Budget Resolutions Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateBradley Thomas
Main Page: Bradley Thomas (Conservative - Bromsgrove)Department Debates - View all Bradley Thomas's debates with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
(3 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons Chamber
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This Budget was a missed opportunity for the residents of Bromsgrove and the villages. There was next to nothing in it for my residents, or for the hard-working business owners and businesses across the constituency. The frank reality is that businesses across the country and in my area are really struggling right now. In recent months, we have seen Labour Ministers’ true colours. Over the weekend, we heard the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stating that those who employ people are not workers themselves. I am not sure that the carpenters, plumbers, café owners and florists in my constituency would agree with that. They are frankly insulted by it. We also heard the Work and Pensions Secretary reveal earlier this year that all Labour MPs wanted to do was ask the question, “Who can we tax more to spend more money on welfare?”. Inflation is up, Government spending is up, unemployment is up, welfare is up and debt is up. How people and businesses feel is what matters, and that will be the ultimate litmus test for the Government.
Following the Budget, UKHospitality told us the reality. Despite the Government’s announcement on business rates, only one in 10 pubs will be affected. The Government need to go further. They need to endorse the Conservatives’ full exemption for hundreds of thousands of retailers, pubs and hospitality businesses. Wherever I go in my constituency, I am repeatedly told that businesses operating in these sectors are not recruiting because red tape and the cost of employment have gone up dramatically.
The voices of business are clear. Make UK has said that the Budget was a failed opportunity to reindustrialise, and the Federation of Small Business has said that the Budget contained
“nothing to make hiring someone more affordable”.
Unemployment has gone up by 276,000 in the last two years, and we are destined to see it go up even more. The Government need to get off the backs of businesses and get on their side.
I would like to briefly touch on the Government’s proposals for devolution and local government reorganisation. The Government announced something last week for Worcestershire that will not improve the quality of people’s lives. It will increase the cost and bureaucracy of delivering local government services. It is not in Worcestershire’s interests. Worcestershire does not have a Mayor and it does not want a Mayor. It is not a geography that would best suit a mayoralty. We do not need more politicians in this country; we need fewer—[Interruption.] I say that as a politician. We need fewer politicians in this country, and we need the system to work better.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Government’s local government reorganisation will abolish the two-tier system in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Bromsgrove, thereby reducing the number of local councillors and so the number of politicians. Which part of that did he miss in the announcements that have been made over the last 12 months?
Bradley Thomas
If the hon. Lady had listened to what I was saying, she would have heard me say that Worcestershire does not want a Mayor.
The Government’s proposals for devolution are nothing more than a cop-out to absolve Westminster of its failure to tackle the big issues facing this country, and that is the theme that runs through this Budget. Politicians do not create jobs. I read in The Times this morning that the Government believe that mayors and local leaders can be empowered to create jobs. That is absolute rubbish. It is businesses that create jobs. Every single penny and pound of taxation received by the Government is generated, ultimately, through the endeavours of private enterprise. We have to get to the point, once again, where risk taking and entrepreneurialism are not frowned on. They should be embraced and encouraged. If the Government want to tax something, they have to create wealth and prosperity first. They need to get off the backs of businesses and get on their side.
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member is right to raise the fact that we are spending a large share of our budget on debt interest costs; £1 in every £10 is spent paying the interest on our debt. That was an increase that took place under the Conservatives after the spike in interest rates in 2022 under Liz Truss’s mini-budget, and the apprentice to Liz Truss is now the shadow Chancellor.
Real wages have risen more since the election than in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government. Opposition Members talked about the private sector in the economy. I would point out to them that whole-economy investment and business investment have grown by more in this Parliament so far than they did in the entirety of the last Parliament. We are turning the economy around from the hellscape it was under the previous Government.
We are building on our recent economic resilience through this Budget. We are delivering immediate measures to help with rising energy bills: a £100 household energy payment directly to those living in property bands A to D in England, alongside a reduction to 0% VAT on electricity until July. We are also abolishing gas standing charges on household energy bills, while extending the 5p fuel duty cut and the cut to red diesel. We are reducing bills by up to 25% for more than 10,000 eligible businesses from next April through the British industrial competitiveness scheme.
Bradley Thomas
If the picture is so rosy, can the Minister explain to me why, a couple of weeks ago, when I visited six businesses in my constituency, all in the hospitality sector, every single one of them said that they are not recruiting and nor have they recruited since the Government increased national insurance contributions? Why is he painting a picture that is different to reality? Why does he think they are not recruiting?
