Kevin Hollinrake MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is not wrong, spurious or specious to stand up for 11 million tenants. We know that tenants and landlords are two sides of the same coin. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we agree that tenants need a better deal, but this Bill will not give that to them. The Minister is following in the footsteps of Scotland. The Bill will reduce supply and push up rent, and that is why we are against it—

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the hon. Gentleman would be. He has always stood up for his constituents and, indeed, for mine and for those of every Member of this House. I always admired that, and I know that he will continue to do it. In the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, we gave more powers to social landlords and to victims. We have all met victims at our surgeries and been to see the situations that they live in, but now they can demand that the agencies ensure that their problems are dealt with more effectively by bringing those agencies together. We also gave social landlords more power to evict offenders—the people who are guilty of this kind of abuse—and we added resources of £160 million. Legislation is nothing without implementation, and we need the right policing resources, as a number of Members referred to. I must pick up on the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), about policing numbers. I agree that we should have more police on our streets, and we have record numbers today, but he cannot simply walk away from some of the choices made by his party and my party post-2010, when police numbers were cut. Looking back now, that was the wrong thing to do, but he cannot walk away from that. Police numbers dipped and then grew again under subsequent Conservative Governments. They now stand at a 50-year record, which is probably a record in anybody’s lifetime. I will pick up on the point about the three strikes policy, which formed the basis of the speech by the hon. Member for Ashfield. He thinks that it should be three strikes, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said that it should be two strikes, and the hon. Member for Mansfield, in a fantastic speech, which was most unexpected—he is welcome to join us on the Conservative Benches any time he wants—said that it should be one strike. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness made the point that benefits are a privilege, not a right, and that people should have to search for a job and behave well, for example, to get those benefits. We introduced the claimant commitment to do exactly that, so we have taken action in this area, which was of course extremely controversial. We have had to stand up time and again in debates to defend our sanctions policy, because we do not think it is right that people can simply leave the labour market and not try to find work. Again, action was taken there. The hon. Member for Ashfield talked about where people would live if they were kicked out of these houses, which is a controversial point, of course. That made me think about my mum, who was a social worker who rehabilitated offenders. When people came out of jail, she would try to find them a job and a house. Eventually, she convinced landladies to put up those people, who were trying to get the second chance that most of us would like to ensure that people have. She then built a purpose-built hostel for them, but she had a very clear rule: no drink or drugs while they were in the hostel or one of the bedrooms provided by the landladies. The Probation Service said, “You can’t do this because these people have very difficult lives.” The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) pointed that out, and I agree that these people have very complex lives. Nevertheless, my mum always stuck to the line that if the person did not abide by the rule, they could not be in the landladies’ guest houses or the hostel. It was “one strike and you’re out”—as simple as that. Everybody knew the rule. It was tough love, but it worked. She got many people back on the straight and narrow because she was very straight down the line about it. I am sure that there were no more resources then than there are today. Resources will always be tight, so we have to show tough love to people in that situation and say what the rules will be. I am keen to hear what the Minister is going to do about this issue. He is a very decent man, but I do not believe that he is going to show the tough love that we need. I fear that he—well, not him personally, but his Government—will be too weak, and I think that in 2030, when possibly his ministerial career has ended and a new Minister has taken his place, he will look back in anger at the fact that he did not do more.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  I take the Minister back to the broken windows point. Broken window policing was not just about fixing the windows. He is right to say that that was part of it, because people not caring creates the opportunity for more crime, but it was also about arresting people for low-level crimes and antisocial behaviour. That is an effective and important part of that policy.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister touched on the point about people being unworthy. Can I make the point that my mum would have made? It was not the person who was unworthy as an individual; it was just that they were unworthy of living in a social house, or in her hostel. We have to have tough love to create an incentive for people to behave properly.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  I agree very much with the hon. Member’s points, and I wonder if he is a member of the right party on that basis. Is he not dismayed that the Secretary of State has ditched our plans to remove social housing for people who are consistently guilty of antisocial behaviour?