Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of fiscal support for rural pubs.

It is a pleasure to lead this debate on fiscal support for our country’s great rural pubs. Although this debate is about fiscal support, it is really about our heritage. To demonstrate that, I would like to take hon. Members on a pub crawl around my constituency. Meriden and Solihull East has the historical, grade II-listed Malt Shovel in Barston, which dates back to the late 15th or early 16th century and is widely regarded as one of the oldest pubs in the borough of Solihull. There is also the Queen’s Head in Meriden, a 17th-century coaching inn. We would then move on to Hampton in Arden, where there is the White Lion, another 17th-century pub with traditional architecture. I should say at this stage that I do not drink, so I am happy to drive Members if they come.

From Hampton in Arden, we would travel to Catherine-de-Barnes, where the excellent Boat has a tremendous beer garden for sunny afternoons. In Dorridge, the Railway Inn, right next to the station, often serves hard-working commuters after a long day’s work. Dorridge also has the Forest, a 19th-century coach house just by the train station, serving tremendous food and drink, with great rooms for weary guests. There is also the Drum and Monkey, my local, which is a famous country pub with a history dating back to the 1860s.

After all that, we would end up in the historical village of Knowle, where I want everyone with me. In the village, there are a number of pubs that we could choose from, but I have selected a couple. The Wilson Arms, now a Toby Carvery, is a 16th-century pub with timber frames and excellent Sunday lunches. The Red Lion, right on the high street, has great food and drinks.

I pick Knowle to end, because this weekend we are celebrating the 750th anniversary of the village. I pay tribute to all those who make the village the special place that it is: Visit Knowle, the Knowle Society, the various publicans and, of course, our residents. To them, I say thank you. Community, character and identity, that is what our rural pubs represent. That is why they are worth fighting for, and why I am here today, concerned about the impact of the Government’s policies on our rural pubs.

I will start by talking about the economic importance of pubs and their contribution to the economy, especially in rural areas. There is no doubt that the UK’s pub and brewing sector plays an enormous role in rural constituencies across the UK. Rural pubs provide jobs and huge economic value. According to the British Beer and Pub Association, the pub and brewing sector supports more than 300,000 jobs in rural constituencies in the UK. Combined, rural pubs and breweries contribute almost £11 billion to the economy and generate £7 billion in tax.

In addition, as I have outlined, rural pubs are steeped in history and heritage. They attract tourism from across the country and the world. Tourism is estimated to be responsible for about a third of employment in rural pubs. People come from all over the world to spend time in the great British countryside and enjoy the excellent food and drink that we put out in our great pubs. In all our constituencies, but particularly for Members from rural seats, the influence of pubs in our constituencies is enormous. I am immensely proud of the pubs in Meriden and Solihull East. We have almost 40 local pubs, which support 1,740 jobs. Of that cohort, there are 500 16 to 24-year-olds working in the sector, which makes an overall contribution of £61 million to the local economy. In the wider west midlands, there are more than 4,000 rural pubs, which employ 88,000 people and contribute £2.9 billion to the economy.

Aside from the huge economic impact of these pubs, they are also a vital part of the fabric of our rural communities. They provide food, drink and places to stay, and some historical pubs date back centuries, truly making them part of our great and unique British history.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. As everybody knows, I represent the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom. As he says, pubs are not just about food and drink; they are also somewhere for people to go to socialise. They are great for people who are lonely. The Butchers Arms in Carhampton reopened in January, and it now has a library and a shop. I am sure he would agree that is a very good situation to be in.

[Saqib]

Bhatti: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I think we should have a rule in this House that when a Member says they have the best constituency, they owe everyone a pint. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I could get used to this popularity. The hon. Member is absolutely correct, and I will come to the social value of pubs as a meeting place.

