Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Jun 2025 · UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned the midlands rail hub. He will know that the previous Government committed to the £1.75 billion project. There has been a pause, and paragraph 5.83 of the spending review states that the Government will fund its progression. In the spirit of short answers, can he tell me exactly how much money has been committed to it?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger—I can confirm that there is no place I would rather be today. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this instrument and for her continued engagement on this issue. I will pose some questions, and I request that the Minister takes them in the context of not just this SI but the further SI that she will be putting forward for consultation. The freedom of the press is the cornerstone of our democracy. It is an essential necessity in our democratic process. It allows the public to remain informed of current events, it questions and challenges those in power, and it keeps national debate balanced and accountable. Put very simply, if the freedom of the press is undermined the integrity of democracy is under threat. The previous Conservative Government took decisive action to prevent majority control of a British newspaper by foreign states. These were vital measures to help protect the strength of our democracy. While His Majesty’s official Opposition support the changes, which will help to ensure the continued survival of our world-leading press industry, we would like the Minister to provide some reassurances on the foreign state influence regime. We have some serious concerns about the potential for the growing risk of state interference in British news media. We want cast-iron guarantees that the Government are taking the necessary steps to make changes to existing security provisions that must not jeopardise the UK’s freedom of the press. The draft statutory instrument rightly sets a threshold for state-owned investment in a newspaper or news magazine at 15% of shares or voting rights. However, we have alerted the Government to the fact that, should various state-owned investors each purchase a 15% share, that could expose the UK’s freedom of the press to significant risk—a risk that the Minister acknowledges. Were multiple states to purchase 15% of shares, in particular when they have shared aims or purposes, that could have a chilling effect on the UK’s freedom of the press. Will the Minister reconfirm that any measures, including in secondary legislation, will also cover arm’s length bodies such as pension funds and other bodies controlled by states that might have influence? The Minister is aware of the risk and, if I am not mistaken, has already given assurances that the Government will take action to prevent that from happening to relevant stakeholders. Can the Minister provide any further details on what form that action will take, when it will come into effect and whether the Government have considered other potential risks that might be coming down the road? I put on the record my special thanks to Baroness Stowell, who has been highlighting the risk with the Government and raising awareness of the dangers posed by allowing the loophole to come into force. The previous Government had a proud record of taking decisive action in strengthening national security, in particular with the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and the National Security Act 2023, which showed that the Government must be alive to the risk posed by foreign states and be aware that the threats are ever-changing due to technological advances. Last week, as the Minister may be aware, the shadow Secretary of State wrote to the Department seeking assurances. We have not yet received a response. I am sure it will be forthcoming, but I ask the Minister directly: are existing powers under the 2021 Act sufficient? Will they be used to help protect press freedoms against foreign interference, including cases involving minority shareholdings or instances of editorial pressure? Equally, the Government have suggested that the Secretary of State will have new powers to act when the independence of the press is under threat. Can the Minister give any further details on that, if possible at this time? If not, is she open to writing to us? We, the Conservatives, of course welcome foreign investment, but we will never compromise on the integrity of our democracy. Many private foreign investors are interested in investing in a whole swathe of our industry, subject to our national security limitations or concerns. To that end, what consideration have the Government made about interpreting investment from certain states? Certain states work together, for example, and I name two that we always have to be conscious of: China and Iran. They almost always have institutions or investors that interlink with the state. What are the Government doing to ensure that our democratic principles are not undermined by foreign investment from bodies or private individuals in those particular countries? I hope we can all agree on the importance of the freedom of the press and on the benefits that foreign investment brings to the UK economy. However, freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of our society, and the Government must ensure that newspapers are given the opportunity to attract investment, while not threatening the principle of the freedom of the press. I hope that the Minister agrees with that principle. Any legislation must do more than gesture towards foreign state-backed shareholders and the risks that they pose to our democracy; it must be robust, have credible safeguards and protect our journalists, and it must ensure our fully independent free press and, ultimately, the integrity of our democracy.

• 22 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will know that our creative sectors, including our artists, writers, publishers and the fashion industry to name a few, are all fighting for their professional lives as artificial intelligence companies use their intellectual property for AI models. Why will the Government not put an end to the AI copyright issue and back the amendments from the Lords, which have such overwhelming support?

• 20 May 2025 · Night-time Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Just a few weeks ago, I held a roundtable in my constituency with UKHospitality and hospitality businesses, such as hotels, night-time economy businesses and pubs. It was just after the first national insurance rise payment, which means that those businesses are devastated and are having fewer jobs, fewer apprentices and less investment. What they are worried about, as they look to the future, is whether the Chancellor will be raising taxes again in the coming months. Can the Minister assure my businesses that the Chancellor will not be coming back for more?

• 1 May 2025 · Parkinson’s Awareness Month · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it, and I also thank him for the eloquent way he addressed the issue. I do not think I disagreed with him on a single thing. At the risk of repeating some of what he said, I will try to explain why I am standing here today. To be honest, because I had seen the stories of Michael J. Fox and Muhammad Ali, I was previously of the opinion that a huge amount of progress had been made in dealing with Parkinson’s disease. I was recently invited to meet people at the Parkinson’s Café in Balsall common in my constituency, where I had a moment of clarity—as Members of this House, we all go through such moments—and understood that there is a huge gap. There were about 30 carers and people suffering from Parkinson’s, who spoke about their conditions eloquently and bravely. This is a really timely debate on a day when many of us will have demands on our time, given the local elections, and it is a great privilege to speak. As the hon. Member said, Parkinson’s is a hugely debilitating disease. Although a disproportionate number of people get diagnosed in their later years, there is no minimum age threshold, as we saw in the case of Michael J. Fox—in fact, I think he was diagnosed at the age of 29. Parkinson’s can lead to sensory issues, voice changes, facial masking and, of course, movement issues. It really is a significant, life-altering condition, which obviously affects not just the individual but the people around them. I have been astonished to see the lack of care and support for people with Parkinson’s, for which there a number of reasons. The Parky charter has some reasonable and legitimate requests, to which I certainly lend my support. I will work with the Government and support their endeavours in this area, because there are about 153,000 people in the UK who suffer from Parkinson’s. We have a significant number across the borough of Solihull. I had the pleasure of meeting Jane Lindsay, who was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2019, and a lot of the things that she told me relate directly to the requests in the Parky charter. After receiving a diagnosis and leaving hospital with her husband, Jane did not know anything about the disease. She said to me, “I just wasn’t sure where this will all lead me.” There was a significant lack of support and information, so Jane, who had been in the teaching profession for almost 40 years and spent 17 years as a headteacher, decided that she was going to do something about it. With the help of local GP Sally Frank, she set up the Balsall Common Parkinson’s café in 2022—the date will not be lost on people, as it was at the height of covid. She found that being in touch with other sufferers of Parkinson’s was a “lifeline” because, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar said when he recited a poem, she knew people who walked in the same shoes and who shared the same experiences and concerns. Initially, there were only six members of the group, but it has now expanded to at least 30. They are very lucky, because they meet regularly in the church hall, where they get the facilities for free. I commend the church for offering that support. Jane, her husband and GP Sally Frank, along with friends and family, have done an immense amount of work to raise awareness and funds. They have done charity walks, golf days, sponsored half-marathons, afternoon teas, balls, comedy nights, quizzes and croquet games. They have raised over £230,000, which is really valuable. However, only four of the 30 people at the Balsall Common meeting that I attended had the support of a Parkinson’s nurse, which shows the sheer need for the specialist care that is required. The chair of the Solihull branch of Parkinson’s UK, Martin Sewell, said: “This is a great opportunity for us to reach more people affected by the condition in the Solihull area with information and support”. He specifically thanked the people of that Solihull village, who are able to meet in such a marvellous location at the heart of the community. I turn to the Parky charter. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar mentioned the workforce, which is clearly a really acute issue. That is demonstrated by the fact that only four of the 30 people at the meeting had access to a relevant nurse. I would really welcome the Minister’s reflections on how the NHS long-term workforce plan, which the Conservatives instigated when we were in government, will help to give more support to sufferers of Parkinson’s. As the hon. Member mentioned, there is a significant lack of data on Parkinson’s. I tried to get the figures for how many people in my constituency suffer from Parkinson’s from the House of Commons Library. We were given the waiting lists for neurology departments, but the number of Parkinson’s sufferers was not reported or published anywhere. That is a fundamental issue that I would encourage the Government to look at, and it should certainly be addressed at the very first instance. Some 55% of those waiting for neurological referrals wait more than 18 weeks, so a significant number of people have to wait for a very long time. Those who, like Jane, have very little information are in effect left to their own devices to figure out the next step. I greatly support the Parkinson’s passport, which the Parky charter calls for, not least because it would provide instant access to a blue badge and to free prescriptions. This seems to me to be a logistical or operational need, so if a doctor is able to assess someone and say that they have Parkinson’s, that should set the individual down a neurological pathway that allows this stuff to happen almost instantly. It is something that people with Parkinson’s should not have to worry about. We know how debilitating the disease is, how people will deteriorate and that there is no cure—such individuals are set down that path—so we should look to alleviate some of their concerns. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar mentioned PIP, and one of the things raised with me at the café was the issue of reassessments and of having to go through all that again. If the reassessments are to see how the individual has deteriorated and what further support needs to be given, that is different from having to go through the rigorous PIP reassessment to see if they are still entitled to it, which is really stressful for people who are already in a very stressful situation. I would greatly support anything that can be done about that, because PIP, certainly in this instance, is a basic lifeline to maintain a level of wellness. I would be interested to hear the Government’s thinking, because while there has been a lot of talk about PIP encouraging people into work, we know that these people are only going to deteriorate, so what support can be given? The real question here is about research and development. I know that the Government have committed £20 billion to R&D funding, but I would be interested to know what their thinking is about supporting the treatment of Parkinson’s. The hon. Member mentioned this, and I join his call for more funding in this field. I did not realise that a lot of the treatments were developed 50 or 60 years ago and that there has been very little progress since, so I would very much support any increase in funding. My remarks have been limited because the hon. Member went through the issues comprehensively, and I thank him for doing so. To steal one of his lines, the Parky charter is really a manifesto for dignity. Probably all of us across the House would agree that we do this job to help the most vulnerable, so if we can make changes to give these individuals dignity, I will certainly support them.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I wish you and every Member a very happy Staffordshire Day in advance. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing the debate, and I thank her for her opening remarks. She took us on an engaging tour of Staffordshire, as did a lot of Members from across the House. I particularly want to highlight the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who was certainly not shy about his passion for his constituency. It is vital that we recognise the cultural contributions that the many counties of Britain have to offer, and Staffordshire has made a wealth of contributions to our industrial, artistic and sporting heritage. It is therefore a privilege to have the opportunity to bring attention to a number of those contributions. As we have heard, Staffordshire’s recorded history can be traced back to the early medieval period, when the area was first settled by the Anglo-Saxons. With Tamworth as the capital of the ancient kingdom of Mercia, the area quickly rose to prominence as a frequent battleground between the Anglo-Saxons and the invading Danes, before being settled by the conquering Normans. Tamworth castle was built on top of the remnants of this royal residence, and it continues to stand to this day, having seen nearly 1,000 years of the county’s history pass through its halls. It would be remiss of me not to mention one of Staffordshire’s most recognisable cultural contributions, which we have heard a lot about today: the Potteries. As the largest producer of ceramics in Britain, Staffordshire housed hundreds of family businesses making all kinds of pottery, from humble tableware to the most intricate of decorative pieces, many of which still remain to this day. Although the industry may not quite be at the heights that it once was, local people have worked tirelessly to keep the heritage of Staffordshire’s Potteries alive through the many museums and art galleries dedicated to ceramics. Equally historic is the county’s brewery industry, particularly the many breweries of Burton-upon-Trent. The town’s brewing industry dates back to the founding of Burton abbey in the 11th century and the early efforts of local monks to brew beer. Burton ales grew over the centuries into a thriving export and a global phenomenon, with even the Empress of Russia, Catherine the Great, said to have been “immoderately fond” of beer brewed in Burton. The industry went from strength to strength in the industrial age, with one of the town’s largest beer makers, Samuel Allsopp & Sons, becoming the first company to export Burton pale ale to India in 1822. Although ceramics and brewing are two of Staffordshire’s most famous cultural contributions, there remains a wealth of other historical treasures that the county can be proud of. Chief among these is the court of minstrels, a medieval institution dating back to the royal court of John of Gaunt in the 14th century that brought together travelling musicians from across the region. This musical legacy can still be seen in the county to this day, with Friends of Staffordshire’s Young Musicians and other organisations continuing to promote local musical talent. Of course, Stoke-on-Trent was the birthplace of the iconic Robbie Williams. In sports, Staffordshire has a living history of cultural contributions. Two of the country’s oldest professional football clubs, Stoke City and Port Vale, were founded in Staffordshire, with Stoke City having been one of the founding members of the football league in 1888. The two clubs continue to uphold a healthy rivalry. My staff member Greg Ellis, who is in the Public Gallery today and who helped me to write my speech, is a disgruntled Stoke City fan. He wanted me to put on record that, although Stoke City’s recent performances leave much to be desired—by contrast with those of Port Vale, who have just been promoted to League One —I can offer no opinion on such matters as a tortured Manchester United fan. Staffordshire can boast an equally impressive record in cricket, as Staffordshire county cricket club has won the National Counties Cricket Championship more times than any other county. All these contributions, and many more, are valuable additions to our cultural heritage. Culture is a living thing and requires the care and dedication of local communities to keep it thriving, so I pay tribute to some of the local elected representatives who in recent years have made significant contributions to the regeneration of this historic county. We see this in the £17 million secured for the regeneration of Leek town centre by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands in the £56 million secured for the regeneration of Stoke-on-Trent by former MPs Jonathan Gullis, Jack Brereton and Jo Gideon, and delivered under the leadership of Councillor Abi Brown; and in the delivery of over £50 million of regeneration in Newcastle-under-Lyme under the leadership of Councillor Simon Tagg. And that is to name only a few. I also pay tribute to the outstanding work of Councillor Alan White and his Conservative administration in leading Staffordshire county council to deliver efficient services without the eye-watering levels of taxation that we see in other local authorities. However, it is not only the inhabitants of Staffordshire who recognise the county’s cultural heritage; it is also recognised by the millions of tourists who visit Staffordshire each year. The most recent data available shows that 2023 was the county’s busiest year since the pandemic, with 37 million domestic and international tourists visiting the area. Tourism generated £2.3 billion for the local economy—

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) not just for securing the debate, but for making eloquent arguments about the hair and beauty industry and the broader impact of the Chancellor’s damaging Budget last year, such as the impact on nurseries and its knock-on effects. Almost a quarter of a million people are employed in the industry, and it is a disproportionate employer of women and young people. In the short time I have in which to speak, I will limit my comments, because a lot has already been said by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. I had the pleasure of visiting the award-winning Aesthetics Hair and Sarah Bowron in Solihull and she eloquently put a lot of the arguments to me. This industry—these businesses—might have never contacted their MP before, because they have never felt the need to do so. Like many small businesses, they just get on with the job in front of them. I am sure that the Minister recognises this, but I am not sure that his colleagues in the Treasury do, so the very first message I would share with him is that small businesses are not there to be squeezed till the pips squeak. There is real concern that the rise in NICs, the reduction in the tax threshold, the impact on part-time workers, the reduction in rates relief and the impending Employment Rights Bill, as well as, of course, the highly competitive market in which the industry operates, will have huge impacts. We have already heard about the impact on the hiring of apprentices. When there are disincentives on business, such as higher taxation, a much more competitive business environment or higher regulation, it is inevitable that businesses will have to look at where they can cut costs. Young people who come into apprentice positions, who have less training and are yet to learn the skills of the trade, so to speak, are the easiest ones to cut, because the businesses have to be able to continue to operate. I make no comments about his hairstyle or anything like that, but I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that they are skilled people who do skilled work, and an apprentice cannot just be trained overnight. It takes time to do so. Hearing from my constituent was certainly eye-opening and helped me to understand the impacts on their businesses. The fundamental point is that businesses in that competitive environment are being forced into a situation where hairdressers go for self-employment status, which means that they are below the VAT threshold, with less return for the Exchequer. That cannot be what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended when she made her statement. I have some thoughts about what the Chancellor was trying to do—basically, taxing everyone to appease some of the trade unions—but we will not get into all that right now. The reality, however, is that small businesses are the ones suffering. The impact has been huge. I also share the concern about the impact on high streets and the extended impact on tax avoidance and tax evasion, which of course we are very worried about.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Promoting Coastal Britain · Hansard source

