As my hon. Friend will remember, it was wonderful to see the King and the President of the United States sit down at Windsor recently. What was particularly striking was that, on the British side, only the King had run a business—he ran the Duchy of Cornwall. Nobody else had run a business. On the American side, everybody had run a business. Is that not quite a stark contrast?

I was there, and I have run a business!

My right hon. Friend is correct: having people who have run a business is good for Government. I am sorry to hear that Labour Members do not believe that their Cabinet would be better if there were a few more pro-business people in it. I can assure him that most of his constituents agree.

I have some affection for the hon. Gentleman, and he has a lovely smile. Can he tell me how many members of the shadow Cabinet—or Conservative Members who serve on the Opposition Front Bench—have ever had to sustain a long-term position on low-paid, insecure work while raising a family? Those voices are equally important in this debate.

I, too, have a great deal of affection for the hon. Gentleman; we go back quite a long way from when we were elected. We need to recognise that there are Members on both sides of the House who come from poor or modest backgrounds, and it is simply not true to say that the Conservative Benches are full of posh people and the Labour Benches are not. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the House in trying to give an alternative impression.

From one state school boy to another state school boy—we were also the first in our families to go to university—does my hon. Friend agree that we all have gaps in our knowledge, understanding and experience, but that the way you fill them is by asking the people who practise in a sector and listening to what they have to say? You should not just tell them that they are wrong and you are right because you are the Government, and you should change when the facts urge a change upon you.

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. As I say, the onus is on all of us in this place to make sure that we listen, learn and advocate on others’ behalf.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way one more time, and then I will make a bit of progress.

While we are being nice to the hon. Gentleman, I think with affection of the times we have sat together on the “Politics Midlands” sofa. For the benefit of the House, will he tell us how many zero-hours workers he has spoken to in preparation for his speech today?

I have spoken to a few zero-hours workers, and many of them are not happy with the Government’s policy, because it is going to make some of them unemployed.

Of course, the one thing that we do know about Labour Governments is that they know how to spend other people’s money. They have no idea how wealth is created and how the money that pays for our public services is generated in the first place, but they certainly know how to tax and spend. We have seen tax increases of £66 billion in just two Budgets, and tens of billions of pounds in additional debt. As Margaret Thatcher said,

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Order. Mr Hoare, your voice is carrying and I do not need to hear it.

It carried to me. That is why I am defending you.

The hon. Gentleman’s final words are key: how are public services paid for? The top 1% of income tax payers in this country pay 29% of all income tax. It is estimated that the Labour Government’s policies have led to 16,000 of the wealthiest people in this country leaving—equivalent to a third of a million to half a million average taxpayers. The burden, therefore, is spread on the others. Instead of demonising some of the wealthiest people, who make an incredible contribution to our public services, maybe the Government should thank them.

It is not just wealthy people who have left. We know from the Office for National Statistics data that 257,000 Brits have gone—it had been estimated at 70,000—of whom about two thirds to three quarters are under the age of 35. We are losing young people to the rest of the world because of the implications of not being able to get a job in this country.

Yet more common sense is coming from those on this side of the Chamber, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, it is young people in particular who do not have confidence in this Government and are fleeing.

It is clear that I do not have particularly high regard for Labour’s economic competence, but even I did not expect the Government to be running out of money quite so quickly. I expected them to be bad, but I did not expect them to be this bad. It does not give me any political joy to say that, because my constituents and their constituents are paying the price for Labour’s incompetence through higher taxes and, in many cases, with their jobs and livelihoods. I genuinely wish that they were better at government, but that is wishful thinking, because here is another hard truth about Labour: despite the party’s name and the false advocacy for working people, every Labour Government since the second world war have left office with unemployment higher than when they started, leaving the Conservatives to clear up their mess.

We Conservatives know that the best thing we can do for working people, and to lift people out of poverty, is to help them get a job, and we have a far better record than Labour in doing that. Between 2010 and 2024, Conservative-led Governments oversaw the creation of 4 million jobs—an average of 800 a day. This Government are destroying jobs by the tune of hundreds per day.

We know what the Government want to do to support tourism and hospitality: they want to get those on welfare to work in that sector, despite the fact that some of those people are on welfare because the Government have taxed tourism. Does my hon. Friend think that that is socialism or incompetence?

I think my hon. Friend knows my answer to that. It is ironic—it would be laughable if it was not so sad—that the Government announced over the weekend that they will introduce subsidies to create jobs, because if they did a better job at running the economy, jobs would be created anyway. I will come back to this issue in a moment.

On the record of the last Government, we took millions of people out of paying income tax. We increased the tax-free allowance from £6,475, which we inherited under Labour, to £12,570. As soon as we were in a position, following the pandemic, to start reducing taxes, that is exactly what we did. We reduced national insurance on workers from 12% to 10%, and then from 10% to 8%, with a plan to eliminate employee national insurance altogether and, of course, align the thresholds.

Labour talked about backing business when in opposition, but they are doing no such thing in government. In the Budget, the Chancellor had the brass neck to say that she was helping the hospitality industry with business rates. In reality, hotels, pubs, theme parks, restaurants, cafés are all seeing an increase in their business rates, as are the wider retail and leisure sectors. Investment in hospitality and tourism is already being paused or diverted overseas due to the UK’s rising costs and regulatory environment.

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that a typical pub in my constituency is paying around £2,500 per month more than it was 12 months ago? Let me briefly put that into context. Assuming that couples go in and spend £100, pubs have to clear 25 additional sittings, just to clear their costs. How are they going to survive?

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. I think the increase in costs for the average pub over the next few years—I have the figures and will come to them in a minute—is equivalent to needing to serve an extra 10,000 pints. How many pubs will be able to do that?

Epping Forest is home to some wonderful pubs and hospitality businesses, such as The Bull and the Queen Vic in Theydon Bois, the Theydon Oak, and Mila in Loughton. I hope he will join me in congratulating Mila on reaching the final of the British kebab awards next year. Does he agree that it is only through the Conservatives’ approach of scrapping business rates and supporting our high streets that these fantastic businesses will be able to survive and then thrive in the future?

Absolutely. Again, my hon. Friend is a great advocate for the hospitality and leisure sector. He is absolutely right that there are alternative approaches to backing businesses and enabling them to succeed and generate taxes and employment. I add my congratulations on the British kebab awards. As a big fan of kebabs, I will have to visit at some point.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Budget and the previous one have been hammer blows to our already flagging high streets? Does he also recognise that the only retail premises that can currently be exempted from business rates are those that are listed and unoccupied? That introduces perverse consequences for the tone and texture of our high streets. By abolishing business rates, we will remove that perversity, and the look and feel and the vibrancy of our high streets should be improved.

Again, my right hon. Friend is correct. Of course, it is not just the tax policies, but the wraparound—the devil in the detail of what can and cannot be included in various exemptions—that causes some perhaps unintended or indeed intended consequences. I think we all care very much about the future of our high streets, which is exactly why, at conference, we announced the retail, hospitality and leisure relief.

As I have said, the Chancellor had the brass neck to say she was helping the hospitality industry with business rates. The Government were doing no such thing; they were increasing business rates considerably. While hospitality is the UK’s largest employer of 16 to 24-year-olds, these cost pressures directly threaten in particular youth employment. New analysis from UKHospitality reveals that small hospitality venues alone will see business rates rise by £318 million over three years, and subsectors—such as pubs, which are often mentioned in this debate—will see a whopping increase. The average pub’s business rates, even with the reduced multiplier and transitional relief, will increase by 15% next year, which is an extra £1,400. In 2027-28, an average pub’s rates will be £4,500 higher, and in 2028-29, £7,000 higher. In total over three years, the average pub will pay an extra £12,900. An average hotel will be paying an extra £28,900 in rates next year. In 2027-28, it will be £65,000 higher, and in 2028-29, £111,000 higher. In total over three years, an average hotel’s rates bill will increase by over £200,000—just in time, no doubt, for it also to face the dreaded new tourism tax.

Labour’s unemployment Bill will do nothing but impose thousands of pounds in extra costs on businesses across the country—not to mention the ricochet impact on temporary and seasonal jobs.

On the tourism tax, which will come on top of the increase in business rates, I spoke last week to Catherine, from the Navigator hotel, who is in despair at these additional costs. She fears for the future of her hotel and, indeed, for the 10 employees who work in that hotel. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give her?

The tourism tax is an appalling tax, which we have said will do immense damage to an already overtaxed industry. As my hon. Friend will be aware, a consultation is going on, and we all need to encourage our constituents, particularly those working in these sectors, to participate in that consultation to ensure that Labour does not do the damage we fear it may do to an already hit sector.

Of course, many sectors of the economy rely on seasonal employment during peak times, whether that is food production sectors during peak picking and growing seasons, retailers in the run-up to Christmas, or the hospitality and tourism industry over peak summer season and during school holidays. However, if the Minister and Labour MPs had actually been engaging with and listening to businesses in their constituencies or across the country since they came to power, they would know the frustration that so many of those businesses feel. They want to employ more people, especially young people, and to give learning and skills development opportunities—perhaps providing people with their first job—but they have been unable to do so because Labour’s policies are making it unaffordable for them to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) pointed out how bizarre is it that the Government announced plans over the weekend—note, Madam Deputy Speaker, over the weekend, not to this House—to help young people with skills building opportunities in hospitality, care and construction through taxpayer-funded Government schemes. Those are the very industries that the Government are undermining with their own tax policies. If the Government did not attack these industries, businesses would be generating such opportunities and jobs of their own volition, not needing Government handouts. Rather than spend £820 million using public money to help create jobs that may not be sustainable, surely it would have made more sense not to have taxed the hospitality, construction or care sectors in the first place. Even hospices were not exempt from the national insurance increases.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding between the Conservative Members and Labour Members. Labour Members seem to believe that the Government create jobs, wealth and everything, but we recognise that individuals get up in the morning to group together into what we call companies, and they come up with ideas, stretch themselves and try different ideas. Some of them succeed and some of them fail, but relieving the pressure on them is not somehow letting them get away with something, but enabling them to express the freedom of the ideas they have.

A second fundamental misunderstanding is that this is not about who has had job experience and who has not; it is who has had an HR department and who has not. The problem is not that those on the Labour side of the House are bad people or good people—as we all know, there are bad and good people on both sides—but that, in reality, someone with experience of a business that has only ever had an HR department, or only ever been large enough to look at different in-year cost savings in such a sense, is not the same as someone trying to pay for one person, two people or three people. Actually, 80% of businesses in this country have fewer than 10 employees, and we are talking about them.

My right hon. Friend again makes some really important points not only with specific examples, but about the fundamental difference in political and economic philosophy between the Conservative side and the Labour side of the Chamber. We believe in personal responsibility, low tax, small Government, living within one’s means and being unapologetically pro-business because we recognise that the private sector generates jobs and the economic activity that pays for our vital public services. Labour Members are agreed on the complete opposite. We recognise that, as the Leader of the Opposition has said many times, we get into difficulty when we stray too far away from these things—we let down the country and the economy when we stray from our principles—but Labour lets down the country and destroys the economy when it sticks to its principles.

On the hon. Member’s point about the employment of young people, in Northern Ireland we have one of the highest levels—if not the highest level—of youth unemployment and young people not in education, employment or training. Would he agree with me that the Budget absolutely hammers any prospect of young people being employed in hospitality or tourism, for example?

The hon. Lady has obviously been speaking to her constituents and businesses in her constituency, and young people are of course extremely disappointed and feel let down by this Government and their economic philosophy. That is why the Budget announcement followed by this other announcement—“Oh, we’re now going to kind of help them a little bit with some public money”—is just bizarre. It shows that they do not get basic economics, and that is hitting young people in particular.

Under a Conservative council and a Conservative Government, Stoke-on-Trent had one of highest levels—if not the highest level—of NEETs anywhere in the country. The number is now coming down, but what does the hon. Member think was the reason why my city had to endure that under his Government and his council? Would he accept that it was partly because economic growth was not felt equitably across this country, and that economic growth that takes place only in one part of the country is equally as damaging as much of what he is professing is damaging today?

I do agree with some the principles the hon. Gentleman articulates about the need for economic growth outside the M25 as well. London is a great dynamo—it needs to be London-plus—but we do need to make sure we grow across the country. That was, of course, exactly the point of the levelling-up agenda. However, I am afraid we cannot have this wishful thinking of forgetting that both the economic crisis in 2008 and of course the pandemic and other global crises had a major impact on the economy, and therefore economies around the world were challenged. The difference now is that our economy is doing badly uniquely because of Labour Government decisions. That is the difference.

The national insurance increases in last year’s Budget alone cost the hospitality industry more than £1 billion. The business rates increases that it now faces make matters even worse. This is not so much giving with one hand and taking with the other; it is giving with one hand, then punching them in the face and giving them a good kicking when they are down on the ground. That is an appalling attitude to take towards business, but that is this Government’s attitude.

Just last week, I visited one of the many fantastic cafés in my constituency. The hard-working owner told me that she had chosen not to take on a young Saturday worker as a direct result of the increase in business rates. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that this Government’s policies are directly affecting employment for young people in Chester South and Eddisbury, and across the country?

Yes. I had the pleasure of visiting a café in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I sincerely hope she is not referring to the one that we visited. This is a common theme across the country, and we hear it on way too many occasions. What is interesting is that the owners of these often very small business feel guilty that they cannot employ people in the way that they would want to—they cannot provide Christmas jobs and so on. They should not feel guilty about that; the Government should feel guilty about that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the tax rises and the additional cost burden that is causing a lack of confidence? That lack of confidence is in itself probably the most corrosive aspect of all, because once that is entrenched it is very hard to unpick, particularly when businesses repeatedly face a Government who are doing the exact opposite of what they pledged in their manifesto.

Yes. My hon. Friend knows that confidence is a major driver of economic activity. When the public, consumers and businesses do not have confidence, things fall apart. Without a significant change of direction, I am afraid I cannot see confidence returning. As I said, I do not get any joy in saying that. I want the Government to get their act together. I want them to be economically competent for the sake of our constituents.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was interested in him suggesting that it was Labour’s principles that are causing the problem. Which bit of our plan for small and medium-sized businesses, action to tackle late payments, reducing regulatory burdens and expanding access to finance does he disagree with?

This is just noise. The hon. Lady needs to speak to businesses in her constituency—[Interruption.] The facts are the national insurance increases, the business rates increases and the additional burdens on businesses. If anybody on the Government Benches can name any major business organisation that welcomes the employment Bill—the unemployment Bill, as we call it—I would welcome them doing so now, but I do not think they can. They are anti-business: that is the point. The Conservatives are pro-business, they are anti-business. The principle is key: to be pro-business means to be pro-workers and pro-public sector, because that is how the taxes are generated. The Government have the exact different—

I won’t. I will give way in a moment to somebody behind me, but I am aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am on the final stretch.

I can only assume the Labour Government just do not understand the negative impact their tax policies are having on tourism, hospitality and leisure, because to do such harm willingly is pure economic vandalism. The Government’s lack of understanding of the private sector and how jobs are created beggars belief.

None of this would be necessary with a competent, pro-business Government. There is an alternative: a pro-business Conservative alternative that backs business, that wants the private sector to succeed, that backs entrepreneurs and wealth creators, and has policies that enable job creation and economic growth through policies such as 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure. Instead, the Government have decided on an economic strategy that punishes enterprise, burdens the taxpayer, disincentivises work, increases dependency on welfare and grows the size of the public sector. That is the wrong strategy.

The Labour Government are destroying the economy. They promised change at the last election. Well, we certainly got it: slower growth, higher taxes, higher spending, more debt, more welfare and higher unemployment. Time and again, Labour has betrayed the trust of the British public and we on the Conservative Benches will not tire of holding this disastrous Labour Government to account for their utter incompetence. The country cannot afford three more years of this. Britain deserves better.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“notes the Government’s strong support for small and medium-sized businesses, including those employing seasonal workers; further notes that the Government’s Employment Rights Bill will help seasonal workers by bringing the UK’s outdated employment laws into the 21st century; welcomes the policy paper entitled Backing your business: our plan for small and medium sized businesses, which sets out a comprehensive vision for productivity and success; further welcomes action to tackle late payments through the introduction of the toughest laws in the G7, helping SMEs maintain cash flow during peak periods; supports measures to cut energy bills for SMEs through investment in clean power and reducing levies; commends investment in high streets via the Pride in Place fund, boosting footfall for seasonal trade; also notes consultations to reduce burdens on hospitality businesses; and further commends targeted support through the Business Growth Service to help SMEs access skills, finance and growth opportunities.”

Around this time every year, I like to re-read “A Christmas Carol”. Last night, I read that passage from Dickens where the protagonist says:

“every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart”.

I have to say that the tone of the shadow Minister’s speech made Ebeneezer Scrooge sound positively festive!

The Government recognise that it has been a hard few years for business. Despite the appalling economic legacy the hon. Gentleman’s party left us, in this festive period we can look forward to the new year with a sense of optimism. Living standards are rising and wages are growing faster than prices. The Productive Business Index found, a few days ago, that nearly three quarters of small businesses expect revenue increases over the next three months and nearly two thirds have seen rising order volumes in the last three months. The hon. Gentleman mentions, as did other Members, Small Business Saturday. Small Business Britain reports that spending during Small Business Saturday last weekend was the highest it has been in five years.

Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, I ran a business for a decade and I know how hard the last decade was. [Interruption.] It would be immodest to agree with what he says from a sedentary position.

On Saturday last, I was in Herne Bay on Mortimer Street, where there is an absolutely fabulous toy shop called Kids Korner. It was empty. I said to them, “How are you doing?” They said, “The shop is empty, the street is empty. Nobody is spending any money.” The hospitality industry is on its knees. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and I attended a roundtable recently, where every single person present said that they were having a hard time, and some were in danger of going into liquidation. I raised this example in the House earlier this week: one chain of 25 cafés, which employs young people, had a profit of £12 over the last 12 months. That is due entirely to this Government’s policies.

