Paul Holmes MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 19 Dec 2024 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The fact that the Minister has come here expecting us to welcome her announcement and congratulate her on giving money that her Government took away in the first place really beggars belief. Mountbatten hospice in my constituency needs an extra £1 million because of the NICs increase that her Government have brought forward. Will she guarantee to Mountbatten and the charitable sector, including hospices—which the last Government increased funding for, before she comes back to me with that answer —that today’s announcement will cover the £1 million that her Government have taken away in NICs?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Christmas Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to wind up this end-of-term Christmas Adjournment debate for the official Opposition. We have had a wide and varied range of issues raised during this debate, as well as a fantastic array of facts from constituencies across the United Kingdom. Members in all parts of this House have spoken about the issues that really need tackling, and about the pride they feel in their constituency and their constituents. Might I give newer Members on the Government Benches a top tip—a genuine, non-partisan top tip? When they speak in these debates in future, they should know that this is the only time when they can speak on the Floor of the House to a Government Whip. They are able to tease that Whip, claim what they want for their constituency from them, and sometimes tease out where they think the Government might be going wrong. I encourage Members to tread gently, however, because if they do so—and I encourage them to; I used to do it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew)—the meetings without coffee will start again in January. They should enjoy themselves in this afternoon’s debate, though, and I know that they have. The Whip responding, the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), will be making a list. She will be checking it twice. She will be looking to see which of her Members have been naughty or nice, and they never know, Santa Claus might be coming to a town near them. I note that the hon. Lady was chair of the all-party parliamentary group for bingo at one stage of her career. I wonder whether in her winding-up remarks, we will see a game of Labour bingo—“14 years”, “fixing the foundations”, “dire inheritance”. She should not be surprised if I shout “Full house” at her while she is winding up, because I am afraid that we will not be taking any of that broken record from the hon. Lady. However, it is a lot less broken than the record that I encourage Members on all sides of this House to buy as we approach the Christmas No. 1 competition: “Freezing This Christmas”, which is raising money for Age UK. I apologise to the Liberal Democrats for not endorsing the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). I will run through contributions made by Members from all sides of the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned that he has been elected Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and opened this debate in his typically charismatic and factual way. He wears two hats, also being chairman of the 1922 committee. I can guarantee that he will not be receiving any communications from me over the next five years. He also said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is a winning candidate, and I look forward to her taking over as Prime Minister in five years’ time. We should respect the fact that she is the fourth female leader of the Conservative party—something that the governing party needs to take note of. My hon. Friend also spoke about his campaign on London transport. That is what you get with Sir Sadiq Khan. Labour wants to bring in more directly elected Mayors by central diktat across the whole country. We on the Conservative Benches will absolutely hold Sadiq Khan to account for the dire services that he offers his constituents in London. Finally, my hon. Friend outlined his absolute commitment to the proscription of the IRGC—an issue that he has championed on both sides of this House. I know that he will keep pushing for that, and he is absolutely right to do so as he stands up for the great nation of Israel. The right hon. Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz) mentioned the really important issue of accessibility for all funding for railway stations. All Members from across this House have over the last five years brought up cases of constituents. I have many times brought up my constituents and the funding for Hedge End and Swanwick; feasibility study money was allocated by the last Government. I ask the Minister on duty to request that the Department for Transport comes back to all Members who were promised that money in the last Parliament—it was allocated by the last Government—and outline where we are going with accessibility for all. The ministerial letters that I received did not say when the next steps would happen. I ask the Minister very politely, on behalf of my constituents, where we are on that project. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned, in a heartfelt speech, all the volunteers across his constituency. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to the volunteers we all have in our constituencies, particularly in the NHS and the armed forces. They are a credit to our nation. They will be working across the United Kingdom this Christmas, and we all owe them a huge thank you. My hon. Friend mentioned the men’s shed charities, which I know from personal experience have helped many men with mental health issues. I do not think we talk enough about that topic. I pay tribute to the men’s sheds across the country for the things that they build on behalf of community centres. We have some lovely flower beds in Hedge End village in my constituency that were built by such volunteers, and I pay tribute to them, too. The hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland)—this is testing my pronunciation of place names across the UK—is a dedicated champion of his constituency. Before we entered this place, we worked together in another sector, namely the social housing and housing association sector in the UK. He is a first-rate brain on housing policy in this country, and I hope that he is used by the Government to unlock the social housing that is much needed. The hon. Member mentioned the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I declare an interest, in that I am a trustee of the scheme, and I encourage Members from across the House to take part in it. It is fantastic. We obviously honour the work that our armed forces do, and the scheme allows us to get closer to them, and to really listen to what they have to say about what they go through on our behalf, day in and day out. As he does every time we have one of these end-of-term Adjournment debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) raised really important issues in his constituency—particularly the direct train service to King’s Cross, which he has been bringing up consistently in this House since 2011. I say to him: keep going. I did not find him boring, and I look forward to his bringing up the issue in the next such debate, probably in the summer. I look forward to responding on that occasion, too. The hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) mentioned animals in her constituency, and a dog is for life, not just for Christmas. I hope that she buys her dog Maisie a big bone this Christmas. I see that she has Maisie on her phone. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is a dedicated and doughty champion of his constituents. He and I were elected to this House in the same intake, and I do not mind saying to him that his was a stand-out result for me on election night. He is a doughty and committed constituency MP, but his result surprised me—not because of any lack of ambition or lack of ability on his part, but just because winning his seat and getting through this election, which was very difficult for Conservatives, shows the dedication and the work that he puts in. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of Conservative initiatives to fund programmes in his constituency that were ringfenced, and he wants to drive growth. I fear that growth will be damaged by some of the policies of this Government, but he is a tireless campaigner. I would like to know what was in Clara’s Closet, a shop that he mentioned. He was also right to pay tribute to Ian Hayfield, the chair of the town’s bid, who passed away a couple of days ago, and Members across this House send our condolences to his family. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) championed McClaren, and outlined the local investment that such businesses, particularly F1 businesses, bring to his constituency, and he is absolutely right to do that. The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) made a couple of puns about Christmas lyrics. I recommend that he stick to the day job of standing up for his constituents and focusing on solving issues. However, he brought some fun to this debate; that is entirely what such debates are meant for, and I hope that he is successful in lobbying Ministers for investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always comes to this House—well, he is here most of the time. He said that we all need to think of others at this time, and had a message of hope at Christmas. Whenever he stands up in this House, he offers us hope and shows us how we should be doing our jobs. I wish him and his family a happy Christmas. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) mentioned volunteers and special educational needs and disabilities children. When I am sitting here heckling the Labour party, she has often brought up that issue for her constituents, in her short time here. I know that she will continue to do so in her way, and I will work with her to make sure we improve on those issues. May I take this opportunity to thank all of House staff for their unfailing help to all Members, particularly new Members? A record number of new Members came into the House. I would particularly like to mention—other members of staff should not take it personally—Godfrey, Daphne and Dawn in the Tea Room, who make my lunch and serve me tea very well. I have a lovely cup of tea after being in here, and I will have one after this debate. I particularly thank the Doorkeepers for putting me right when I have got lost, and putting up with my humour. I thank all staff, and I wish them a very merry Christmas. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the other Madam Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker a particularly good Christmas, and a rest. I also thank my team, who help me and keep me on the straight and narrow: Steph, Emma, Dan and Charlie. This debate shows that this really is a place of worthy ideals. It is a place for decency, and a place where we share a common bond: the privilege of representing our constituencies, places we care about, and our constituents, the fantastic people who make up this country. I wish my constituents in Hamble Valley a great Christmas. To all Members right across this House, I say: I look forward to seeing all of them back in the House in 2025, and I hope everybody has a very good rest.