  More

  As has been said, tourism is a huge contributor to the UK economy, and I was delighted to take part in English Tourism Week, as many Members will have done. The Government have committed to 50 million visits by 2030, and Conservative Members welcome that ambition. I was surprised to hear from the tourism sector that there is great concern about a purported cut to the VisitBritain budget. Will the Minister categorically tell the House whether there will be a cut to the VisitBritain budget, and if so, will he transparently tell the House how much that budget will be cut by?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Tourism Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I want to praise some of today’s fantastic contributions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing the debate and making a passionate speech, not least in respect of what he called “Universal Studios Bedfordshire”, with which I wish him all success. I thank the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar). As someone who was born and brought up in Walsall, not too far from Dudley, I can attest to the wonderful Black Country and what Dudley has to offer. She made a wonderful case for that. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) took us on a tour of the whole of the UK—the urban and the rural—and that was very much appreciated. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) gave a wonderful tour of her constituency. If I visit her there, I am torn between driving a tank, visiting Silverstone, or doing something at a much gentler pace and visiting some of the churches. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about the important issue of coastal towns and sustainable tourism. Our good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—a friend of all of ours—made a wonderful case for his constituency. He made the case for wild-water bathing—I guess the clue is in the name—golf and whiskey, which sounds like a perfect holiday. I am sure someone will take him up on that. I want to single out my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who gave a wonderful, succinct tour of his constituency. Although I noticed that I did not get an invite to the spa, I recognise how much of a one-man tourism champion he is for his constituency. I hope Gabriella Bennett was listening; hopefully she will reconsider her views—and maybe he will give her a tour of the constituency as well. As we heard from a number of hon. Members, tourism is at the heart of our local economies across all four corners of the UK. Each region’s unique history and heritage draws people from all over the world to visit the UK. Whether it is a golf trip to Scotland, a visit to the incredible Titanic museum in Belfast, a walking holiday in the stunning Welsh hills, or a trip to London—or anywhere else in England—there is something exciting to do wherever people are in the UK. Just yesterday, in the glorious spring sunshine, the shadow Secretary of State and I visited the Charterhouse in central London, which has a fascinating history dating back to the 14th century. The Charterhouse now acts as a museum, a charity caring for people over the age of 60, and a venue for many different events, with the museum gaining support from the national lottery heritage fund. As evidenced by my visit yesterday, we have a thriving heritage sector—in my view, unrivalled the world over. There are so many other reasons to visit the UK. We have a wonderful hospitality and nightlife economy across the United Kingdom, incredible sports venues and competitions, and some of the most remarkable natural landscapes in the world. In England alone, the tourism sector contributes more than £70 billion to the UK economy annually and employs more than 1.6 million people directly, with millions more benefiting indirectly. For many of those people, those jobs are essential lifelines. There are thousands of students and other part-time workers who work hard all summer to give themselves that extra bit of cash over the academic year. Some of our retirees busy themselves during the week by volunteering at a local museum or a stately home. Put simply, the UK’s tourism sector impacts us all and we should be incredibly proud of it. That is why English Tourism Week is a critical opportunity to celebrate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire again for tabling this debate at such an apt time in the calendar. The Government have an ambition to achieve 50 million visits; I support them in that ambition, but they are yet to unveil a clear strategy, so I look forward to hearing more; I am sure the Minister will enlighten us on how he is progressing with the release of that strategy. There are many thousands of businesses that rely heavily on a thriving tourism sector, and it is urgent that the Government do all they can to help champion it. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire alluded to, I must also look at the impact of the recent Budget. Many hon. Members from across the House have championed tourism in their constituencies, but it is impossible to ignore the dark cloud that looms over the tourism industry. Inevitably, the disastrous Budget by the Chancellor has created a perfect storm for the UK’s tourism sector. The shadow Culture, Media and Sport team hosted a roundtable in February and heard from representatives across the UK tourism sector who were deeply concerned about the rising cost of national insurance contributions. It is estimated that the hospitality industry will incur an extra £1 billion-worth of costs for 774,000 workers who will be newly eligible for employer national insurance in April when the Chancellor’s tax rises kick in. In particular, it appears that the lowering of the threshold will cause enormous damage to the industry—but do not take it from me; take it from the chief executive of UKHospitality, Kate Nicholls, who said: “The change to employer NICs is one of the most regressive tax changes ever.” Perhaps the Minister can comment on that, because it is a serious concern that many people in the hospitality and tourism sector are raising. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire raised the important issue of pubs, and I hope the Minister will talk about those concerns too. It is not just the rise in national insurance contributions that will have a huge impact on the tourism sector, however. The shadow Culture, Media and Sport team have also heard from representatives of the UK’s most recognisable historic houses and stately homes at our recent roundtable, where they articulated the devastating impact of both business and agricultural property relief changes. Given that the Government have set a target of 50 million annual visitors by 2030, and that almost a quarter of respondents in VisitBritain’s most recent sentiment tracker said they would visit a heritage site on their next trip, we cannot afford to put our heritage at risk—but I fear Labour is doing exactly that. A survey in December 2024 by Historic Houses found that 87% of respondents would be impacted by the changes to BPR and APR, meaning that cash will be diverted from business investment, salaries, repairs and maintenance. Staggeringly, 41% of respondents said they will have to make redundancies or freeze the hiring of new staff. That might mean that some of our most beloved heritage sites are less sustainable and attractive to foreign visitors, less able to recruit local staff—often in rural areas—and less likely to remain open for the public to better understand Britain’s rich history. Many of these sites are vital to rural communities and now they are being put at risk, which puts those communities at risk too. With many businesses in the tourism sector already on the edge, it is deeply concerning that the Chancellor’s decisions last October may push them over the cliff edge. The rising cost of national insurance contributions, minimum wage increases, union-enhancing legislation reminiscent of the 1970s and the reduction in business rates relief could have a terrible impact on businesses in the sector: that is what they are telling us. More importantly, it could mean that thousands of people looking for part-time work this summer, especially in rural and coastal communities, will struggle to find it. That could have terrible consequences for the Government’s No.1 mission of economic growth. I consider the Minister to be a good man; I believe he is sincere in his ambition to increase visits to the UK, but I have asked him before about an impact assessment as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget and he has not been forthcoming with that, so perhaps today will be the day that he will share some of those figures on the impact of that Budget on the tourism sector. Across this House, we all agree that tourism is vital for our constituents, and we support his ambition to attract 50 million visitors to the UK by 2030, but the actions that his Government are taking may well do the complete opposite. I hope he can reassure the House and the sector that he will fight for the tourism industry, because we Conservatives will continue to do so.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  They are absolutely are. The Deputy Prime Minister, when challenged to name a business that supported the Bill, could not do so. [ Interruption. ] I am sure the hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak on the matter in his own way.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady should speak to the Deputy Prime Minister, who failed to name a single supportive business when challenged to do so. In the short time I have left, I will make a couple of quick points. Labour Members keep saying that the Bill will lead to fewer strikes. It will not; it makes it easier to strike. In fact, the Transport Secretary today said that strikes will be necessary in the areas covered by her portfolio. The Bill will make it easier to strike, not harder. [Interruption.] Labour Members are exercised; I am sure that they will get a chance to comment. The country is at risk of being turned into a 1970s-style striking country. This Bill should be a wake-up call for all working people and businesses that will be undermined. As we have heard from Members from across the House, only the Conservatives will stand up for businesses. I have questions for all Labour Members. People ask what this Labour Government stand for. They undermine businesses and working people, so that is a legitimate question. I fail to see who, other than trade unions, the Labour party now stands for. When people asked what we Conservatives stand for, Margaret Thatcher had a very good answer. She said that the Labour party— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who spoke before me, read out a quote; I think I should do so as well. Margaret Thatcher said: “The Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners.”