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  That might be a bit tricky—people do deserve to live in a house as long as they demonstrate good behaviour. My predecessor as shadow Secretary of State—now the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch)—has said: “Those who break the law, make neighbours’ lives a misery, or treat the UK as a hotel they’re just passing through, should not be given subsidised housing…The public wants to know that only decent and hardworking people who have contributed to this country are given social housing.” I agree with that point. The Minister is a very decent chap, and I am really interested to listen to what he will say, but let us contrast those comments with what the current Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister, has said. She has confirmed Labour’s plans to ditch proposals from the Conservative Government to take away social housing from criminals, including those with a history of antisocial behaviour. The Deputy Prime Minister also binned the Conservatives’ commitment to prioritise social housing for those with local and British connections. I am very disappointed by that approach, and we need to revisit it. I very much hope the Minister will do that, based on what has been said in this debate. That is all despite the Prime Minister pledging a new clampdown on criminal and violent disorder. I would like to pick up on what my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), said in his remarks. I totally agree with many of the points he made, but particularly on right to buy. I grew up back in the‘70s in a little town in North Yorkshire with large council estates. I used to deliver milk there as a young man, and those council estates were not in the best order. Some of the behaviours were not the best, and nor was the condition of some of the houses, because people did not look after them. One of the benefits of right to buy, as well as giving individuals the benefit of right to buy, was that the individuals who bought those homes also improved them significantly. With double glazing, extensions and smart gardens, the quality of those estates increased dramatically. It is therefore a real concern that the Government have decided to cut back and water down that policy and to make it more difficult for people renting social houses to buy them. That cannot be right, particularly when the Deputy Prime Minister herself—this is her policy—has benefited from those very opportunities. It is rank hypocrisy, and it cannot be right.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate, because all of us have experienced distressing constituency cases, which are a real problem for our communities. I agree with his description of the issue: it can cause mayhem and misery throughout our local communities. I also agree that social housing should be a privilege, not a right, and that those houses should be kept in good order. When canvassing in our patch, we have all gone to areas with social housing and seen overgrown gardens with litter and furniture in them. That cannot be right for the people in those houses, and particularly the children, but also for the neighbours. It is simply not right. It is good to see that we seem to be in violent agreement on both sides of the Chamber on the three-strikes policy, which I will talk about in a second. That seems to be a maximum, not a minimum. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) argued for a two-strikes policy, and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) argued for a one-strike policy. I am encouraged by that, because it is fair to say that everyone in the debate so far—I am interested to hear what the Minister will say—has said that we need to do more.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have increased the amount of affordable housing significantly since 2010; there are more than half a million new affordable homes. I do not think he knows that there is a limit on how much money we have. The more social housing we provide, the more expensive that will be. He set out lots of plans that would be very expensive and would take the tax rates in this country through the roof. If that is what people want to vote for, that is what they should vote for, but that is not what I believe. There are finite resources, and we must use them very carefully. We set out plans to give preference to local residents and to armed forces veterans, but, crucially, to disqualify those with unspent antisocial behaviour convictions and those guilty of other offences. I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Ashfield that his calls—presumably, both as a member of our party and while in his current party—fell on deaf ears. People may argue that it was not enough, but much work was done while we were in government.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  Birmingham.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Building Homes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. First, I welcome the ambitious target of 1.5 million homes in this Parliament. I think he may have unintentionally misled the House regarding the “dire inheritance” that he claims. Conservative Members are rightly proud of our record on housing delivery. [ Interruption. ] Really. Between 2013 and 2023, we saw a record level of new housing formations, greater than any other period since the 1960s. We delivered 550,000 affordable homes since 2010, including 63,000 in 2022-23 alone. What we do not welcome is the war on rural England that the Minister is pursuing. Following on from the family farm tax and the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant, we now see a massive shift to mass house building in rural areas and on green belt. We do not welcome the bulldozing of democratic accountability. We do not welcome the lowering of housing targets for urban areas, including a 20% reduction in London, which is already missing its targets by 50%. We also do not welcome an average doubling—a 100% increase—for predominantly rural areas. The reality for local residents in areas such as Westmorland, Cumberland, North Yorkshire and the home counties is that they will one day wake up to realise that they will face targets of up to 600% increases. They will call their local councillor to ask them to oppose a specific application and be shocked at the response, which will be, “I am sorry; we no longer have the right to vote against an individual application.” They will be even more shocked if they become aware of what Labour said in opposition. Its Opposition motion on 21 June 2021 called on the previous Government to “protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.” The Minister is now taking that away. Local residents will be more shocked again when they become aware that the Minister himself used that right in 2021 to object to an application for 1,500 homes on a brownfield site in his constituency. Indeed, the Secretary of State also used that right to object to a development in her constituency in 2017. Same old Labour: do as I say, not as I do. The reality is that the Government will fail to deliver on their target. Members need not listen to me; they should listen to the chief executive officer of Homes England, who admitted in a leaked email that it is a two-Parliament objective rather than deliverable in this Parliament. The Centre for Cities and the Office for Budget Responsibility have both said that only 1.1 million homes will be delivered in England in this Parliament, and indeed there will be only 1.3 million homes across the UK, which is lower than we delivered in the last Parliament—another broken promise from Labour. