Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Mar 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Well, that was no answer to my question whatsoever. It is almost as if Labour Members have not realised that they are in charge and that it is their decisions that are having this impact. Let me tell the Minister something else that Rumsey’s reported to me: “The reduction in business rate relief will leave me no choice but to raise prices simply to break even, further limiting growth and accessibility for customers.” I just do not know how much more the Minister needs to hear to understand the scale of the problem on our high streets. He talks of business rates reform, but the only business rate change we have seen is the devastating cut to business rates relief, which is hurting high streets now. Will he reverse it?

• 13 Mar 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, the owner of the hugely popular Rumsey’s, which is celebrating 21 years on Wendover high street in my constituency, emailed me to say: “We estimate the changes coming in April will add 15% to our staff costs that we simply don’t have. Therefore we have had to sadly make redundancies, put in a recruitment freeze and implement staff hour cuts to offset this.” With real-world testimony like that replicated up and down the country, will the Minister finally acknowledge that an urgent change of course is needed to support high streets, scrap the employer NI rise, save jobs and protect communities?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is putting up a smoke-and-mirrors argument to try to cover the fact that the Government are changing the status quo from an opt-in system to an opt-out system. To me, it is just straightforward common sense that people would expect to have to opt in rather than, in this particularly egregious case, being casually reminded every 10 years that they could save a bit of money by opting out of a cause that they perhaps did not even agree with in the first place. In fact, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), pledged to end auto-renewal subscriptions. When the Conservatives were in government, we passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which contained two significant proposals on subscription contracts that are notable here. One of those was reminder notices. Businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will renew and payment will be due unless the consumer cancels. The second proposal was to allow consumers to be able to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward, cost-effective and timely way. Businesses need to ensure that the process for terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single communication. The Labour party, which was then in opposition, supported those aims—in fact, the Bill did not go far enough for Labour at the time. On Report, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) tabled new clause 29, which the Labour party voted to add to the Bill. The new clause had a two-pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt into subscriptions renewing automatically either “after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or…if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.” The second aim of the new clause, which the Labour party used to support, would have required that if the consumer did not opt into the arrangement described, the trader had to “provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.” If the consumer did not provide a notification, the subscription contract could not renew. Where am I going with this? [ Interruption. ] Government Members are chuntering too early, because there has been a considerable shift in the Labour party’s policy position on subscription traps. It seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but that it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to the trade union political fund. Under amendment 292 and new clause 88, trade union members would have the same rights, pushed for by Labour, as other individuals with a subscription. New schedule 2 could be used to give sweeping powers to Labour’s trade union paymasters, as the Secretary of State could reduce the threshold for trade union recognition to as little as 2% of the workforce. Trade unions could easily be imposed on workplaces across the country, with small employers being particularly vulnerable. In a workplace of 200 workers, fewer than five of them would be required for workplace recognition. Paired with the other measures in this Bill, that will strike fear into business owners across Britain, who could now be forced to deal with all-powerful trade unions as part of Labour’s return to the 1970s. The way in which Labour has gone about this is just another example of the shoddy nature of this Bill and of Labour’s approach to workplace regulations. The Attorney General has said that “excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined,”— I am quoting him— “but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.” On facility time, amendments 293 and 295 would remove clause 54, “Facilities provided to trade union officials and learning representatives”, and clause 55, “Facilities for equality representatives”. They would remove the requirement to provide reasonable time off for facility time, the creation of facility time for equality representatives and clauses that will reduce transparency requirements over facility time, respectively. Together with amendment 296, they would prevent facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance. Trade union facility time already costs the Government nearly £100 million a year. Under the last Labour Government, the civil service spent 0.26% of its annual pay bill on facility time, compared with 0.04% in the private sector. Under the last Conservative Government, in 2022-23, the average for the civil service was 0.05%. Labour councils are still the worst culprit. The transparency data collected by the Government in ’22-23 shows that Transport for London under the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has 881 full-time equivalent union officials on the books, costing £8 million a year. Bankrupt, Labour-run Birmingham city council has 30 full-time equivalent union officials on its central books, costing £1.2 million—no wonder that it went bankrupt. Furthermore, the council had 12 full-time equivalents in its maintained schools, costing £583,000. Clauses 54 and 55 will increase that cost by giving more time off to public sector union officials at the taxpayer’s expense. That is not right when the Chancellor is asking Ministers to make cuts to their Departments across the board. Public services will be worse and the taxpayer will be expected to contribute more. Furthermore, the Bill extends the right to facility time to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off work to carry out activities for the purposes of “promoting the value of equality in the workplace…arranging learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace…providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace…consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace” and “obtaining and analysing information relating to equality in the workplace”. Those are all noble goals, but that should not be done at the taxpayer’s expense.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Twenty-four hours later, the Minister still cannot name a small business that supports the Bill. That shows how out of their depth this trade union Government are when it comes to supporting businesses in this land. In the words of the Chancellor, this Bill is “choking off innovation, investment and growth.” To pretend otherwise would be taking the public for fools. On new clauses 89 and 90, almost everything this Government have done is contradictory to the objective of growth, if that remains their objective this week. Whether it is the national insurance jobs tax, the changes to business rates or this Bill, everything they do seemingly goes against growing the economy. It is little surprise that, under Labour, the economy is flatlining. The Prime Minister said earlier this year that everything the Government do will be subject to a “growth test”. However, the details of that test have been sparse, at best—so sparse, in fact, that people may well think it does not exist.