Gareth Bacon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Nov 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The point of the amendment is to put passengers at the heart of the decision making we are asking for. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] The point of the amendment is to put passengers at the heart of the decision making, and the proposed amendment would ensure that this legislation is in the service of improving passenger experience, not purely in the service of fulfilling an ideological undertaking. Lords amendment 2 would also ensure that the Government, alongside stakeholders, consider carefully what performance data is most relevant to passenger experience, and would ensure that that data is taken into consideration when undertaking the actions facilitated by the legislation. I fail to understand why the Government would be opposed to such a clearly reasonable protective measure, but I can guess. In justifying this ideological legislation, the Government have made clear their intention to utilise selective performance data. Rather than clarifying the relevant performance information for its own administrative use or for passenger understanding, they are obscuring it, allowing the Government to fulfil an ideological project untethered from the public’s wish to see their experiences on the railways improved. Of course, the Government could choose to put politics aside and support the amendment, and we call on them to do so. If they did, that would signal that while they are undertaking this ideological rail project, they are also seriously considering the need for the legislation to make an actual improvement to passenger experience. This amendment will help the Government’s actions, and it is not founded on selective principles. A failure to accept the proposed amendments will also fail to ensure that the ideological measures being undertaken by this Government take into account the needs and experiences of passengers.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Bus Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for delivering her statement to the House, and for advance sight of it. It was, of course, the last Government who provided £4.5 billion of funding to the bus sector since 2020 alone. Some £2 billion of that was allocated to support every single local transport authority in England to deliver their local bus service improvement plans, helping to support buses following the pandemic and ensuring more frequent, more reliable and cheaper bus transport across the country. Conservative Members are familiar with the need to properly fund bus services, but simply spending a bit more money will not necessarily improve outcomes. As such, we would welcome details on whether and how the Secretary of State can assure the House and the taxpayer that the money allocated today will actually go towards the improvement of bus services in the long term. How will she ensure that the money allocated today, and the bus service improvement plans that go with this investment, will remain aligned with any possible future franchising? If the Secretary of State cannot give assurances on these points, there is a danger that the Government are taking short-term action that avoids facing complex long-term problems. Unfortunately, in the four months that this Government have been in office, that has been their approach to every single major issue they have faced so far. Whether it is the winter fuel allowance, the family farm tax or the increase to the bus fare cap, the Government seem at a loss as to why their policies are so unpopular, and why—only a few months into this Government—they are so deeply distrusted by the British public. Governing is tough, and it requires taking real responsibility and considering the consequences of decisions before they are taken. For example, the decision to increase the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 will cost users more— [ Interruption. ] Wait for it. It will cost users more and—perversely—put at risk passenger services on certain routes, because it could counter-productively drive bus ridership down. Between 2022 and 2023, the £2 bus cap cut fares outside London by 7.4%, and the rate was 10.8% in rural and non-metropolitan areas in England. That is an example of a policy that worked, which is why the Government’s decision to increase the cap by 50% is such a disappointment. The right hon. Lady, in defending her decision to hike bus fares, has been making the argument—she has done so again this afternoon—that the fare cap was to run only until end of the year. But as she knows full well—her Back Benchers can be excused for not knowing this—it is standard Government practice to set funding arrangements until a given date. She has guaranteed the £3 cap only until the end of 2025 and has made no commitment to extend it beyond that. She is also well aware that it was a Conservative party manifesto commitment to extend the cap and maintain it at £2 for the lifetime of this Parliament. Not extending the £2 cap was not inevitable; it was a decision that the Government chose to make. Why do the right hon. Lady’s Government claim that they cannot afford to retain the £2 bus fare cap, which is making a real difference to the lives of passengers and the viability of public services across the country, and yet she can give hundreds of millions of pounds in additional funding here