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we will be there for the Minister and the Secretary of State when they fail to deliver on that promise. This planning framework pushes development to rural areas, concreting over green belt, green fields and over our green and pleasant land, rather than focusing and supporting building in urban areas where we need to build the most. And to what end? Due to the loosening of restrictions on visa requirements such as the salary threshold, and the scrapping of the Rwanda deterrent, the majority of the homes that the Government deliver will be required for people coming into this country rather than for British citizens. Labour has also consistently failed on affordable homes. Under the London Labour Mayor, new affordable housing in London is down by 88%, yet across England, the Conservative Government delivered more than half a million homes. They have already weakened their requirement for 50% affordable homes on the green belt by allowing the use of viability assessments. That change will mean fewer affordable homes. The Labour Government have already failed first-time buyers. The Conservative Government doubled the number of those buying every year compared with 2010, by means of the stamp duty discounts, Help to Buy, right to buy and our affordable homes programmes—some of which helped the Secretary of State herself get on the housing ladder. Those have been axed by this socialist Government pulling up the housing ladder. They will build over rural areas while claiming it is grey belt land, but we delivered over 1 million homes in the last Parliament alone. It is vital more than ever that we build in the right places with the right infrastructure, but the Prime Minister has already admitted that he will bulldoze through the concerns of local communities. If the Government really want homes to be built where they are needed, they must think again. Finally, how many of the Minister’s 1.5 million homes will be affordable? What does he expect will be the split for social rent, affordable rent and affordable homes to purchase, particularly given the use of viability assessments? On planning capacity, will he set out why his resourcing of planning authorities, which we broadly welcome, has risen from £20 million in his manifesto, to £46 million in the Budget, to £100 million today? How is that consistent with the Budget? Why is he deliberately making it more difficult for first-time buyers to buy a home? What percentage of the 1.5 million target does he expect will be needed for immigrant households?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Planning Committees: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  That is not true.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentions business rates and the small business multiplier. Will she confirm the continuation of small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The Grenfell Tower fire was an unthinkable tragedy that claimed 72 lives. It is one of the few moments in life when we all remember exactly where we were when it happened. Our thoughts are with those who lost loved ones, the survivors who endured unimaginable trauma, and all those who were affected by that devastating night. The state failed them in its duty to protect, and we must ensure that such failures are never repeated. We will work collaboratively with the Secretary of State and the wider Government in the interests of everyone directly and indirectly affected by this tragedy, and I very much welcome today’s announcement about the acceleration of remediation. Following the tragedy, the Conservative Government took decisive action to uncover the truth, initiating a public inquiry to learn lessons and implement changes to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. The right hon. Lady may remember that we served briefly together on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee which, under the extremely capable leadership of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), led much of the thinking and debate following the tragedy. We successfully campaigned for a banning of combustible materials on the outside of new buildings over 18 metres, and for a Government remediation fund for existing buildings. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) who was the first to properly grasp that nettle as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Chancellor, and Prime Minister. More than £5.1 billion has since been allocated for building remediation, and we have acted to strengthen regulations and implement recommendations from the inquiry’s phase 1 report. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Lady’s predecessor, the former Member for Surrey Heath, for his work in this area, not least the establishment of the building safety levy, which is the source from which much of the funds will flow. However, publication of the phase 2 report in September 2024 revealed the scale of failures that occurred over decades and across multiple sectors, making clear that much more remains to be done, as the right hon. Lady set out. Even those of us who have followed the inquiry closely find the report truly shocking to read. The phase 2 report, chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and supported by panel members Ali Akbor OBE and Thouria Istephan, makes 58 recommendations to improve fire safety and address systemic issues within the construction industry. Crucially, the report concluded that the Grenfell Tower fire was the result of decades of failures by Government, regulatory bodies and the construction industry to act on the known dangers of using combustible materials in high-rise buildings. One of the most alarming findings was the role of systemic dishonesty in the construction industry. Companies engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate safety testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. For instance, the insulation product Celotex RS5000, used on Grenfell Tower, was found to have been sold using manipulated test results—incredibly, with the Building Research Establishment complicit in those practices.