When people think of Britain, they of course think of our iconic landmarks such as Buckingham Palace or Big Ben, but they also think of our red post boxes, our black cabs and our rural pubs. Our truly unique rural pubs are the pillars of our local communities, serving as meeting points for old friends, destinations for wedding receptions and hubs for our community.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that, for many rural locations, the rural pub is the last-standing business in the village? It is the post office, the village store, the job club, the parent and child club and the club for the elderly and lonely. I have even seen, through Pub is the Hub, a barber in the lounge of a pub. It cuts people’s hair during the day and serves them drinks in the evening. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Government impose extra fiscal pressures on pubs, what they lose is probably worth far, far more than the revenue they think they are gaining?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I could not agree more. That is exactly why we are here today. I am really concerned about the core of our communities being hollowed out by Government interventions. For elderly people in particular, a good pub lunch with great drinks and warm food can be a staple of the weekly routine. It is therefore no wonder that two thirds of adults believe that their local pub is vital to combating loneliness and social isolation. On the back of my hon. Friend’s intervention, I gently ask the Minister whether he recognises that losing a rural pub has a huge impact on our rural communities. Where are those people meant to go?

Dr Thomas Thurnell-Read from Loughborough University has conducted some fascinating research into the social value of pubs in local communities. The project looked at the impact of pub closures on communities and made it very clear that the loss of a pub, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) said, is so much more than just the loss of a business. Dr Thurnell-Read made it clear that the closure of a pub echoes throughout the entire community, impacting friendships, identities and vital local support networks in ways that cannot be captured by data alone.

As traditional community infrastructure such as banks, village halls and post offices also come under pressure, pubs are more important than ever as anchors in our rural communities. For rural areas, some pubs now act as more than just a place to meet and socialise. They have essential services such as micro post offices, prescription drop-offs, wi-fi hubs and barbers, as my hon. Friend mentioned. They even house part-time library shelves.

Research by the Rural Services Network has found that for every £1 invested in the provision of services and activities in the pub, an average of £8.28 of social value is created. It found that the diverse new services offered by pubs in local communities have lasting positive impacts on the overall wellbeing of individuals and their families, as well as on reducing loneliness, improving mental health and giving people greater independence.

Having spoken at great length about the value and importance of rural pubs, I am really concerned about the Government’s intervention and the lack of support for this vital industry. Some of our best pubs are in the Chancellor’s crosshairs. Labour has hit rural pubs with increased taxes and a litany of new burdensome legislation that is killing them off. The pub and brewing sector is among the most highly taxed of any business sector, with around £1 in every £3 spent in the pub going back to HMRC.

One of the most egregious taxes is the Government’s national insurance raid on our businesses. Having spoken with representatives of the UK’s beer and pub sector, there is no doubt that Labour’s rise in national insurance has had a huge impact on rural pubs. Just last week, Simon Emeny, the chairman of Fuller’s, said that pubs are facing “unprecedented” pressure from Labour’s tax rises. Given the nature of pub work, the lowering of the national insurance threshold has had a deep impact on publicans. Pubs are one of the major employers of young people. The sector employs 58% of its people on a part-time basis, which means that lowering the threshold has forced pubs to reconsider their hiring practices.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

The concerns about taxes that the hon. Member is raising have really affected Jack, the owner of the Ye Olde Poppe Inn in Tatworth, and Buddy, the owner of the Flying Fish. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to lower VAT for pubs?

[Saqib Bhatti]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. When publicans speak to me about taxes, they talk about their turnover either increasing or staying stable but the costs going up. The Government have to set out what they will do to improve the fiscal landscape for pubs, and for the hospitality industry more broadly.

A lot has been made of Lord Milburn’s report on NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and the rise in the number of 16 to 24-year-olds in that category. Has the Minister considered the impact of these tax rises on pub-specific jobs? Some 51% of people working in pubs are under the age of 24, meaning that many are likely to be balancing working in the pub with other part-time commitments such as school or university. These new employment costs mean that publicans will think again about hiring staff on a part-time basis, driving many people into worklessness. The national insurance rise has had the single most damaging effect on the Saturday job.