without any guarantee of success in improving service or delivery? While I await the right hon. Lady’s answer, I have a theory. She is set on an undertaking—the ideological drive for bus franchising—and, make no mistake, it is ideological. Bus franchising does work in some places, but by no means will it work everywhere. The Government claim that they will not impose franchises everywhere, but there is a danger that her push for bus franchising will force local authorities into feeling that they are expected to undertake this ideological venture—one that they say they may well be unprepared and unequipped for—which would lead to a worse outcome for passengers. I call on the Secretary of State to make clear her answers to those questions and assure the House and the taxpayer that all the money allocated will be held to account in delivering real and lasting service improvement for passengers, whose interests should, of course, be at the centre of all decisions made by the Government.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rail Performance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for sharing an advance copy. I agree that rail performance is a key concern to passengers throughout the country, and it is a fair criticism to say that several operators have consistently underperformed. That is why, when we were in government, we took action to improve performance on our railways, investing more than £100 billion to operate and enhance our railways since 2010, and electrifying more than 1,200 miles of track—compared to just 63 miles under the last Labour Government. I am glad that the Government are taking forward the framework offered in the previous Conservative Government’s Williams-Shapps review. Having a more joined-up rail network should indeed deliver key improvements. However, it is disappointing that the Government have progressed with their plans for the effective nationalisation of the rail operators by ending private rail operator franchising, despite all the evidence pointing to the fact that that will be contrary to the aim of improving rail performance. We know that while in some cases it has been necessary in the short term to bring rail operators into public control, it has not made the difference in performance that the Government would have us believe. It takes only a cursory glance at passenger rail performance statistics to see that some of the rail operators operating under public control have done little or nothing to improve cancellations or delays in relation to other operators. For example, the Secretary of State mentioned TransPennine Express and a decrease in cancellations since the operator was taken into public ownership, but she made no reference to delays. Data from the Office for Rail and Road show that in the four years prior to the train operator coming under public control, passengers faced an average of 8,130 delay minutes per month. From period 2 of 2023-24, when the operator was brought into public ownership, up to period 4 of 2024-25, average monthly delays have increased by 1,677 minutes, to 9,807 a month. In addition, for the year ’23-24, data shows that train operators run by private companies in England had an average on time rate of 64.36%. For train operators in public control, by contrast, the average was 57.7%—a difference of just under seven percentage points. Public ownership is not the panacea that the right hon. Lady claims, so it is disingenuous for the Government to argue that wholesale public control of rail operation will do everything to improve performance, particularly for operators that are already performing well. Under the Government’s plans to end private rail operator franchising, the first contracts set to expire and be picked up by the Government are some of the highest performing franchises. The Government risk making the mistake of taking credit for comparatively strong performance, which will occur not as a result of their measures but as a result of the successes of the previous private franchising. That would mean the Government drawing the wrong conclusions from their actions, and it would have implications for future decision making. It should be appreciated that the role of open access operators has been one of the greatest success stories within our rail network. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to provide greater clarity to the sector on how their plans for the rail network will impact on open access operators. It is also essential that the Secretary of State finally clarifies the long-term plan for rolling stock under the Government’s measures. I appreciate that in Labour’s brave new world, all decisions are reflected through the ideological prism of “public good, private bad”, but there is a fundamental risk that the Government are taking ideological action to the long-term detriment of rail performance. Among our counterparts in Europe, it is widely acknowledged that rail privatisation has been successful in increasing passenger numbers, encouraging investment and controlling costs. In Italy, for example, prices have reduced by 31%, and Austria has witnessed a 41% increase in service frequency. There is a serious risk that the Government’s plans will take us backwards on those key areas without offering any promise of improvement on performance, or improved journeys or fares for passengers. We all fully acknowledge the difficulties facing our railways, and