The right hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head when he talks about people not spending money. That is exactly why this Labour Government are taking action to put money into people’s pockets. We must recognise that a big part of why it has been such a difficult 10 years for business were the stagnating living standards and stagnating wages under his Government. I know that hospitality, leisure and retail, which have very thin margins, have been hit especially hard by the pandemic, the cost of living crisis and changes in shopping habits, but that is why we recognised that and published, for the first time in a decade, a Government strategy for small businesses. It is why we are putting more money into people’s pockets. It is why fiscal credibility, which the Conservatives just do not seem to value at all, matters to our constituents.

The Globe Inn in North Petherton is a fantastic local pub. This financial year, its business rates bill is zero. By 2029-30, it will be £5,000, thanks to this Government. That is an extra 10,000 pints it will have to sell to meet that extra cost. How is the Government’s strategy helping?

The hon. Gentleman will know about the transitional relief that we are putting in—I will come on to that in a moment—but we are putting more money into people’s pockets.

I spent five days last week speaking to small businesses. I was in Staffordshire, the north-west and Scotland meeting dozens of small businesses, and all of them said the same thing to me: what they want is footfall. As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, they want people to start spending money again and to get custom.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make some progress first.

We are lowering costs. The hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham mentioned the burden of regulation and red tape, but I have to ask: where was he for the last 14 years? When Labour came to power, we inherited a situation where businesses were spending 380 million staff hours on form-filling and red tape every year. We are getting into that now in a way that just did not happen before.

On that point, it is important to note that businesses such as the Co-op and IKEA are supportive. The Minister mentions red tape; time and again, businesses in my constituency tell me that bureaucracy is holding them back. Will the Minister outline how we will cut red tape further?

Let us start with a few weeks ago, when we brought in changes meaning that thousands upon thousands of companies—particularly smaller companies—no longer have to engage in so much of that corporate reporting, which was completely unnecessary, saving about £250 million on the way to our wider target of cutting the regulatory burden by 25% and cutting £5 billion.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I invite him to visit the hairdressers in Aldwick, in my constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, where the owner will tell him that he spends hours upon hours working to ensure that he can even stay profitable. The Government might be withdrawing some aspects of small business paperwork, but that does not change the fact that the maths do not add up. Unless the owner spends hours dotting every i, crossing every t and cutting costs where he can, his employees will not have jobs and be able then to spend more money.

The hon. Lady makes an important point, which is exactly why we are trying to drive down costs for business, not least when it comes to red tape. If there is something in particular about your constituent’s business—I do not know if it is the hairdressers that you yourself frequent—perhaps I could pop along. I would be very happy to listen—

Order. I do not wish to put on the public record which establishments I do and do not frequent, Minister.

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Opposition Members raise the matter of business rates as well. It is exactly because we recognise the stress that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses face that the smallest of those properties will now have the lowest business rate since 1991, and those with values below £500,000 will have their lowest rate since 2011. That is a permanent tax cut worth nearly £1 billion a year, benefiting more than 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties.

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I would just like to tell him about Charlie Cockaday, who runs the Fox Inn in Felpham, who tells me that with the new business rates reform introduced by this Government, he will be paying £1,600 a month more in business rates going forward, which is the equivalent of 35p for each pint that he sells. How does that equate to putting more money in people’s pockets?

Again, I will talk about the transitional relief that we have brought in. Under the plans for valuation that we inherited, pubs were looking at rates increasing by about 45%; because of the relief we have introduced, they will face about a tenth of that. So we are acting.

I have to say, the Conservatives knew that this revaluation was coming; they knew that the temporary covid relief was coming to an end. How much did they have in their financial plans to help businesses with this revaluation? Nothing. They did not allocate a single penny for it, and now they criticise us for having brought in a £4 billion package to help businesses with it. Worse than that, they oppose the higher business rates that we have brought in for the warehouses of online giants, which is exactly what is paying for the structural change allowing for permanently lower business rates on retail and hospitality.

Governments have to make choices—we all understand that—but the choice that this Government made was not to cut spending on welfare, which has limited their choices elsewhere. There is a real choice. If the Conservatives had been in power, we would not have made those choices over the summer, and the hospitality sector would have been in a very different place in the Budget.

That is exactly my point—the Conservatives were not going to make those choices. Those choices were not in their financial plans, but they are in ours.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way one more time, but only because I have deep affection for the right hon. Gentleman.

The Minister is a charming and, no doubt, soon to be very well-haircutted gentleman. The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) was making—I am afraid this reinforces it—is that such a choice was clearly not in the Government’s plans, either. Otherwise, they would not have brought forward the welfare changes they planned in July, but have since been bounced out of by their own Back Benchers. It clearly was not their plan either, and that is why we are in this position.

But it is in our plan. We have just passed the Budget, which introduces the relief on business rates.

Let me return to the theme of “A Christmas Carol” and the visit of the ghost of Christmas past. Let us travel back to when the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham gushed about Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, with her unfunded tax giveaway, which he said represented “a new era” and would

“help everybody with the cost-of-living pressures”.

Well, unlike Ebenezer Scrooge, the hon. Gentleman has not repented; he has not seen the error of his ways and the impact of unfunded commitments. Instead, he is at it again, calling for tax cuts without any idea whatsoever of how to pay for them.

Members on the Conservative Benches talk about political choices—they made a political choice to bring in austerity, which meant a lack of funding for the NHS. My constituency of Harlow is full of sole traders who tell me that what really affects their ability to earn money, in order to have money in their pockets to spend in the pub or at other establishments, is the fact they have to wait for years on end to get a doctor’s appointment or an operation. Does he agree that the Chancellor has made the right choice to invest in our NHS so that we can get waiting times down and my workers can get back to work?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the important ways we will get the welfare bill down as well as getting more money into people’s pockets, and ultimately more money into tills. Instead of fantastical unfunded tax cuts, we are giving real help to high streets across the country. Millions of British people will benefit from the £5 billion Pride in Place programme, which puts local people in 339 neighbourhoods in the driving seat of renewing their own areas.

I am grateful to the Government for the fact that Ramsgate in particular is benefiting from the Pride in Place fund. More widely, on the matter of seasonal work, which is vital for coastal communities such as mine, can the Minister confirm that seasonal and hospitality workers will benefit from many of the measures in the Budget that will tackle the cost of living and raise their wages, such as increases to the minimum wage, cuts to energy bills and the freezing of bus and train fares?

Absolutely. Members on the Government Benches recognise the link between the standard of living and business sustainability. My hon. Friend mentioned that her area will benefit from Pride in Place—the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham has Smethwick, Darlaston, Bilston, Dudley and Bedworth in his part of the world, all of which are receiving funding through Pride in Place.

We are also ensuring that we protect the character and the safety of high streets, because again, what we hear from small businesses again and again is that they need footfall. We need to make high streets attractive places to go, so we are clamping down on illegal high street activity in premises such as mini-marts, barbershops, vape shops and nail bars. At the Budget, we announced an additional £15 million a year, alongside wider measures to tackle bogus retailers.

Has the Minister compared and contrasted Pride in Place with the future high streets fund, which was a proven mechanism for uplifting the state of many of our high streets, including Trowbridge in my constituency? He is trotting out a load of things that he thinks will benefit retail and hospitality. The whole point of retail and hospitality businesses is that they must be welcoming places that are open to all, so what does he make of the dozens of pubs and restaurants up and down the country that are now feeling forced to put up signs in their windows that say “No Labour MPs”?

I have yet to see any pub with any such sign. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke about how disastrous the implementation of the future high streets fund was on the ground, and we are trying to learn lessons from that.

The hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham also criticised the Employment Rights Bill. I compared him to Scrooge earlier, but I am sorry to say that on this subject he was even less charitable than Dickens’s great character. Scrooge famously wanted his workers to have regular hours over Christmas—indeed, he insisted on it—but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to want that. Even Scrooge by the end of the story gave Bob Cratchit a pay rise so that his family could enjoy Christmas, but the hon. Gentleman is arguing against that.

I remember sitting on the Opposition Benches when the Conservatives were in government. They were trumpeting their increase in the minimum wage and saying that the creation of the living wage was a demonstration of their commitment to helping low-paid people in this country. Does the Minister worry that, if we extrapolate the point that the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham has been making to its natural conclusion, the Conservatives are actually advocating a cut in the minimum wage as a way to help businesses, which would be detrimental to the thousands of people in Stoke-on-Trent who rely on that money to pay their bills?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Again, the Conservatives do not understand the link between what is in people’s pockets and what goes into the tills. I spent a fantastic day with my hon. Friend and his local businesses last week, and I was impressed by how those at the businesses were all on first-name terms with him.

Does the Minister agree that part of the problem was caused by the Conservatives, who did not welcome the introduction of the minimum wage in 1998, saying that it would destroy businesses, and later when in government split the minimum wage so that people over 25 got more than people under 25, which is causing the inequality that we are having to deal with now?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I recall working in this place as a younger man when we had all-night sittings, as the Conservatives united with those in the other place to try to stop our efforts to make work pay for people—and here we are again, a quarter of a century later.

That is exactly the issue: the Minister was in this place back when the Government were coming up with their plans and policies; meanwhile, I was starting and running a business and employing people. That is the difference. A minimum wage cannot be given to someone who does not have a wage at all because they do not have a job. His party is putting people out of work. There are now 31% more young people not in employment in my constituency than there were this time last year. That is a disgrace, isn’t it?

If the hon. Member had been here at the start of the debate, she would have heard me talking about how I ran a business as well. She mentions job creation. The first year of this Government has seen 138,000 more jobs.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I have given way several times. I will make progress.

The Government are fully supportive of the variety of working arrangements that people, including young people, might choose depending on their circumstances, but the key word there is “choose”. Until now, that flexibility has been entirely one-sided; it has been something that employers have used to their benefit. It is time to let workers have their rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central asked about whether Conservative Members understand what it is like to be in insecure work, particularly at this time of year. This is the most expensive—

Will the Minister give way?

No, I am coming to a close.

This is the most expensive time of year, and December is the most expensive month. Labour is proud to be acting to ensure that families can plan for the expense of Christmas and look forward to Christmas without worrying and having anxiety about whether they can make it to the end of the month. The criticisms and lack of understanding from the Conservatives about how important the cost of living and money in people’s pockets is to the success of businesses is, quite frankly, humbug.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses across the country. Many businesses, such as those in the farming and agricultural sectors, depend on recruiting the right people at the right time. Obstacles to hiring seasonal workers can have a significant impact on businesses, which are already struggling with sky-high energy bills, having trouble recruiting the workforce they need and facing high costs in trading with Europe.

We are seeing a practically stagnant economy, with business confidence down and unemployment up. Unemployment is particularly prevalent among young people, many of whom traditionally find their first jobs in the hospitality sector, which is the largest employer of young people. However, the sector is struggling to employ new workers. The damage being done to the prospects of our youth, as they struggle with unemployment, will be detrimental to the broader economy in the years to come.

Many of those challenges began under the last Conservative Administration. It was the previous Government who undermined farming, agriculture, hospitality and so many other sectors that are dependent on seasonal work by negotiating failed trade deals with the EU, Australia and New Zealand and breaking their promise to reform business rates. Their record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and falling living standards.

People endured years of Conservative mismanagement, which is why it is so disappointing that this Government have wasted the last 18 months by failing to pursue policies that promote growth and by imposing an unfair national insurance jobs tax that has stifled business investment.

In the west country, we have seen an icy chilling effect from the NICs hike on our hospitality and tourism industry, particularly in Torbay. The Torbay Coast & Countryside Trust, which looks after some of our beautiful natural spaces, has faced a £100,000 cost from the NICs hike, which has forced it to close its doors and take a step into the dark. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to explore the impact of the NICs hike on this fragile sector of our economy to see how they can step in to support it?

It is tragic to hear of the closure of my hon. Friend’s local organisation. Not only will local people be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the services it provided, but young people will be deprived of the opportunity to take on their first job.

On the Employment Rights Bill, the Liberal Democrats have been clear that we welcome many of the principles underpinning the legislation, but we have been pushing the Government to make crucial improvements to ensure that it properly delivers for workers and small businesses. We strongly believe in giving all workers security over their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. On flexible work, we will continue to advocate what we think would have been a fairer and less onerous system, based on giving workers a new right to request fixed hours, which businesses would not be able to unreasonably refuse.

On seasonal work, we are glad that, thanks to the work of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, the Government have made significant concessions for the benefit of businesses and workers, placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult with key stakeholders before exercising powers to specify what a “temporary need” is in relation to the provisions on the right to zero-hours contracts. We are pleased that the Government have listened to Liberal Democrat calls for clarity by providing examples of how an employer could approach seasonal demand while complying with the new right to guaranteed hours. These provisions, secured by Liberal Democrat peers, will support workers by giving them more control over their working hours, while ensuring that businesses are properly consulted and given the resources to navigate this new legislation.

This weekend, towns across the country mark Small Business Saturday, but many small businesses will have struggled to celebrate, given the challenges that they face. Recent Government decisions, including the devastating business rates hike in last month’s Budget, are causing huge damage to small hospitality firms, with many now considering whether their business remains viable.

Tourism is vital to the economy of West Dorset and hospitality is one of the largest employers. Our population soars by 40% during the summer months and those businesses require seasonal workers. Given all the headwinds my hon. Friend outlines that face the high street and UK hospitality, does she agree that the Government should reward and look after the sector with a 5% drop in VAT?

My hon. Friend is right; the hospitality sector has been disproportionately impacted by the hike in national insurance contributions because it generally employs people on lower wages for a shorter period of time. In particular, the decrease in the threshold has been damaging to many businesses that have that kind of employment pattern.

My hon. Friend is right that what we really need to do is boost growth and demand. We think that that could happen by introducing a 5% decrease in VAT for hospitality businesses. We need the Government to give hospitality the tools it needs to grow and help boost the wider economy. Thousands of venues are facing steep and unprecedented cost rises, making this a critical moment for the hospitality sector. I urge the Government to tackle the cost-of-doing-business crisis by adopting our proposal on VAT.

How much would the 5% VAT policy cost?

The cost of the VAT cut could be met by—

How much is it?

I believe, off the top of my head, that it is about £9 billion. We think that that could be met by the money that we have lost from leaving the European Union—from Brexit. As a result of leaving the European Union, £25 billion a year has been lost to the Treasury thanks to the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal. There are so many better ways that we could have been spending the money that the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has cost us.

Pubs, bars, cafés and restaurants across the UK that rely on seasonal workers need all the support they can get, so I sincerely hope Ministers will listen. Today’s motion calls for the abolition of business rates, and the Liberal Democrats agree that we need to see a complete overhaul of that unfair and damaging system. In 2019, the Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of the business rates system, which they failed to deliver. In their recent Budget, the Government committed to rebalancing business rates, but we saw nothing of the sort. UKHospitality says that the average tax increase for hospitality will be 76% over the next three years. Meanwhile, warehouses, offices and large supermarkets will see bills go up by just 16%, 7% and 4% respectively. The Chancellor said that she is looking to introduce permanently lower business rate multipliers, but the painful reality is that the new higher valuations will wipe out any benefit that businesses might have seen.

The increase in the minimum wage announced by the Government in the recent Budget is welcome and will support millions of low-paid workers, but it is not just workers who need a boost; it is small businesses too. Unless businesses are able to grow, there is a danger that the long list of cost pressures they face will result in fewer jobs being available overall.

When I have talked to small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency of Shipley, they have welcomed the announcement that there will be free apprenticeship training so that they can help the next generation of young people get into higher-skilled jobs and have careers. Does the hon. Lady agree, and does she support the Government’s announcement about apprenticeships as part of the youth guarantee?

I thank the hon. Lady, my colleague on the Public Accounts Committee, for her intervention. She is absolutely right. I 100% and wholeheartedly welcome any boost to apprenticeships and that announcement in the Budget. However, there has been and continues to be caution over whether there will be sufficient business growth for high-skilled jobs to be created, which is what will enable our young people to progress in their careers.

Businesses from all sectors across the UK continue to struggle with high energy bills, which is compounded by the burden of the NICs rise and concerns about the effect of certain aspects of the Employment Rights Bill on their monthly employment costs. The cost of employment has risen significantly over the last year and there have been nearly 70,000 hospitality job losses just since last October. Our small businesses face huge challenges and many are already struggling to absorb rising costs. Unless more is done to support them, vital entry-level jobs, which make an essential contribution to the culture and character of our local communities, may be lost.

As the motion looks to examine the challenges facing businesses, a perhaps unsurprising omission is the absence of any reference to the damage caused by the last Government’s failed Brexit deal. The appalling agreement negotiated by the Conservative party has been a complete disaster for our country and particularly for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports.

The dismal impact of the Conservatives’ terrible Brexit deal is becoming increasingly clear. A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33% of currently trading enterprises experienced extra costs directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period. Small businesses have been particularly badly affected, with 20,000 small firms stopping all exports to the EU. A recent study has found that goods exports have fallen by 6.4% since the trade deal came into force in 2021.

While the Liberal Democrats welcome the steps, hesitant as they are, that this Government are taking to rebuild our relationship with the EU, I urge them to recognise that this should only be the start of the move towards a new bespoke UK-EU customs union, which this House voted for just yesterday. Independent analysis has shown that a closer trading relationship with the EU would boost GDP by 2.2% and would bring in roughly £25 billion of extra tax revenue every year, which would be crucial in fixing the public services that the Conservative party left broken.