• 19 Dec 2024 · Christmas Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has plenty of time, but can I just say to her: one line, two lines, full house.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate. I am delighted that the tractor beeps have stopped, partly because anyone watching the debate might have thought that the beeping was in case I swore pre-watershed. I assure people that it was the tractors outside. I thank hon. Members for their important contributions. I will pick out a few, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and then address a number of issues raised by Members around the Chamber. My hon. Friend made several important points, which many Members understand because we go through the same things. As in his constituency, there is an excessive amount of development in mine, where it is being led by the Liberal Democrat local authority. We know there are similar cases around the country, and we know that developers do not always stick to the standards that we need them to and that consumers are entitled to when buying something as big as a property that they expect to live the majority of their lives in. My hon. Friend also mentioned early consultation, which is an important concept, and talked about local plans. It is important that the new Government take a strong line, like the previous Government, to ensure that local authorities deliver a feasible local plan. I hope the Minister, in keeping with the Minister for Housing and Planning, will reassure us that she will stick to the importance of neighbourhood plans. Local people know what they want in their area, and they deserve the Government’s protection from excessive and speculative development. It was interesting to hear hon. Members talk about their constituencies and housing. I worry that many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley will be exacerbated by some of the policies announced by Ministers. I am worried that the centralising zeal of the new Government will take power away from local councillors. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said that he wanted planning decisions made closer to the ground, and by people who know their local area. Unfortunately, the policies announced this week will take planning decisions away from locally elected councillors, who act on behalf of his constituents. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) wants a bolder and more ambitious offer in his area, which I know well because he is my constituency neighbour and we served on the same local authority together. He might want a word with his ministerial colleagues who have reduced housing targets in his city from 1,450 to 1,100, while doubling or tripling targets in neighbouring more rural areas. If he wants bold and ambitious plans for his area, perhaps he should speak to his Government about taking targets away from Labour areas and putting them in Tory and Liberal Democrat ones. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) mentioned hedges and local features of his constituency. I am sure it is beautiful, but I say the same to him: if he wants more resources for planning departments across the country, he should have a word with his Ministers, who are taking power to say yes or no away from local authorities and putting it in the hands of Ministers in Westminster.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  That is not what the Minister for Housing and Planning said in the Chamber on Monday. He said that local authorities and councillors can make decisions about their area as long as the Minister is able to call applications in. It is a bypassing of locally elected councillors and a bypassing of local authorities, and the Government need to look again at the power that they are taking away from people at the grassroots and putting into the hands of Ministers at their desks in Westminster. The last Government would never have done that. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley also mentioned section 106 agreements. It is really important that we make sure that section 106 funds are allocated to local areas as much as possible. Experts have criticised systems such as section 106, with Professor Christian Hilber of the London School of Economics describing them as “inefficient—even counterproductive” and arguing that they potentially drive up house prices instead of delivering the affordable housing and public goods that they are meant to provide. Research by the Home Builders Federation highlighted that, troublingly, local authorities in England and Wales are holding on to £8 billion of unspent developer contributions. Those funds could transform communities: 11,000 affordable homes could be built, 12 million potholes could be repaired and 126,000 new school places could be created. We agree that it is time for policies that empower local councils and deliver tangible benefits for residents when it comes to the standard of developments. It is vital that local authorities have up-to-date local plans to ensure that people have a say in shaping the vision and framework for their communities over the next few years. That is why I am concerned about the centralising structures that this Government have introduced. They are bringing forward planning reforms before the revised national planning policy framework, which we think will be released tomorrow, has been published. That does not seem transparent, and it does not seem like joined-up government. They really need to look at bringing in wider reforms together. There are also fears that the Government’s ambition to build on the green belt could extend to undermining local democracy itself—that even includes hedges. In their reform of planning committees, the Government are planning to strip back the democratic role of local government and