nobody should accept poor performance —we have, unfortunately, seen that in some areas of our network—but merely enacting demonstrative but counterintuitive measures designed to communicate action is no substitute for making measured and pragmatic choices. For example, the Government and the Secretary of State have chosen to offer inflation-busting pay rises with no working practice reform in exchange. Without substantial working practice reform, it is deeply unlikely that the cost of the pay deals will be offset by improved performance, and the failure to introduce working practice reform will mean continued performance difficulties on our railways. Can the Secretary of State offer a guarantee today that ending private rail franchising without implementing working practice reform will lead to demonstrably improved performance? If she cannot offer that guarantee, the Government should shelve the ideology and take a step back to pause and examine whether their package of measures will truly improve rail performance. It surely makes more sense to learn from the performance statistics; to understand from the experience of the continent and our past the improvements that the private sector can bring; and to prioritise the practical over the ideological.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Draft Franchising Schemes (Franchising Authorities) (England) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Minister for his warm words of welcome at the outset. We recognise that the expansion of bus franchising was a Labour party manifesto commitment, and we are not going to oppose that mandate. In fact, in principle, we support the idea of local areas having more say over the services they can offer local people. But there are some question marks over these plans—questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised back in September in relation to the Minister’s statement to the House, and which, I am afraid, we are not yet fully satisfied we have heard answered. Will the Minister therefore answer them today? First, how much has been budgeted for the increased cost of this plan to the Department for Transport, to support local authorities to prepare these assessments and then to measure them against the criteria, and also to help local authorities plan their franchises when they do not have the experience to do so, which I believe the Minister has said is part of the plan? Secondly, how much has been budgeted for the increase in costs to local authorities, both in terms of the additional resources they will require to plan and run bus services, and in a business sense? In many rural areas, and even in Greater London, bus services lose money and often require subsidies. Where will that money come from? And, while we are at it, where will the money to buy the buses come from? The Minister suggested that the coming buses Bill would contain regulations about devolving funding—I would like to hear a bit more about that. If the answer is that we have not budgeted for it, or that it is coming from existing budgets, that can only mean council taxes going up, or cuts to local services such as social care or universal services such as waste collection. There would appear to be no third option. At the end of the day, passengers do not care who is running their bus; they care about the price, performance and reliability of services. We are yet to hear a convincing case for how these reforms will actually make a difference to passengers’ journeys. Are buses more likely to run on time and, if so, by how much more? Will these reforms help to restore the number of rural services? Will they make journeys cheaper for passengers? That seems unlikely, given the 50% hike in fares. I do not doubt that bus franchising can, does and will work for some areas, but the insinuation of today’s statutory instrument is that it should be happening everywhere. We have yet to hear anything that convinces us that that will be the case, and that is not to mention the fact that the proposal currently appears to be unfunded. I would be grateful if the Minister could assuage our concerns this afternoon.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Flight Cancellations · Hansard source

  More

  Flight cancellations are a significant issue that we took seriously in government, and worked across the sector to tackle. I am proud that in government we published the aviation passenger charter, which included clearer advice on how passengers can resolve issues to do with cancelled and delayed flights, as well as missing baggage and the rights of disabled passengers. In 2023, we halved air passenger duty for domestic flights. We also made a commitment to strengthen the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority. Does the Minister intend to take that forward? When in government, we also published “Flight path to the future”, which included a substantial framework for increasing the efficiency of the aviation system and supporting passengers as we move further towards the goal of sustainable aviation. What further steps will the Minister take to ensure that the measures that we set out to improve the aviation sector and the passenger experience are taken forward? Frankly, this Government have failed the public so far. Last week’s Budget was, in large part, an attack on workers, businesses, farmers and the aviation sector. The Government’s decision to increase air passenger duty has led to a worried response from the passenger aviation sector, and Ryanair has already announced its intention of cutting flights to and from UK airports by 10%. The Government have so far shown themselves to be deeply uninterested in the consequences of their actions for workers, farmers and now air passengers. More in hope than expectation, I ask the Minister: what steps will the Government take to improve the relationship with the passenger aviation sector and ensure that passengers are well served?