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am more than happy to extend that invitation. Madam Deputy Speaker may get annoyed with me if I take 24 interventions, although I do not see anyone jumping to their feet, so we will take that for what it is. There is also anxiety about the clauses on access to the workplace. The Government have now gone further and talked about digital access. This is a huge burden to put on small businesses, and it is shameful of the Government wilfully and blindly to ignore their concerns. Labour Members will have to answer many questions from businesses in their communities. Those same businesses contribute to the Treasury coffers and pay for the public services that Labour Members champion. This will be really important, and the burden will of course increase. Before—and after—the election, and during the passage of this legislation, Labour has said time and again that it was listening to businesses. Clearly that is not the case. Businesses continue to feel that they have been led up the garden path by this damaging Labour Government.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I could not have made the point better. The number of amendments, and the cost and regulatory burden being placed on businesses, large, medium and small, have worried many businesses, not just in my constituency but across the country. This will do immense harm, and it will take a long time to fix the mess that has been created.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to address the hon. Lady’s point that being pro-worker is pro-business. We Conservative Members believe that. The only problem is that this legislation is not pro-worker or pro-business. It will drive up unemployment and the regulation of businesses. The workers whom she purports to represent and support are exactly the people who will suffer as a result of this legislation. We Conservative Members absolutely get that. I will talk in favour of amendments on the political fund, new clause 88 and amendments 291 and 299, and will refer to access to the workplace. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, not least because I worked in a small family business and retain an interest in the family business. Also, before being elected, I was president of the Greater Birmingham chamber of commerce, one of the largest and oldest chambers of commerce in the country and the world, representing thousands of small businesses. Let us be in no doubt: this is a terrible piece of legislation. It is a love letter from the Labour Government to trade unions, and it will lead to a trail of socialist carnage and destruction that will leave the country reeling for many, many years to come. It harms business, undermines employment, will drive up unemployment and will do nothing to increase growth or investment in the United Kingdom, the purported aims of the Government. In fact, the Government’s original impact assessment, when the Bill was first introduced, talked about the cost to business being about £4.5 billion, reaching almost £5 billion. We are yet to see the impact of the new amendments—a further move to a more socialist version of the Bill—and their cost to businesses. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who is a friend and neighbour, talked about the modern workplace. I agree that the workplace has changed since the 1950s and even the 1970s, but the Bill will take the workplace back to the 1970s. It fails to achieve a balance between working people and businesses, and a relationship between trade unions and businesses. In fact, it goes way, way down the line in favouring trade unions, and it makes it much harder for people to run businesses. When I was president of the chamber of commerce, I was perfectly fine with trade unions and having good relationships with them. I had friends who joined trade unions, even though they were not in a unionised workplace. I encouraged it. They needed representation, and I thought it was a good thing to do. I have no problem with trade union relationships in the modern workplace, but a balance must be achieved. A comment was made about economic units. Economic units are the businesses that create economic growth. Of course workers are really important. My employees were really important to me, because my business could not run without them. The majority of business owners recognise that. Conservative Members recognise that there is a symbiotic relationship between the people who run businesses and the employees who work in them. Those individuals running businesses are drivers of economic change. They are innovators who come up with the ideas. They are the risk takers who turn a profit, which pays the taxes that fund our public services. Unfortunately, the Bill does not recognise any of that. In fact, businesses are anxious and are worried about what it is introducing.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft order. His Majesty’s official Opposition warmly welcome the Government’s support for the Churches Conservation Trust. I suspect I may end up repeating some of what the Minister said, but the Opposition take this very seriously. The Churches Conservation Trust performs a crucial role in protecting at-risk churches. The trust funds repairs and maintenance on the over 350 churches in its portfolio, and attracts over 2 million visitors per year. All the trust’s churches are listed at either grade I or II and some, as the Minister said, are scheduled ancient monuments. However, it is important to highlight, as he already has, that the trust’s work extends far beyond repairing churches. For example, the Churches Conservation Trust regeneration team works with community groups, charities, social enterprises, businesses, entrepreneurs and public bodies to find new uses for closed places of worship and other heritage sites. That helps to revitalise and rejuvenate the spaces for the benefit of local communities. Its core mission is to make sure that the buildings are preserved and remain at the heart of local communities. The regeneration team tries to instil the key principle of sustainable stewardship, which includes ensuring that problems such as decay or irrelevance are identified early to prevent them from becoming overwhelming. Without the funding provided to the Churches Conservation Trust, the churches that it cares for now may have been listed only in the history books, and there is no doubt that communities would have been all the poorer for it, so I welcome the funding. Thanks to the fantastic work of the trust, the buildings are tourist attractions that bring visitors to UK cities, towns and villages. They are spaces for education and development, they are meeting spots for local residents and, as they are all still consecrated, they remain open for worship. Looking forward, I hope that the Government recognise the place of churches in modern society and the wider benefits that they bring in terms of education, tackling loneliness, bringing communities together and attracting visitors. As many Members will be aware, there are sadly 969 places of worship on Historic England’s 2024 heritage at risk register. That is a significant change from 2023: while 23 were removed, 55 were added, marking an increase of 26 above the total on the 2023 register. Cathedrals, parish churches, chapels and meeting houses make up 959 of the 969 places of worship on the register, with the other buildings belonging to other faiths. Churches are closing at an alarming rate and the Chancellor’s Budget has unfortunately placed an additional financial burdens on every aspect of society and culture, including churches. Many churches have staff who are part-time or on lower wages within the congregation. Concerns have been raised about the impact that the increase in national insurance and the decrease in the thresholds will have on churches, and particularly parish administrators who work only a few days a week. The Opposition are clear: churches that are not under the strong stewardship and care of the Churches Conservation Trust must not be left to decay and neglected. The Government’s decision to continue the listed places of worship grant scheme was welcome, and I thank the Minister for what he did on that, but there was a cut in funding. The decision to commit to only one more calendar year leaves churches in a worrying period of uncertainty. Was the impact of the new cap on the scheme taken into account when laying the draft order, and will the Minister consider a more permanent grant or relief scheme—not a rebate? I am more than happy to work with him on that, as the shadow Minister. To add to the uncertainty, the Government are yet to publish their guidance on how the changes to the scheme will work. When the shadow Minister in the other place asked the Minister there whether the new annual limit of £25,000 per institution on claims from the listed places of worship grant scheme will apply to works begun before that date, the Minister was able only to say: “We will provide updated information on scheme applications and eligibility in due course, before April.” Can today’s Minister clarify that? Many people will be looking for an answer. Those working behind the scenes to fund restoration projects deserve a bit more clarity and certainty from the Government, which I hope will be forthcoming. As I said at the start, we welcome the draft order, but I hope that the Government take onboard those points.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Market Towns: Cultural Heritage · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Jeremy. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and long may it continue. It is a privilege to take part in this debate on the cultural heritage of market towns. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing the debate and thank him for his remarks, which were well placed; he made lots of good points. We have had some excellent speeches. Unfortunately, I will not be able to canter through them all, but I particularly want to recognise some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), which I will address, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for his comments. He has just inherited a new market town—he seems to be collecting them. Although I will not be able to recognise all the Members for their contributions, I particularly want to call out the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), who reminded everyone how, during the plague, Parliament decanted to Hertford Castle. While decanting is not something I advocate in the current debate, it is always nice to know that we have options. I thank Members who have raised venues that relate to food. As I fast through Ramadan in the month ahead, I will certainly be thinking of them. Throughout history, market towns have been a defining feature of economic and social life. Informal markets have existed since before Roman times, and trade was a hallmark of the interaction between Celtic, Roman and Saxon peoples. It was trade that spurred on the development of urban centres and the exchange of knowledge and ideas, as well as goods and services. Our network of medieval market towns is the most enduring example of that history. A royal charter to hold a market was a jealously fought for privilege. The earliest date to over 1,000 years ago and some remain in force today, as we have heard. The fortunes of many of our great historic towns were won and lost by their right to host a market and to reap the rewards that commerce brought. Market towns brought ordinary working people together to engage in civic and economic life. Evidence of that can still be seen today in the architecture of our market towns, with market crosses standing proudly in the centre of grand open squares and market stalls nestled among guildhalls and churches. It is striking just how much continuity there has been in the history of market towns, with even 20th century new towns designed around the principles from medieval times. Preserving that wonderful heritage is no mean feat, and it is vital that we recognise the work of Historic England and other organisations in doing so. Its role in providing a voice for historic places, managing England’s national heritage list and educating us on the benefits of our cultural heritage is invaluable in supporting market towns and in raising awareness of their contributions to our society. It has been deeply encouraging to see the success of Historic England’s heritage action zones, from the Dewsbury living market town to the north Lowestoft heritage quarter. The scheme has seen local partnerships work tirelessly to improve the quality of life in market towns across England. To date, 20 historic places and market towns have been revitalised through the scheme, and 157 historic buildings have been brought back into use through restoration. Equally encouraging has been the success of the high streets heritage action zones: 67 historic high streets across England have received new investment, more community engagement and hosted more cultural events through the scheme, with more than 460 shopfronts and 224 historic homes restored. The fact that over 2.7 million people took part in those cultural events, hosted by historic high streets, is a testament to how the scheme has renewed people’s pride in local market towns, as well as providing a much-needed boost to high