impose top-down reforms at a later stage. How will the Minister ensure that the local voices of elected councillors are heard in this process? Her constituents and the constituents of every Member in this House elect councillors to represent them, and I do not understand why the Government seem not to have confidence in local authorities, even those controlled by the Labour party—because its local authority leaders have said that these plans are not deliverable—to make decisions themselves. We must ensure that consumers are protected from abuse and poor services from developers, especially when it comes to the management of their homes and estates. The Government must work hard to ensure high standards among managing agents and hold them accountable for their actions. It is essential that any reforms under this Government enable our communities to take positive steps towards building more homes, regenerating local areas and supporting economic growth. The last thing we want is for these reforms to inadvertently create barriers to progress or leave communities disempowered. I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley about the fees charged to maintain estates, particularly where communal areas remain under construction. The law is clear that service charges must be reasonable and the work or services paid for must be of a reasonable standard. Leaseholders have the right to ask for a breakdown of these charges and the evidence supporting them, such as receipts, and it is a criminal offence for a landlord to withhold that information. If leaseholders believe a charge is unreasonable, they have the right to apply to the tribunal. I say to the Minister that we will work together on leasehold reform. The last Government made great strides in making sure that leaseholders are looked after and that they have protections under the law. The Minister has announced further measures. Will she confirm when she will bring those proposals to the House? Another Minister in her Department said that extra leasehold protections may not take effect for the lifetime of this Parliament. We ask the Government to move faster than that and to introduce those powers as soon as possible. On infrastructure, I encourage councils to make use of the powers available to them to achieve the best possible outcomes for their communities. However, I do not believe in imposing overly prescriptive mandates from the centre. There are instances in which a more tailored approach may be necessary. Finally—many Members may be happy that I am winding up my contribution—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley again. One thing I will say about this debate is that despite our political disagreements, everybody around the Chamber has the best interests of their constituents at heart. They want their constituents to have accessible housing of a good standard, whether that is private housing, socially rented housing or housing for affordable rent. All of us in this Chamber have a responsibility, across parties, to ensure that the houses built across this United Kingdom are fit for purpose, and that they are ones that are wanted by local people and not imposed by central Government.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  In the last few weeks of the last Government, we awarded millions of pounds to remote train stations such as Hedge End and Swanwick in my constituency under the Access for All scheme. In the first two weeks of this Government, that was scrapped. Will the Prime Minister use his good offices to give my constituents and stations across this country an early Christmas present, and give us our money back, please?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies, Mr Efford, for not announcing it this morning, but I am a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Examination of Witness Abby Dryden gave evidence.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the shadow Minister will forgive me for intervening once again, but I expressed concern about the “responsible person” element at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading. As he has outlined, smaller charity and voluntary sector bodies, such as theatres and community organisations, welcome the aims of the Bill, as do I, but when voluntary organisations are responsible for allocating someone who will be legally responsible to the Security Industry Authority, that spreads fear among those organisations, given the bureaucracy that they already face. Does he agree that we need to look carefully at how great a burden we put on theatre groups, and in particular on voluntary community associations, which will be subject to the regulations?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is correct. My constituency has a number of small football organisations, some of which are subject to legislation that is currently going through the Lords more slowly than we would necessarily expect a piece of legislation to progress. The income of small football groups will be the focus of that Bill. However, my hon. Friend is right: not only does this Bill cover small football venues and football clubs, but it covers all sorts of organisations, some of which I have mentioned. There are small community theatres, for example, which are the backbone of many small communities. People want to go to them with their family and watch amateur dramatics. The plays are sometimes better than in the west end—I have seen them—and the scale of some venues means that they will be in the lower tier under the Bill, but they have very small incomes. There are also charities with very small incomes that have been affected by fiscal decisions in the Budget. I assure the Minister that I am not being political, but as the impact assessment shows, and as the constituents I have spoken to