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), who made a heartfelt and moving maiden speech. She will clearly be a doughty champion for her constituents in the years to come, and I wish her well in this House. It has been barely five days since the Chancellor laid her first Budget before the House, and it was worse than anyone could have imagined. Far from protecting working people, it has punished workers, businesses, entrepreneurs and investors—the very people who help us to prosper as a country. It has spooked the markets. The cost of borrowing has gone up significantly, and debt interest will be higher as a result. So much for restoring stability. The Institute of Directors described it as a “painful Budget for business”, and the OBR has downgraded its growth projections for the next five years, and says that inflation will creep up again, which in turn means that interest rates will stay higher for longer, as will people’s mortgages. The IFS has warned that Labour’s national insurance hike will hit low-paid jobs the hardest, and will force firms to cut salaries, cut hiring and raise prices. So much for protecting working people. Astoundingly, for a Government who claim that they are all about economic growth, while private companies have seen their taxes hiked overnight, the public sector will be protected and given much more funding. Public services are important—no one would claim otherwise—but the wealth of this nation is built not by the Government but by private enterprise and entrepreneurs. It is the innovation, ingenuity and enterprise of the private sector that creates opportunity, growth and prosperity. The Government should recognise and reward it, not stifle and punish it. This was a Budget of broken promises. During the election, the Labour party promised voters 50 times that it would not raise taxes on working people. The Prime Minister promised it. The Chancellor promised it. The entire Front Bench promised it. Indeed, it was there for all to see, in black and white in their manifesto, but despite all their promises, they have raised taxes by £40 billion to an all-time high. That has been done on the backs of working people, on the backs of those who own a business, on the backs of those who take risks, invest in the UK and create jobs, on the backs of those who have worked hard and saved to own property or shares, on the backs of those who work in agriculture, and on the backs of those who send their children to independent schools. The Labour party does not think that those people are working people, but they are, and they will not forget it. None of this should come as a surprise, of course. We know, given the farcical verbal knots that they have tied themselves in over the past few weeks, that Labour Front Benchers cannot even define what a working person is. The British people have been betrayed, and everyone can see what the Labour Government have done. It is very clear that they had planned all along to jack up our taxes but would not come clean. They made all sorts of promises during the election—they were going to steady the ship and achieve the highest sustained growth in the G7—and said that all their policies were “fully costed” and “fully funded.” However, as soon as they got into power, they invented the so-called black hole, which no one believes exists, and which even the OBR has refused to legitimise. They have wasted no time in fiddling the rules so that they can borrow billions more for their lavish spending, subjecting the British people to misery through record tax rises. The British people will not forget what is being done to them. Those high-tax, high-spend policies will not protect working people. The prioritisation of trade union donors over small businesses and pensioners will not protect working people. The deliberate punishment of risk takers and job creators will not protect working people. But at this stage, it is not too late. It is not too late to apologise to the British public and rescue them from this disaster. It is not too late to listen to people who have experience of the real world —those who have set up their own businesses, taken risks and employed people, and created wealth and growth. It is not too late to change course, so the Government should show some humility and do so.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Sectoral Collective Bargaining · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s impact assessment for the adult social care sector confirmed that collective bargaining will be very costly for business. If pay awards match those of junior doctors, the cost of the increased wage bill will be £5.8 billion, driving up business rates, reducing employment or hours, and imposing further costs on business. Can the Minister confirm when further collective bargaining will be rolled out, to which sectors, and by how much those businesses can expect to be clobbered?