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. Mistakes were made—there is no doubt about it. As the phase 2 report recommends, there should be greater oversight and regulation of people who proclaim themselves to be experts in these fields. I agree with the hon. Lady’s points. Accountability must remain a cornerstone of our response. Those who knowingly cut corners on safety to maximise profits must face justice. We call on the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue criminal charges against those responsible, be it through a deliberate act, a willingness to look the other way, or gross incompetence. Companies implicated in such wrongdoing should not receive future public contracts. Let us be clear: this was not the responsibility of any single Government, Minister or official. As the report sets out in its opening paragraphs, failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations of all political colours. We must approach these difficult questions with the honesty and determination that they deserve, ensuring that we learn the lessons of the past to protect lives in the future. While we have made significant progress, the journey is far from over. As we look to the future, we must acknowledge the hard questions raised by the report about past governance. Those failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations led by Labour, the coalition Government, and Conservative Governments. This was a systemic failure, which requires an open and honest response. Our party’s record demonstrates our commitment to making things right. We took swift action after the tragedy to establish the public inquiry, launch the independent review of building regulations and fire safety, and allocate significant resources to remove unsafe cladding from high-risk buildings. The Fire Safety Act 2021 implemented recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, and the Building Safety Act 2022 overhauled existing regulations, setting up the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stringent compliance measures.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an important speech. One of the facts that the phase 2 report has established is that the system is too fragmented, and needs to be brought together under a single construction regulator, as he recommends. Does he envisage the functions that he has described, involving investigations of incidents, not falling to the responsibility of that regulator?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I did during much of our work on the Select Committee. One of Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations was exactly that: that all test results should be published, not just the ones that support the safety of the product. That would go a long way towards ensuring that the true safety of the products is established. The BRE findings highlight a shocking betrayal of trust, and a callous disregard for public safety, driven by financial gain. The report also identified severe leadership and management failings within the London Fire Brigade. It described a chronic lack of effective management, an undue focus on processes, and a complacency among senior officers regarding the brigade’s operational efficiency. Those weaknesses hindered the brigade’s ability to respond effectively to the crisis, and underscored the need for systemic reform and improved leadership in fire services. To address those failings, the phase 2 report made far-reaching recommendations, including the establishment of a single construction regulator; centralising fire safety responsibilities under one Secretary of State, to end fragmentation across Departments; regular updates to approved document B, to keep fire safety regulations current; and the creation of a chief construction adviser and a college of fire and rescue to ensure high standards in fire safety training and practices. We fully support those recommendations and urge the Government to implement them swiftly and effectively. We will scrutinise their progress to ensure that the necessary reforms are delivered without delay. Some have questioned the pace of the remediation efforts. I think the Secretary of State was right to do so. I emphasise that the remediation efforts prioritised the highest-risk buildings, and by July 2024, 98% of high-rise buildings with the most dangerous, Grenfell-style ACM cladding had either completed or started work. On the remaining buildings, enforcement action is being taken against non-compliant owners. The complexity of the buildings and legal disputes over responsibility have caused delays. Nevertheless, all building owners must step up, take responsibility, and act swiftly to address the issues, or face the consequences of their inaction. It is important to note that the building regulations regime was established under the Building Act 1984, and fire safety reforms were introduced by other Governments in previous decades, as the Secretary of State acknowledged. From 2010, the coalition Government sought to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, but fire safety and building safety were explicitly excluded from those reviews. The inquiry acknowledged that key safety regulations, including the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 were excluded from deregulation initiatives. Under our leadership, safety was never treated as red tape. Nevertheless, as the report confirms, mistakes were made by Ministers and officials on our watch. The frequency of changes under Governments of different political stripes, and the frequency of changes in housing Ministers and Secretaries of State, would not have helped. I hope that Parliament may learn that lesson for the future. Since 2017, the Conservatives in Government led comprehensive reforms of building compliance and fire safety. Measures introduced include the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, which created the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stricter compliance with standards.