I am not suggesting that the hon. Lady should have been hanging on my every word yesterday, but she was in the Chamber during that debate. I would not call 100 votes in favour and 100 votes against a win. A ten-minute rule Bill will go nowhere. Why her leader jumps up and down on social media as if he has just introduced Magna Carta, I fail to understand. Did she not hear me when I said that in conversations with the European Union, the EU itself will not entertain a new customs union with the United Kingdom? It wants to evolve the agreement that we have, as per the agreement, not have groundhog day. Which bit of that does her party not understand, or are the Liberal Democrats just ignoring it because it is convenient to do so?

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech yesterday, which I thought he delivered very well. I am grateful to him for putting the points against our Bill. He is absolutely right: it was 100 on each side. However, it passed with the help of Madam Deputy Speaker and it has progressed to Second Reading. I take his point, but I say to him: how does he know? If there is a political movement for change in this country, a political will towards further integration with the European Union and a political will in favour of a customs union—

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will finish this point, if I may. I think the EU would welcome that and would be very keen to have a conversation on that basis.

I will give way to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she not agree that the trade agreement that was signed earlier this year and the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which the EU now has a mandate to discuss and which will hopefully be through by 2027, will make a massive difference to a lot of the exporting that is done? We are getting there; it takes time, but we are getting there.

That approach is very piecemeal and it is taking time. If we had a more wholehearted approach to a customs union, we would be able to unlock all sorts of benefits that are not possible with a piecemeal approach.

I suggest that a new customs union might take a little bit of time—maybe just a day or two. The hon. Lady asked a perfectly legitimate question: how do I know? In direct response to her party’s motion, I raised the issue directly with representatives of the European Union, and the answer was, “No, thank you.” That is what I know. I was not speculating; it was knowledge.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing that knowledge with us all. Obviously, that is something to reflect upon. That is why we are pressing the Government. It is the Government who hold the purse strings and the pen here. It is up to them to make those advances on behalf of the country.

I will ask this question in a spirit of genuine curiosity, if I may. The trade deal done with the United States earlier in the year by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the former Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), guaranteed more than 200,000 jobs in the west midlands at Jaguar Land Rover and in its supply chain. What future does the hon. Member envisage for those jobs in her ideal scenario, where we go back into a customs union tomorrow? What would she say to my constituents and the people in our west midlands region about the prospects for those jobs? Has she thought about that and does she have a plan?

Our allies in America are becoming increasingly unreliable, and it is absolutely right that we should look elsewhere for our alliances, not just on trade but on defence. Recent moves just this week show us the shaky ground on which our agreements with the US are built. For the long-term future of the car industry in the west midlands and of our whole economy, we need to look to Europe and build up those relationships with our European neighbours, because our partnerships with our allies in the US are becoming increasingly unreliable. If I were one of the hon. Lady’s constituents, I would be looking to the Government to fully investigate other opportunities for trade as well as with the US.

More broadly, as we look at issues affecting the workforce, Liberal Democrats welcome the industrial strategy that this Government have put in place, alongside a funding boost for skills and training. However, this progress stops well short of the fundamental reform we need to see if we are to address the workforce shortages that many industries are facing. British businesses must be able to hire the people they need with the skills they need. A key cause of workforce shortages is ill health. To tackle this deeply entrenched problem, the Government must do more to invest not only in our NHS but in social care, so that people can get the healthcare they need and rejoin the workforce more quickly.

Any business will tell you that the apprenticeship levy does not work, despite the Government’s attempts at reform. Firms cannot get the funding they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds of funding is going unspent. The Liberal Democrats have long called for proper reform of the levy, replacing it with a wider skills and training levy that will give businesses real flexibility over how they spend money to train their staff. We were pleased to hear in the Budget that more details on the wider youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy package would be announced shortly, but can the Minister provide a timeline for when we can expect to see that detail?

Will the Minister also set out a timeline for the introduction of a youth mobility scheme, which would be beneficial to our economy, easing some of the burdens that the hospitality sector is facing? Businesses across the country, especially our small businesses, are struggling with unprecedentedly high costs, such as the Government’s unfair national insurance rise, sky-high commercial energy bills and a broken business rates system. Struggling businesses mean fewer jobs and lower pay, so it is absolutely clear that we must look for ways to support local businesses and all those who rely on them.

I am going to confine my remarks to the criticisms of the Employment Rights Bill, because it is where my experience sits and because I tried—in no small part thanks to the efforts of yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker—to get into Monday’s debate on the Bill, but sadly I was not able to speak.

Having said that, I do also want to make the point that it is imperative that all hon. Members listen to small businesses, as I did this Saturday as I helped out Falkirk Delivers and the Falkirk business improvement district team, disentangling the Christmas lights and carrying ladders about Falkirk High Street as they set up the inaugural Falkirk festival of trees. I encourage any hon. Member to visit the vastly brilliant hospitality venues in Falkirk. With that out of the way, I will now focus my contribution on the impact of the Employment Rights Bill.

We have heard from the Opposition that small businesses are looking for more solutions, although I would point out that very few of them say that we should either cut welfare substantially in a way that would push children into poverty or rejoin the European Union as the immediate solution. It is imperative, though, that we talk about seasonal workers and not just the businesses that hire them; that is, of course, an important perspective, but it can often be a parochial view that involves talking to one side of the labour market—the employer—and failing to grasp the incentive system that we need to change in order to get people into work, as I believe the Employment Rights Bill will do. After years of hearing the Conservative Government using the stick—tough language about benefit sanctions, often kicking down at a workless generation that they directly caused and also directly failed to address when in government—the Conservatives now repeatedly slam the carrot: the Employment Rights Bill and this Government’s broader agenda to make work pay again.

So in lieu, I will provide my own relatively recent experience to the House. With the exception of the pandemic—when I lost my insecure hospitality job as one of the workers who was not provided with furlough assistance because of the nature of my contract, and I had to move back in with my parents for the first time since I was 17—I have not gone one week unemployed since I was a teenager. After long days at school and, later, long days of studying law, I spent my weekends working behind the bar at weddings and various functions in the hospitality industry and the retail industry. I did this because of the ethos my family instilled in me as a 16-year-old, when I got my first seasonal job at Argos, that nothing is better for your self-esteem, your progression, your social skills, your life, your independence and, ultimately, your wallet than to get yourself in, and keep yourself in, work.

I still remember hitting 1,000 orders on Christmas eve 2016 in that first job, only to be told on Boxing day, alongside many of my generation who worked hard in that seasonal job and made sure that the business was running, that I was not going to be kept on. We have to remind ourselves that the workers who work over Christmas in hospitality, in retail and in gift shops are the economy that we are talking about here. They are the ones who consistently keep the lights on in our high streets. In my experience, working on the minimum wage, insecure and low pay, high turnover and insecure hours are major characteristics of the sectors I have worked in. Until I moved out of the hospitality sector in June 2022, my income was sometimes enough to pay the rent on my digs and for my bills, food and the occasional trip to the pub or a Falkirk match—but, sadly, sometimes it was not.

This is still the reality for far too many who work in hospitality, retail, social care and many other sectors, and it is ultimately the reason I got into politics: to improve the lot of those who, despite grafting and seeing little result for themselves or their families and sometimes working in quite deep poverty, still went in each day and got on with it. That same spirit lives on today in the young hospitality workers who are currently in dispute with their employer at the Village Hotel and at Vue in Glasgow. The hard-working generation that I am a part of are down there once again, organising and demanding better, because they are contributing and keeping our economy going, and they deserve fair pay and conditions over Christmas.

More than anything, this was the reason I ran for election: I saw in my generation the corrosive social sickness that the previous Government neglectfully allowed this country, and especially my generation, to be infected with. After 14 long years, many in my generation looked at the workplace with no prospect of being able to build a better life than the one their parents had. I believe that the last Parliament was the first in history in which living standards went down. Off the back of that, too many in my generation saw that they could either work hard and see little reward or sit about and see little reward as well.

Something had to radically change. This country had to make work pay again. That was the message in the manifesto that Labour stood on and promised the country that we would deliver if we had the privilege of winning office. This is what the Employment Rights Bill is designed to do, with day one rights to statutory sick pay, allowing workers who fall ill to bounce back into the workplace quicker and healthier, and day one rights to paternity leave—those were secured this week; I am grateful to the Minister—meaning that fathers can spend those precious first few days at home with their newly-born bairns, which I imagine will be crucial for many families this Christmas.

Having said that, as Ministers are aware, I was desperately disappointed earlier this week when the concession was made to the Tories and Lib Dems in the other place on day one rights against unfair dismissal. Those same peers have, throughout the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, fought to bargain on behalf of the bad bosses to weaken the sick pay and paternity leave of millions of ordinary people. The obstructions of the other place to delivering that core manifesto commitment, which will benefit so many in my generation—those who are seasonal workers, to boot—must be addressed by the Government at another time and, from my perspective, with far more radical intent in regard to the other place. I cannot and I will not forget the workers I have pulled pints alongside.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. An 18 to 20-year-old this Christmas who is serving a pint will be earning £1.40 an hour more. Does he agree that this demonstrates Labour’s commitment to young people?

Yes, absolutely. I also find it disgraceful that the Leader of the Opposition suggested this week that we should freeze the minimum wage. That would mean that, in later years, the workers who are going to keep the lights on this Christmas in the gift shops, the pubs and the restaurants would be entitled to less as inflation went up—[Interruption.] Well, they are part of the economy. If we did not have the workforce keeping the lights on in the first place, there would be no restaurants, no pubs and, sadly, no Christmas custom. That is the experience of far too many people in hospitality.

This is the fourth Christmas in my working life that I am going to be able to spend with my family instead of working in the hospitality industry. If any of those on the Opposition Benches can share their experiences, I would be very interested to hear them, considering how much experience in business they utilised earlier in the debate. Throughout the progress of my career in this place and the votes that we make, I am not going to forget the workers I pulled pints beside and served tables with. I have heard too many stories about kids being bullied, belittled and booted out of the workplace by bad bosses during the first two years of their working lives. I do worry—and I have shared my concern with Ministers—that, especially in the seasonal work sector, this will now simply happen before the six-month mark. We should return to and address that later in the Parliament.

I expect nothing from Opposition Members but an apology to the 1.5 million people who were put into in-work poverty during the shambolic 14-year tenure of the Conservatives. They built a low-wage, insecure, low-productivity economy, all while practising austerity, and now they have come back to this House with essentially the same ideas but with 200 less MPs.

What would the hon. Gentleman say to the 89,000 people who have lost their hospitality jobs over the last 12 months?

An extensive amount of hospitality jobs were lost over the previous five years as well. I speak to small businesses in my constituency every week, and I do not deny that they have been hard pressed for a number of years. I know, because I was there—I was working in the industry.

Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

It is important that we back our hospitality sector, and I said earlier that I think there should be more to come. Small businesses in the hospitality sector have talked to me about their energy prices.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way a second time?

I will give way, given the hon. Gentleman’s insistence. Maybe he will mention some experience of hospitality workers as well.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way to me a second time. Some 89,000 hospitality jobs have been lost during the past 12 months. Youth unemployment is up, with 12% of 16 to 24-year-olds currently unemployed. There are an estimated 40% fewer seasonal jobs this year—the biggest decline in 15 years. Energy costs are up. Business rates are up. Confidence is down. Regulation is up. Does he acknowledge that it is not a coincidence that all that is happening at the same time, and that it must, at least in part, be related to the really poor choices made by this Government?

Although I do not accept the premise, I think it is important to recognise that hospitality has struggled over a number of years. I am not in any way denying that. However, I do not know why the Employment Rights Bill is mentioned in the Opposition Day motion, given that its provisions have not yet come into place.

It is important that we listen to hospitality and give feedback, but it is also important not to discourage young people from seeking job opportunities in the first place. That has happened for far too long—for the past 14 years under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

As I am going to draw to a close, I will not take any more interventions.

Moaning about the rates of maternity pay or proposing to freeze the minimum wage is not likely to incentivise more young people to grasp their first opportunity. It is not likely to encourage the people we are talking about here—the NEETs of my generation—into the workplace. This Government are delivering a fair wage and fair working conditions, but we do need to go further and faster, both on employment rights—instead of stepping back at the first sign of opposition from the Tories and the Lib Dems—and on support for the hospitality industry in my constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) pointed out something quite important: because of what this Government have done, the younger workers in our constituencies are going to be £1.40 an hour better off in their workplace. I only wish that, back when I got my first seasonal job, we had a Government who saw the value of my labour over the Christmas period.

Tourism and hospitality offers seasonal, flexible and part-time work, and that is why many people, particularly young people, choose to work in that sector. The UK tourism and hospitality sector is one of the most taxed sectors in Europe, so what did the Government do for the sector? They reduced flexibility and increased taxes, and that is having real-world consequences. It is little wonder that 55% of the jobs lost under this Government have been lost from retail, hospitality and leisure.

Youth unemployment is up, too, which is having real-world consequences in coastal communities such as those on the Isle of Wight. Towns that are reliant on the visitor economy, like Ryde, Sandown, Shanklin and Ventnor, are seriously concerned that this is just the start, and that the Government are making plans for a tourism tax, which would hit small businesses even further. On the Isle of Wight, 38% of our local economy is based on tourism and visitors. If the Government tax something, we can expect less of it, and we expect fewer visitors, which will hit our economy. It is local businesses, not just those in my constituency, that provide the first job opportunity for so many of our young people. Young people may want part-time, flexible work, because they are in education, yet the Government say that the state knows best, and through their unemployment rights Bill, they have reduced the flexibility that benefits those looking for work.

The Government have already made some important U-turns, such as getting rid of the ridiculous idea of day one rights—by the way, the previous Labour Government never sought to introduce such rights—but they need to go further. What do I say to small business owners and to hard-working families on the Isle of Wight when they see job opportunities disappear and their taxes go up? The only answer I have for them is: more tax for more welfare. This is happening because today the Government want to grow an already substantial welfare bill. They did not want to do so last summer. Last summer, the Government tried to reduce welfare, though not by much, but they had to abandon their plans while a Minister was delivering a speech in this Chamber because their Back Benchers said no. This is not a Government being led from the front; they are being led from their Back Benches, and we have a caretaker Prime Minister in office. Having abandoned the Prime Minister’s plans to cut welfare, the Chancellor has done the opposite and increased welfare spending.

The Government have a solution for the challenge that tourism and hospitality faces in finding people to do the jobs. We heard just a few days ago that their solution is to encourage people to do those jobs while they are on welfare, because there are vacancies, though jobs were lost because of the Government’s taxation policy. In fact, there are more people on welfare because of taxes on small businesses, tourism and hospitality, and now the Government are asking those people, who once had a job in the private sector and are now reliant on the state, to help them out by doing some of that work. That is both socialism and incompetence, and ultimately the whole country loses out, because the economy is grinding to a halt, with inflation and unemployment both up.

The best way to fund public services is to grow the economy. Growing the economy would increase the tax take without any taxes going up. In fact, the Government could reduce taxes and increase the tax take if the economy grows. That is the money that pays for public services. The Minister said that the shadow Secretary of State was like Scrooge for setting out the severe challenges that this Government’s economic policy presents for hard-working families and businesses. It is not being like Scrooge to hold up a mirror to decision makers to show them the outcome of their decisions. It does not matter whether it is Christmas time or any other time; the Minister and the Government need to hear the hard truth, and it is the role of Opposition Members to say it. We are not going to be put off from doing so.

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers and a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for speaking so much about his personal experience of working in the hospitality industry. Like him, I started out in the industry. I worked as a waitress in a hotel in Ilkley for just £1.70 an hour, so I am pleased that the Labour Government are doing all they can to raise the minimum wage for our youngest workers.

Under the guise of wanting to support seasonal workers, the Opposition are actually looking to scrap the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation, which this House recently voted on. The Employment Rights Bill is a landmark Bill that delivers on this Labour Government’s promise to put an end to insecurity, poor productivity and low pay for working people. The Conservatives, along with Reform and the Liberal Democrats, opposed ending exploitative zero-hour contracts, ending fire and rehire, day one rights on paternity, parental and bereavement leave and giving statutory sick pay to 1.3 million of our lowest-paid workers.

I would therefore like to focus my remarks on the benefits of the Employment Rights Bill, and what it means, particularly for adult social care and unpaid workers. While care workers are not necessarily seasonal, they have a lot in common with seasonal workers: low pay, insecurity and variable hours each week. It was a tragedy that during covid so many of our hard-working and dedicated care workers feared staying at home when they were ill because they were not entitled to statutory sick pay. I am therefore proud that this Labour Government are strengthening those care workers’ rights. What is good for workers is good for business, so I do not see this as a choice between the two. Take unpaid and family carers. Flexibility is hugely important to many of those who juggle care and work. The Bill will ensure that unpaid family carers, many of whom are women, can apply for a job, confident that they will have rights from day one. Workers with guaranteed hours will not have to worry about whether they can feed their kids or pay their bills. Keeping people in work, reducing recruitment costs and absenteeism, and boosting productivity—those of the results of giving security to workers. Healthy workers and a healthy workplace are better for workers, business and our economy.

The Employment Rights Bill makes good on the promise of a fair pay agreement for care workers. The Health Foundation’s analysis has found that one in five residential care workers live in poverty. I find that to be an absolute travesty, given the vital work that care workers do, looking after older and disabled adults, day in, day out. It is perhaps not surprising, then—given that the public recognise what great work those care workers do—that 77% of the public believe that care workers are paid too little. Not only are the Government delivering on the fair pay agreement for social care workers through the Bill, but they have already ensured a fairer funding formula for local authorities, and I hope that as that gets negotiated, it will result in a fairer package of terms and conditions. Many not-for-profit providers already pay the national living wage, but it is important that care workers feel that they have a career, and that caring is a good job for them. Hopefully we can attract more young people into those sorts of jobs, and give them a more secure career in care work. They should have not low pay and zero-hour contracts, but guaranteed work and better pay, so that they can take that first step in a career in health and care. Those changes will make a huge difference to those who provide amazing care and support for disabled adults and older people.