• 28 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has consistently called for the power to impose rent controls across Greater London. He cannot do that unless the Government change the law. Whenever it has been tried around the world it has failed, typically with rental property supply falling and rents perversely rising. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity now to rule out the possibility of imposing rent controls in Greater London?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Paternity Leave and Pay · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) on securing the debate. I also thank the numerous Members who contributed to the debate. I would run through them all—I have written them down—but there are 17 and I am conscious of time, so I will move forward. I welcome the fact that so many Members have come here to talk about this important subject. Opposition Members want to ensure that employees do not have to choose between a rewarding career and a fulfilling life. Due to reforms that were introduced by the previous Government, Britain now has a vastly improved paternity leave package. In July 2019, the previous Government consulted on whether the existing arrangements for parental leave and pay were adequate, and whether more could be done to better balance the gender division of parental leave and pay between parents. The consultation sought views on the costs and benefits of reforming parental entitlements and any trade-offs that might need to accompany such reform. The Government response, published in June 2023, set out detailed reforms to paternity leave and pay, fulfilling a previous manifesto commitment to make it easier for fathers and partners to take paternity leave. The reforms included: giving employed fathers and partners more choice and flexibility around how and when they take their paternity leave, as we have just heard, allowing them to take two separate blocks of one week of leave; giving employed fathers and partners the ability to take their leave at any time in the first year after the child’s due date or birth, rather than just in the first eight weeks after birth or placement for adoption; and changing the requirements for paternity leave to make them more proportionate to the amount of time the father or parent plans to take off work, cutting the amount of notice of dates from 15 weeks before the expected week of childbirth to 28 days before the leave will be taken. Moreover, the previous Government supported the passage of what was then called the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill—a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who was at that time the hon. Member for Ogmore—to remove the qualifying employment condition for shared parental leave when the birth mother or adopting parent had died. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend for steering the Bill through Parliament. It provided an important extension of support and protection for parents facing one of the most challenging situations in their lives. I am conscious of time, so I shall wind up. His Majesty’s Opposition have taken note of the measures proposed in the Employment Rights Bill concerning paternity leave and pay. The Conservative party has always been the party of business, but we have also been pro-worker; getting the balance right is vital. We will therefore closely review the Bill’s provisions as it progresses through the House and will assess them on their individual merits.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Whistleblowing Protections · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on securing this debate. I thank the hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for Congleton (Mrs Russell) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for their contributions this afternoon. I welcome the fact that so many Members recognise how valuable it is that whistleblowers are prepared to shine a light on wrongdoing and believe that they should be able to do so without recrimination. Whistleblowers do absolutely crucial work to expose wrongdoing and ensure accountability. Forty-three per cent of economic crimes are highlighted by whistleblowers, and workers are often the first people to witness any type of wrongdoing within an organisation. Information that workers may uncover could prevent wrongdoing that may damage an organisation’s reputation or performance, and in extreme circumstances, even save people from harm or death. For authorities tackling corruption, fraud and other forms of crime, whistleblowing is a crucial source of evidence, as those activities and their perpetrators can often be exposed only by insiders. That was keenly felt during the height of the covid-19 pandemic when the Care Quality Commission and the Health and Safety Executive recorded sharp increases in the number of whistleblowing disclosures that they received; and during the Horizon scandal, when a whistleblower was featured in a BBC “Panaroma” documentary in 2015, as has been mentioned, which helped to expose the truth, contributing to the successful postmasters’ legal case in 2019. The UK’s whistleblowing framework was introduced through the Public Interest Disclosure Act. It was intended to build openness and trust in workplaces by ensuring that workers can hold their employers to account and then be treated fairly. It provides a route for workers to make disclosures of wrongdoing, including criminal offences, the endangerment of health and safety, causing damage to the environment, a miscarriage of justice or a breach of any legal obligation. The previous Government recognised that there was weakness in that framework and made numerous attempts to improve it. In 2013, the Government published a wide-ranging call for evidence on the effectiveness of the framework, and in 2014, set out a plan of legislative and non-legislative means to improve it. That plan included extending protections to