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  There are so many lessons that I hope will be learned across the House. The report is clear that there has been failure by Governments of all stripes over the years, in terms of both building safety and social housing. With the Regulator of Social Housing and the new fire safety regulatory regime, it is hugely important that we turn the page, but I do not think that we will win back the trust of the people affected by this scandal, or by the cladding scandal in other areas, until we have made progress, completed the remediation, and put in place a regime that is seen to be working and bringing about the cultural change to which the Secretary of State referred. It is hugely important that we make that progress. The actions that we have taken have made strides towards addressing safety concerns, but we recognise that more is needed. I welcome the Labour Government’s pledge to respond to all 58 recommendations within six months and to provide annual progress updates to Parliament. This is a critical moment for accountability and reform, and we stand ready to support all proportionate and necessary measures to protect public safety. Does the Secretary of State agree with the recommendation of a single construction regulator, with one Secretary of State holding end-to-end responsibility, and will that be her? Does she also agree with the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East about product manufacturers being held responsible for remediation costs, too? It is her stated policy to continue the use of the CE marking scheme for construction products in the UK, but those standards were set in 2015, three years prior to the post-Grenfell standards revision in the UK. How will she ensure that all products sold in the UK meet the post-2018 UK standard? That issue has been raised on the Floor of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is next to me on the Opposition Front Bench. I recently met campaigners, including Steve Day, who raise the case of the 1.7 million leaseholders who do not currently qualify for the Building Safety Act 2022 protections and who still suffer from higher insurance premiums, higher mortgage rates and an inability to sell their homes. Will the Secretary of State meet him and others to see what additional measures need to be taken? Can she share with the House when announcements will be made on the future memorial on the site? Indeed, can the renovation of properties in the Grenfell community be accelerated? Can we get a target for when that will be completed? Accountability must be at the heart of the response, and those who knowingly cut corners on building safety must face justice. Grenfell was a tragedy of unprecedented scale, but it must serve as a turning point. We owe it to those who lost their lives, to the survivors and to the public to ensure that their legacy is one of justice, reform and safety. Let us move forward with determination to build a safer future for all.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I used to have ginger hair as well! May I give the right hon. Lady the answer to my question? It was the Foreign Secretary. In opposition, the now Home Secretary warned that the Chinese Government are “attempting to influence Parliament”, and trying “to interfere in our democracy and undermine our security.” —[ Official Report , 11 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 667.] Those risks are all heightened by this development. Are this Government so desperate to counteract the disastrous Budget and their own growth-wrecking trade union Bill that they are now willing to override national security, national interests and the sensible concerns of their Home Secretary by kowtowing to the Chinese Government?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  At whose request did the Secretary of State call in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was part of the fairer funding formula for schools in my area, which had the worst-funded local authorities in the country. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that schools in my constituency improved under the stewardship of the Conservative Government. Surely that is the key metric, rather than just how much money is put in.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister confirm the continuation of small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I remind him that it was not the Conservative party that voted to leave the European Union, but the people of this country. We respect democratic mandates. I hope every Member on the Government Benches who walks through the Lobby to support the Bill tonight realises the price their constituents will pay for that decision. If the Government will not publish the likely consequences of the Bill, let me set out what I believe the consequences will be. The Government claim to be cutting business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England, but that is not the case. The business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that we introduced cuts 75% off bills, but that support is being reduced by the Labour Government. They are almost halving that relief to 40%, meaning that shops, restaurants, cafés, pubs, cinemas, music venues, gyms and hotels will all see their business rates rise.