In addition to the crippling jobs tax, pubs are also suffering because of stifling increases in business rates. These policies threaten to be a huge—maybe even the final—nail in the coffin of many pubs that are really struggling. Analysis from UKHospitality has found that, by 2027-28, the average pub’s business rates will be £4,500 higher than they are today, rising to an astonishing £12,900 within three years, even with the reduced multiplier and transitional relief. I asked one of my staff members how much they paid for a pint of beer in one of the pubs in my constituency, and they said a pint of lager came to £7.50. That pub would have to sell an extra 1,720 pints just to offset the cost of those shocking tax increases.

The Conservatives recognise the value of our pubs. We have pledged to scrap business rates for 250,000 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses because we recognise the importance of ensuring that businesses keep more of what they earn, allowing them to invest in the community rather than sending it back to central Government. I say to the Minister that Governments do not create growth or jobs; our businesses do. This announcement formed part of our larger campaign to get Britain working again, freeing up money for businesses to hire new people, often younger and always local. It would drive new jobs and economic growth across rural areas of the UK.

Building on that, The Telegraph revealed last month that landlords will be hit with a “nice pub tax” under new guidelines. It found that HMRC has ordered officials to levy higher business rates on pubs that are in attractive locations or based in character properties. That is a complete disaster, and could mean that many pubs are forced—

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

It is important to note that the article in The Telegraph on the changes for rural pubs was about the fact that we published, with full transparency, the guidance used to value pubs that was signed off under the previous Government. This Government are cutting pubs’ business rates by 15% this year, freezing them for the next two years and reviewing that very guidance. We respect the press, but that article was fake news, and I do not think it should be repeated in this place.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I love the Minister’s passion, but I have not finished yet, and I encourage him—[Interruption.]

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I make sure that we all understand that lots of Members want to speak? If you start debating with the Minister now, we will lose time. Please respect that, and I encourage you to come to the end of your speech.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will speed up, Mrs Hobhouse, but I encourage the Minister to wait until I have finished. The litany of regulation, such as in the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the taxes that the Government have raised have had a huge impact. Labour is waging war on our rural pubs. Those publicans can feel it, and we can all see it.

I know that we are all looking forward to England’s first world cup game against Croatia this evening, and along with all Members, I wish them the very best. We have some of the highest alcohol duties on a pint of beer. I do not want to broach the subject of the EU but, while I am not a natural fan of closer alignment, it seems that Europe is in a better place on this, so I ask the Minister to comment on that.

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mrs Hobhouse; hopefully you will be Madam Deputy Speaker one day. In conclusion, I say to the Minister that the litany of measures taken by the Government have affected Saturday jobs and had a huge impact on young people. He has shown a lot of passion, but I encourage him to show bravery—and perhaps England fans will chant his name tonight.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank Members across the House for their moving stories of charity in their local pubs, the exciting growth stories and the stories of community. The Minister has heard very loudly the deafening calls for change. Hospitality is crying out for more breathing space. He gave a bit of hope on investment relief, but the Government need to go a lot faster and further. Not doing anything is also a decision, and it will have a huge impact, because more and more pubs will go under and unemployment will continue to rise, especially youth unemployment.

We want the Minister to be successful on economic growth. That endeavour is good for us all, but we cannot tax our way to growth. I encourage him to reflect on what has been said, and to be bold and brave. Although I will not be chanting his name tonight, I hope that he will recognise how deafening the calls for change are.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of fiscal support for rural pubs.

Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Many grassroots music venues are valued as pubs. Intricacies and complexities in the business rates system mean that, when we think of pubs, it is important also to think of grassroots music venues up and down the country. We must provide support to them and to other businesses. That is why the Government stepped in with the £4.3 billion of transitional protection, over £2 billion of which will be in place this year.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Those who run pubs in my constituency are really worried about the Budget and its impact on their business rates bills. Last week the Business Secretary said that there was no way the Government could have known about the impact of their decisions, but the valuation office then confirmed that it had told Ministers about the impact of their decisions, which I think the Minister has confirmed. He also confirmed that that data was easily accessible, so why did that happen? Was it wilful ignorance, was it incompetence or did they just go ahead anyway?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am glad that the hon. Member was able to ask the exact same question as the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride). I am not going to comment on the policymaking process in the run-up to the Budget.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) talked about millionaires getting a tax cut, but we are talking about young families getting on the ladder. Does my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor agree that while Labour Members engage in the politics of envy, we will always engage in the politics of hope?

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As Paul Johnson, formerly of the Institute for Fiscal Studies—I quoted him earlier—says, this tax

“also acts to reduce effective supply for everyone”

right across every age and every section of the income scale.

If only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell)—I see he is not in his place—who is a former director of the Resolution Foundation, could show some backbone and at least agree with his former self and the quote that I read out from the Resolution Foundation. The facts are clear: the Government should support this motion today if they believe in growth, a fairer society and a stronger economy.

As we approach the Budget, through a period of great uncertainty, the Chancellor faces a clear choice—a choice between still higher taxes, and controlling spending and getting taxes down; between continued anaemic growth and getting the size of the Government under control; between destroying jobs, and getting people off benefits and into work; and between doing the right thing for our country and simply ducking the challenge. The Opposition know what must be done, even at this late stage, to save our economy. Perhaps even the Chancellor herself knows, deep in her heart, that we are right. Yet is it not the truth that faced with the serried ranks of obstinate delusion arrayed behind her, she is just too weak to act? No plan, no backbone—no wonder that under this Government we are staring into the abyss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

On helping Ministers with amnesia, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there was a pandemic that required a huge amount of intervention, or is he claiming that he would not have supported so many people during that period?

[James Murray]

Speaking of amnesia, a lot of Conservatives have forgotten Liz Truss and are not prepared to talk about the impact she had.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is very interesting to follow the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), because I mentioned him in an earlier intervention. He knows that I fundamentally disagree with him. Abolishing stamp duty would be a tax cut for everybody, irrespective of the value of their houses. Fundamentally, we know that the housing market is gummed up, and I have serious questions about whether the Labour Government will be able to meet their housing targets. I am not sure what the housing numbers are currently—maybe he will be able to enlighten me—but this is fundamentally a tax cut that would apply to everybody.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said earlier, the speeches from Labour Members have been very interesting, but they are slightly siloed. They slightly miss out the context of what we are talking about: the economy is stalling, and the jobs tax means that unemployment has gone up. More hard-working people are now unemployed, and more young people are now out of work, as a result of this Labour Government. They can talk down this motion—as I am sure they will, because the Whips have told them to do so—but the reality is that we are putting something on the table that is credible and funded, that will un-gum the housing market, and that will contribute £1.2 billion-worth of economic growth. At a time when the Chancellor is scrambling to fill her own black hole, we are putting credible ideas on the table that the Government should take more seriously.

[Connor Naismith]

The hon. Gentleman said that this tax cut would benefit everybody. Can he tell me how it would benefit people who do not currently pay it because their property is not worth enough?

[Saqib Bhatti]

First of all, it would increase mobility in the housing market. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) stated in an incredibly eloquent speech, it would also mean that the construction industry and all the peripheral jobs would start to mobilise. It would create economic growth—I suspect that the figure of £1.2 billion is probably a bit of an underestimate, and that abolishing stamp duty would actually create more growth. We are talking about creating jobs, making people wealthier and being aspirational for the aspirational, whereas Labour Members are talking down a credible policy that would put money on the table for some of our poorest people. Ultimately, abolishing stamp duty would mean that more and more people are able to get on to the housing ladder.