student nurses and midwives, regularly updating the list of prescribed persons and introduced a requirement of prescribed persons to produce an annual report on whistleblowing disclosures that they receive. Moreover, under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the previous Government launched a review in March 2023 of the whistleblowing framework. That review examined the effectiveness of the framework in meeting its intended objectives, which are to enable workers to come forward and speak up about wrongdoing and to protect those who do so against detriment and dismissal. The initial fact-finding element of that work was completed by Grant Thornton in January this year, as I think the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned in his opening speech. The Government response and the recommendations were awaited, and that work was yet to be completed before the election was called. We on the Opposition Benches welcome the Government’s decision to strengthen protections for whistleblowers, including by updating protection for women who report sexual harassment at work. We will support the related measures in the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill. As Protect set out, this will “send a clear signal that anyone who has been sexually harassed, or witnessed it, can raise their concerns through whistleblowing channels and will be protected from being victimised or dismissed if they do so.” The Government have not yet published a response to the review of the whistleblowing framework. The review would provide an up-to-date evidence base on whistleblowing, allowing the House to effectively scrutinise the Government’s proposals. Will the Minister commit to publishing that review and, if so, when?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are approaching the end of a long and robust debate, with a total of 71 speeches so far and no fewer than seven maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) spoke powerfully and very impressively. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) spoke memorably of overcoming considerable adversity and of her considerable achievements, culminating in her arrival in this House. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) gave a moving tribute to her late parents. The hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) laid down an ambitious claim to have the highest number of castles in his constituency and talked of his grandfather serving on flying boats in world war two, which is something that he and I share. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) spoke of his and his family’s great pride in his taking his seat here in Parliament. The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) spoke fluently about the history of her constituency, in a deeply impressive speech. On the Opposition side, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) talked about the entrepreneurial spirit of Leicestershire and about her fears that it could be eroded by the Bill. She also, I suspect, achieved a first for Parliament by managing to shoehorn a reference to Showaddywaddy into Hansard . My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) spoke movingly of her grandparents’ escape from Nazi Germany and amusingly of the Labour party’s contribution to introducing her parents, ultimately leading to the creation of a future Conservative MP. I commend all hon. Members who made their first mark in this House in a debate on so important a subject. I am sure that they will serve their constituents diligently in the coming years; I wish them all well. There is much that the Opposition believe is wrong with the Bill, but I have limited time, so I will focus primarily on one element—the role of the trade unions, because their influence runs right through it. If, as expected, the House declines to support the amendment in the name of the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and grants the Bill a Second Reading, there will be time to explore the Bill’s many other problems in Committee. A running theme throughout the debate was hon. Members’ enthusiastic declarations of membership of trade unions, but for some reason they forgot to mention how much they have received in financial donations from them. I remind them and the House that, according to the LabourList website, the Government MPs who have spoken today have accumulated a total of £371,974 in donations from the trade unions. Those donations are no surprise. The public are quickly becoming acclimatised to the idea that this Labour party is in the pocket of the highest bidder, whether that be Taylor Swift, Lord Alli or indeed the trade unions. I was, however, pleasantly surprised by the number of hon. Members on the Government Benches who have spoken in today’s debate. When I attended the Bill briefing kindly organised by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), just a handful of Labour Members were in attendance, but today they have turned up in great numbers to sing the Bill’s praises. It is to their credit that they are here. Perhaps they have read or watched news of the harm that this Bill will bring and are quietly apprehensive, but have put their heads above the parapet regardless. However, when push comes to shove, they remember that they will be up for re-election in four or five years’ time, and they have to think about their trade union donors. Very early in this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) said that the Bill is about not growth, but ideology. He is right. This is a trade union charter that will send Britain back to the 1970s. Of course, we know that that is a goal of the Deputy Prime Minister, who has said that she wants to repeal union legislation dating back as far as the 1980s. I appreciate that neither the Secretary of State for Business and Trade nor the Deputy Prime Minister was born until the 1980s, so they will not remember the time when Britain