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House observes that the Autumn Budget 2024 has cut central Government funding for retail, hospitality and leisure business rate relief in 2025-26, and that this Government funding will end completely in 2026-27; expresses concern that the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill represents a stealth increase in business rates on high streets and the hospitality sector, as well as on larger businesses, on top of the Government’s increases in National Insurance contributions; regrets the lack of a proper cumulative impact assessment on the effect on business; notes that the removal of charitable rate relief on independent schools, taken together with the imposition of VAT, will mean fewer children going to private schools and will therefore create extra pressure on state schools, will undermine aspiration and parental choice, and mean larger class sizes in state schools and increased costs for taxpayers; and therefore declines to give a Second Reading to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.” It is a privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. The Conservative party has a proud record of supporting businesses on the high street. We cut business rates to support small businesses, including doubling small business rates relief from £6,000 up to £15,000, and almost trebling higher rate relief from £18,000 to £51,000. We increased the frequency of business rate revaluations, making our business rates system fairer for businesses and more responsive to local economic trends, helping businesses to invest, create jobs and grow. The contrast with this business-bashing Labour Government could not be greater. They have brought forward a mass of new red tape for business by means of the Employment Rights Bill. I note that the Regulatory Policy Committee released its commentary today on the impact assessment, which it said is “not fit for purpose”. It says that the annual costs to businesses could be much higher than £5 billion, and the impact assessment has received a red rating. The Government have also imposed huge new tax increases on businesses. The worst thing is that they were not even man enough to tell businesses that they were going to do it—quite the opposite—which is why, as much as the Minister says that businesses have confidence in his plans, the Institute of Directors has said that it has seen the biggest one-month fall in investment confidence in its history. The Confederation of British Industry said today that 50% of its members will reduce headcount, and two thirds are scaling back hiring. Is that the kind of growth that he imagined he would bring forward with his legislation? Infamously, the Labour party promised in its manifesto not to raise national insurance. Next week, we will have the Second Reading of a Bill that reneges completely on that promise by raising employer’s national insurance contributions by £24 billion a year. Labour has also hit business through the family farms tax, and our best family businesses in other sectors by halving business property relief. I remind the Minister that family businesses employ 13.8 million people in this country and pay over £200 billion every year in taxes. The Government are killing the geese that lay the golden eggs. In its manifesto, the Labour party promised to “replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way. This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants”. In a speech to the House on 12 May 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister said: “We would scrap business rates to help our high streets flourish.” —[ Official Report , 12 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 300.] The Treasury Minister himself also stated his party’s intention to “scrap business rates” to the House on 25 October 2023. The Bill before us breaks those promises because it does not “replace” or “scrap” the business rates system. Not only that, but as a result of the Bill and the measures in the Budget, business rates are actually going up, both for online companies and businesses on our local high streets—yet more broken promises from a Government of broken promises. Maybe the Government do not realise exactly what they are doing, perhaps because members of their Cabinet have no experience of starting and running a business. Shamefully, there has been no consultation with businesses about the changes. True to form, the Government have not published a full regulatory impact assessment alongside the Bill on the changes to business rates multipliers. It is a discourtesy to the House and to our constituents for the Government to refuse to consult with businesses, consider the impact their policies will have or publish the information that would allow Members of the House to scrutinise the plans properly. Instead, they are using their majority to ram through the half-baked damaging measures in the Bill.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill is about raising rates on private schools, which is why I mention them, but I am very happy to talk in glowing terms about the state schools in my constituency, including the one that I attended as a boy and the ones that my children went to. I am for state schools, but I am also for independent education. Why is it either/or? Why would anyone ever tax education?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that 90,000 pupils will be transferring to the state sector as a result of these plans. We Conservatives hold firmly to the principle that education should not be taxed. The only other nation to have tried is Greece, which abandoned the policy within months because of the disastrous consequences. The Independent Schools Council has said that some independent schools will close entirely and others will scale back the education they offer, causing significant upheaval and disruption to the lives of tens of thousands of children. As surely as night follows day, that will mean fewer children going to private schools and increased pressure on state schools. I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened me about whether this policy complies with article 14 of the European convention on human rights. The legal issues memorandum considers the principle of non-discrimination regarding the difference in treatment between private schools and state schools, but not between private schools that are charities and other charities that will still qualify for charitable rates relief. I look forward to the Minister’s clarification. During our time in government, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world, a legacy that this Government seem determined to trash. In short, this Bill may be short, but it is long on disastrous consequences. I implore Government Members to think about their local schools and their high street businesses that are about to be clobbered, and about the resulting job losses, higher prices and boarded-up shop fronts. I ask all Members to think about what is in their constituents’ best interests, do the right thing and vote against the Bill.