street businesses and local communities. It is vital to create the conditions to allow market towns to thrive, embracing their rich heritage as well as new opportunities for growth. An area with particular success in combining history with innovation is the revitalising of historic market squares and the hosting of outdoor markets through permitted development rights introduced by the previous Government. Permitted development rights have allowed historic market towns to host markets in their public spaces and sell food and drink in marquees at listed buildings, without the need for planning permission, providing a regular business outlet for local craftspeople, farmers and traders, who might otherwise lack large indoor spaces. Those development rights have given local businesses and market towns the flexibility to make the most of their cultural heritage. It is vital that we do not allow the new planning proposals put forward by the Labour Government to create huge headaches for local communities in and around market towns. With many rural communities near market towns concerned about the impact of housing targets, it is essential that the Government listen to the concerns of local people and ensure that there is sufficient infrastructure to deal with a rising population, a point made by numerous hon. Members today. Many people are already stuck on long waiting lists for GP appointments, are struggling to get their kids into the best schools and are seeing road networks take even more strain. Will the Minister confirm that our market towns will continue to be supported properly when their populations are likely to increase? Will the voices of local communities be taken into account, as we are concerned that they are being written out of that legislation? Does she recognise that the Government’s proposal to rapidly expand housing could risk market towns losing their identity and sense of community, a point that was made earlier? How will Labour’s planning laws protect the heritage of our beautiful historical market towns? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold made an eloquent point about family farms and our concerns about the impact of changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief. Those farms play a huge part in the future of our historic market towns. I previously raised the issue of the impact of changes to business property relief and APR on the future of stately homes, which are essential to many market towns. The Conservative party has committed to reversing those changes to APR and BPR. It is welcome to see that Historic England recognises the benefits that permitted development rights have brought market towns. Historic England notes how outdoor markets support “the cultural heritage offer and the economic future for historic high streets” and that revitalising market squares “benefits those historic centres whose unique character is a product of a long market tradition.” I urge the Government to continue the work begun under the previous Government, to ensure that permitted development rights become permanent, providing certainty for the future of traditional markets. Inhabitants of market towns are not the only ones to recognise the cultural heritage on offer; millions of tourists visit them each year. VisitBritain’s research into international tourism highlights the importance of market towns and other historical places that attract visitors from overseas: 78% of tourists said they value a destination having history and heritage to explore. That shows the value of our historic market towns and what they do to bring tourism and promote our culture. Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to growing tourism outside London and the south-east, I question whether the business rates relief reduction to 40% for retail, hospitality and leisure will help our market towns to prosper. Perhaps the Minister could answer that point. There is also concern about the increase in the cost of electronic travel authorisations for those visiting the UK. I hope the Government can provide more clarity on the impact that that will have on the tourism that many market towns rely on. At the most recent oral questions, I asked for an impact assessment—not from this Minister, I should add. I know that she is stepping in today, but perhaps she can discuss the impact assessment, if indeed there is one. Our historic market towns face many of the same pressures affecting high streets and town centres across the UK. While traditional markets have an enduring appeal, there is no denying that many have also been affected by online shopping, developments in out-of-town centres and recent policy decisions. Thriving market towns need a strong local economy and a strong local community to maintain them. Small businesses are the bedrock of local communities. That has to be more than just a slogan, and it is equally true of our market towns. It is our historic pubs, our crafts and shops that give historic market towns so much of their character. Yet so many are now unsure whether they can continue under the burden that is being placed on them by the current Government. In particular, the increase in employer national insurance contributions, the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief on business rates, as I have mentioned, and the increase in the national living wage are all going to weigh heavily on those small businesses. I urge the Government to reconsider those policies in the context of our historic market towns, which we are at risk of losing to closure and decline. Ensuring that market towns continue to perform their traditional civic functions is as important as preserving their heritage. Making more public services such as libraries and social mixed-use spaces available could go a long way in shaping the appeal of market towns. The House of Lords Built Environment Committee has led important research in reversing high street decline. It is important that its findings are reflected in the decisions taken by the Government in the context of market towns. Historic market towns are an irreplaceable part of our cultural heritage. It is vital that the Government understand their contribution to our country’s heritage and do not push policies that actively harm their future. I urge the Government to consider the costs of their decisions that will be imposed on market towns, and to ensure that our cultural heritage is not lost in the decline of our local businesses and town centres.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Electronic Travel Authorisations: Tourism · Hansard source

  More

  According to VisitBritain, the estimated value of inbound tourism in 2024 will be in the region of £31.5 billion, so it is a huge economic contributor to the United Kingdom. When speaking to tourism businesses that rely on seasonal tourism, alongside the rising cost of ETAs, they express great concern that the reduction in national insurance thresholds and the rise in employer national insurance contributions mean that many more workers will be caught in a damaging tax trap. It will mean that businesses have to reconsider how many people—many of them young, and many of them in their first jobs—they can employ while remaining profitable. Does the Minister have an impact assessment of the effect of those NI rises, and what does it say about how many jobs will be created or lost as a result of Labour’s jobs tax trap?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a qualified chartered accountant, I spent the best part of a decade in my family business. [Interruption.] I am a fully qualified chartered accountant with a certificate to match. My family business, which was set up by my father, was a firm of accountants. I wish to reflect on some of the remarks made by those on the Government Benches. I do so with a degree of sadness and anger, which is reflected in what is said by the businesses in my constituency as well as by many family businesses across the country. We should be in no doubt that the Chancellor’s Budget has been deeply, deeply damaging. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) put it correctly when, in his intervention on the shadow Chancellor, he said that the Budget is a toxic concoction of measures, which means that now, for the first time, many people will be wondering whether it is even worth setting up in business. The decisions that we take in this House matter, because they result in costs. Businesses, and family businesses in particular, are not just some opaque term; they involve individuals with hopes, dreams and aspirations. The political choices and decisions that the Chancellor has made and that Labour Members our now defending will incur costs for businesses, which will then be passed on to consumers and clients. Ultimately, they will feed into the cost of services and therefore the cost of living. When we see the inflation rate increase from 2%, which it was when we left Government, to 3% now there will of course be consequences, especially given the decisions that the Chancellor is making. I understand that Labour Members may not want to accept that today, but they may well want to reflect on that. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) talked about our motion—I note that he did not name the Tory Members that he respects, and I hope that he does at some point—and I have to tell him that these are not things that we made up; they are things that businesses are telling us. This is what they are talking about every day. [Interruption.] I am more than happy to give some examples. The other day, I spoke to a family-run business, which is over 160 years’ old and has a subsidiary in my constituency. It has a £400 million turnover. It was looking to be a billion-pound turnover company by 2030, which means more jobs and more products for supply chains. They have had to put a hold on that because if the father of that business now passes away, the inheritance tax bill will come to about £2 million, and, as it is a family business and dividends will have to be found, it will have to find something like £18 million to fund that. The father said that it will probably have to sell about 7% of the business to be able to finance an inheritance tax bill, which is incredibly difficult for it to prepare for. Eric Lyons, a butcher’s shop in my constituency, is over 100 years old. Nick, who I shall be meeting in the coming weeks, says that it is a great family business, which serves many of my constituents. He was very vocal on LinkedIn. I will not repeat everything that he said—it is not all repeatable—but he talked about the rise in national insurance contributions and the impact that that will have on the cost of the products that he is selling. Rick Cressman from Nailcote Hall has a great hospitality business. What is happening to hospitality businesses is not reflected in the comments from Government Members. Hospitality businesses across the board are up in arms because the reduction in rates relief and the reduction in the threshold of national insurance—not just the increase in national insurance—are having a huge impact. Fundamentally, it means that young people will not get their first jobs in hospitality. They are the ones who suffer because they end up costing the most—not in terms of their salary, because they will normally be on the national living wage, but in terms of training costs and the time that is taken. Those are real consequences of the decision that the Chancellor is taking. I feel a great amount of sadness when I hear Members on the Labour Benches say that they listen but do not agree and talk about how great their businesses are doing. I just do not believe they are talking to those businesses, because at least 99% of the businesses that will be affected will not be happy about the changes. When the Government came in, they had decisions to make. If the fictitious black hole is to be believed, they could have fixed the roof when the sun was shining. Now, when we are faced with a changing global scene, with Ukraine where it is, Donald Trump doing what he is doing and Putin coming to the fore, the Chancellor cannot commit to not coming back for more taxation. It is inevitable.