Let us face it: the Government are not going to meet their housing targets. It is already quite obvious that they are massively behind, and it will not be possible to meet their targets. They are killing off aspiration and confidence in the economy, and house builders will not want to meet the targets—unless, of course, they are met with huge subsidies. The question I have for those on the Government Benches is this: given the current economic situation, how much representation have they made to their Chancellor about introducing growth principles and cutting taxes so that people have more money in their pockets? The answer will be none, because that is not happening.

The hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) said that he was not making an argument for not cutting welfare, but he did not put a figure on the table. We know that the welfare bill is ballooning, and it started ballooning post covid. We intervened during the pandemic, which had to happen. We saved a £2 trillion economy, we saved businesses and we saved jobs. We did all those things—sometimes with the support of those on the Opposition Benches and sometimes without, I am sad to say—to save the economy. Of course, all of that comes with a cost. It is now right that we look forward to make sure that we are putting proposals on the table that help grow the economy and, by the way, help the Chancellor to get out of this mess. I want her to do better, because right now I have constituents who are struggling, who are anxious and who are worried. Her policies, backed by those on the Labour Back Benches, have contributed to higher inflation and a higher cost of living. These are all consequences that they backed by walking through the voting Lobbies.

There is a Budget coming. Although Labour Back Benchers may be talking in silos, the Government are already briefing the papers about all the taxes that will rise. They talk about “serious Government”, but they are not talking seriously about the cuts that they will have to put on the table, because the Chancellor knows that the moment she does that, it will be her Back Benchers who stab her in the back. That is her fundamental conundrum, because she also has to placate the bond market, where we have highest bond yields. I see Labour Members shaking their heads, but that is the reality of what Back Benchers are dealing with. We are putting good proposals on the table that would mean that young families who want to get on the housing ladder—[Interruption.] I am happy for the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) to intervene if he wants. No? I was offering him an opportunity, because I was getting distracted by his chuntering.

The reality is that most serious economists, such as Dan Neidle and those at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, have said that stamp duty is a bad tax. In fact, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who I hear has been instrumental in writing the Budget, has talked about stamp duty being a “bad tax”. We all agree on that, so we have put a funded policy on the table that the Chancellor is going to need. Surely this is something that we should all take seriously, because the Government will need answers. I suspect we will come back to that.

A lot has been made of the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. The Chief Secretary to Treasury said that they are “ironclad”, and I suspect they are until the next ones. We have a golden rule. In the spirit of rules, the Leader of the Opposition has created a golden rule, which is that for every £1 saved, half will go to cutting our national debt. Surely we can all get behind that. When the interest on our debt is something like £100 billion a year, surely we can get behind that. When the Chancellor is borrowing more month after month to meet everyday spending, as is obviously happening, we should get behind that rule.

The last point I want to make is about the cliff-edge argument. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire mentioned, we had the window during covid. I was one of those on the receiving end of not being able to buy a house at that time. I was looking for a house for my new family, and houses were going quickly because people were trying to beat the cliff edge at the end of the stamp duty window. This proposal is not the same, because this gets rid of such a window, and it means that more and more people will be able to buy houses.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am perplexed by the argument the Liberal Democrats have advanced that abolishing stamp duty will raise prices. Presumably the quid pro quo is that raising it would lower prices, so why are they not proposing that policy?

[Saqib Bhatti]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson will address it, but that speaks to the economic incoherence of what they have presented.

Fundamentally, we believe in property rights. We believe in the ownership of property and the rights that derive from it, which are among the freedoms—the fundamental freedoms—in this country. It was a moment of great pride when I got the keys to my first house, and I am sure it is the same for others. Cutting stamp duty is the right thing to do, and if we win the next election, that is exactly what we will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Connor Naismith]

I completely agree. The most common reason I hear from my constituents for their inability to get on the housing ladder is that astronomical rise in house prices.

[Saqib Bhatti]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Connor Naismith]

I will make some progress. The motion tells us everything we need to know about the priorities of the Conservative party today. In the context of the vast majority of options that we could choose to pursue, this is a regressive tax cut, funded once again by cuts—cuts that they will not be brave enough to specify with any credibility. Reckless with our public finances, reckless with our public services, and utterly out of touch with the realities facing working families in constituencies like mine in Crewe and Nantwich.