The second issue that I want to highlight is the introduction of a fair work agency. Members may be wondering what that has to do with care workers, but sadly, under the Tories, the decision taken, with no plan or preparation, to open up the skilled worker visa to care workers resulted in the horrific exploitation of care workers. Overseas agencies were charging extortionate fees. New businesses were set up and registered here solely to employ overseas workers. I have heard of cases in which those workers were given tied accommodation and zero-hour contracts, and were expected to travel far away to get care work. As a result, they got into debt. If they complained, they were sacked. With no sponsor, they could not take any other job in the economy here. That is verging on modern slavery, and that is why I am glad that the new fair work agency will have powers to crack down on those unscrupulous employers that leave workers so susceptible to abuse.

There is a bit of a debate going on. Unemployment has gone up every month since the Government have been in power. The Government say that is the fault of the last Government; we Opposition Members say that it is the fault of two Budgets that have been anti-business. If the hon. Member has faith in the Chancellor’s policies, will she put her money where her mouth is and say that unemployment in Shipley and across the country will come down for the first time? If she could put a month and a year on it, that would be great testament to her faith in the Chancellor.

Clearly, the package of changes that the Chancellor brought in are a huge boost to the economy and jobs. There is investment going into businesses, and support for scaling up businesses. I have brilliant businesses in my constituency, like Jack Pennington Ltd, which is investing in a whole new warehouse. It has the confidence to base its business in Shipley, and to expand. Some of the capital funds will go a long way on this. There are also the apprenticeships and the youth guarantee, and we are already seeing youth unemployment coming down; I am confident that will continue.

We still have too many vacancies and unfilled posts in care work, and a lot of that is because it is a very hard job, both physically and emotionally, and many people working in care found that they could get a better paid job at Aldi. We have to lift up the value of care work and value it more as a society to attract people. There are jobs there, and we need to encourage young people into vital jobs like care work.

The Public Accounts Committee was highly critical of the lack of assessment of the exploitation risks that led to vulnerable migrant workers facing debt bondage and unfair conditions, so as I say, I am pleased with the creation of the fair work agency. I hope that—perhaps the Minister could address this—it will also help tackle the problem of overseas recruitment fraud.

Care workers are exploited in other ways, too, like other part-time workers. They are often not paid for travel or for night sitting, even though there have been legal cases to say that they should. Again, the fair work agency, as I understand it, will address that issue for those underpaid workers who are not even receiving the minimum wage.

In conclusion, I support the Government amendment to the Opposition motion. I believe that Labour is pro-business and pro-worker. The care sector is a major part of our economy. It employs some 1.6 million people, as well as providing vital care and support to millions of people. I hope that these reforms will be the beginning of us creating the foundations for a national care service.

Let us take a look at the amendment which Mr Speaker has selected in the name of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s amendment tells us that he

“welcomes the policy paper”

on

“the plan for small and medium sized businesses, which sets out”—

wait for it—

“a comprehensive vision for productivity and success”.

[Interruption.] “Wow” indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) says from a sedentary position—she is less well trained in keeping her excitement levels under control. After 14 years of opposition and 18 months in government: a policy paper, a plan, a comprehensive vision—that is the sum of the contribution from the Treasury Bench towards these important and vital parts of the sector. The Government need to learn, I suggest, a key and important lesson: policy papers, plans and comprehensive visions deliver of themselves nothing. They create no jobs. They give no certainty. They provide no confidence to employees, employers, investors, entrepreneurs, innovators or consumers. Strategy and policy are not the same things. Vision and delivery are not two sides of the same coin.

The Government tell us in their amendment that their Employment Rights Bill

“will help season workers by bringing the UK’s outdated employment laws into the 21st century”.

Well, I would dispute first and foremost the idea that our employment laws are outdated; I think they have been organic and iterative over the decades, as one would expect. But the Government will not help seasonal workers if they cannot become seasonal workers because putative employers have neither the confidence to employ nor the headroom to create jobs and pay salaries. We are in fantasy land, with a fantasy idea about how to run an economy: we just legislate and, hey presto—pantomime-like—it happens. A strategy is published and—bingo!—it is all resolved. That is not the case.

This first example will, I am sure, be of enormous interest to the Labour party. Mark Fulton, a constituent of mine in Tolpuddle, is the landlord of the Martyrs Inn.

Lovely pub!

It is a lovely pub. The hon. Lady has been and has not been barred yet. Anybody who knows their trade union history, as I know she does, will know about the Tolpuddle martyrs in 1834. The pub is named after them.

Excellent sandwiches, too!

The pub was bought by the village for £500,000. It is a community asset-type pub. One significant stakeholder is the TUC itself, which decided that thirsty trade unionists might, after the martyrs memorial, enjoy a pint and, indeed, one of the excellent sandwiches that the hon. Lady has referenced.

After the Budget, Mark Fulton wrote to me:

“With the impact of this Budget, we risk losing these vital community hubs that are so important to our local life and economy.”

He, like others in all our constituencies, has been arguing for—and this freedom exists now we are outside the European Union—a bespoke reduction of VAT on pub sales, including the wet trade. We are asking publicans, who provide far more in the community hubs that Mark talks about, to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, when in essence they are paying a VAT rate of 20% compared with the 2% paid by supermarkets.

Business rates are clearly going to go up. That is, again, the fantasy world of this Government. One sector representative group after another tells the Government that, by the Government’s own figures and calculations, business rates will rise. “Oh no,” says the Minister. “Everybody else is wrong. I am right, because I am a Minister of the Crown.” This is the politics of the emperor’s new clothes. It is about time that one or two people on the Government Benches stood up and told the Treasury team that many of their policies leave the Government naked as they try to garner and foster a small, entrepreneurial business sector.

On employer national insurance and increases in the minimum wages, I quote Mark Fulton again:

“The latest rise risks opportunities for young people to be employed in our sector.”

He goes on to remind us that

“40% of young people begin their careers in hospitality—the sector plays a crucial role in training, upskilling and supporting social mobility.”

All that is put at risk. Surely, irrespective of geography or party affiliation, we should all be worried if a cogent argument is deployed about social mobility being reduced as a direct result of Government policy.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said in his excellent speech, many of the harmful decisions taken in the recent Budget were not of the Government’s choosing. They were, in essence, a fulfilment of what the Chancellor rightly said to rebellious Back Benchers on welfare: “Rebel if you like, and we’ll abandon if we have to, but there’ll be a cost that will have to be paid. That cost will be taxed, and there will be a concomitant diminution in confidence among employers and customers.”

I could quote several publicans, but Barbara Cossins, who owns and runs the Langton Arms in Tarrant Monkton, would have my guts for garters if I did not take this opportunity to mention her. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) knows it well and says what a good pub it is. Barbara Cossins replicates many of the points made by Mark Fulton, but adds that rural pubs in tourist areas are particularly reliant on seasonal summer trade. They have to pay business rates, but their major competitor in those small rural settings, Airbnb, pays no business rates at all. It is an un-level playing field.

The Government had an opportunity—and they possibly still do, as the Finance Bill progresses—to try to level that playing field. We are asking these important sectors of our economy to go into bat for UK plc—to create the jobs that create the tax that funds our public services—but at every step and turn, this Government seem hellbent on hobbling and hamstringing them and tying their hands behind their backs.

The Government have the laudable aim of seeing housebuilding increase. Who does not? Again, that is an important part of social mobility—we know that a lot of seasonal jobs are created in the construction sector. However, Travis Perkins sent out a customer email just today that said that, from 1 January, supplier increases in prices will come in across the industry.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will, but let me finish this point.

Roofing prices are up 7%, bricks 8%, blocks 9%, landscaping 8%, drainage 8%, and plaster, plasterboard and cladding 7%. Costs can be increased, and companies can absorb as much as they can, but at some point, as Travis Perkins points out, those increased costs can no longer be self-absorbed and must be passported off to the consumer. When the consumer’s costs go up, their margins of profit decrease, and their likelihood, potential and appetite for creating additional jobs disappears, like an early spring frost, arguably never to return.

I am so glad that someone has mentioned the construction industry. However, the hon. Member is talking not about seasonal jobs but about contract work. The key to maintaining sustained employment in the construction sector is having a strong pipeline of repeated projects so that people can build their skills and move on to the next contract, and then the one after that, to build a career in that way. Does he agree that the Government’s announcement of construction technical excellence colleges across the country—including close to my area, at the end of the new tramline in Dudley—£39 billion over the next 10 years for sustainable housebuilding, including social and affordable housing, and the largest sustained infrastructure funding in four decades, means that there will be a sustainable pipeline—

Order.

Over the next 10 years—another “wow” moment. Jam tomorrow—well, we don’t even know if it is jam tomorrow; it is a promise of something that might materialise, but these sectors need support now.

Let me conclude my remarks by highlighting what I fear will be a terrible downward-pulling spiral in confidence from investors, employers and consumers. I am not an economist, but it seems to me self-evident that if we increase the costs of employing people, we are likely to see fewer people employed. Someone might not expand their business; they might not create that new job.

General elections create a lack of confidence in the sector. This Government were returned with a massive majority, which should be giving stability and confidence to the marketplace. In fact—it is the greatest perversity that we have seen since July 2024—the complete reverse is taking place. Why is that? Last year, the Chancellor created in her own mind a black hole. She decided to fill it by additional taxes, and she assured the House and country that it was a one-off. Growth was going to do everything else, spending was going to be looked at, and everything would be hunky-dory. Well, that did not come to pass. The Government changed the environment, and we had the Budget just a few weeks ago—fabrication, being economical with the actualité. That is saying to potential investors and job creators, “Well we thought we might have believed them on year one, but year two transpired not to be the case.” How many more acts that would make the Artful Dodger blush will they be dipping into our pockets next time, next time, and the next time? We will have a rebellion on that, or on that, and that rebellion will have to be funded not by a recalibration of where Government spending is allocated, but by increasing the pot that the Government have to spend by increasing taxes.

I took the advice of our Clerks, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether I should conclude with a certain word or not. The advice was that I would be better to slightly spell it out, so I will take that advice. North Dorset is not a constituency of large firms. They are family businesses, most will be micro, some will be small, and precious few will be medium-sized. A small business owner in my constituency has a family business that he has grown and he was seeking to employ. He wanted his kids to get involved with it as well. He said to me, “Simon, you can tell that Rachel Reeves”—because he said “Rachel Reeves”, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Lady— “to describe this Budget, in a few easy words for the media headline, as ‘The why the eff should I bother Budget’” Why the eff should he bother to invest, to create, and to provide opportunity for our young to then pay the taxes to deliver the public services that we require?

But if the Government do not give an eff, Opposition Members certainly do. There is an alternative Conservative vision for this, and I look forward with colleagues to presenting that to the country over the coming months.

I refer Members to my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby there are thousands of seasonal job opportunities each year, and as well as an enlarged tourism sector during the summer months, there is regular seasonal employment for the rest of the year, such as the fabulous Scarborough Lights festival each and every winter—it is going on at the moment. Overall, 11% of working people in Scarborough and Whitby are employed in retail, with another 20% working in hospitality. The Employment Rights Bill will boost and protect those workers against zero-hour contracts and last-minute shift cancellations.

Having worked as a freelancer for many years, I understand the pressures that workers in the so-called gig economy face. Too many women have to constantly juggle their work around caring responsibilities, with no certainty as to whether they will work enough to pay the bills each month. I was one of those women. The Bill will establish day-one parental rights, and strengthen statutory sick pay, transforming the world of work for millions of women. In fact, 40% of unemployed women say that flexible working hours will likely get them into work. If Conservative Members claim to be pro-growth, they cannot disregard the economic benefits of legal protections that will help women to enter and stay in the workforce. The Employment Rights Bill protects both employers and workers by implementing common-sense protections and real financial provisions that will drive growth in coastal communities such as mine and across the country, and I fully support the Government amendment.

As it comes towards Christmas, I tend to think of the shows I like to watch, and one is “Blackadder Goes Forth”. Near the end there is a famous quote. Blackadder is finally trying to get away, but he cannot. He knows he is going to go over the top and he says, “Well, it rhymes with clucking bell”. For me, that is what many in my constituency who run businesses are now feeling about not one but two Labour Budgets.

When I think about high streets in Earl Shilton, Barwell and Hinckley, I think about our little cafés and restaurants, the shops, and the pubs. They are really feeling the pressure. The Government came in on a mandate of raising taxes—that is true—but to the tune of £7 billion or perhaps £8 billion, not £40 billion in the first Budget, and £26 billion in the second. Every Government may need to raise taxes—the Conservatives did it when we were in government—but the problem with the current Government, and the issue hitting all my businesses, is the toxic concoction of everything changing at once. There is constriction around the whole idea of growth. We see that at micro level on the high streets of Hinckley and Burbage, and at macro level as a country, with ever tightening red tape and tax, all under the auspices that we are supposed to be growing as a country. We have seen inflation and unemployment go up, and growth stagnate. That is the reality that the country is facing, and so are my high streets.

Under 14 years of the Conservatives, productivity and growth stagnated—the worst in the G7. Would the hon. Gentleman like to enlighten Members as to whether he thinks that helped or hindered businesses and their employees?

I would love to elucidate, because if we go back to 2010, we had to deal with the financial crisis, and we had to borrow £158 billion to deal with that. Then we had to get the coffers back in the right position, and we were just about doing that before the pandemic hit and we had to borrow another £400 billion. The hon. Lady was not here under the previous Government, but every time we were here, the Opposition were asking us to spend more, and we are now feeling the pressures of having to deal with that.

The hon. Lady talks about what Labour inherited, but it also inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7. We also had inflation at target and very little unemployment, but all those things are now changing under this Government, because of their polices. It is easy to see why. In the first Budget, there was an increase in the national living wage and in national insurance contributions, and business rates relief for the hospitality sector was cut from 75% to 40%. If we fast forward to this Budget, the national living wage has been raised again and the business rates relief has been cut again.

Now the Government have come forward to say, “We are putting transition measures in place”, but those measures will mean a 15% increase for the vast majority of businesses. That increase is capped—I give the Government credit for that—but for the vast majority of businesses, the increase is 15% this year, and then up to 30%, 40% or 70% over three years. That is the prospect for hospitality businesses. They were already struggling because of the very nature of the pandemic as well as high inflation because of the war in Ukraine, so the situation is difficult for those businesses—they are the most vulnerable ones—yet the toxic concoction put in place by this Government is making things worse.

I will go down my high streets this Christmas to speak to those businesses, but I fear what lies in prospect for them as a result of this Government’s actions. How will the measures that the Government have put in place encourage those businesses and help them to move forward? I do not think that Labour Members are anti-business and I agree that they want to support workers, but they are blinkered and naive to think about giving extra rights and pay to workers without taking into consideration the consequences of what may well happen. It is all very well having increased pay, but for people who do not have a job, that is an increase in nothing. That is the heart of the problem.

We want to see more secure pay. The previous Prime Minister, the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, talked about high productivity and high-value jobs, which all hon. Members want to see. The question is how we get there. We do not get there by tying a tight noose around the businesses that will drive those jobs, which is a real concern for me. Why would anyone take the risk of setting up a restaurant in Market Bosworth or a new pub in Donisthorpe? Why would they take on the responsibility of the livelihood of their employees? Most employers are good employers and care deeply about their workforce.

To reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about risk, employers are taking personal risk when they set up businesses and employ people. When they have so much cost piled on them, that risk-benefit equation evaporates, and with it the jobs that they deliver to other people in their communities.

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I bow to her experience as I know that she has run and been involved with many businesses. She speaks the truth about what businesses and risk-takers are looking at in this country. They are saying, “Why would I take that risk? Why would I take on that responsibility if there is not any reward?” I would have had more truck with the Government if they set out what they were trying to achieve over the next three or four Budgets sequentially. They could then have increased national insurance contributions, for example, as a one-off, and built around that. However, the problem is that there is a toxic concoction of measures all coming in one go.

The hon. Gentleman is right. As an MP, he will be an employer. No doubt, he is a good employer who offers the members of his team good terms and he cares deeply about the staff who he is looking after. However, we have taxpayer-funded jobs, but the private sector has to generate the funding to employ people, so those businesses have to take the risk and work out whether there will be a job in the first place. Worse still, because of the Government’s Budget choices, many cafés and pubs are looking to reduce the hours that they open, to reduce their staffing hours or even to close because they cannot make the numbers add up. We are seeing a cumulative effect, which is having an impact at a micro level on the likes of Twycross and at a macro level on the whole country, with every industry speaking out and saying that it is having problems.

I had hoped that the Government might listen to those ideas. The Government’s mantra has always been that their No.1 mission is growth, but all the measures that they have put in place are anti-growth. We are seeing the results of that, with inflation being higher.

The Conservatives are often accused by Labour Members of talking down the economy, but from my recollection, over its 14 years the Conservative party set the conditions for the creation of 800 jobs per day, on average. I have just checked the recent statistics and the number is running at about 373 under the current Government. In addition, net inflation has risen every month that the Government have been in power, since July last year. Will my hon. Friend take an intervention from any one of the very few Members present on the Government Benches who is prepared to say when they think that unemployment might start to fall from the record levels of low unemployment that they inherited from the last Government?

I will take an intervention on that point, if any Labour Member would like to make one. More importantly, my hon. Friend correctly makes the point that it is the Government’s job to set the framework. There is no such thing as Government money: it is taxpayers’ money, earned by those who create the wealth. It is businesses and the associated workforce that provide the public sector with the money it needs to do its job—it is that simple.