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Speech and Language Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). He gave an excellent speech, and I cannot think of a single thing that I disagreed with—although I might wait to read the Hansard to double-check that. He spoke passionately about his own mum and the situation with Parkinson’s. As for many Members across this House, issues of special educational needs, and speech and language therapy are not new to me or to my inbox, so I think this is a timely and important debate. It is particularly important because of the hard work of one of my constituents, Mikey Akers, who is in the Public Gallery today, along with his mother and friends, whom I will also mention. He was the instigator of the petition, which is very much the reason why we are here. Mikey first came to see me on 13 January 2022. Little did I know at that point that this young man would be such a giant when it came to standing up for children and adults everywhere who have been affected by speech and language conditions. In many ways, this young man has given voice to so many up and down the country who, through no fault of their own, do not have their voice. Mikey’s ask of me was really simple. He looked at me and said, “Will you help me to raise awareness of verbal dyspraxia?” I am not afraid to admit that I had no idea what verbal dyspraxia was at that moment, but of course I said yes, because for us as Members, one of the easiest things that we can commit to is using our platform to raise awareness of issues that particularly affect not only our constituents, but others across the country. I went away to investigate verbal dyspraxia and see how widespread it was. I found out that there is a huge lack of awareness of verbal dyspraxia, and yet there were friends of mine, parliamentarians in the previous Parliament, who suffered from various forms of dyspraxia, as I found out when I raised Mikey’s issue at Prime Minister’s questions. Parliamentarians came to speak to me about them having some form of it, or said that they knew someone who did. Simply, for those who do not know, verbal dyspraxia is when a child has difficulties in being able to make and co-ordinate the movements needed to produce speech that is clear and easy to understand. Like the hon. Member for Lichfield, I then set about meeting the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, the Dyspraxia Foundation, and many other expert organisations and practitioners. I draw attention to Gillian Rudd, who is in the Public Gallery and is a senior lecturer at Birmingham City University. She is training future speech and language therapists—I will also touch on the workforce. She contributed to the “Bercow: Ten Years On” report, and her petition—back in 2018, garnering 11,000 signatures at the time—led to a Westminster Hall debate on the topic. Gillian came to see me in 2020, and I am so pleased that I have been able to at least highlight her work and to support her in all the work she has been doing. Since my first meeting with Mikey, I have been able to raise the issue of speech and language therapy and verbal dyspraxia in the House on a number of occasions, including at PMQs. I am pleased that in conjunction with Mikey, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and Chris Kamara—who, as you may be aware, Mr Vickers, is a well-known footballer and commentator—we were able to hold an event in the previous Parliament calling on the Government to do more to support speech and language therapists. I have talked about verbal dyspraxia, so I will say that Chris—I hope he will not mind me saying this, as he has spoken about it in public—suffered during lockdown from apraxia. In his role, voice and speech matter so much, with the intonations and being able to get thoughts out. I will not try to copy his most famous lines, but those things matter so much. He was so brave in the way he spoke about it. Kammy and Mikey were kind enough to invite me on to their documentary, “Lost for Words”, which is on the ITV player. The documentary is illuminating for anyone who wants to get an understanding of some of the challenges families face across the country and of the trials and tribulations that parents and children go through to get the support that they need. Georgia Leckie, who was on it, is also in the Gallery. This issue has affected so many of us in this Parliament and in previous Parliaments. Under the previous Government, the Department for Education committed £8 billion to special educational needs in the 2021-22 financial year. In the financial year ’22-23, that was increased by £1 billion to more than £9.1 billion, and at the 2021 spending review, the Government announced £2.6 billion, over the spending review period to 2025, to create more than 30,000 new high-quality school places for children with special educational needs and disabilities —more than tripling the previous capital funding levels to over £900 million to ’24-25. That was a transformational investment, which I was proud of, and it supported local authorities to deliver new places in mainstream and special schools, as well as other specialist settings. It would also have been used to improve the suitability and accessibility of existing buildings. Of course, none of that is to say that there was not more that needed to be done, or that needs to be done. A £2.6 billion capital investment in high-needs provision was announced in October 2021. That was to deliver up to 60 new special and alternative provision free schools, and was in addition to the 48 special free schools already in the pipeline and the more than 90 that were already open. In fact, a number have opened in the borough of Solihull, which I represent, and one opened recently in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst). In March 2022, the Government announced high-needs provision capital allocations amounting to over £1.4 billion-worth of new investment, which was focused on the academic years ’23-24 and ’24-25. Of course, there has been a change of Government and a change of priorities, so will the Minister set out whether that funding will be increasing and what his intentions are in that regard? In March, the previous Government published their SEND and AP improvement plan. The plan set out what the Government would do to establish a single national system to deliver for every child and young person with special needs and disabilities from birth to age 25, so that they could enjoy their childhood, achieve good outcomes and be well prepared for their next step, whether that was employment, higher education or adult services. Has that plan continued, or has it informed current Government strategy and how the Government intend to take the previous Government’s ambitions forward? It is no secret that councils are under great strain, so I hope that the Minister can highlight how, in the coming years, the Government intend to support local councils to alleviate that strain, especially when it comes to SLT and integrated care boards. The hon. Member for Lichfield mentioned the demand on the workforce, which has been a perennial issue—the RCSLT briefing for this debate also highlighted it. How do the Government intend to alleviate pressures in this area? Do they intend to fund more places, especially at the university level? These are complex issues, and highly skilled people are needed. I also want to ask a few questions that Mikey had. One of the key things that he has raised with me from the first day I met him is the lack of awareness in the teaching profession and among GPs when it comes to identifying cases of verbal dyspraxia. The Minister might not be able to answer on the education side, but he might be able to say how the Government intend to ensure that health professionals are prepared to identify some of these serious issues. Of course, I have to ask whether the Minister will agree to meet me, Mikey, RCSLT and—given the cross-party nature of this debate—the hon. Member for Lichfield. Can the Minister also describe the timeframe for any increases in spending? The hon. Member for Lichfield mentioned the retention of the workforce, so what are the Minister’s thoughts on ensuring that we keep more of the people who enter this profession? The metrics that we use to assess policies are key, so can the Minister describe the metrics for a successful policy around speech and language therapy? That would ensure that Members can assess the policy going forward. I hope that the answer to this question is yes, but do the Government recognise the economic benefits of getting people, young people and those who are young at heart to have better speech and language therapy and to contribute to the economy? I will finish where I started: by encouraging people such as Mikey, as well as those he inspires, to continue to campaign on this issue. There is always more to be done. I have met Mikey a number of times, and he really is a legend. I thank him for allowing me to support him on his journey. I will end with some of his words: “I raise awareness of verbal Dyspraxia/Apraxia so those who share my diagnosis, now and in the future, never feel the loneliness I felt growing up.”

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to wind up the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. There have been impressive contributions from across the House, and many Members have highlighted how their constituencies deliver for the UK’s creative industries. We heard from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), who participated in a punk rock band—the last one to perform at The Roxy, he said, although I think the jury is out on that. We also heard from the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), who I believe performed at Glastonbury. I do not think he talks about that enough; he should do so more in the future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) highlighted the places that made him the man he is today. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) secured a meeting for not just himself but his Labour colleague, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley)—a great example of cross-party working. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) made a very serious point about the impact of the Budget on the creative industries. The Chair of the DCMS Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), gave a tour of the power of the creative industries across the country. She is doing an excellent job of holding the Government to account. As we have heard, the UK’s creative sectors are world-leading. They provide opportunities for young people up and down the country to gain employment and skills that can transform their lives. I welcome the fact that so many Members across the House recognise the potential of the creative industries to grow the economy. The UK’s creative industries are truly formidable. In both cultural and economic terms, they are absolute titans. In 2023 alone, it is estimated that the creative industries contributed around £124 billion to the UK economy—in other words, about 5% of our overall economic output. There has been a steady rise in the value of the creative industries to the UK, from accounting for 4.7% of economic output in 2010 to over 5.2% in 2023. It is important that we in this place recognise their growing importance in economic terms. Our creative industries are also immense in terms of jobs. Around 2.4 million people work in the sector, which totals around 7.1% of all UK jobs. Although the creative industries are still quite heavily London-based, we see diversification of the sector and clusters of creative industry right across the UK, from the leading video game development hubs in Stoke-on-Trent to the beating heart of Northern Ireland, where the creative industries sector employs 29,000 people. Huge swathes of the UK benefit from our creative industries. I know that at first hand, as a west midlands MP. The remarkable director Steven Knight, who created “Peaky Blinders”, runs an incredible project in Birmingham where he recruits 20% of people from the most deprived neighbourhoods. Steven’s record shows that we must continue to champion our creative industries sector, because it has real potential to drive social mobility and generate economic growth. As “Peaky Blinders” is a huge international success, our creative industries ensure that Brand Britain rules on the international stage. We cannot measure the value and importance of our creative industries just in economic terms, because their reach is impossible to estimate truly. Government statistics show that between July and September 2023 there were 12.5 million visits to DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries. Given the Government’s desire to ensure that 50 million people come to the UK each year, allowing these cultural hubs to thrive will bring more people to the UK to visit some of our great cultural attractions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) set out, the Conservatives have a proud record of supporting the creative industries. Between 2010 and 2022, the creative industries grew at more than double the rate of UK gross value added, expanding by over 50%. During that period, over one million new jobs were created in the sector. Rather than burdening the creative industries with tax hikes, we introduced over £1 billion of tax reliefs, including the UK independent film tax credit and business rates relief for theatres and cultural venues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon set out, during the pandemic we introduced unprecedented support for the creative industries, including the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, the £500 million film and TV production restart scheme and the £800 million live events reinsurance scheme. That support protected over 5,000 organisations and safeguarded 220,000 jobs, ensuring that our creative industries could bounce back and continue to offer opportunities for young people. As we have heard, our ambition did not end there. In government, the Conservatives published a sector vision setting out our plan to grow the creative industries by £50 billion and create one million new jobs. These were jobs for young designers, artists, writers, creatives and others who wanted to bring joy, inspiration and opportunities to the lives of others. In this debate, the Government claimed to have similar aspirations for the creative industries and the young people eager to build careers in them, but we know that is simply not true. Labour Members have spoken warmly about the creative industries, their impact on the economy and the many opportunities that they bring to young people, but the Government’s actions speak louder than their words. The Government know that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, and that many lack the essential skills and confidence to progress in work. How did Labour rise to that challenge? It scrapped the National Citizen Service. The NCS, introduced by the previous Government, was designed to support young people during a crucial time in their life, connecting them to peers from many walks of life. It gave them opportunities to build their skills and confidence, and empowered them to make a difference in their communities. Having delivered over a million experiences to young people, who took part in over 18 million hours of volunteering, the NCS made a real difference. Does the Minister recognise that Labour’s decision to scrap the NCS will mean that fewer young people take up the opportunities presented by the creative sectors? UK Youth has warned that scrapping the National Citizen Service and the youth investment fund, along with other cuts, could lead to a net reduction in central Government funding for youth services in 2025-26, possibly by tens of millions of pounds. That will inevitably hurt the creative sector. Many Labour Members spoke warmly about the creative sector, but their Government are doing irreparable harm to its industries. The truth is that the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises raised taxes to the highest level ever and introduced a national insurance jobs tax. Labour slashed retail, hospitality and leisure relief. There is nothing to protect the creative industries from the Deputy Prime Minister’s radical Employment Rights Bill—a ill-thought-through piece of legislation that will bolster the power of the trade unions and take the country back to the 1970s.