[Saqib Bhatti]

The hon. Member uses the word reckless. Has he heard the news that the OBR has said the Chancellor will have to find another £7 billion to £9 billion due to the fall in productivity? Therefore her black hole has just got bigger.

[Connor Naismith]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Look, we will await the Budget to see the OBR’s forecasts, but I will take no lessons from the party opposite on economic credibility. They are the party of Liz Truss, which dragged this country into the economic abyss.

We know that Tory austerity and a lack of investment in our country’s infrastructure are part of the story of why our economic growth and productivity have never recovered since the financial crash in 2008. It seems like the Conservatives want to take us right back to the beginning of that 14 years of chaos, failure and decline. I think my constituents would say no, frankly. What is worse, the Conservatives cannot even tell us with any credibility where the cuts would fall. We have seen this playbook before. They have no credible plan to pay for their promises, just vague talk of savings from the very services that our communities rely on—our schools, NHS and local infrastructure. The Tories have some cheek to come here and talk about home ownership when they manifestly failed to build the homes that our country needs because they presided over a broken planning system that they did nothing to reform.

As I mentioned earlier, my constituents have not forgotten what Liz Truss’s mini-Budget did to their mortgage payments. During the election campaign, I spoke directly with families in Crewe and Nantwich who had seen their monthly costs soar overnight. I distinctly remember speaking to a man who told me that his mortgage payments had risen by £1,000 a month and that he had been forced to sell his home as a result. If we want to examine the reality beyond the rhetoric of the modern day Conservative party’s record on home ownership, it is that: failure to deliver, soaring prices and broken dreams.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I will give a shorter answer, given the time available. We will be setting out further detail shortly about where we will be piloting these place-based business cases. It is a new process for Whitehall. It requires a level of co-ordination that does not currently exist, but the outcome if we get it right will be people experiencing co-ordinated, thoughtful infrastructure spending in the places they live, in a way that makes sense for how they live in those areas. I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to bid for Darlington as we decide where to pilot those place-based business cases in due course.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

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?

[Darren Jones]

The difference from the last Government is that they promised things with no money, and we are promising things with actual money. The hon. Member points to the midlands hub in the spending review document. That is about development funding. One of our different approaches under this infrastructure strategy is that, instead of just allocating the total estimated spend at the start of the project and letting the project get on without proper oversight, we are issuing development funding earlier and more often, so that we can have properly costed business cases with proper assurance. That means we can guarantee members of the public that we will deliver on our promises, unlike his party.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I have missed out on the particular historical gems that my hon. Friend mentions, but my daughter is a big fan of Southend so obviously I agree with him wholeheartedly. And the Government agree with my hon. Friend, which is why last December we announced the largest round of the community ownership fund, awarding £36 million to 85 projects across the UK. In fact, I agree with my hon. Friend so much that my own office is in the rejuvenated Albert Hall in Swansea, which has had previous incarnations as a cinema, a bingo venue and a music venue—but behaviour in that building is much better these days.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

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?

[Torsten Bell]

What the sector is doing is welcoming the trade deals done by the Government yesterday. What it is worried about is a Conservative party that cannot bring itself to welcome a single trade deal with any country around the world. The party of Robert Peel has turned its back on the entire world.

Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

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—

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister to respond to the debate.

Family Businesses

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I recognise the strength of feeling about this issue. We were left a terrible situation by the previous Government, with a £22 billion black hole in the public finances and the promise of things for which absolutely no money had been put aside. We have now done the responsible thing by reviewing the programmes that we inherited from the previous Government. That means that the timetable for some projects has had to be pushed back, but it is because the previous Government made promises knowing that the cheque would bounce.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

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?