In my trade as a doctor, we talk about A-B-C-D-E when it comes to a patient. There is no use dealing with the circulation—the heart—if the person does not have a clear airway. The same applies here: we need to have an economy that is growing and thriving to be able to give the foundation to the funding for the likes of the NHS or education. This is where the Government might be slightly wrong and where they have got the balance wrong, about which we heard from the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger). If the system is tilted too far and made too tight for people ever to take a risk, we are not going to have the tax inflow in the first place. Worse still, we have seen 16,000 millionaires and counting leave the country.

I had the pleasure of meeting two risk-takers in my constituency this weekend: Habbak Watches and AutoLab. They are run by people who are simply wanting to grow their businesses and offer chances and opportunities to young people in my town. I have also met many micro and small businesses, all of whom felt neglected and that they were not being offered the support that they deserve. I support the Employment Rights Bill and I support the rights of employees, but I am beginning wonder and worry: are we pitting employers against employees, and vice versa?

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. There is a risk of doing that, but we have to remember that it does not need to be like that. There are many good employees and many good employers, far more than hon. Members like to talk about. Our job is to protect those margins. If we make the margins too tight, we hinder the very people who are doing a good job, which I think is his inference and what I hear in my constituency. That is why I am asking the Government to rethink this balance and to reconsider the toxic concoction of legislation, red tape and taxation all at once causing such a big problem. At the end of the day, we can have as many employment rights as we want, but if we do not have businesses driving growth and providing jobs, they will not apply—it is as simple as that.

In conclusion, at the end of “Blackadder Goes Forth”, Blackadder resigns himself to going over the top, but Baldrick taps him on the shoulder and says, “Sir, I have a cunning plan.” I hope that the Chancellor has a cunning plan to deal with this situation, but I will not wait with bated breath.

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for opening the debate and for taking my slightly too long intervention. I also thank Sir Tony Robinson for his visit to Harlow before the general election. He had a cunning plan to get me elected as the MP for Harlow, and with that particular cunning plan, he was successful.

Let me start by thanking businesses in my constituency for everything that they do. Later this week, I am visiting the wonderful Stort Valley Gifting to get my Christmas presents; I am taking the lead from Robert Halfon, my predecessor in this House, who did the same thing. I will talk about another Stort valley business, Lea Valley Growers Association, which is in my constituency—I am sure there will be a joke from the Conservatives about growth, but I will let them make it themselves. I met with it recently and will continue to meet with it, as I do with other businesses in my constituency.

I mention specifically the Lea Valley Growers Association because it uses seasonal workers, particularly seasonal workers from EU countries. I met with it recently, alongside Nazeing parish council. What I found particularly heartening about that meeting was how keen Nazeing parish council was to work with the Lea Valley Growers Association to support seasonal workers and make them feel like part of the community during the time they spend in the UK.

I am trying not to look at the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) as I say this, but the association mentioned concerns with the additional red tape following Britain leaving the EU. I ask the Minister to consider that when she winds up. How can we cut red tape to ensure that the Lea Valley Growers Association, which does an important job growing food for people in my constituency and across the UK, gets the seasonal workers it likes. A fact raised in the meeting was that many of these seasonal workers come over to this country to work in Nazeing on a regular basis. The association has said in recent years that it has seen some of those families—they are often families—not returning.

I welcome the measures the Government have taken in the Budget to support businesses and the workers they employ, such as tackling late payments, reducing regulatory burdens and extending the grace period for business premises. I also welcome the fact that Harlow is one of the places that will benefit from the Pride in Place programme, which will look at how we can revive our public spaces. I always try to find cross-party agreement when I give my speeches, and I hope we can all agree that our high streets face challenges. I look forward to seeing how we can revitalise Harlow. In the Minister’s summing up, I ask her to consider how we can cut the red tape and bureaucracy holding back the businesses that I speak to.

I welcome the commitment of the Co-op to bring down the cost of thousands of items as a direct result of the Government’s changes to business rates. I declare an interest as a Labour and Co-operative MP.

I will very briefly talk about the ERB and my favourite Swedish furniture maker. People often criticise and say, “IKEA is not a British company,” but it employs British workers, and it absolutely welcomes the Employment Rights Bill. When I met with IKEA earlier this year, its No. 1 complaint about the ERB was that it was taking too long to implement. It was very interesting that when I spoke to staff at IKEA, I heard that they are very happy in their jobs and very loyal to a company that treats them incredibly well. We should be thankful for that.

We must turn the page on insecure, poor-productivity and low-paid jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) is not in her place, but I welcome the comments that she made about the need to support unpaid carers. I take any opportunity to talk about unpaid carers and young carers in this place—I appreciate that this is slightly off topic, Madam Deputy Speaker—because they are a hugely important part of this country and make a huge difference.

Ultimately, as I said in one of my interventions, being in government is about making choices—sometimes difficult choices. Under the last Government, we saw austerity that led to our schools and hospitals being at breaking point. We need to invest in those vital services. It will make a huge difference to people in Harlow to be able to go to the hospital and actually get appointments. It will mean that they can get back to work and continue to contribute to the economy.

Thank you for your time today, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to hearing further contributions to the debate.

As I mentioned to the Minister when he was in his place earlier, I started my first business at the age of 19. That is what I did for 20 years, before I became an MP—I ran businesses. That is why I am so upset at some of the ways in which this Government have behaved: I understand viscerally how taking that leap takes everything somebody has. It takes their time, money, energy and social life, and it is all a risk.

For so many months—and years, in some cases—people work almost without pay, but the reward is fantastic, because they can employ people, create jobs, offer opportunities, change lives and futures, and generate their own supply chain for other small businesses to do the same. They can play a really valuable part in their local community. That is what small businesses across our communities do every single day. They are brave, resilient and dedicated, and they need to be valued, but over recent years so many of them have been suffering. The pandemic took a huge toll on them, and that was followed by the energy crisis. Now, worst of all, we have a Government who pledged to see their contribution and to help them deliver growth, but this Government are letting them down.

I feel viscerally that enterprise and entrepreneurship should be rewarded, which is why I run local schemes in my constituency. I have a competition for the best independent shop running at the moment, in line with Small Business Saturday last weekend. It is the sixth year that I have run this competition, and we get the results on Saturday—it is very hard-fought on my Facebook site. Thousands of residents are voting, and they love doing it, because they like to show how much these independent traders and little shops mean to local jobs, to our communities and to keeping our high streets vibrant and compelling.

Last year, I held a best pub competition. After another very fierce public vote, the winner was the Windsor Castle in Hardway. When I visited the pub to give its team their certificate, I saw the time, effort and pride that they put into everything they do—the programme of events, the decorations, and the hospitality they offer—just like all the other pubs that were on the longlist. I saw how much local people value their local, but the message from these pubs is stark: they are suffering.

Despite the Chancellor’s spin, the average hospitality business will see business rates rise by almost £20,000 over the next three years. The statistics have already been mentioned very effectively today by the shadow Minister, but these numbers are real lives, real jobs and real futures, and that £20,000 represents an existential threat to the margins of these businesses; it will drive them to extinction.

Combined with rising energy costs, after the Government promised to tackle overheads, and last year’s rise in national insurance, this is a perfect storm. It is having a direct impact on jobs in my Gosport constituency, particularly jobs for young people. It is also closing off traditional routes into work. As a parent, I know that a part-time Saturday seasonal job is valuable—we probably all did one. My first job was at Olivers shoe shop on Waterlooville high street. I got £10 a day, and I spent most of it on shoes, but it taught me a lot. It taught me employability skills and how to save money—actually, it did not, as I spent most of it on shoes—and it also taught me the very valuable lesson that I did not want a career in retail or selling shoes. These are all fantastic life lessons and experiences that prepare people for their future careers.

Some of those jobs are on contracts that the Labour party has such a visceral problem with, yet they offer flexibility and convenience, particularly during exam time, when young people do not necessarily want to do all those hours. There are sectors that need that flexibility, such as hospitality, leisure and events. In the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we heard this week from people at major events, such as the London marathon, that the number of staff they need grows enormously as they get towards the event, then obviously tails off afterwards. These are the sectors that offer the most chances for young people, and they are right in the crosshairs of the Government’s punishment.

The evidence is clear, and in Gosport it could not be more tangible. The number of young people on out-of-work benefits has gone up by 31% in the last year alone. A recent article in The Daily Telegraph painted a bleak picture of the prospects for young people in my Gosport constituency; it makes for very tough reading.

That may be the case, but the hon. Gentleman needs to read his data a little more accurately, because the number of young people on unemployment benefit has also gone up. I will repeat the figure: it has gone up 31% over the past year in the Gosport constituency alone. It is all very well swapping numbers across the Chamber, but these are lives, futures, and opportunities to get on a career ladder. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his party for what it is doing to young people in my constituency.

The law of unintended consequences is at work. If local businesses are not giving opportunities to young people, that impacts the fabric of a town, including its social fabric. I recently received an email from one of the pubs in Gosport, which said:

“I can guarantee we will not be open this time next year if things continue. The Labour government is doing nothing to help the industry, the knock-on effect to the customers, staff, us, jobless, homeless…Sadly there will be no British culture left, and that is the very sad truth of it. It’s only the Government at the moment, who are gaining and laughing all the way to the bank. The place and the building and the customers—the whole aspect of the ‘local’ pub—will be no more.”

Then there is the hair and beauty salon—another fantastic industry, worth £5 billion and as much again in social value. According to the National Hair and Beauty Federation, the Government’s tax policies are forcing businesses to make very tough decisions, such as taking on fewer staff and fewer apprentices, and incentivising staff to become self-employed, without all the protections that the Government say they want to promote. The British Hair Consortium has warned of an existential drop-off in the number of apprentices entering the sector, while a beauty parlour in Gosport recently told me that it was not optimistic at all about the health of the sector over the next year, and that it does not think the Government are supportive of such businesses.

Does the hon. Member agree that the way to solve the crisis in apprenticeships in hair and beauty, as well as the crisis of bogus self-employment in hair and beauty, is to strengthen the single worker status?

It is all very well supporting the status of workers if there are jobs to offer people. If you have the status, but no job to attach it to, you feel like a bit of a lemon—as I am sure the hon. Lady might do after that question. She should listen to businesses in her constituency, because what businesses are saying is that they do not feel the Government are supporting them. Given her track record in her previous life, she should understand that the hair and beauty industry is one that disproportionately employs young people and women, and the businesses in that industry are very often women-owned. This Government are not friendly to women-owned businesses, either.

Retail, hospitality, and hair and beauty—taken together, the failure of those sectors will prove to be the death knell for our high street. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about how important it is to see his high street regenerated. If we are going to regenerate our high streets and see them as living, breathing, vibrant things, we need to reimagine them as places where we not only shop, but live, work, socialise and engage in leisure activity. The only way that is going to be delivered is if our high streets are filled with small independent traders, but since the Budget, over 1,000 pubs and restaurants have closed—the equivalent of two every day.

We on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee are seeing a similar trend in our work on grassroots music venues, which are still closing at the rate of two a week. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, those venues say that the outcome of the small business rates review is nothing short of a disaster for them. A cap of 15% this year is going up to a 40% cap in 2028-29—that is what they are getting after transitional relief, and that still will not be the end of it.

When the Chancellor stood up and said that the Government would be changing business rates, there was some relief across the industry, but now businesses are realising that because the temporary relief that has been in place for five years since the pandemic is being stripped away, even though they are getting these new business rates, they are much worse than what they had before. It is the cumulative effect of both those things crossing over that is causing the problem—that is why bills will go up, rather than come down. Does my hon. Friend agree?

I agree 100%—my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The grassroots Music Venue Trust says that despite multiple Ministers saying on the record that business rates would go down for the live music sector, it cannot find a single venue in the country whose bills will be lower.

My hon. Friend may recall my question at Prime Minister’s questions last week, in which I raised the case of Claire Howard Jewellery in Fakenham. It is one of many shops that contacted me in the aftermath of the Budget. There is a real sense of anger that the Budget claimed there would be a reduction in business rates—particularly for hospitality, retail and leisure—but the experience of those shops, looking at the numbers, was that business rates were going in exactly the opposite direction. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real sense of a breach of trust when people hear politicians saying one thing in public and doing the opposite in the small print?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government may be fooling their Back Benchers, but they are not fooling our constituents.

This goes back to the wider question, and it is not only Members on the Conservative Benches who are asking it; our constituents are asking it, too. What is the strategy, and whose side is this Labour Government on? Are they on the side of business? They are not on the side of working people, since 80,000 working people have lost their jobs in the hospitality sector alone. They are not on the side of my constituents, either; the Minister may not have been in the room when I mentioned this, but 31% more young people are on unemployment benefit in the Gosport constituency over the past year alone. National insurance contribution rises have hit my constituents disproportionately, due to the very high proportion of people in my constituency—three times more than the national average—who work in care, leisure or other service occupations. This year’s Budget confirmed that Labour is not on the side of our small businesses or our high streets. That is why I welcome the shadow Chancellor’s plans to introduce 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, which I think the Minister should look at.

The Minister opened with analogies to “A Christmas Carol” and likened the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), to Ebenezer Scrooge. That is a travesty—he is nothing like Ebenezer Scrooge. However, “A Christmas Carol” can offer a cautionary tale to us all; let us talk about Jacob Marley, the ghost whose heavy chains are a metaphor for the burdens he created through his actions in life, and who said:

“I wear the chain I forged in life”.

I hope the Minister’s chains do not prove to be the misery that he and his Government are delivering for businesses and our communities.

I beg the indulgence of the House for a moment to welcome the opening this week on Market Place in central Wednesbury of the new Walden restaurant. The menu looks absolutely delicious, and I very much look forward to sampling it soon.

I also want to mention Chris Birch from the Swift Group in Wednesbury, who I met yesterday—he was in town to go to the Goldman Sachs “10k Small Businesses” reception yesterday evening. Chris is the managing director of a family-owned business; he and his 36 employees make industrial and commercial kitchens, and he spoke to me about the help he has received with solar panels, which are going to be installed on his buildings—he has got a grant for that. He has also got a grant to help with the CRM through the Goldman Sachs scheme.[Official Report, 15 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 11WC.] (Correction)

Chris spoke to me about his recent success in winning a major Government public procurement contract to supply every prison in the country with kitchen equipment. I was so pleased to hear that, and I know that the Minister for Small Business will be particularly glad to hear it as well. That is a huge, multimillion-pound contract won by a SME thanks to the targets that have been put in place to ensure SMEs are able to access public procurement. I know the whole House will be so very pleased to hear that that bit of the small business strategy is beginning to take effect, and I thank Chris for coming down to Parliament and telling me about it yesterday. I look forward to visiting him and his staff team soon.

In response to some of the points made in the debate, let me say that no Labour Member will apologise for being a Government in a hurry. Perhaps at times we do try to do many, many things at the same time, but there is a reason for that. Opposition will teach you about the powerlessness of being unable to effect the things you want to, and I can hear the frustration of Opposition Members—the regret they feel about their powerlessness in the face of a Government who are doing things that they do not like—but it would be good to hear some Conservative Members apologise for the damage caused over 14 years that led us to the situation we are in now.

I notice that there are quite a lot of people on the Public Gallery at the moment. The former Government left almost record levels of low unemployment, and unemployment has gone up in every month that this new Government have been in power. Would the hon. Lady like to answer how this Government in a hurry are heading in the right direction, and perhaps suggest when unemployment in her constituency and across the country might start to come down, rather than continually going up?

I am sure the hon. Member knows me well enough by now to know that I am not going to indulge in silly games. What I will say is that this Government’s priority is to get the economy growing. It is why we are investing in infrastructure. It is why we are rebuilding our public services. It is why we have put the greatest level of investment in our public infrastructure. It is why we are investing £39 billion in house building, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is no longer in his place. It is why we are rebuilding our public finances. At times, this does involve some difficult choices, and some that not everyone may always agree with, but we are making the fair and right choices: asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear the heavier load, rebuilding public services, helping with the cost of living—and, yes, clearing up the Tory mess.

We are cutting borrowing more than any other country in the G7, leading to a doubling of the headroom to £21.7 billion. We have the highest levels of public investment in four decades. We are backing entrepreneurs and fast-growing companies with tax breaks to list and to hire here in the UK. Our planning changes will back the builders. Devolution for local growth will mean that local growth spreads outside London and the south-east—something so very close to my heart and to the hearts of many in this place. We are proud to be putting up the national minimum wage so that people have more money in their pockets, because the core problem affecting the retail and hospitality industries is that people do not have money in their pockets to spend on our high streets. Getting wages going up—and they are going up faster than prices—is the way to have people with more money in their pockets.

My hon. Friend reads my mind, as that is the point I was just about to make. I was so sad to see the Leader of the Opposition abandon what was one of the better policies of the last Government: that there should be a fast-rising national minimum wage at all times. I agreed with the last set of Prime Ministers before this one on very little, but one thing I did agree with them on was that it was right to maintain the machinery of the Low Pay Commission—a tripartite body where unions, businesses and academics come together with Government to look at the prevailing conditions in the country. Those at the commission get out there and visit businesses of all types in all regions, including hospitality and retail, and set the national minimum wage at a level that would work for workers and for businesses. It is an approach that this Government have continued, and I am sad to see that the Leader of the Opposition intends to abandon it and to abandon low-paid workers to frozen pay.

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that under the last Conservative Administration, the minimum wage rose at the same time as we created 4 million new jobs and left unemployment at a record low? The difference now is that in only 17 months, unemployment has risen by 280,000 as a direct result of her Government’s policies. Our caution on the minimum wage is that it is now at a level, with their economic policies, that means they are pricing younger people out of work.