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I can see the Whip furiously making notes: “Give the man a job.” He was reading that off the Whip’s handout, and that is all I will say. Our creative industry sector, and especially the young people within it, will pay the price of the Chancellor’s growth-killing Budget and the Deputy Prime Minister’s radical Employment Rights Bill. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that Labour’s national insurance jobs tax could lead to fewer opportunities. The sad truth is that under this Labour Government, many businesses in the creative sector will not survive. Don’t just take it from me; take it from Sir Nicholas Hytner, the former artistic director of the National Theatre, who warned that Labour’s jobs tax will force businesses to close, or from UK Theatre, which warned that 40% of venues could close in the next five years due to Labour’s autumn Budget. The inevitable truth is that this Labour Government are a threat to the entire creative industry sector. But it is not just the Government’s rampant socialism that poses a huge threat to the creative industries. [ Interruption. ] I am glad Government Members are cheering the demise of the creative sector; people in them will be listening. Alongside the catastrophic impact of Labour’s increase in national insurance, there is the Government’s copyright and AI consultation, which is causing deep concern for the creative industries, but also for many Labour Members. The Minister’s preference for a data mining opt-out for the creative industries will place extra burdens on creators, who are rightly concerned that their work is under threat. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and many others made a compelling argument about how damaging the Government’s proposal is. Given the magnitude of the potential changes to copyright and AI, one would think that the Minister would have allocated significant time for creative industry sectors to raise their views. Instead, during the Christmas break, he rolled out a consultation that finishes just next month. He left the creative industries scrambling to raise their concerns with a Government who refuse to listen. The Minister also works in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, so can he tell me why, as my hon. Friend for Gosport mentioned, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has refused to meet representatives from the creative sector? I have heard myself just how worried, angry and frustrated the creative industry sector is about this proposal. Does the Minister have any idea about its impact? Has he considered having a full and transparent impact assessment to properly understand how the sector will be harmed by these changes? My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon put forward some really important points and challenges, and I look forward to hearing the answers to those. In our last exchange at the Dispatch Box, I asked the Secretary of State questions about her national youth strategy, but my questions remain unanswered. I hope that the Minister, in his closing statement, can address the serious concerns we have raised about Labour’s Budget of broken promises and its radical Employment Rights Bill, as well as the serious issues we have highlighted around the Government’s AI and copyright consultation. I repeat, slightly changed, the question I asked Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box less than two weeks ago: can the Minister guarantee that the Chancellor, in a desperate attempt to save her job, will not balance the books by putting the burden on the back of our creative industry sector? When I asked the Secretary of State that question, she said that it was tired. Well, I can tell the Minister that Conservative Members will not tire of standing up for our young people; we will not tire of standing up for our creative sectors; and we will not tire of holding the Government to account.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and for all the work he has done on the matter, including the petition he launched, which I will come on to later. He is absolutely right, and he leads me to my next point. The Minister’s own Government have set out their planning reforms, which mean that valuable and precious green belt will now be built on as housing numbers are massively increased, putting our local infrastructure under strain. As we can see, that is a concern across the country, on a cross-party basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) has made significant progress talking to his constituents on this issue. I know they feel exactly the same way, and I look forward to working with him. Significantly, more than 40% of our residents are reportedly over the age of 50. As we go through this especially cold winter, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) said, we must all remember that the winter is a challenging time not only for the NHS, but for our constituents. Cold and flu cases are at their peak and place additional pressures on the NHS. Every Christmas, we face a timely reminder that we are in desperate need of an A&E in Solihull, so I am grateful to have secured this debate early in the new year. Although I will not focus on social care today, I can assure the Minister that I will return to this topic at some point. I simply make the point that kicking the can down the road on issues such as social care will cause further anxiety to my constituents and exacerbate the strain on our hospitals. All Governments, of all ilks, need to deal with social care. The Government’s response does not deal with social care, nor does it deal with the problem of the country’s ageing population, especially in areas such as Meriden and Solihull East. The long-term social care issues faced by our NHS are made far worse by the fact that there is a national average of 14% more attendees at A&E than there were 10 years ago, which means that more people now face longer waiting times. As of August 2024, 65.4% of patients in Birmingham and Solihull ICB spent less than four hours in A&E departments, and that is markedly below the NHS target of 95%. I hope that the Minister might be able to comment on that and share any thinking on increasing that figure. I believe I have already set this out adequately, but it is worth repeating that residents in my borough have to travel to different areas to access A&E services. Given the size of the local population and the likelihood that demand for emergency services will only increase further, it is obvious that Solihull residents need to be supported by dedicated A&E services. That is because a dedicated A&E in Solihull borough will take pressure off other A&E departments, lowering waiting times across the whole area to the benefit of thousands of people in the west midlands. Can the Minister give any indication as to whether she considered those arguments in the previous correspondence that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley and I have had with her? Moreover, my constituents and I are very concerned that this issue will become increasingly pressing because of the Government’s planning changes and their potential changes to the national policy planning framework. If the Government were to achieve the objective of removing consent from local people, the demand for local infrastructure—from schools to roads and health services—would go up and inevitably become unsustainable. I launched my petition in May last year to restore A&E services to Solihull hospital. I can confirm to the Minister that I did not know a general election would be called a week later. Within a week, we had about 1,000 signatures. I have had about 1,600 and I think my hon. Friend has had a similar amount, so we are reaching more than 3,000 residents who support our campaign. The petition remains open on our websites for further support. I assure my constituents that I will not falter or waver in my resolve to see the campaign through. Let me help the Minister. I understand that such projects do not happen overnight, but surely she will agree that a case such as this must be looked at. There has to be a long-term vision and plan to start to deal with issues, such as an increased population, which are clearly coming down the road. When my hon. Friend and I wrote to the Minister in November, we outlined the arguments for enhanced healthcare provision for Solihull borough. We were disappointed with the Minister’s response, which failed to cover some of the assertions we made, and that is why I put in for an Adjournment debate. I want to give the Minister another chance, because it cannot be possible that she does not have a view on long-term health provision for my constituents. For clarity, the Minister argued that the NHS Birmingham and Solihull ICB was responsible for funding and implementation in the area. I am sure that is a matter of fact, but she must have a view, even though it will play a decisive role in decision making on these matters. It would be really helpful to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend if she agreed, at least in principle, to look at our plans, even if she does not quite support them. Will she agree to look at the long-term need of my constituents, especially in the light of the extra housing the Government are demanding be delivered on our greenbelt? It is a point worth making that as a result of the extra building, my constituents will be making huge sacrifices. The least the Government could do is to recognise that and provide the infrastructure to match. The Minister confirmed that the Government were committed to delivering the new hospital plan. She said the Chancellor had confirmed that in the Budget there would be a £3.1 billion increase in the overall departmental capital budget over this year and the next. The Secretary of State committed, in his piece in the London Standard in June, to delivering the new hospitals programme, so I was disappointed that there was no mention of Solihull borough in his statement last week. I want to ask the Minister a very simple question. The Government set out plans that take hospital building to 2039. Does that mean that our constituents in Solihull borough will not get a look-in from the Labour Government until then? Will it be 15 years before we can even start to think about new plans to support Solihull borough? It would be really helpful to get clarity on that. In our correspondence, my hon. Friend and I made the case for part of the £3.1 billion uplift in the NHS capital budget to be spent in our area. The Minister should be assured that we will take every opportunity in this House to make the case for an A&E in Solihull. Will she now instruct her officials to take a long, hard look at that and take a constructive view on the long-term plan? Indeed, just a few days ago—this is the point I wanted to come to when I was intervened on—it was reported in the Birmingham Mail that the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust is looking for a £200 million investment to create a new urgent and emergency care facility at Heartlands hospital, because the facilities are “disconnected and inefficient”, and that “patient numbers continue to increase, being cared for in buildings which are dark, cramped and not fit for the current purpose”. That could not be clearer. The report prompts the question: why should my constituents be subject to those conditions? They deserve better. They deserve the very best health facilities. I will not let up, and nor will my hon. Friend. We will keep coming back. With more than 3,000 people having signed our petitions, will the Minister do the right thing and back our campaign for a new A&E in Solihull? When I raised this issue on the Floor of the House, the Health Secretary wanted to know where I would spend the money differently. Perhaps the Minister has a similar line in her speech. This is not a party political point, but we would have chosen not to spend billions on trade union sweetheart deals in return for nothing. We would probably not have spent billions on GB Energy, which will not deliver outcomes or reduce bills. That money could pay for an A&E in Solihull many times over. Politics is all about choices, so I ask the Minister: will she do the right thing and choose to engage constructively, so we can deliver the best outcomes for our constituents?