[Rachel Reeves]

I had to do a once-in-a-generation Budget in October to fix the mess in the public finances left by the previous Government. I will never have to do a Budget like that again because we have now fixed that terrible inheritance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the disastrous impacts of the Conservative mini-Budget just over two years ago, which is still having an impact on people’s lives as they pay higher mortgage bills. This Government have committed to return sustainability to the economy and to working with business to reform our planning system, our pensions system and our skills system. We have already brought in £63.5 billion of private sector investment to grow our economy in all parts of the country and deliver the jobs and better wages that constituents in Cramlington and right across the country need to see.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Small business owners are working people, and they are some of the hardest-working people that I know. The Labour party struggled to define them over the weekend, but does the Chancellor agree that any rise in fuel duty, which the Conservatives froze or cut for 14 years, would be a tax on those hard-working people or those hard-working small business owners?

[Rachel Reeves]

The previous Government factored into their forecasts an increase in fuel duty this year. I will set out our plans in the Budget tomorrow.

VAT: Independent Schools

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I want to say from the outset that this is clearly an attack on aspiration, an attack on opportunity. I say to the constituents of the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that he voted for winter fuel payments to be slashed and now he is voting for an attack on hard-working families who will be struggling to make ends meet. I went to a state school and an independent school and I was grateful for both those journeys and the education that I received in both. Plenty of hard-working families will be struggling to make ends meet.

The first point I want to make is about tone. I will come back to the Education Secretary’s tweet, which was deeply offensive. Surely Labour Members must acknowledge—it is a simple case of maths—that people who are rich enough to afford VAT increases, whether it is 4%, 16%, which is the average, or the whole 20%, will continue to send their kids to independent schools and pay the fees. It is the people who are struggling to make ends meet, or the really hard-up families, or—God forbid—parents of children who are on scholarships and bursaries who will no longer be able to send their kids to those schools, because those schools will have to withdraw those scholarships and bursaries as they will be less affordable. So the tone of this debate is really important. I would caution the Government to be more reticent on this. They refer to tax breaks; these are not tax breaks. Education should not be, and is not, taxed, and they are about to open that Pandora’s box.

There have been a lot of comments from Government Members about state schools. I agree: standards in state schools should be improved. They talk about the last 14 years. We delivered a real-terms increase per pupil. We have delivered record funding—about £60 billion. They may challenge that, but it is pure fact. I am happy to share those facts. We did that, and the result of that, especially with our focus on things like phonics, which Labour challenged when in opposition, is that we now have some of the highest reading standards in the world—independently and internationally rated. We also have some of the highest ratings in mathematics. So the Government may try to frame this debate as anything other than ideological, but those arguments are severely undermined by the Education Secretary’s tweet, which put it out there that this is really a class war.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a great point about how this change is ideologically motivated. Can he see why there is a difference between private school fees, which the Government have chosen to tax, and something like Kip McGrath tuition, which is also a paid-for form of education, which they have chosen not to tax—at least yet?

[Saqib Bhatti]

My hon. Friend made an excellent speech about the practicalities of introducing this change in January, and she makes an excellent point now about the slippery slope involved. The Government say that the money will be focused on educational improvements, but there is no guarantee of that, as it will go into the general pot. They promised 6,500 new teachers, which is fewer than we delivered; it is a drop in the ocean, which will barely make a difference to the hundreds of thousands of schools that, of course, need extra teachers. I concede that point; we should have better educational standards.

SEND will affect every Member of Parliament. It affects me. I was with a north Solihull parents group just a few weeks ago. Those parents will no longer be able to afford to give their children a private education for SEND purposes, and they will now have to rely on the state. Surely Government Members can see that that will further increase the burden on state provision, particularly if they are right that there is a lack of teachers. The Minister might address this point: how does this policy improve state school provision? How does it improve the standard and quality of delivery for SEND parents? It was all right for the Prime Minister to make special provision for his kids, and for the Education Secretary to have a benefactor, but what are these parents going to do?