have said, many charities will be affected by increased costs through their national insurance contributions and the different taxation that will come in. From what I have read, the average cost for smaller venues will be £330 a year and the cost for larger organisations will be £5,000 a year. Those are the latest figures that I can find, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that additional cost of £330 a year for smaller venues, because to many organisations, that will place a big burden on them. I met representatives of small theatres recently who were concerned that they have not been invited to a roundtable with the Minister to discuss the implications for the sector. I would be grateful if he outlined whether the Government intend to meet them, based on their concerns about the Bill. I will bring my comments within the scope of new clause 1. Given the issues that I have outlined, I think the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford to have a review process for the SIA is perfectly sensible. When we set up a new organisation that has some kind of independence, regulatory enforcement capacity or management capacity, it seems purely sensible that after the period set in the new clause, we look to see whether its action has been proportionate, whether there has been overreach and whether it is doing its job properly. Has it taken the full responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Members may not think that it is overworking; it might be that it is underworking and we need to give it more responsibilities in the long run. It seems perfectly sensible for the Government and the Minister to come to the Floor of the House. They should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. Opposition Front Benchers, me and all my colleagues want the Bill to succeed, but we want it to be proportionate. When we set up an organisation with such responsibilities and an organisational jurisdiction, we want to ensure that it is reviewed, that it is conducting itself and taking its responsibilities seriously, and that the system is working.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is reasonable and a very good colleague in the way she carries out her duties in this House, so it will come as no surprise to hear that I absolutely agree with her. I do say that about some Government Members, so I am not being partisan— [ Interruption. ] Most of the time. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why the Minister should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. We do not want to disrupt the passage of the Bill. We do not want to disrupt the good intentions and the outcomes that everybody, on both sides of the House, wants. As a Conservative, I naturally think that the state should not be big or oversized. When we set up organisations such as this, it is natural that the House and Members will want scrutiny functions to make sure that the organisation acts within the spirit of the law and within its jurisdiction and responsibilities. I think that is perfectly reasonable.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend knows, I piloted the measure as shadow Minister on Second Reading. I welcome the Minister to his place and thank him for his usual courtesy. This is genuinely not a political point, but does my hon. Friend agree that, with other measures currently burdening small business such as increases in taxation, business rates and national insurance contributions, this amendment helps because it allows venues to plan and make sure that not too much money is going out? That applies particularly to charities and smaller venues. That is why the remit of the SIA must be checked, and why this amendment should be backed.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I had to nip upstairs to sit in a Bill Committee programming session. I am delighted to be here to speak on this legislation. As I mentioned earlier to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I had the privilege of working alongside the Minister when I was the shadow Home Affairs Minister who took the Bill through Second Reading. I say again to the Minister, and to the Home Secretary, that I am a big fan of his, as he knows. That is for genuine purposes: for the way he treated me as the shadow Home Affairs Minister at the time, with informal consultations and phone calls, and for genuinely opening up the spirit of cross-party working on this legislation. I congratulate him and pay tribute to him, his Department and all officials working on the legislation for making sure the Opposition were involved. I am very pleased that he is in his place this evening so that I can thank him for that spirit of co-operation. We know that the Bill is a key piece of legislation and a commitment that the Conservatives made at the last general election, and I am delighted that the Government have taken it forward. As he will know, I spoke of some concerns on Second Reading that I want to chase the Minister on, if he might be so bold as to try to answer them at the end. I have a number of concerns that I will speak about briefly, as you will be delighted hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot promise to be too brief, but I will be as brief as I can. You will have to excuse me if I am out of breath—I did run upstairs and then back downstairs to get here in time, and I am not the fittest person in the Chamber. I pay tribute to Figen Murray and Martyn’s family. As I said on Second Reading, it should not require circumstances such as those we have seen to bring about a change in legislation. However, Figen Murray can rest assured that Martyn has played a huge role in changing the law for the good, and Martyn’s family have a right to be proud of that legacy. I rise to speak in favour of