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It might the shortest WMS, which I hope tells us how the Minister is extending the scheme. I want to thank all the people from across the country who have written to us on this issue—their voice matters. I thank all the volunteers who protect our most beautiful heritage sites. The Conservatives are very clear that Britian’s rich history, deep sense of tradition and incredible national story is something we should always protect, and there is no doubt that our churches, and other places of worship that have been announced, are fundamental to that. These cherished buildings play key roles in their local communities, serving both as a window into our past and as active centres of support and sanctuary for people of all faiths and none. The people who look after them, as custodians of our future generations, are volunteers who give their time and energy generously with very little external help, but many of them are reliant on the vital lifeline that is the listed places of worship grant scheme. Introduced in 2001, the scheme provides essential grants covering the VAT charge and repairs to listed buildings used as places of worship. I am proud that the Conservative Government had a very strong record of supporting that important scheme. Under the previous Government, the listed places of worship grant scheme was extended, providing funding to cover VAT on essential repairs, which meant thousands of churches were protected for generations to come. However—this may change—Labour is yet to announce whether it will fund the scheme past its expiry in March this year. The Budget came and went without an answer. This uncertainty is making the task of those who look after these precious buildings more precarious and stressful. Many are understandably delaying their plans until the Government make up their mind, meaning more leaky roofs, more draughty windows and more cold churches during the vital Christmas period. With the WMS on the way, I am hopeful that the Minister will announce something meaningful that goes beyond one year. I share the ambition of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for the permanency of this grant, so I hope the Minister will address that point. According to Historic England, 969 places of worship are under threat, including churches in the Prime Minister’s constituency. When questioned about the scheme at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister quoted a hymn, but the custodians of our historic churches need more than a hymn and a prayer. They deserve clarity and support from the Government, which I hope the Minister can give us today. That is important because Historic England’s informative heritage at risk register paints a harrowing picture for England’s historic sites. For places of worship in particular, the possibility of roofs collapsing or a lack of maintenance on stonework would be catastrophic. Numerous constituents in my constituency of Meriden and Solihull East have written to me about their concerns for some of our most beloved local churches. They told me that discontinuing the scheme would “be a disaster for listed places of worship”, and that the ability to reclaim VAT “makes an enormous difference, particularly at a time when the cost of building work has increased substantially.” There is great frustration about the Government’s failure to confirm the extension of this vital scheme. It is not just felt by constituents; it has an impact on all our communities and on the rest of society. The chair of the National Churches Trust, Sir Philip Rutnam, has called on the Government to renew the listed places of worship fund. Sir Philip states that the crisis affecting church heritage could get worse in the coming months if this vital “financial lifeline” is scrapped. The Bishop of Dudley, Bishop Martin Gorrick, also paints a bleak picture, saying, “It is not just heritage that is at risk if the Scheme lapses. Churches and other places of worship are home to so much social enterprise and action: Church of England churches support over 35,000 social action projects such as foodbanks, community larders and debt, drug, alcohol advice and rehabilitation groups.” The director of the Friends of Friendless Churches, Rachel Morley, wrote to the Secretary of State saying, “The impact of this cut at a parish level would be devastating” and that, “We place the burden of caring for thousands of the nation’s most important buildings—undoubtedly the nation’s greatest free heritage resources—on a tiny proportion of the public who are, for the most part, volunteers.” That view was eloquently shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox). I hope the Government will confirm the continuation of the scheme as soon as possible or, better still, an expanded scheme that helps the custodians of listed places of worship to carry out vital repair works in the first place. One challenge I would put to the Minister is that the funding has been a rebate for many years. Let us make it into a grant and let us make it permanent. Will he also consider the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), which raises quite a vital point? I hope he addresses that. I cannot speak about this issue without addressing the broader economic picture. If the Government were to neglect these cherished buildings, it would be an act of vandalism, but it would come as no surprise to many of our constituents if the Labour Government did turn a blind eye to this threat to our heritage, given where we are economically. We have seen the calamitous impact of the Chancellor’s callous Budget on our great houses already, including on our historic houses, and I have already written and made comments about the impact. Independent analysis has shown that the dramatic increase in inheritance tax could spell an end for many of our historic heritage sites and estates across the country. This would cost jobs and mean that some of the UK’s most popular stately homes would be closed. I have very little confidence in the long-term faith that the Government would put in our heritage. Of course, the dire economic circumstances make a big difference. I have already raised the matter on the Floor of the House, because it is becoming ever clearer that the Chancellor will have to cut budgets. Although many of our voters, including many of my constituents, do not believe that they can afford a Labour Government, what they certainly cannot afford is the Minister abandoning our most vital sector, so I encourage him to stand up to the Chancellor and try to protect those vital budgets. As the cost of debt goes up and the economic situation becomes more dire, the Chancellor will have even less headroom to spend on schemes such as the listed places of worship grant. Mr Western, in deference to your timing request, I will conclude. I share the concerns of many beyond this House that the Government are yet to protect our heritage. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, hundreds of churches have been left with a deep sense of uncertainty for months. The Government’s failure to commit to that funding risks imperilling centuries of British history and heritage, all while leaving gaping holes in our local communities and depriving our constituents of spaces to accommodate celebration, grief, art, music, sculpture, political hustings—of course—wellbeing groups, childcare, addiction support sessions and so much more. The listed places of worship grant scheme is essential, and I urge the Minister to make the strongest possible case for its renewal to the Treasury; otherwise, many of our constituents will ask, “Is nothing sacred any more?”

• 21 Jan 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses in my constituency and across the country are still reeling from the Chancellor’s damaging Budget. She made a commitment at the Confederation of British Industry conference that she would not come back for more taxes. Does she stand by that commitment?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement. As he said, dynamic pricing is a strategy used across many industries outside the creative sectors, including by hotels, taxis and airlines. It can offer significant benefits for consumers when prices are low—for example through early-bird tickets or late ticketing. The Government are right to emphasise the importance of transparency. Oasis fans know—I am one of them—that we did not have the necessary information up front, and I understand that the Competition and Markets Authority is rightly investigating that episode. However, it is my view that new regulations should be considered only when they are necessary and proportionate and do not duplicate existing rules. Current legislation already states that although dynamic pricing is legal, it must be implemented transparently. I can assure the Minister that we will carefully consider any proposals that could strengthen, improve or simplify the market for fans, but I warn him that we will oppose regulation introduced for the sake of introducing new regulation. The secondary ticket resale market plays an important role for artists, fans and venues. It can provide a safer way to transfer unwanted tickets, ensuring that seats in venues are not left empty. The Minister claims that his reforms will better protect fans, improve access to live events and support the creative sectors. He claims that the proposals will give power back to fans and prevent them from being fleeced by ticket touts. We know that that is not true, however. We know that Labour’s plans will harm fans and venues, and make live events even harder to attend. [ Interruption. ] The Minister wants to know so I will tell him. Let us first discuss price caps on resale tickets. The Government’s consultation proposes capping ticket resale prices to somewhere between the original price and a 30% uplift. That may seem on the surface like a reasonable measure, but we know that it will lead to an upsurge in black market activity and to more money flowing into the pockets of ticket touts. In fact, price controls would lead to a surge in unregulated and illegal transactions, leaving fans with little to no consumer protections. The Minister might not believe me, a free-marketeer, but in response to Government’s consultation, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, warned that “Draconian regulation, targeting only the secondary market, will only mean more tickets changing hands in informal settings without the same protections that exist in proper marketplaces.” I regret to say that the Government’s proposed measures to increase the regulation of resale websites and apps, and to raise fines for rule violations, will not prevent fans from turning to underground markets. We have already seen that in Victoria, Australia, where a 10% profit cap failed to prevent significant mark-ups on ticket prices, and even led a spike in the number of ticket scams. We know that scams are already a serious issue in the secondary ticketing market. For example, and as the Minister will be aware, Lloyds Bank estimates that Taylor Swift fans lost £1 million in ticket scams ahead of her tour. If his policy had been in place, how much more would fans have lost to scammers? We know that a ticket resale cap will lead to empty seats and the prevent spontaneous ticket purchases. We saw that at the Paris Olympics, where restrictions on the resale of tickets left empty seats at many venues. Empty seats are bad not just for artists, but for the economy. Events at stadiums and venues provide a boost for local businesses, including restaurants, bars and other hospitality venues. Let us be clear: the hospitality industry is already under a lot of strain, not least because of the Budget of broken promises. Labour’s national insurance jobs tax, and its slashing of reliefs, have led the Music Venue Trust to warn that many businesses are at “immediate risk of closure, representing the potential loss of more than 12,000 jobs, over £250 million in economic activity and the loss of over 75,000 live music events.” Let us be clear: the reason we are here today is that the spin doctors in No. 10 are trying to move the news cycle away from a beleaguered Prime Minister, a Chancellor already drowning in the debt markets, and an anti-corruption Minister being accused of corruption. All the while, the Government and the Department are throwing creative industries and hospitality businesses under the bus.