Contact Us
Sign In
Join us

Parliamentarians have been raising the impact of last year's Budget on retailers at debates and through written questions this week. 

With the industry facing £5 billion in new costs from the Budget this year - plus a further £2 billion from the new packaging levy, Extended Producer Responsibility - we've been speaking to and briefing MPs and Peers from all parties to explain how the significant cost burden will curtail retail investment, damage the industry's ability to offer crucial part-time jobs and place inflationary pressure on prices.

 Our concerns have been raised by Parliamentarians during debates on support for high street businesses and High Street Rental Auctions which took place this week, the Shadow Business Secretary and the Lord Taylor of Warwick. 

Read on to find the full details. 

 

House of Commons Debate: Family Businesses

Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con): Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) reminded us why we are really here today. We are here today because Labour broke its election promises. It has increased spending by £76 billion a year—eight times what was in its manifesto—and it is business that is paying the price. Business is not an abstraction; it is our pubs, our cafés, our restaurants and bars, our clothes shops and our newsagents. They are very real, and they are in very real danger. For many of them, the choices the Government have made will be terminal. The British Retail Consortium, the British Chambers of Commerce, UKHospitality, the Federation of Small Businesses and Family Business UK are all ringing the alarm bells, but this Government are not listening, and we have heard that across this House, including from the other parties here today.

 

Westminster Hall Debate: High Street Rental Auctions

David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con): In recent comments, the British Retail Consortium comments said that the Government's measure to increase the rate of employer national insurance contributions—that single policy alone—is likely to lead to a net loss of 160,000 jobs over the next two years, in particular because of its impact on those large numbers of people who are in lower-paid, but flexible and part-time work. Most of us will have heard from businesses in our constituencies that they remain extremely concerned about that bigger issue. There is also concern in respect of the changes being introduced to non-domestic rates—business rates—an assessment that has been shared by a very wide group of professionals.

 

Westminster Hall Debate: High Street Businesses

Gregor Poynton: As I was saying, the rejuvenation of our high streets and town centres is possible, but the problem in Scotland is that the Scottish Government have failed to share that vision, energy and determination. Sadly, there has been little in the way of action from the SNP but—as always with the SNP—over its 18 years in power there has been no shortage of reports. Since 2013, we have had the national town centre review, the town centre action plan, the town centre action plan year 1 progress report, the town centre action plan year 2 progress report, the town centre action plan review, the “A New Future for Scotland's Town Centres” report, a joint response to that report with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and the town centre action plan 2, which is a response to that response. Little wonder then that David Lonsdale, the director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, spoke recently on the need for coherent policymaking. The fact is that Scotland's town centres are yet another casualty of the SNP's mismanagement and chaotic government.

 

House of Lords Written Questions Tabled 

The Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-affiliated): To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the statement by the British Retail Consortium that 160,000 part-time retail jobs may be at risk as a result of regulatory changes and increased employer costs. (HL5333) (Department for Work and Pensions).