new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 27, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). We all support the aims of the Bill and want to see the legislation succeed. We want to make venues across the country safer and to ensure they have the correct apparatus in place so that people who use hospitality or other venues across the country, of all shapes and sizes, can do so with confidence that a system and a regulatory framework are in place. We want people to be safe when they use those venues. My constituents expect that. I expect that for myself and for my family. Just last night, my family and I used a hospitality venue for a good couple of pints. That will be one of the venues covered by this regulatory framework. Sitting there, looking forward at the parliamentary agenda, I thought how venues such as that one have a number of concerns. Those are the things I want to talk about this evening. In our constituencies, we have voluntary sector organisations, theatre groups, community centres and charities of all shapes and sizes who volunteer every day to do their best by their community, to represent the community and to work for the community in the best way possible. I remain concerned that, as has been outlined by a number of my hon. Friends, including the shadow Minister, there remains an undue burden that will be placed on those organisations, because of some of the environmental factors—I wondered how to put that, as I do not want this speech to be political at all—that have been placed on them in recent months.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to say that I have given that great thought, but as hon. Members across the House will know, after we came back in July, my tenure as a shadow Home Affairs Minister was rather short— [ Interruption. ] I thank the Minister, who said, “Shame”. That was after being shadow Northern Ireland Minister, shadow Foreign Affairs Minister and other Ministers, too. But I took this piece of legislation very seriously. The Government should make that decision, but I hope that the SIA is properly resourced and that it conducts its duties in the right way. That is why I think new clause 1 should be accepted this evening. I do not want to overstay my welcome, but I will speak briefly about one of the concerns that I raised on Second Reading about the responsible person element of the Bill. I remain seriously concerned about this, and it was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Although I accept the scope of the Bill and the impact that it will have on the statute book, many organisations, particularly during cost of living crises and at this time of year, rely on their volunteers, and if we place undue and burdensome regulations on them, volunteers will simply not come forward and be in the voluntary sector. Charities are going through a difficult time. I remain concerned that if we tip slightly too much towards being overburdensome on those very small organisations, we will see a dearth of people in the voluntary sector. No one wants to discourage people from volunteering—we do not, and I know the shadow Minister and the Minister do not—but I worry that the thresholds set out in the Bill will have unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to look seriously at new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 26, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford. Many will be happy to know that I am drawing my comments to a close. However, I am personally delighted that this Bill is before the House in record time, five months after the Government came into office. I hope that the Minister will see that the Opposition are working, and will continue to work, in a constructive way to get this on to the statute book. It is sad that, in order to have a relatively major piece of legislation changed so rapidly, we had to go through the atrocities that we saw in Manchester and terrorist attacks around the United Kingdom. However, I know that the legacy that Martyn leaves is one that his family will be greatly proud of, as this country should be. This is a mainstream, major piece of legislation, and I hope that by working together, we will ensure that people who go to venues for many years to come will be protected, and they will be protected in Martyn’s name.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  I like the hon. Gentleman, so I will give way.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons). I rise to speak in favour of the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not rise to speak in this House because I think the Labour party’s Budget is vindictive, but I do think that the national insurance rise we are debating today is a proposal that runs right through the Labour party’s DNA. Labour drives down growth, when growth should be the No. 1 priority for public services. It taxes the wealth creators and the small businesses, it borrows and makes the economic situation worse, and it is always the Conservative party that has to pick up the pieces after Labour has targeted the poorest people and smallest businesses in our society and made them suffer. Ultimately, the lack of growth that the Labour party and every Labour Member have signed up to means that public services will suffer, fewer jobs will be created and more businesses will close. I gently say to the Chief Secretary that he challenged us repeatedly to outline what we would do instead of this measure to make sure that we can fund public services, and I will tell him a few things that we would not do. [ Interruption. ] Well, I will tell him in a minute, and he can intervene and elaborate, and I will get an extra minute. As he asked me what we would do, I will tell him: we would increase growth, as was outlined by the OBR. We would have growth, and higher growth than this Government are proposing. However, what we would not be doing is borrowing as much as him and spending £9 billion on public sector pay rises for his trade union paymasters, funded from borrowing. Those are the things we would not do.