I would not wish to try the hon. Member’s generosity, but it seems to me that I have already been generous in my tribute to the work of the previous Government in continuing to maintain the machinery of the Low Pay Commission—something that this Government have continued—and in continuing to make sure that the national minimum wage rose. I will admit that many people in my position feared greatly in 2010 that the Conservatives would come into government—admittedly, in coalition—and immediately tear up the national minimum wage. The fact that they did not was a great thing. The pinning to two thirds of male median wages was a good thing, and I am so sad that the Leader of the Opposition has departed from the consensus on this point.

The national minimum wage is set by a tripartite body. It is not too high, because businesses were in the room arguing their case. The commissioners went out on visits around the country to look at the prevailing economic conditions. The wage is set by consensus using the tripartite machinery, and it is important that we all understand that that has served this country well and has made extreme low pay a thing of the past. I am sad that the Conservatives have departed from this consensus.

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the need to see the minimum wage increase—people who live in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough simply cannot afford to live or work in the area, and that is a real problem—but does she accept that it is not just the minimum wage that is the issue for employers, but the combination of increasing employer NICs and business rates? When I go out and speak to people, that is what they are worried about. It is not necessarily about the minimum wage, but the cocktail of measures that the Government have introduced.

The hon. Member need have no fear about the extent to which I talk to businesses in my constituency and more widely. I see at least one employer every single week—often not in retail and hospitality, as I represent a manufacturing constituency. I recognise the concerns, but I would say that in this country we need to have a functioning set of public services. We need an NHS that is not asking people to wait as long as it was when we took up office. In my constituency, waiting lists for those waiting over a year for an operation have fallen by 45%. That is absolutely incredible, and it was achieved because of the difficult decisions that our Chancellor of the Exchequer took to put money into the NHS. I know that many people regret that decision. They wish the ends—the reduced waiting lists—but they do not will the means. On this side, we will not dodge hard choices; we will the ends and we will the means.

The hon. Lady is being incredibly generous in giving way. Given the focus on cutting waiting lists and tackling NHS challenges, how does the hon. Lady feel about the employer national insurance contribution changes, which also fell on GP surgeries, care homes and children’s hospices? Those changes are proving to be an enormous burden on the NHS and are sucking up a lot of the extra money that the Government purport to be putting into it.

The hon. Lady makes her point well, and she has made it; there is no need for me to respond.

After 14 years of flatlining wages, wages are now growing faster than prices. That is incredibly important. I was so proud to see wages go up by more in the first 10 months of this Government than they went up in the first 10 years of the last one. The Budget did more on the cost of living, whether it be through frozen fares, frozen prescriptions, frozen fuel duty, £150 off energy bills or—my favourite policy—thousands of pounds in the pockets of the poorest families in the UK. They will spend that money on high streets, like those in my constituency: Crankhall Lane and Union Street in Wednesbury, and our shopping centre in central Tipton. That is where low-income families spend any extra pounds on food and on stuff for their kids.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being characteristically courteous. She is entirely correct in outlining the choices and some of the policies that her Government have made, but does she not agree that those choices and policies will be delivered on the back of higher taxation? As a result, employers have less money to employ people, so the proceeds of growth do not mean that there will be better public services. The hon. Lady is right that her Government are spending more money, but that is on the basis of taxation, because of the policies that her Government are advancing, and not on the basis of growth or entrepreneurship.

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words, and for his intervention. It is absolutely clear that alongside investment in public services, there is investment in infrastructure, in house building, and in making sure that this is a good country in which to grow and scale a business. I am glad of those things. I am also glad that we took action to ensure that the poorest families are able to feed all of their children. The way to make the high street thrive is for people to have more money to spend. Let me repeat the statistic mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger). There are more people aged between 18 and 24 in work this year than there were a year ago, but NEET numbers are still too high. People familiar with the constituency I represent will not be surprised to hear that they are particularly high in my corner of the Black Country. This is in no small part due to the failures of the Conservatives in government, not least during the pandemic, when they kept the schools closed but allowed pubs to open.

Opposition Members keep calling on us to engage in further welfare reform to cut the welfare bill. It is interesting to me that when we do so—when we announce a clear, costed, proven, evidence-based plan to get young people back into work, as we did this weekend—they do not like it. It feels like history repeating itself. I remember the future jobs fund from 15 or 16 years ago, and the way it gave hope to a generation of young people kicked out of work as a result of a global financial crisis, through no fault of their own. Hundreds of thousands of them got jobs through the future jobs fund. It was particularly effective for the hardest-to-help young people, and in tough labour markets, in places like the one that I represent, but it was canned, basically on day one, by a Conservative Chancellor. I am so glad that our Work and Pensions Secretary is building on the legacy of the future jobs fund to help a new generation of young people.

Much like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine relies on its manufacturing industry, and our apprenticeship guarantees and support will make a huge difference to people there. However, having listened to my hon. Friend’s history lesson, I am thinking back to the youth training scheme. I recently met someone who did a YTS apprenticeship at the age of 16, and is now about to take over as chief operating officer of the company for which he works. That is the difference that a good apprenticeship and investment in young people can make.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, as I have done since the first time we worked together, more than 20 years ago.

It is interesting to hear the advocacy for welfare reform. Today we have heard a lot about the difficulties with business rates, and I will not rehearse the arguments—they have been well made by my friends on the Front Bench—about the action that this Government are taking on business rates to help the hospitality and retail sectors, but I will make this point. We have heard repeatedly from Opposition Members that they would like to abolish business rates for retail and hospitality, yet they do not have a plan to do that. To pay for it, they will somehow find £47 billion worth of “savings”. The majority of that will come through indiscriminate cutting of the welfare budget. It is not clear to me how that is a credible plan, when the annual welfare bill went up by £114 billion on their watch.

Of course, Members would not expect me to speak in a debate like this without talking about my pride in our Employment Rights Bill and our plan to make work pay. I am proud beyond words to speak for hospitality workers and for seasonal workers who will benefit from that Bill. Earlier this week, I asked colleagues in the trade union movement to run the numbers, based on Government statistics, on how many workers will benefit from the reduction of the waiting period for protection from unfair dismissal from two years to six months: 6.3 million workers will benefit from that—from protection against being unfairly dismissed, without due process, for reasons that are not good enough—and 36% of hospitality workers will benefit as well. I am so very glad that we are making rules that will benefit disproportionately the workers most likely to be exploited at work.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Employers may continue to dismiss, as long as they do so for fair reasons and following a fair process, and good employers already do that.

My favourite measures in the Employment Rights Bill—this could be a very long speech, but I will bring it to a close—[Interruption.] I will! I will just say this: I am so proud of the ban on zero-hours contracts, and I suggest to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that we should have a nice short reference period for that when the consultation begins. I am so proud of the plans on sick pay, and on fire and rehire. I am so proud of our enhanced parental leave, the fair pay agreement and the school support staff negotiating body.

In conclusion, I often say that my goal is for people in my constituency to be able to take the family out for a curry on Friday night and not worry about the cost. I want that for all workers, including the hospitality workers who are serving and cooking that curry, and the seasonal workers who make it such a pleasure to be on the beach at Blackpool or down in Brighton, having that curry. That is why we need a Government focused on growth, new rights for every worker in the Employment Rights Bill, and a higher national minimum wage.

As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall talk about my faraway and far-flung constituency, but I will first say that what the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who is no longer in her place, said about carers rang a bell with me, because I am a carer for my wife.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) talked about the jobs that he had as a young man. In this place, I try to effect an urbane and smooth image—not very successfully, I might say. But I can tell the House that owing to my father’s rackety finances—I love him dearly—I had to work all the time when I was a student, and I had to do lots of the sorts of jobs that the hon. Member talked about. I remember being a kitchen porter, which is the lowest form of life in a big canteen—you get your backside kicked by every sous chef. For the record, I was very glad that I was a member of the Transport and General Workers’ Union at the time. I went to my shop steward because a particularly obnoxious sous chef was a real bully, so I am grateful to that august former institution. That is something that the House did not know about me.

The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) was here earlier, but I am bound to say that the absence of the Scottish National party and Reform is surprising, because whichever side of the argument one takes, this is a colossally important issue.

I turn to my constituency. Much has been made of the importance of seasonal workers to hospitality, and what is said about that is absolutely true. In my conversation this morning with Mr Murray Lamont, the owner and manager of Mackays hotel in Wick, he stressed to me that these workers are crucial, particularly in the run-up to Christmas. He is very good employer indeed, but his business could not keep ticking on without those workers.

Mention has been made of Ebenezer Scrooge. For the interest of the Chamber, Mackays hotel in Wick is in Ebenezer Place, which is the shortest street in the United Kingdom, at 6 feet 9 inches. Think about that! If any hon. and right hon. Members find themselves in Wick, I recommend going to Mackays hotel. Mr Murray Lamont is a charming man.

Secondly, I want to talk about something that the Chamber will not know about: potato roguing. I have a reputation for talking about seed potatoes a lot in this place, so I shall continue to earn it. When you grow seed potatoes, they have to be of the highest quality, as people in Lincolnshire or wherever, or indeed in Europe, buy them because they are the best seed potatoes, which come from my part of the world. If you have a dodgy spud in your bag of seeds—whatever the type of potato—that is no good at all. We have seasonal workers whose job is to walk down the lines of potatoes, identify those that are not the right species or that are diseased due to a mosaic virus, and pull them out. Let me namecheck another constituent. Mr James Gordon of Bindal farm, a potato grower of excellence, tells me that without those seasonal workers, he would be in trouble. He exports the best-quality potatoes to the south of England and across the channel.

My plea is a simple one. In this argument, some say this, and some say that, but at the end of the day, what matters to me and my constituents is that seasonal workers and their employers are given the help they need, whatever form that may take, and that such workers are recognised for playing an important part in the economy of one of the most remote and faraway parts of the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to talk about potatoes all the time.

In South East Cornwall, we truly value, and know the pressures of, seasonal work. It can be unreliable and involve unsociable hours, yet it is hugely valuable and remains a vital part of our Cornish economy. The Government are taking steps to make seasonal work more secure, and to increase fairness. Tourism is a key part of our local economy and supports many livelihoods. It is our wide range of hospitality venues, retail locations and small businesses, powered by hard-working and dedicated staff, that makes such an offer possible.

Seasonal work has helped families and local businesses for generations—work in our cafés and restaurants in Looe and Polperro, in our retail shops in Lostwithiel, and picking vegetables and flowers near Liskeard. There are more 18 to 24-year-olds in employment than there were a year ago, and the Employment Rights Bill strengthens good practice in the workforce, helps people into work and protects their wellbeing. I want to thank those involved in local businesses for their hard work, and for the always incredibly interesting visits that they regularly invite me to make, during which they tell me about their concerns and their hopes for the future.

The hon. Lady is right, but would she agree that there is a balance to be struck in every policy? Here, the balance is between employment rights on the one hand and business growth on the other. The sign of whether an economy has got it about right is when employment and growth go hand in hand. Does she share my concern that, as a result of the policies of the Government, unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is going up month after month? Is that not a warning sign that the balance is not correct?

I agree with the hon. Member on certain things, such as the importance of balance, but I will not make a habit of agreeing with him in totality and, no, I think there is a huge number of other points to make about the economy, which I wish to focus on in my speech.

I spoke to a local publican last week, and his words struck me. He said that his workforce absolutely deserve support, and are the heart of his business, and it is important to remember that as we move forward with this work. The Conservatives, including the hon. Member, call for the Bill to be scrapped in its entirety, but I struggle to see how that shows respect for seasonal workers. The Conservatives would deny sick pay to lower-paid workers, and expect people to turn up when they are unwell, putting colleagues and customers at risk. The publican talked to me about that and several other things. I think that approach is wrong, unfair and out of touch. I believe we show our values by how we treat those who keep the economy moving—both the business owners and those in their workforce. Supporting workers to recover from illness, in particular, helps them to return to work sooner and stronger. Business owners know that—I hear that from them frequently—so I welcome the Government’s action to improve employment rights in the sector, including for the seasonal workforce.

Tackling exploitative zero-hours contracts and one-sided flexibility is beneficial for employers. It reduces recruitment costs through increased staff retention, and levels the playing field on enforcement. These are good steps forward for workers and for businesses, and after years of stagnant productivity, our communities deserve them.

Seasonal work will always have a vital place in Cornwall, but families also need year-round employment, so that they can plan for their future and avoid hardships through the winter months. That means creating skilled, secure opportunities through projects such as the new Kernow industrial growth fund, which was secured by Cornish Labour MPs and part of this Labour Budget. It will give communities across Cornwall a path to long-term prosperity, as we work with them and the seasonal workforce in other ways.

Cornwall draws millions of visitors each year, and we must ensure that the system works just as well for the residents who welcome them, so I welcome this Government setting out how employment rights help boost productivity, and by doing so, ultimately support stronger economic growth and higher living standards. Seasonal workers deserve to be part of those improvements, and I will keep working with the Government to deliver just that.

In constituencies like mine, seasonal, flexible and part-time working are central to the local economy. Seaside towns such as Bognor Regis and Littlehampton thrive on the cafés and attractions along the seafront and the pubs and shops on the high street. During the booming summer season, those businesses rely on seasonal workers to meet the demands of the tourists who flock to enjoy our wonderful stretch of Sussex coastline. Many seasonal workers are young people taking their first step on the career ladder during school, college or university holidays or long-term unemployed people looking for a route back into work, and even parents and pensioners who benefit from being able to work when it suits them to do so.

When writing this speech, I cast my mind back to my early jobs: chopping vegetables in my local Harvester; waitressing in every imaginable kind of environment on a part-time basis when restaurants needed me; and earning double or sometimes triple my wages if I was prepared to work on Christmas day or new year’s eve, which, as a student, I welcomed. Then there were the pubs which employed me during my university career. All those roles are probably unviable now. It is the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, which provide such vital jobs, that are bearing the brunt of the Government’s damaging economic policies. After the Chancellor’s first Budget last October, more than 89,000 hospitality workers lost their jobs—over 50% of all jobs lost in that time.

The Government tell us that the Employment Rights Bill, the darling of the trade unions, will make life better for working people. They are wrong. The Institute of Directors warns that the Bill is already undermining job creation, and research by FTI Consulting finds that 59% of SMEs will have to cut jobs. But do not take it from me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Listen to Ash, who co-owns Harbour Park, a seaside amusement park in Littlehampton. From ensuring the rides run smoothly to keeping visitors well fed and hydrated, local attractions such as Harbour Park rely on seasonal workers to open their doors every summer. After the Chancellor’s disastrous second Budget a fortnight ago, Harbour Park will see its business rates rise by 72.6% despite the so-called transitional discount. In 2026-27, that will increase by a further 97.5%.

I should make it clear that I spent my career before coming into politics running a ledger business, so I am intimately familiar with a seasonal workforce and I employed about 1,000 people as part of my job. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the business rates—the fixed costs—going up, but the uncertainty in consumer confidence caused, both this year and last year, by the leaking leading up to the Budget, which knocks the people coming through the gate as well? Turnover is depressed at the same time as fixed costs are rising. It is an absolutely catastrophic combination for people who are trying to earn a living and employ others.

My hon. Friend is right. The Business and Trade Committee had a number of businesses come to Parliament to tell us about the stasis that the leaks in the run-up to the Budget caused to their businesses. As he says, that feeds through to the general population, who know the costs businesses are having to incur and that they are getting to the point where they can no longer sustain them. People are concerned for their jobs. They know that, if they do not have a job, having more employment rights are no use whatsoever. He makes a valid and important point.

The increase in Harbour Park’s costs amount to an extra £40,000, seriously impacting its ability to employ young people and give them a start in the job market.

Last weekend, I met Kathleen, who runs the Navigator hotel in Bognor Regis. She employs young people in the town to work when she needs them during the busy summer months, when tourists fill the hotel rooms, drink in the bar and eat in the restaurant. Kathleen told me that she started her business full of hope, but now, after the imposition of so many additional costs and taxes, she works a full-time second job just to keep her business afloat, and to ensure that her 10 employees still have jobs to go to.

I do not believe the hon. Lady has yet got one of these devolution mayors, although she can correct me if I’m wrong. We have one in York and North Yorkshire, who is now looking at how they might implement a tourist tax. Will the hon. Lady give her thoughts on the impact such a tax would have? When I met the Harrogate district chamber of commerce and spoke to the hoteliers in my area, they were concerned about how it would suck many tourists out of towns like Harrogate and pass them off to other areas. It would be an additional cost—I wonder what her thoughts on that might be.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which takes me back to the conversation I had with Catherine this weekend. I hope she will not mind me saying this: she was so emotional that she was almost in tears at the prospect of a tourist tax being imposed by a Sussex mayor, who will come in next year—actually, that has been delayed into another year as well, hasn’t it? The rapid roll-out is not going quite so well. The emotion and fear that I heard in Catherine’s voice when we talked about that tax will not leave me for a long time. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising what a pernicious tax that could be.

I am really looking forward to a tourist tax coming to Edinburgh next year. Like local authorities in England, we benefit greatly from tourism—it is fantastic for the city—but it does have impacts on the operation of the council with things like litter and so on. The tourist tax will help the council to make the city better for both citizens and tourists; the idea is that it will actually drive tourism and bring more business to the city. I am sure the hon. Lady is well travelled—she has probably been to many places across Europe without ever thinking twice about paying the tourist tax, and she will have benefited from how that money is invested in those local economies. What is different about English towns and cities that means a tourist tax just is not going to work here?

I am delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, because there is a very important difference. Right now in the UK, the tourist economy is being hammered by the increased minimum wage, the Employment Rights Bill and high energy costs—I could go on. Businesses on our high streets are suffering, in particular seasonal businesses, which are having to bear the brunt of the Employment Rights Bill. If you had met the hotel owner in Bognor Regis—a tourist town—I think you would really be questioning what you are saying.