Dan Tomlinson
I cannot speak to the individual businesses in the hon. Member’s constituency, but I can point him to the forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility that revises up employment by 200,000—employment increases every year of that forecast.
We are also making changes to support workers by increasing the national minimum wage and national living wage. We are increasing the higher mileage rate and making permanent the increase to the standard mileage rate announced earlier in the year, and we are backing our high street businesses, with retail, hospitality and leisure properties seeing their business rates either frozen in real terms, reduced or cut to zero next year.
The Secretary of State spoke powerfully and convincingly of the changes that this Government are making on devolution to drive good growth in every postcode, so I will not run through the points that she opened with. I was glad to hear that hon. Friends in constituencies where we will be extending devolution in England, particularly those towns and communities that missed out on the first wave of devolution under the previous Government, welcome that continued roll-out. It will mean that over 90% of England’s population is now on track to be covered by a strategic authority in the next couple of years.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), raised the issue of energy when opening the debate for the Opposition, and it is worth covering before we wrap up. At the Budget, the Chancellor set out a new pathway for energy that the 10-year plan will build on. Our priority is to bring energy costs down, to help business compete and to help families cope. Cheaper electricity will also boost electrification, increase our energy security and help decarbonise the whole economy.
First, we are addressing levies and policy costs on bills. The Opposition loaded £100 on to bills via levies; this Labour Government have already taken £150 off energy bills at the last Budget. The Chancellor when further last week, by drawing a line in the sand on levies. He has confirmed that there will be no new costs added to energy bills, with a comprehensive cost-control framework to follow at the spending review. He is also abolishing plans, first set out by the Opposition when in government, to add a further £10 a year to bills for hydrogen projects.
Secondly, we are backing network investment, adding new generation only if it is affordable and the grid can keep up. Between 2016 and 2020, network investment declined in real terms under the previous Government, just when it was clear that more intermittent power would mean that we need more capacity. Now that they are in opposition, the Conservatives have no serious energy policy left. Their only real answer is to retreat in full from net zero, banning people from being parliamentary candidates for the Conservative party if they support net zero by 2050. That is a big mistake, and one that I am confident the British people will reject at the next election.
In the Budget, we also committed to procuring clean power through the next auction round only if we are confident that it will lower bills. We will reform contracts for difference by allocation round 9 to support the lowest-cost system, fixing market distortions and siting assets in the right place. To Members who are committed to net zero on both the Government and Liberal Democrat Benches, let me be clear that it is only by getting electricity prices down, and ensuring that new clean power does not run ahead of the grid, that we can credibly achieve our net zero goals.
I will turn to a couple of points made by Members before I conclude. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) asked a number of questions about the Acorn project; I reassure him and Members on both sides of the House that the Government remain committed to Acorn and want to see it succeed. The change announced last week switches funding from grants to loans or equity stakes, which we hope will provide better value for money for the taxpayer. The existing partners confirmed that approach last week, setting out that the Budget announcement does not change Acorn’s current development programme. The relevant Minister in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will be meeting the developers later this week. Acorn is not the only scheme to be affected by recent prioritisation decisions. In fact, some schemes in England have been stopped entirely.
A number of Members on the Government Benches also raised the mineworkers’ pension scheme; they and others on these Benches have been relentless in their advocacy for mining communities. I particularly note the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). It was a powerful contribution, and it was heard loud and clear by those on the Treasury Bench. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said last week, he knows that the job is not done, and he will go on to ensure the full transfer of the guarantor’s fund. I know that he is working at pace to agree a way forward.
This is a Budget to deliver good growth in every postcode. It is underpinned by fiscal discipline, with borrowing falling in every year. It is the most decentralising Budget in modern British history, pushing power and resources out across the country. It marks an important moment in the history of UK energy policy, with a firm commitment to putting cheap electricity first. The Opposition added £100 to bills; we have taken £150 off. We are also drawing a line in the sand when it comes to new build costs.
This Budget supports businesses on the high street, taking 70,000 smaller high street properties out of business rates altogether; and in industry, by implementing a 25% discount to electricity bills for heavy users. Of course, we have also prioritised helping families now, with £100 off energy bills this winter for 20 million homes, funded through higher bank taxes, which the Opposition oppose. This is a big Labour Budget built on strong Labour choices—breathing space for today and fresh hope for the future.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rachel Hopkins.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.