was brought to a grinding halt by the trade unions. The lights were switched off, bodies were left unburied and rubbish piled up all over the place. It is at this point that I remind Members that their constituents will see how they vote today. I understand that the inboxes of Labour Members are already full, following the freebie scandal, the cash-for-access scandal, the political choice to take away the winter fuel payment and the concerns about tax rises in the Budget. They have my sympathy, but I warn them that their inboxes are about to get even busier. When the junior doctors strike, meaning that their constituents cannot access important medical treatment, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. When local councils strike, meaning that their constituents cannot get their bins collected, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. When the train drivers strike, meaning that their constituents cannot see their loved ones, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. And when small businesses fail because they cannot cope with the massive extra bureaucracy and costs, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. As the letters pile high from constituents who are unable to access the services they expect, Labour Members might want to hire more staff, or ask their current staff to work late, but they will be prevented from doing so by the very regulations brought in by this legislation, which they support. Labour’s misunderstanding of labour relations goes right to the top. When the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that a deal had been reached with the British Medical Association, he said that he was making a real difference. However, we now know that the deal has failed and the BMA is already beginning preparations for further strike action just weeks after accepting the pay deal. I represent a Greater London constituency and I, of course, remember the Mayor of London’s promise that there would be no Transport for London strikes under his regime, but that is not going very well either. We now learn, thanks to the latest copy of Civil Service World , that there are set to be strikes in the Secretary of State’s own Department. All of that was before this Bill was introduced. It is clear that, despite being in the pocket of its trade union paymasters, Labour’s approach to industrial relations has failed and will continue to fail. Much of the reason for that future failure will be the rushed job that is this Bill. It has been rushed to the House so quickly that it contains fewer than half of the measures included in the plan to make work pay—a fact recognised by the Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document. A vast amount of it will require secondary legislation to take effect. The Prime Minister has talked incessantly of the Government’s mission to pursue growth, which is an entirely laudable aim, but growth does not just happen. Sometimes, the Government have to do things to facilitate it, and sometimes the Government must not do things that would jeopardise it. The measures in this rushed Bill threaten to destroy any prospect of economic growth. I am sure the Secretary of State will deny it, but the fact remains that the trade unions will always win out against the Labour party. The unions have donated almost £30 million to the Labour party since 2020. According to LabourList, 16 Cabinet Ministers and more than 200 Labour MPs have received training and donations, averaging £9,500 each. This rushed Bill is the first part of what the trade unions have bought with their money: the chance to massively increase their power base, not just in the public sector but in the private sector, especially in small businesses. This will not lead to growth, unless the Prime Minister is talking about growth in red tape and growth in the trade unions’ ability to choke the economy. This rushed Bill is not a charter for economic growth; it is a charter for industrial strife, plunging productivity, rising unemployment, inflation and economic ruin. This rushed Bill is not fit for purpose, and the Government should withdraw it and think again.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Domestic Abuse: Victim Support · Hansard source

  More

  Domestic violence at its most severe becomes murder. Domestic murder is often the most shocking and brutal. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the Killed Women campaign?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Domestic Abuse: Victim Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that answer. In light of that, will she commit to responding to the calls of Carole Gould, Julie Devey and Elaine Newborough and many others to address the injustice of the discrepancy between the starting point for sentences in domestic murder cases versus that for other murder cases? Will she do so in quick time, so that she can include appropriate measures in the forthcoming victims, courts and public protection Bill?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have repeatedly stated that securing economic growth is their fundamental mission, and that is, of course, an entirely laudable aim, but the fact is that more red tape will have the opposite effect. In the light of the right hon. Gentleman’s plans to introduce radical new labour laws, what would he say in response to the Federation of Small Businesses, which has made it clear that firms are increasingly worried about the Government’s proposals, fearing that they will drive up the costs and risks of doing business and thereby reduce their competitiveness and financial stability?

• 3 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In July, borrowing stood at £3.1 billion, well ahead of the OBR’s forecast of £0.1 billion. Does the Chancellor agree that she could have reduced the national debt had she chosen not to reward her trade union paymasters by spending £10 billion on inflation-busting pay rises?