Order. I have no desire to meet your local businesses, Ms Griffiths. You are obviously directing your comment at the hon. Gentleman.

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that if it was one single tax instead of multiple taxes, it is quite possible that the tourist tax would be a good idea. However, in the current context of multiple taxes drowning our businesses into oblivion, it is not a good idea.

If the unemployment rights Bill passes, Ash and Catherine will have to offer guaranteed hours to their flexible seasonal workers even during off-season troughs. With increased employer national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage rising again, these fixed schedules will make hiring people unviable. Far from protecting people who work seasonably and flexibly, by forcing businesses to provide guaranteed hours throughout the year the Employment Rights Bill will threaten their jobs.

The Government should be supporting businesses such as Harbour Park and the Navigator Hotel, which give young people their first job and keep coastal towns like Bognor Regis and Littlehampton alive. Instead, the Government are putting them in a vice. Ministers must change course and withdraw the Employment Rights Bill, reverse the tax hikes and back the flexible seasonal jobs that our communities rely on—before more businesses close and more workers lose their jobs.

As the late great Andy Williams sang, “It’s the most wonderful time of the year” but I am afraid that is not true for farmers, business owners or those in retail, hospitality or leisure. Following the Chancellor’s Budget just two weeks ago, there are only two lines in that song that resonate—“scary ghost stories” caused by the Chancellor’s announcements, and memories of “tales of the glories of Christmases long, long ago” before Labour got in.

One of the many problems with the Government’s approach to working is that they start with the premise that any flexible or part-time working, including zero-hour contracts, is by nature wrong and unfair. In actuality, it simply reflects the needs of the market and businesses at any given moment, as well as personal preference. Take food production as an example; it should be obvious, but that work in that sector is often seasonal and cyclical. The labour demands of farming and horticultural businesses are variable and difficult to forecast with 100% accuracy. Crop conditions, weather conditions and customer demand all contribute to the inherent unpredictability in food production.

On Monday night, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs voted against an amendment from the other place to insert a proper definition of “seasonal work” into the Employment Rights Bill, and Reform did not even bother to show up. The Government have instead proposed an amendment to “consult”. This is another issue that the Government hope they can just kick into the long grass and hope we will forget about.

That difficulty with forecasting also spills into the hospitality sector, as has been acknowledged. With benefits ballooning and the tax bill for the working man increasing day by day, everyone is feeling the pinch. They are all tightening their belts, so it becomes incredibly hard to forecast the current level of need. I was speaking to one of my local hospitality businesses, which has already been hit by a £900,000 NICs bill this year alone. The business was explaining the impact of NICs and what it means in reality. I think we throw around large numbers but do not actually understand the intricacies of them.

The Chancellor said to the Treasury Committee that she does not see the link between the NICs increases and unemployment. I fail to see how she cannot see that link. Let’s do a NICs 101: NICs are paid on a month-by-month basis, and are triggered when someone earns £417 a month. If a student or anyone else worked for just one month and did more than 35 hours in the month at minimum wage, the business would then have to pay an additional 15% of national insurance on every pound above £417. Cash is king, and if that is to be rolled out, it is no wonder that businesses are questioning whether they can take on any other employees.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, although it is not just, or even primarily, about the increase from 13.8% to 15% on the overall rate, but that it kicks in at £5,000, down—from memory—from £9,200. That has a particular impact on those employed part-time, youth employment, and lower-wage employment, because it means that employers start paying NICs much earlier in the pay journey. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is exactly why we are seeing youth unemployment rising as well as general unemployment?

My hon. Friend makes a valid and correct point. We have started to see a rise in unemployment in South Northamptonshire among 16 to 25-year-olds exactly because of that.

The business owner I spoke to said that the problem is that the business starts paying at a certain level, but that increase pushes up across all wages across all levels of the business. Suddenly businesses are finding themselves drowning in the amount of money they are having to pay. That will stifle the market. We even talked to some of my hairdressers—they have been mentioned numerous times to the Minister—who said that the impact of NICs means that, according to the British Hair Consortium, there will be no new apprentice starts in 2027. That is staggering and appalling, when the Government are talking about all the opportunities for the young.

My hon. Friend may be aware that just across the channel in France, high regulation and high tax has led to consistent, long-term high youth unemployment. Speaking of Andy Williams, another song says that there is a “lesson to be learned” from this, and we do not have to look too far to learn it.

As always, my right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Andy Williams is getting a lot more airtime today than any of us imagined.

I am afraid that I do not know anything about Mr Williams, so I cannot add to the lovefest. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has reflected, as I have, that in households that have been workless for quite a long period of time, temporary seasonal intro-jobs often show our young people the value, importance and benefit of work and what it can do for their families and communities. When those opportunities are reduced, so the opportunity and potential for social mobility is curtailed.

Absolutely. We need to encourage that next generation through to the workforce, and I cannot see that they are getting any of those opportunities at the moment. The Government are so proudly trying to promote that, but let us look at the impact and the figures. There can be no denying that they are achieving none of what they hope to achieve in future.

Across these Benches in the mainstream parties, we have to develop solutions to the problems we face, partly because we know that in our Chamber we have the likes of Reform. Our country is in debt to the tune of £2.7 trillion and we spend around £105 billion each year to service the debt before we spend any money on anything else. We therefore have to think, in that difficult situation, about how we come up with solutions.

If we are to fund our public services to get people back into work, which helps to grow the economy, and are to do the other things that we want to do as a country, what is the right way of raising the funds that allows our country to pay down our debt and the amount we spend each year to service our deficit and to bring the change that people want in delivery of public services? I ask the hon. Lady please not to say “Welfare reform.” I agree that we need to do welfare reform—[Interruption.] If I may, I agree that we need to do that, and the Milburn and Timms reviews will be critical to taking forward an effective welfare reform package, but what else would she do?

At least the hon. Member has acknowledged that we have to repay debt, unlike the Green party, which suddenly believes that repaying debt interest is not a viable or true alternative in this world. The hon. Gentleman denies talk of welfare, but it is a fundamental element. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that he agrees with that, but there is so much more. Why is the Labour party increasing the welfare bill?

The Government have to grow the economy and that means supporting businesses, giving them opportunities, reducing tax and putting money in our pockets to do that. Unfortunately, we can see from everything that has come from the Government so far that the economy is not growing. Watch this space, but that is a problem that we will struggle with.

South Northamptonshire has 95 pubs, which are crucial to our rural community and to our economy. They are a great example of a place where young people can start their first jobs. At The White Hart in Hackleton, a young girl with Down’s syndrome, who could not get a job outside the village because of transport issues, took her first job. That job will be threatened by all the measures from this Government.

The Centre for Policy Studies has undertaken an analysis of all the impacts of both the previous Budget and the one last month on the cost of employing 18 to 20-year-olds. The shocking figure is that it will cost an employer £4,000 a year more to employ a single person between the age of 18 and 20. Given that, is my hon. Friend surprised that employers, just like the pub that she has mentioned, are taking rational decisions not to give young people jobs?

I agree entirely, and I am devastated to hear that, because that is exactly not what we need for society and for the young generation.

Research from the Taxpayers’ Alliance showed that in 2024 the average pub paid almost £100,000 per year in taxes on the sale of alcoholic drinks alone. When we add to that the coming changes to business property relief and the recent increase to employer NICs, we see that hospitality is really being smothered. But there is a way out. There is no need for an enforced and permanent dry January. The Conservatives have a plan, and it includes the abolition of business rates for hundreds of thousands of high street businesses.

The Government often deny it, but pubs and shops have seen their business rates bills more than double under this Government. We say that what is needed to bring back the festive cheer to our high streets is not more Government, but Government getting out of the way and allowing businesses and entrepreneurs to flourish. There is a big difference between business and the Government. Businesses, as has been mentioned, take risks with their own money. They provide jobs and they grow the economy. They are brave, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said earlier, but this Government just risk taxpayers’ money, destroy jobs and contract the economy.

Particularly, I look to my farming community. I have 550 farms, and they are the driver and the lifeblood of South Northamptonshire. One of their biggest issues, alongside things like NICs, is the inability to plan. A lot of discussion has been had about helping our companies grow for the future, but part of that growth requires the ability to make long-term plans. Under this Government, we have seen the removal of the sustainable farming incentive, and capital grants have gone on and off. There is also the double cab pick-up tax and the fertiliser tax. When we add in the employer national insurance tax and the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, we have to ask how farmers are possibly supposed to plan or invest in the future.

On my hon. Friend’s point, how can businesses be expected to plan, having been told in the 2024 Budget that the tax rate was a one-off, and in 2025 that there was an unforeseen second tax rate but with no further plans? That is not a promise that one can necessarily rely upon. The presumption is that there will be more next year. How can businesses, whether they are agricultural, industrial or whatever, be expected to plan for growth, investment and job creation when they have absolutely no idea of the trajectory of the tax take that the Treasury is hellbent on introducing?

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The importance of the construction industry was mentioned earlier, along with the plan to give more construction apprenticeships and jobs to young people, but for those jobs to be offered, we need people to be investing in the first place. Companies are not doing that, because they cannot make those decisions. They do not know where the money is coming from. They do not know when the money will next be taken from them. We are not creating an environment in which they can grow. I do not see anyone on the Government Benches disagreeing with me on that, so I think my hon. Friend’s point is well made.

What seems to be missing on the Government Benches is any recognition of the growing anger among young people at the fact that they are being shut out of the jobs market. It is the most damaging time in someone’s life to be barred from work when they are young. The Minister does not seem to be an Andy Williams fan, but The Clash sang under a previous Labour Government:

“Career opportunities are the ones that never knock”.

Not under Labour.

Absolutely.

In Prime Minister’s questions earlier, I asked about the fair choices that this Government say they have made. I think those choices are fundamentally unfair. The Government are trying to introduce a digital ID scheme, unfunded by the Government, that could cost at least £1.8 billion, yet most of the public do not want it, given that 3 million people signed the petition against it. The Government then talk about inflicting tax hits on all our businesses. It is just madness. There is absolutely no sense of direction from this Government. This is not a pro-growth Chancellor but a no-growth Chancellor. That will be the legacy.

I never thought that a Christmas song could sum up a Government’s economic approach, but if we look at “We wish you a Merry Christmas”, it appears that we are in the “we won’t go until we’ve got some,” phase from this Government, whether they are demanding figgy pudding or, in this instance, tax. I am really hoping, though, that they will see the light and eventually help businesses to unlock, to reach their potential and to have a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I am fortunate to represent a beautiful part of the Somerset coast. Burnham-on-Sea, Berrow and Brean all have lovely sandy beaches and are visited by many holidaymakers every year. Seasonal tourism is not just part of the local economy; it is the bedrock of those communities. Our motion regrets the many measures introduced by this Government that hit both the economy at large and have had a particularly bad impact on those areas that are dependent on hospitality and tourism. The effects are even worse for businesses that employ seasonal workers.

I have said before that, although the Government were elected on a promise to go for growth, most of their actions over the past 17 months seem designed to achieve the opposite. Before the election, many businesses backed this new Government. They believed the Chancellor’s prawn cocktail offensive. They thought this Government would be a reincarnation of the Blair Government, who, at least in their early years, managed to control public expenditure. Instead, they seem to be the very worst of Wilson, Callaghan and Healey.

The reality is that, rather than implement the modest tax rises and spending increases contained in its manifesto, Labour increased taxes by £40 billion last year and a further £26 billion this year. That is a huge increase in taxes on businesses and hard-working families to pay for more welfare spending. All the businesses I speak to in my constituency are suffering. They have lost any faith they ever had in this Government, and who can blame them?

The Globe Inn in North Petherton is a fantastic local pub. This year, it will not pay any business rates, but it will pay £5,000 a year from 2029-30, so it will have to sell 10,000 extra pints just to pay the Government’s higher taxes. That might not sound a lot to Labour Ministers, but I can assure them that, for a small business with a tiny profit margin, any additional cost can have a hugely negative impact.

It is not just business rates that are going up.

It is easy to make the mistake of talking about SMEs as though they are corporate entities when, in many instances, they are not. They are often a husband-and-wife team working incredibly long hours and living above the shop. I was in my local pub, The Greyhound, the other day, which is run by the tenant and his wife. They told me that they were covering the shifts of the employees who they have let go because of the Government’s tax policy changes. The cost of that is not just economic; it is hugely damaging to their relationship and to their whole way of life, and it is incredibly stressful. Does my hon. Friend accept that the damage caused by these changes is not just economic but societal?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I agree with. The Globe Inn is not a husband-and-wife team but a mother-and-daughter team, and those extra costs bear heavily on the business.

It is not just business rates that are going up. There is also the hated jobs tax, which we heard about earlier, and the consequences of the anti-jobs employment Bill. On paper, guaranteed hours and scheduling rules sound as though they would protect workers, but for seasonal workers whose livelihoods depend on flexibility, immediate availability and quick uptake of short-term work, the measures risk doing precisely the opposite.

Let us take some examples. Forcing employers to offer guaranteed hours after a short reference period will make businesses reluctant to take on seasonal staff at all. I know this from experience: in Burnham-on-Sea, the number of visitors who turn up very often depends on the weather. If there are two or three weeks of very good weather, businesses will need lots of seasonal workers. In this great country of ours, that could be followed by many weeks of rainy weather. What would the Minister say to employers who are contractually bound to offer work to employees who are not required because tourists are not there?

Harbour Park in my constituency would be required to pay people, rain or shine, at times when it receives no income from visitors. Does my hon. Friend agree that this measure will cause many businesses acute hardship?

My hon. Friend is correct. In fact, what will probably happen is that many businesses will offer less work. That tells us that these regulations have been drawn up by people who have never run a business. When a farm, holiday park or festival operator knows that it might be legally required to provide fixed hours even when demand disappears with a change in weather or tourist numbers, the safest option will be not to hire so many people. It should not surprise the Government when that is what businesses decide to do. Seasonal workers could see fewer opportunities, shorter seasons and more competition for every shift.

Secondly, the strict advance notice rules and penalties for changing shifts might offer security for longer-term part-time workers, but seasonal work often depends on rapid, last-minute scheduling. If a grower cannot schedule pickers until they know the fruit is ready, or an events company cannot bring in extra hands until bookings spike, they may be forced to reduce the number of workers they engage at all.

The added liability on agencies will shrink the pool of temp placements, on which many seasonal workers rely. It is natural that agencies will become far more cautious about taking on temps. No doubt some will pull out of short seasonal contracts altogether. That means fewer people will be in short-term work, fewer people will be building experience in their first jobs and fewer people will have the stepping stones to full-time employment. The Bill will act as a hammer blow to seasonal work. Employers will hesitate to hire, and workers will lose the very flexibility that makes seasonal work viable.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and he is entirely right about the impact on seasonal workers, but we should always look beyond the producers to the consumers. What will the impact be at music festivals and at all sorts of events—community events—all around the country? We will see higher prices and there will be less competition and choice. It is socialism in action—everybody losing, including society as a whole.

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point with which I agree.

The combination of extra costs and extra regulations means that it becomes incredibly burdensome for small businesses to afford to take on staff. The above inflation increases to the minimum wage add further pressure, and that all has a disproportionate effect on industries such as hospitality and tourism.

My constituent Kathy owns a shop in Burnham-on-Sea, which she has run for 20 years, but the recent changes imposed by the Chancellor are making it harder and harder for her to operate. Kathy currently employs three 16-year-olds. Increases in the minimum wage and future changes to employment law will force her to stop the practice of giving youngsters their first job. There are only so many tasks someone of that age can be given, but now the salary increases and other changes will be prohibitive. Two of the three will be leaving, and Kathy tells me they will not be replaced. Is it any wonder that youth unemployment is rising? Many businesses will think, “Why risk it?”

Every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they started. Last July, unemployment was 4.4%; it is now 5%. That 0.6 percentage point increase may not sound like much to Labour Members, but it is an extra 282,000 people out of work and claiming benefits. I fear we have not reached the peak because while unemployment is rising, business confidence is falling. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor cling to their jobs, telling their nervous Back Benchers that it is them—and only them—who the markets trust. I have to say that that boast is not all it might appear. What it really means is that the alternatives are so awful that they would tax, borrow and spend even more if Keir and Rachel disappear—

Order. The hon. Member knows better than to refer to Members by name.

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If the current Prime Minister and the current Chancellor were to disappear, all confidence in the Government would collapse. It seems that the Prime Minister has as much faith in his Cabinet as the rest of us have in him. It is unfortunate that the Government are comprised almost entirely of people of public sector, academic or union backgrounds. Precious few have ever operated a business. They do not understand how running a business works, and it shows.

There is another path that the Government could take, and it is not too late. I call on them to withdraw their Employment Rights Bill, to get rid of their “Benefits Street” Budget, and to lower taxes for hard-working people and businesses.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair.

We have heard from Members from across the House who understand a fundamental truth: that the hospitality sector is the cornerstone not only of our economy but of our society. It is a great strength of our parliamentary system that we all represent unique districts that are all, in one way or another, replete with high streets and hospitality businesses—pubs, restaurants and hotels—which we all wish to support. Members on both sides of the House have observed the importance of binding our communities together, giving people a warm place to stay—a refuge from loneliness—and keeping our high streets vibrant. Those are places where life happens.

As we have also heard, hospitality performs a vital and arguably unique role in providing the next generation with that vital first step on the career ladder. I imagine that many of us had our very first experience of the world of work—that priceless exposure that helps us become world-ready—in retail or hospitality. I certainly did, and we have heard many other such examples. The sector does that precisely because it is a feature, not a bug, that it provides flexible seasonal work that allows young people to earn their first wage, combined with other responsibilities or opportunities, and, in so doing, to learn the important dignity of labour.