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, cut red tape for a start. We see from Lib Dem Members that “The Orange Book” tradition of the Liberal Democrats is well and truly dead; they now position themselves firmly to the left of the Labour party. There is no greater evidence that the growth test does not exist than the Bill, because if such a test did exist, this Bill would fall at the first hurdle, but today I come with good news: I have two amendments that the Government can back this afternoon to help them to grow the economy. Those amendments are, of course, new clause 89 and new clause 90. New clause 89 would require the certification officer to advance the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy, and new clause 90 would require the Secretary of State, who is again not in his place, to have regard to international competitiveness when passing regulations under part 4 of the Bill concerning the trade unions. The Government have been asking regulators for ideas to boost growth—it is a contradiction in terms to ask the regulator to boost growth—but we are happy to help them with their quest. The Government should be able to support these amendments. If they cannot, it shows that they are not serious about economic growth and, more tellingly, that they do not intend to use the powers in part 4 of the Bill to achieve growth or international economic competitiveness, because they do not intend to exercise them in a way that is compatible with those objectives. New clause 88 on trade union political funds will, I am sure, get the Government a little bit hot under the collar. This is a “Labour party first, country second” Government. Nowhere is that clearer than in the changes that the Government are making to the political fund through the Bill. Let us be in no doubt that the changes have one simple purpose: to bolster the coffers of the Labour party. Clause 52 will mean that members of trade unions will automatically contribute to their trade union’s political fund without being asked about it first. Members will have to opt out, rather than opt in, as they do at present. [ Interruption. ] Did someone want to try to defend that? No? Okay. If trade union subscriptions are to be used for party political campaigning, it should be a conscious decision of the trade union member to endorse such campaigning.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am making a point about the trade union movement, which I have never been a part of, and certainly never received any money from. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to look at all my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. If we look at the detail of this Bill, it is very clear and obvious that the Government are trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to opt out of the trade union political fund. That is the very point of them changing this legislation.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Ahead of getting into the detail of the many amendments before us, which the Minister rattled through in just 10 minutes, let me say that overnight we learned that the Government are moving the responsibilities of one quango to another. They are moving the responsibilities of the Payment Systems Regulator to the Financial Conduct Authority, putting one quango into another. Conveniently, they already share a building. The Prime Minister has hailed that as “the latest step” in the Government’s attempt to “kick-start economic growth”, though the amendments we are discussing do the very opposite. The Chancellor said: “The regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of choking off innovation, investment and growth”, but that is precisely what the Bill does. I do not know how the Government can say that with a straight face when, as we stand here today, blocking regulatory burdens cost every business in the land—small, medium or large—£5 billion.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend served assiduously on the Committee, raising many good points, including the one that he just made, which I absolutely agree with. The public will be asking serious questions about this.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take your advice and will speed up. [ Interruption. ] The Minister urges me to carry on, but of course I would not ignore your advice—never say never again. I make no comment on the value that those activities will add to public sector employers and their productivity. What I will say is that we have already seen this Government being happy to hand over large pay increases to trade unions with no guarantee of anything in return. That is why we have tabled amendments 293, 295 and 296, in an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession to the trade unions. On amendment 297, trade unions can create significant disruption in the economy, whether by stopping work from taking place or preventing people from getting to work, school, hospital appointments or many other activities. We must strike a fair balance between the ability of trade unions to strike and the public whom we all serve. Our amendment 297 will mean that vital public services such as the NHS can better plan and prepare for strikes. It simply seeks to keep the status quo of two weeks’ notice. Without adequate warning, constituents of Members from across the House are more likely to miss hospital appointments, not be able to travel to see loved ones or get to work, or suffer greater disruption when schools close due to strikes. That is part of the reason why, in the consultation on thresholds, 58% of those who responded supported retaining the 14-day period as it currently is, with 7% preferring a longer period. Two thirds of respondents therefore wanted the period to stay the same or be longer. Labour promised that it would work with business on this Bill, but its response to that consultation is just another example of the Government having their fingers in their ears and simply not listening. The reduction to 10 days is against the wishes of business and will do harm to all our constituents. That is why we have tabled amendment 297 to retain the notice period of 14 days. On amendment 299, strikes should only take place when there is a clear mandate for them, but clause 58 will mean that strikes can happen with low thresholds by removing the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. Combined with Government amendments to extend the mandate for strikes from six months to 12 months, this Bill allows unions to unleash waves of low-support, rolling strikes. Those costs will come on top of the national insurance jobs tax and changes to business rates—mistakes that the Government are already making—making it more difficult to run a business. That is why we have tabled amendment 299, which will remove clause 58. There is much in this Bill to speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not test your patience or the patience of the House further by going into those things. I look forward to a thorough debate that will further point out—not least through Conservative Members’ contributions—why the amendments to this Bill that the Government have tabled this afternoon will harm our economy, destroy jobs, and just give more power to the trade unions.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For the avoidance of all doubt and in all transparency, I declare all my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for all to look at. They are all there for anybody to see.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a superb point, as she always does. Every single small business that I have talked to in my constituency is very concerned about the measures in this—