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  The last Government gave the highest amount of investment into the national health service ever. I happened to jump out of a plane because I was very keen to do so, as I am a bit of a thrill seeker but also because I wanted to raise money for a good charity. If the hon. Gentleman votes for the Government measure or against the motion this evening, he will be ensuring that hospices across this country are unable to deliver the services they want to deliver and, as homelessness charities have said, that £50 million to £60 million will be taken out of frontline services. That will be the impact of this measure. Charities across this country are going to suffer under this Government’s proposal, as will hospitals and wealth creators, and I say to every Member who votes against this motion to protect frontline services that their constituents will be watching. We should not be surprised that, five months after taking office, the Labour party has reverted to type: tax the most vulnerable, tax small businesses and borrow on the public purse; with poorer public services out there and lower growth going forward. I cannot wait for its defeat at the next election and us fixing the problems.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  I simply say—and the Chief Secretary should know this because he supposedly wrote the Budget that we voted on a couple of weeks ago—that growth forecasts were higher under the last Government than those of the Government for whom he is now leading in the Treasury. I say to the Government that business confidence is at the lowest it has been for years.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor remember any Labour MP in the last general election standing on a fully costed manifesto that would mean economic growth was forecast to be lower than under the previous Government? Perhaps the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) should remember that Labour MPs stood on a manifesto that was apparently fully costed but then had different commitments. We had a faster rate of growth under the last Government than is projected under this Government.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  I am not giving way. [ Interruption. ] Well, I do not have time. Let us look at the hospice sector. Many Labour Members probably hoped that the parachute leads had been cut, but I raised £10,000 by jumping out of an aeroplane for the Mountbatten hospice in my constituency. Some 70% of its income is from charitable donations, and 24% of its income is delivered by the national health service. At no time when this Minister or any other Minister has stood up in this House have they apologised to the hospice sector for the cuts in services that will have to be delivered because of this measure. Mountbatten will have to find an extra £1 million in income just because of this measure, and that means more hospital beds being used by people who are unable to access hospice services. Ultimately, the NHS will be in further crisis because of the short-term measure this Government are taking through.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  I know the hon. Gentleman liked to pride himself on being the oracle of economics when he led a think-tank, but if he looks at the bare facts of business confidence out there, he will see that it has been lower under the five months of the Labour Government than it ever was under the 14 years of the Conservative Government. I want to mention some of the impacts that this measure will have on my constituency of Hamble Valley. There are 4,000 people employed in the hospitality sector in my constituency. Just last night, a business leader—a small business leader who owns three local venues—outlined to me that, because of the measures this Government have brought forward, he now has to find 5% extra of his total turnover to pay his taxes. That leads to a number of options: he can reduce staff count, meaning higher unemployment in my constituency and nationally; he can close venues, which again means lower employment and the death of our town centres—in every constituency, I remind Members—or he has to choose between not hiring local staff and stopping expansion, as every extra person he wants to take on will cost the business an extra £800 because of this national insurance contributions rise. That choice is facing businesses up and down the country, with lower growth, higher bureaucracy and higher taxes on the people who create jobs and wealth in every constituency in this country and drive the economy that we need to fund public services. What is most damaging about the Government’s proposal is the catastrophic impact it will have on charities across this country. I defy any Labour MP to stand up in this Chamber and say that they are willing to bring in and happy to vote for a measure that will mean frontline services delivered through our charitable sector are cut. There are other options the Government can take, and they have chosen not to.

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

  More

  Okay. Well, was she intimidated by her Budget? I take it that she would be intimidated by the growth that has been revised downwards, by business confidence crashing, and by private sector employers stating that they will have to let employees go because of the red tape put on businesses, all through this Government’s Budget.

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

  More

  The hon. Lady stated that she was intimidated by her Budget. I should imagine that is very true—