Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will be voting against the Bill and in favour of the reasoned amendment, for the simple reason that I do not believe this Bill will do anything to smash the gangs, which is what the Labour party sold to the British public. Over the past 12 months and beyond, my constituents have regularly brought up immigration on the doorstep, talking about both legal and illegal immigration. They want a fair legal system that ensures that the best and the brightest come to this country, as we have always wanted, but for them, this is really an issue of fairness. They believe that uncontrolled borders are not fair, and I agree. Uncontrolled borders make people angry and undermine the case for taking those who are most in need. Over the past 14 years and beyond, we have had a great track record of taking in refugees from areas of conflict and other places, but by cheating the system, thousands of illegal migrants are entering the country, with the inevitable consequence that our public services are overburdened. That makes my constituents feel that the system is broken—that it does not work for them. Our schools, NHS and welfare system fail to work properly because of the strains caused by illegal migration, and my constituents are right to feel a deep sense of unfairness. Until they see the fundamental issue being tangibly addressed, which this Bill does not do, they will continue to feel that sense of unfairness. We have seen this with the reopening of the asylum hotels. That is a manifesto pledge that has been broken—the number of asylum hotels and the number of people in them has gone up. Those hotels are funded by the taxpayer, and divert money that my constituents feel could be spent on improving our public services. Earlier, we heard the Home Secretary give no guarantee on when those asylum hotels will be cleared. That will be a consistent and continuous source of consternation for many people across the country, who feel totally helpless when they see pictures and videos of often young men entering this country illegally and being given access to things that my constituents work hard for and pay taxes to sustain. I firmly believe that all of us across this House want to control illegal immigration, but I fundamentally disagree that this Bill will do so. I have talked about our track record of taking in refugees. We have had a consistent record for many years—we have taken in refugees from Afghanistan, from Syria, and of course from Ukraine—but that track record is being constantly undermined by the dramatic increases in illegal migration, making people feel that we cannot do more. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) made an eloquent case for this being a global issue. That is often forgotten in the debate, whether it is due to climate change or conflict. However, the public want to see the case being made for the nation state—to know that we can control our borders, and can then allow in the people who we want in the country. Since the Labour party has been in government, we have seen a 28% increase in illegal migration, which will inevitably put strain on our resources. The consequence is that society becomes fragmented, and there are those on the far echelons of the political spectrum who take advantage of that for their own ends and crowd out legitimate and reasonable debate. The Bill takes away the deterrent and does not deal in any way with the need for a deterrent. As we have heard consistently from the NCA and other experts, without a deterrent, there is nothing disincentivising the gangs from bringing people over. We all want people who are in need to be taken care of, but this Bill does not do that—there is no guarantee that it will. We have heard the Home Secretary continuously fail to provide an answer on that point. The Bill’s weak tinkering around the edges of the illegal migration system will actually strengthen the gangs, because they now know that they can take advantage of that system. This House is engaged in debate, but the Labour party will win this evening’s vote—of course it will. It has got the numbers; the British people placed a huge amount of trust in Labour, which is now being betrayed, and those gangs will take advantage of it. The one example I will use is that when the Rwanda scheme received Royal Assent, we continuously heard people—and people smugglers—saying that they were not going to come to the UK, and we saw the numbers drop. They will be celebrating the fact that this Bill is going through the House.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  On Armistice Day, I want to mention the vital role that our farmers played during the world wars to keep food on the table, as they continue to do. If I had more time, I would spend it championing the farmers in my own constituency, not least because it is the home of Berkswell cheese. I would welcome any Member who would like to try it, and they might also like to try some of the turkeys from Rod Adlington’s farm. However, I will focus on APR and BPR. I thought that the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), the shadow Secretary of State, did a wonderful job of deconstructing the Government’s arguments in that regard, despite Ministers’ desire to hide their heads in the sand. We are seeing a travesty unfold in front of us. We are seeing the travesty of the Secretary of State saying that farmers need to do more with less, and the Government’s sheer brass neck in not listening, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross). Our farmers are working people. They put food on our table and are responsible for our food security, but the Budget puts our family farms on notice. In my constituency and those across the country, family farms ensure that we have food on our tables. They do not do so at a profit, even if they have assets that they will now be taxed on. I spent some time wondering why the policy was introduced, and it is clear that it is a cynical ploy to free up land so that the Deputy Prime Minister can concrete over our green belt and the Energy Secretary— [ Interruption. ] Labour Members can shout me down if they want—that is fine—but farmers are listening and can see the arrogance of those on the Government Benches. The Energy Secretary’s desire is to have pylons and solar panels peppered across our green belt. The Government broke their promises on NI, they broke their promises to pensioners, and now they are breaking their promises to our farmers. Some clarity is needed, because the Chancellor has repeatedly said that the thresholds will be shared between spouses. That was contradicted by the Treasury, and the Secretary of State said something else at the Dispatch Box. Farmers need clarity, because how can they possibly plan if the Chancellor and the Secretary of State do not know their own policies and are contradicting each other? The Government continue to say that the policy will not affect that many farmers, but DEFRA’s own analysis shows that it will affect 66% of them. The Secretary of State said he was using the Treasury’s figures. Why do two Departments’ figures contradict each other? We need clarity on that, because it is important. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members can shout me down, but it is really important for the livelihoods of so many people. When it comes to undermining our food security and national security, the only winners are autocrats around the world who would like to see us weakened—autocrats like Vladimir Putin. That is exactly what the policy will lead to.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Many small business in Meriden and Solihull East are rightly concerned about the Bill for a number of reasons. Since the election, I have spoken a number of times demanding that the Government be more ambitious for growth, for our entrepreneurs and for our small businesses. Indeed, it is the moral duty of every Government to unleash the full potential of our businesses and, where possible, to create an environment to embolden entrepreneurs and encourage economic growth. Instead, the Bill will kill off any ambition and any focus on growth. If we want to focus on inclusive growth, we must nurture our start-ups, scale-ups and small businesses, and let them be nimble in how they operate, rather than shackling them. That is how economic magic will start to happen. The businesses to which I have spoken are worried about the insufficient consultation. The Government’s impact assessment, which we received late, shows that small businesses are likely to be hit hardest. The costs, according to the Government’s own analysis, will be in the low billions—up to £5 billion. For a Government who keep talking about the alleged black hole, those low billions seem rather reckless. It proves that this is nothing more than an ideological Bill that does not ensure growth.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  I stand to speak on behalf of my 18,500 pensioners who will be affected by this measure. Before I do so, I commend the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on a really impassioned speech. I know it is not easy to stand against one’s own party, but today’s decision is a choice between right and wrong. Members are defending the choice by the Government and the Chancellor to make this decision on the backs of pensioners, who have the sheer brass neck to go out and defend it, alleging a black hole when they have paid billions to unions without any savings in return. There is GB Energy—a shell company for £8 billion—and climate promises of more than £11 billion, and then they say that there is no money and they are going to get £1.1 billion on the back of pensioners.