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will if, 24 hours on, he can name a small business that supports the Bill.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a bit of progress, then I will come to the hon. Lady. An opt-in is the default under consumer protection law and information law. Combined with the 10-year reminder change, it is highly likely that many trade union members will not be aware that their subscriptions are being used in this way or that they are eligible to save money on their trade union fees by not being a member of the political fund. Despite all the talk of supporting working people, it is clear that that concern simply does not apply when working people’s money is being taken to fund the Labour party and other political causes. We have tabled amendment 291 because we believe fundamentally that people should consent explicitly to what is, in effect, a subscription trap. Amendment 291 would simply maintain the status quo; it is the right thing to do.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman wants to try to defend that, I will give him the opportunity.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Farming Incentive · Hansard source

  More

  How on earth does the Minister correlate his statement that he wants to work with the sector with the Government last night giving just 30 minutes’ notice to the NFU—the sector—of this shameful cut to the SFI budget? What does that say about DEFRA’s previous commitment to transparency, co-operation and co-design?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Justice Estate: Springhill Road · Hansard source

  More

  2. Whether she plans to release land owned by her Department at Springhill Road to the Springhill Road Residents Association.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Justice Estate: Springhill Road · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, and for the Prisons Minister’s time last summer. Notwithstanding our local opposition to a new prison, it is an absurdity that has been going on for years that the MOJ owns the greens, the lampposts and the public lighting on the Springhill Road estate adjacent to HMP Spring Hill, even though they are of no use to the MOJ and there is no benefit to the prison estate. The residents’ association is willing to take those greens and care for them, so that kids can play on them and residents can use them. Will the Minister look again at getting the land transferred, because it is of no benefit to him or his Department?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Lady will allow me to continue, it will become clear why we take such a position; I will give some concrete examples in a few moments of where the law of unintended consequences will kick in on this provision. A 2022 study by the Higher Education Policy Institute found that quiet no-platforming, where students decide not to invite otherwise suitable speakers to an event because of their views, was more common than reported cases of no-platforming. Speakers quietly no-platformed include Alex Salmond, Liam Neeson, Harry Enfield, Tony Blair—one that those on the Labour Benches might blink at—and Peter Hitchens. Although this clause is well meaning, it is likely to make matters worse. As James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton, has pointed out, this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering a platform to discuss issues on which those listening may have differing views.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. This Bill would criminalise and bring in the banter police and so on just because people are expressing a perfectly legitimate political view that somebody else finds offensive. I double-underline that sexual harassment is absolutely—

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I do not see businesses out there that want to expend or get rid of their workforces, or disinvest in them, and he is giving a very pessimistic outlook of the way that the business environment runs in this country. Businesses want to innovate. They want to grow and employ more people. They want to make more money. Making money is not something people should look down their noses at—it is a fundamentally good thing that creates wealth, grows the economy, and increases the tax base to pay for the services that we all want. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view of the world when it comes to the Bill and the point he is trying to make.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think that the hon. Lady is actually disagreeing with what I have said so far. Sexual harassment is clearly a crime—it is already a crime—and any perpetrator of it should be brought to justice. That is covered by different law.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am attending a wedding in Farnham later this year, and I look forward to visiting the Nelson Arms and thanking his constituent for the service he also gives as a paramedic.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will happily give way in one moment. Government Members should have their eyes open to the consequences of this badly thought out legislation. Perhaps the hon. Lady will open her eyes to that point.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress, as I think I have demonstrated that I am not shy of giving way, and I will come back to the hon. Lady. The problem is that badly considered law, developed with no evidence base, is likely to cause problems, rather than to solve them. That is the law of unintended consequences. We are deeply concerned about not just the unclear liabilities that the clause places on employers, but the implications it has for freedom of expression. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the third-party harassment protections “raise complex questions about the appropriate balance between third parties’ rights to freedom of expression (as protected under Article 10 ECHR) and employees’ protection from harassment and their right to private and family life.” We are already struggling to ensure freedom of speech at our universities—places that should be guardians of free, open and challenging debate.