As we have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends, pubs, hotels and restaurants in particular are hurting as a direct result of the Chancellor’s choices, not just in last year’s Budget but once again in this year’s Budget, which was delivered from the Dispatch Box just a few weeks ago. More than a dozen venues from my South Downs constituency have contacted me in the last 24 hours alone, having heard about this debate. Ruth and Martin at the Cricketers in Duncton described to me how their rates are going up by £4,500 to £5,000 a year—that is money that they do not have. The Fox Goes Free in Charlton has been a public house, continuously serving the community, for over 400 years. Like every pub, it makes a huge contribution. Its business rates bill will increase by more than £13,000 next year. The House should bear that in mind when Labour Members talk about how they have introduced permanently lower business rates. That is a laughable idea. I have heard similar stories—and worse—from the Murrell Arms in Eastergate, the Half Moon Inn in Northchapel, the Labouring Man in Coldwaltham and the Onslow Arms in Loxwood.

Tom, the landlord of the Kings Head in Hedon, heard on Budget day that business rates would be cut for businesses like his. Instead, the rateable value of that pub, which provides such an important service to the people of Hedon and the surrounding villages, has gone from £9,000 to £32,000.

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I would not want to incur wrath by accusing anybody of misleading the House, but that is exactly the same story that I have heard from the Bridge Inn in Amberley, the Star and Garter in East Dean, the Bricklayers Arms in Midhurst and the Black Horse Inn in Byworth. That surely cannot be a coincidence; these cannot be isolated examples of those “permanently lower” business rates—

Of course I will give way. I look forward to hearing about how one should understand that statement about the “permanently lower” business rates that this Government have introduced, of which we cannot seem to find an example.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to come and walk with me down the high street in Saltaire, where property valuations mean that many businesses will have lower business rates in absolute terms. Has he explained to his local pubs that that property revaluation has been hanging around for many years, but his Tory Government did nothing to implement it? That is the main reason why some of his pubs might be experiencing increases—it is due to property valuation, not business rates.

I hear the hon. Lady’s point, and I am glad she has found some examples—I note that neither in her intervention nor in her earlier remarks did she go so far as naming any of them, and I will happily take another intervention if she would like to do so. I have named many examples. The revaluation exercise on pubs is not some long-delayed exercise; it is a routine, frequent timeframe that the Valuation Office Agency goes through. This is not something that has been pent up for many years; it is just the process of revaluation.

When it comes to the rubber hitting the road of how much business rates are being levied on pubs, and how much cash will leave those stretched businesses that are struggling with all the different costs, what matters is the net effect of revaluation, this Government’s removal of the retail, hospitality and leisure relief that the Conservative Government put in, and of course the ongoing rate multiplier.

Every pub and hotel that I have spoken to in my rural constituency bears out precisely the figures from UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association —we have heard about that many times today, and I know that they ran drop-ins earlier today for Members across the House. Tom Richardson at the Three Moles in Selham explained to me how the turnover basis of assessing rateable values has combined with the cost headwinds that this Government have amplified—I will be so kind as to imply that they did not all happen from 1 July 2024. Nevertheless, the choices that the Government have made, in particular the change in the national insurance rates and the changes to thresholds on national insurance, have enormously pushed up the cost of employment. On top of that, businesses are still waiting for the promised reduction in energy prices, whether for electricity or heating oil, because those prices have more than doubled in some cases.

Tottington Manor Hotel in Henfield has to find nearly £50,000 extra due to the changes that this Government have made to employment costs. It is no surprise—we heard this again and again from colleagues this afternoon—that pub and hotel owners are at the end of their tether. Nobody should want to preside over such a series of choices. One landlord told me that they have not been able to draw a wage from their pub for the last six months. Another told me how she was working seven days a week, 16 or 17 hours a day, just trying to keep the pub open.

As we heard from many colleagues, the cost of hiring staff has become so prohibitive that owners are having to cut back. They are not able to hire, support or sustain staff, and they are taking more and more upon themselves, stretching their working day and taking on more tasks, creating one of the doom loops in which, it is sad to say, this Chancellor so specialises.

We heard that from many colleagues who made contributions this afternoon, including my hon. Friend and near neighbour the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who spoke about the challenges on the island, particularly with seasonal work, and about how young people are hurting and how that is costing all of us in the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said that this Government are awash with policies, plans and visions, but words butter no parsnips and they do not provide the jobs that we need—least of all the Employment Rights Bill, which, as it comes down the line, will really hurt and disincentivise family businesses, with which the sector is replete.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) talked, as did others, about the cumulative effect of measures—tax rises, national insurance increases, higher energy costs and more red tape—rather than there being one single axe falling on the heads of businesses. We should listen to small enterprises when they say that it feels like the Government are not on their side. It is no surprise that pub after pub, hostelry after hostelry, is erecting a sign on the door saying, “No Labour MPs here”. I remember that the Minister said that he had not seen one of those signs, so I trust that people in his constituency will take that as a personal challenge to ensure that one such sign is brought to his attention in the very near future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said that this Government are doing that most terrible of things: preventing young people from getting on the job ladder through their first chance of work. The Government weigh down precisely the sorts of businesses that do such a good job of providing those opportunities, and that is difficult.

My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), talked about the tourism economy. To all the challenges and headwinds that have come about because of the Chancellor’s choices, we can add the bed tax, which will increase the cost for anyone holidaying in the UK. It will deter people from enjoying the wonderful vistas of Bognor Regis, Littlehampton or the South Downs, and simply encourage people to go to other countries on holiday, following in the wake of the many young people mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, who are leaving this country, such is the dearth of opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) talked about the degree to which the hospitality and pub sector is already over-taxed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) made the really important point that all the burdens of family businesses fall back on families.

I am afraid to say that we are seeing nothing less than a full-frontal attack on seasonal work, and we see that no more so than in the unemployment Bill that was before the House this week. Like King Canute, this Government are legislating to outlaw seasonality and the rhythms of the tides. If a seaside café hires a student to wait on outside tables in the glorious sunshine, Labour wants the café to be forced to offer the student the same hours once the shutters come down in the autumn. It will mean the demise of strawberries and cream sellers in Wimbledon fortnight.

The Government’s plans will even mean the death of Father Christmases and assistant elf helpers in shopping centres across the nation, because there is little demand for a Christmas elf in January, February or March. This is bureaucratic madness, yet Ministers press on, deaf to the cries of those who would most benefit from the choice—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like what I am saying, but they do not have an answer. They should know by now that you do not protect workers by bankrupting employers; you do not support our high streets, communities, pubs and restaurants by taxing them into submission.

We Conservatives understand business. Unlike those in the current Cabinet, many of us have worked in businesses and enterprises ourselves. We stand with the risk takers in this country who create wealth, not the bureaucrats who seek to destroy it. That is why our motion supports seasonal, flexible and part-time working. We will take 250,000 high street businesses and pubs out of business rates entirely, paid for by the welfare reforms that the Government does not have the backbone to push through, and we will repeal all of the job-destroying measures in Labour’s unemployment Bill.

We back the engines of growth in our economy—the providers of jobs. This Government seek to push them to the wall. I commend this motion to the House.

It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Government.

Let me start by saying that I will take absolutely no lessons on running the economy after what the Conservatives did during 14 years in government. Given that there have been so many references to songs and music today, I want to suggest a song that Conservative Members might want to reflect on. It is an Elton John classic: “Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word”.

I noticed yesterday that the Conservatives produced a Christmas video in which they claimed that Santa’s elves were seasonal workers—you couldn’t make it up! May I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), on his somewhat alarming AI skills? I would gently point out that if the Opposition’s reference point for the modern economy is Father Christmas’s workshop, that does explain a lot; although, frankly, I am not surprised. On Monday, the shadow Secretary of State repeatedly quoted figures on the supposed cost of the Employment Rights Bill from the Growth Commission. However, that commission boasts a Ms Elizabeth Truss as an adviser, so he will forgive me if I take any of his economic advice with a large pinch of salt.

Let me be clear. We on the Government Benches do not believe in pitting employers and employees against each other. No one wants a business to succeed more than the workers who rely on it for their livelihood. This Government will not indulge in the scaremongering so beloved by the Conservatives, and I will take this opportunity to clarify some of their misleading claims. But first, I want to acknowledge how difficult the past few years have been for small businesses, particularly in the hospitality, retail and leisure sectors. These sectors were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, by a botched Brexit, and by a cost of living crisis that has robbed the British people of their disposable income.

Will the Minister give way?

I will carry on and make some progress.

Let me respond to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). As many hon. Members reflected on this point, I will clarify that we are not seeking to return to or rejoin the customs union; we are focusing on trade deals with countries such as the US and India. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) demonstrated that so clearly in relation to our trade agreement with the US, which guaranteed thousands of jobs under Jaguar Land Rover. I will come to the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the youth guarantee later in my speech and respond to her reflections.

First and foremost, I pay tribute to all those running and working in small businesses, especially in such important sectors as hospitality and retail. I know from my own experience and my family’s experience just how hard that is. My first job was in a café in the hospitality sector; it was where I developed through my first opportunities. I became a manager there, and I absolutely loved my job. It was a really important aspect of our community, including for local people’s livelihoods.

My dad worked in the printworks growing up, and he was made redundant by his bosses under the watch of the Tory Government. I worked with my mum and dad, and took the opportunity that the hospitality sector provided to them. It gave my dad the opportunity to set up a small business and run a café successfully for 14 years, and our family are so proud of that. He gave an opportunity to more young people in the community I grew up in, and the business was a really important aspect of our lives. I now have so many excellent businesses in my Halifax constituency, which I am proud to champion at the Dispatch Box and in government. That is why this Government were elected: to provide economic growth that will raise living standards and support vital sectors across our economy.

As the Minister for Employment Rights, I should say that this Government were also elected on a promise to make work pay. The UK’s employment laws are mostly a product of the 20th century. They have not kept pace with how businesses now employ people, nor with how people experience working life today. The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years; it is no longer the norm for employees to stay in one company or even a single sector for their whole career. New technology continues to rapidly transform how we work, where we work and when we work, and the rise of the gig economy has changed the certainty and stability that employment used to provide. The Employment Rights Bill takes steps to fulfil our commitment to bring employment rights into the 21st century.

Lots of hon. Members have spoken passionately about the Bill and its importance to them, as well as the experience that they bring to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) spoke powerfully about his personal experience of working in hospitality and about how he stands up for his constituents in the sector. He demonstrated the importance of the Bill in providing job predictability and security as a baseline.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke about the fair pay agreement and her experience standing up for care workers in her constituency and across the country, as well as about the importance of statutory sick pay for thousands more people across this country and the importance of the fair work agency. It is essential that we get this Bill on to the statute book and ensure that people can see the benefits it will bring to them, particularly through setting up the enforcement powers of the fair work agency. My hon. Friend also mentioned overseas recruitment. What matters in UK employment law and enforcement is where the worker is based; if they are based in the UK, then in general they have access to UK employment law, and enforcement agencies can and do take action no matter where the employer is based. I would be happy to talk to her if she has any further questions about the set-up of the fair work agency.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for her support. She made a passionate and to-the-point case for the importance of the Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury. I agree with every word that they and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) said about the importance of this legislation to working people and to brilliant businesses across the country.

The Employment Rights Bill will strengthen workers’ rights and lead to growth. Many British businesses already offer their employees benefits and protections that far exceed what is in the legislation. The Bill will encourage those seeking employment, including young people looking for their first job, giving them security that they will be treated fairly by their employer. As we have said, we are not springing these changes on businesses; we are working very closely with them as we implement these changes gradually over a number of years. We will be consulting and working with them closely.

Lots of Opposition Members mentioned zero-hours contracts. Many people in the UK value the option to work flexibly, but some employers have taken advantage of that flexibility. We are determined to tackle the issue of one-sided flexibility, which can leave people unclear about when they will next get paid work and how much time they need to keep available for work. Of course, some businesses—including those in the hospitality, retail, agriculture and tourism sectors—experience fluctuating demand across the year. There are ways for businesses to plan their work that gives their workers a degree of security, which is why flexibility is already built into the Bill to address issues of seasonal demand. There are several ways in which an employer could approach this issue while complying with the new right to guaranteed hours, depending on their circumstances.

The right to guaranteed hours does not force companies to make seasonal workers permanent, nor does it force them to give unnecessary hours to employees; it gives workers the right to choose certainty and stability in their contracts where they want it, and helps them to budget and plan for their lives. I recently visited a brilliant business in Manchester and heard from one of its employees about the difference that guaranteed hours made to him and his work, allowing him to plan his bills and family finances and giving him stability in his livelihood. Having guaranteed hours was absolutely vital to him; it changed his life, and this legislation will change the lives of many other people across the country who are looking for that certainty and stability.

Will the Minister give way?

I have lots to make progress on, but I will give way very briefly.

Would the Minister like to apologise to the more than 280,000 people who are not in work now, compared with the level of unemployment last year, and could she spell out how a business that, for example, provides catering at summer festivals and then ceases to have any festivals to service can guarantee hours to a workforce it does not need any more?

I have heard lots of Conservative Members reflect on unemployment. What they fail to mention is that the average unemployment rate over their 14 years in government was 5.4%, which is substantially higher than the current unemployment rate. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from Monday’s debate, we have committed to consult on seasonal work. We will work with businesses, trade unions and all other stakeholders to get the legislation right—I will continue to listen and to work with them on the details. It is so important that we pass the Employment Rights Bill, so that we can consult and stick to our road map for implementing it. Many working people and businesses across this country want that certainty; they want us to crack on.

I will try to make some progress, as we are pressed for time. Several hon. Members—including the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage)—raised the subject of business rates reform, as did the shadow Secretary of State. This Government are determined to remove barriers to investment, helping our businesses to succeed, our high streets to thrive and our economy to grow. We are introducing permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 from April next year. This will give long-term certainty and support to the high street, in marked contrast to the previous form of relief, which created a yearly cliff edge and had to end entirely in April next year. We know that this tax cut must be sustainably funded, which is why from April next year, we are applying a higher rate to the most valuable properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above. Let me be clear: those properties represent less than 1% of all properties, but they include the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants.

Some Members have spoken about the raising of employer national insurance contributions in last year’s Budget. I have already mentioned the state of the finances we inherited from the Conservative party. That meant that we had to take difficult decisions to get the nation back on track, and one of the toughest decisions was to raise the rate of employer national insurance contributions, but we are protecting the smallest businesses from these changes, including many of those in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors. These difficult but necessary steps will protect our public finances and ensure that we can to continue to fund our essential services, such as the NHS and social care, and to invest in the economy.

Moving swiftly on, many Members have mentioned the visitor levy. Our mission is to kick-start economic growth and to devolve fiscal powers, and the levy is critical to that. Introducing a visitor levy provides mayors with a new lever that they can use to raise funds for reinvestment locally. We launched a consultation at the Budget so that the public, businesses and local government can shape the design of the power to introduce the levy that will be devolved to local leaders. They will decide how to introduce the levy and how it will be used to drive growth in their region. That is a historic step for English devolution.

I will reflect on some of the comments of the hon. Members for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool). I do not share their lack of enthusiasm for continued investment in this country under this Government.

The Minister’s amendment to the motion refers to

“a comprehensive vision for productivity and success”

for small businesses. It is incredibly similar to the amendment that the Government tabled in the high streets debate, but interestingly, what has gone is a reference to a 25% cut in administrative burden. The Minister raised the issue, but did not comment on whether the Government are committed to that 25% cut. Where does that figure come from, and why has it disappeared from this amendment, when it was in a previous one?

The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), mentioned in his opening remarks all the steps that we are taking to reduce those burdens, and all the policies that we are introducing to back our small businesses across the country. On the point that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth made on investment, just last month J.P. Morgan announced its £3 billion tower. That is one of the largest financial services investments in recent years. Scottish Power has announced a £24 billion clean energy investment, which will create 2,000 jobs up to 2028. We are proud of that investment.

I will finish on the subject of the youth guarantee. Many Members have stressed the importance of employment for young people. There are more 18 to 24-year-olds in employment than a year ago. The Tories left the NEET rate rising and saw a colossal rise of almost a quarter of a million in young people out of work. We are determined to turn that around. NEET numbers are still too high, and lots of Members have rightly reflected on that. We want to give young people a brighter future, and that will be the impact of our youth guarantee. Our measures supporting young people to earn and learn are backed up by the evidence on what works. There is a national crisis of opportunity, and we are taking action in response —through the youth guarantee, the growth and skills levy, and, more widely, by interrogating the root causes of the issues, with the support of Alan Milburn.

To summarise, this Labour Government are on the side of working people and our brilliant businesses. We have boosted pay for millions of the lowest earners, and we are putting money back into people’s pockets. We are making work pay again in a way that suits the 21st century, and that will create security and opportunity for everyone, no matter their background. Most of all, we have a commitment to a core British value: those who work should be rewarded. As we put it in Yorkshire, this is about a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We are getting on with the job. We are focused on fixing the long-term damage to our economy, and setting Britain on the path to renewal. That is why I call on the House to support our amendment.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I bring to the House an issue of grave concern. At Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister how many more teachers there were since the Education Secretary came into office in 2024. The Prime Minister replied that there were

“More than when the Conservatives left office”.

The Department for Education’s website makes it clear that the Prime Minister was wrong: there are 400 fewer teachers under Labour. This is more than an inaccuracy, and it is exactly why the public lose faith in our parliamentary democracy. Can you advise on how the Prime Minister can come to the House and correct the record?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. While the Chair is not responsible for the content of contributions made by Ministers, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard his comments this afternoon and, if an error has been made, I am sure it will be corrected as soon as possible.