Kevin Hollinrake MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentions business rates and the small business multiplier. Will she confirm the continuation of small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The Grenfell Tower fire was an unthinkable tragedy that claimed 72 lives. It is one of the few moments in life when we all remember exactly where we were when it happened. Our thoughts are with those who lost loved ones, the survivors who endured unimaginable trauma, and all those who were affected by that devastating night. The state failed them in its duty to protect, and we must ensure that such failures are never repeated. We will work collaboratively with the Secretary of State and the wider Government in the interests of everyone directly and indirectly affected by this tragedy, and I very much welcome today’s announcement about the acceleration of remediation. Following the tragedy, the Conservative Government took decisive action to uncover the truth, initiating a public inquiry to learn lessons and implement changes to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. The right hon. Lady may remember that we served briefly together on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee which, under the extremely capable leadership of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), led much of the thinking and debate following the tragedy. We successfully campaigned for a banning of combustible materials on the outside of new buildings over 18 metres, and for a Government remediation fund for existing buildings. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) who was the first to properly grasp that nettle as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Chancellor, and Prime Minister. More than £5.1 billion has since been allocated for building remediation, and we have acted to strengthen regulations and implement recommendations from the inquiry’s phase 1 report. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Lady’s predecessor, the former Member for Surrey Heath, for his work in this area, not least the establishment of the building safety levy, which is the source from which much of the funds will flow. However, publication of the phase 2 report in September 2024 revealed the scale of failures that occurred over decades and across multiple sectors, making clear that much more remains to be done, as the right hon. Lady set out. Even those of us who have followed the inquiry closely find the report truly shocking to read. The phase 2 report, chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and supported by panel members Ali Akbor OBE and Thouria Istephan, makes 58 recommendations to improve fire safety and address systemic issues within the construction industry. Crucially, the report concluded that the Grenfell Tower fire was the result of decades of failures by Government, regulatory bodies and the construction industry to act on the known dangers of using combustible materials in high-rise buildings. One of the most alarming findings was the role of systemic dishonesty in the construction industry. Companies engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate safety testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. For instance, the insulation product Celotex RS5000, used on Grenfell Tower, was found to have been sold using manipulated test results—incredibly, with the Building Research Establishment complicit in those practices.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. Mistakes were made—there is no doubt about it. As the phase 2 report recommends, there should be greater oversight and regulation of people who proclaim themselves to be experts in these fields. I agree with the hon. Lady’s points. Accountability must remain a cornerstone of our response. Those who knowingly cut corners on safety to maximise profits must face justice. We call on the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue criminal charges against those responsible, be it through a deliberate act, a willingness to look the other way, or gross incompetence. Companies implicated in such wrongdoing should not receive future public contracts. Let us be clear: this was not the responsibility of any single Government, Minister or official. As the report sets out in its opening paragraphs, failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations of all political colours. We must approach these difficult questions with the honesty and determination that they deserve, ensuring that we learn the lessons of the past to protect lives in the future. While we have made significant progress, the journey is far from over. As we look to the future, we must acknowledge the hard questions raised by the report about past governance. Those failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations led by Labour, the coalition Government, and Conservative Governments. This was a systemic failure, which requires an open and honest response. Our party’s record demonstrates our commitment to making things right. We took swift action after the tragedy to establish the public inquiry, launch the independent review of building regulations and fire safety, and allocate significant resources to remove unsafe cladding from high-risk buildings. The Fire Safety Act 2021 implemented recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, and the Building Safety Act 2022 overhauled existing regulations, setting up the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stringent compliance measures.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an important speech. One of the facts that the phase 2 report has established is that the system is too fragmented, and needs to be brought together under a single construction regulator, as he recommends. Does he envisage the functions that he has described, involving investigations of incidents, not falling to the responsibility of that regulator?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I did during much of our work on the Select Committee. One of Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations was exactly that: that all test results should be published, not just the ones that support the safety of the product. That would go a long way towards ensuring that the true safety of the products is established. The BRE findings highlight a shocking betrayal of trust, and a callous disregard for public safety, driven by financial gain. The report also identified severe leadership and management failings within the London Fire Brigade. It described a chronic lack of effective management, an undue focus on processes, and a complacency among senior officers regarding the brigade’s operational efficiency. Those weaknesses hindered the brigade’s ability to respond effectively to the crisis, and underscored the need for systemic reform and improved leadership in fire services. To address those failings, the phase 2 report made far-reaching recommendations, including the establishment of a single construction regulator; centralising fire safety responsibilities under one Secretary of State, to end fragmentation across Departments; regular updates to approved document B, to keep fire safety regulations current; and the creation of a chief construction adviser and a college of fire and rescue to ensure high standards in fire safety training and practices. We fully support those recommendations and urge the Government to implement them swiftly and effectively. We will scrutinise their progress to ensure that the necessary reforms are delivered without delay. Some have questioned the pace of the remediation efforts. I think the Secretary of State was right to do so. I emphasise that the remediation efforts prioritised the highest-risk buildings, and by July 2024, 98% of high-rise buildings with the most dangerous, Grenfell-style ACM cladding had either completed or started work. On the remaining buildings, enforcement action is being taken against non-compliant owners. The complexity of the buildings and legal disputes over responsibility have caused delays. Nevertheless, all building owners must step up, take responsibility, and act swiftly to address the issues, or face the consequences of their inaction. It is important to note that the building regulations regime was established under the Building Act 1984, and fire safety reforms were introduced by other Governments in previous decades, as the Secretary of State acknowledged. From 2010, the coalition Government sought to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, but fire safety and building safety were explicitly excluded from those reviews. The inquiry acknowledged that key safety regulations, including the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 were excluded from deregulation initiatives. Under our leadership, safety was never treated as red tape. Nevertheless, as the report confirms, mistakes were made by Ministers and officials on our watch. The frequency of changes under Governments of different political stripes, and the frequency of changes in housing Ministers and Secretaries of State, would not have helped. I hope that Parliament may learn that lesson for the future. Since 2017, the Conservatives in Government led comprehensive reforms of building compliance and fire safety. Measures introduced include the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, which created the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stricter compliance with standards.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  There are so many lessons that I hope will be learned across the House. The report is clear that there has been failure by Governments of all stripes over the years, in terms of both building safety and social housing. With the Regulator of Social Housing and the new fire safety regulatory regime, it is hugely important that we turn the page, but I do not think that we will win back the trust of the people affected by this scandal, or by the cladding scandal in other areas, until we have made progress, completed the remediation, and put in place a regime that is seen to be working and bringing about the cultural change to which the Secretary of State referred. It is hugely important that we make that progress. The actions that we have taken have made strides towards addressing safety concerns, but we recognise that more is needed. I welcome the Labour Government’s pledge to respond to all 58 recommendations within six months and to provide annual progress updates to Parliament. This is a critical moment for accountability and reform, and we stand ready to support all proportionate and necessary measures to protect public safety. Does the Secretary of State agree with the recommendation of a single construction regulator, with one Secretary of State holding end-to-end responsibility, and will that be her? Does she also agree with the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East about product manufacturers being held responsible for remediation costs, too? It is her stated policy to continue the use of the CE marking scheme for construction products in the UK, but those standards were set in 2015, three years prior to the post-Grenfell standards revision in the UK. How will she ensure that all products sold in the UK meet the post-2018 UK standard? That issue has been raised on the Floor of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is next to me on the Opposition Front Bench. I recently met campaigners, including Steve Day, who raise the case of the 1.7 million leaseholders who do not currently qualify for the Building Safety Act 2022 protections and who still suffer from higher insurance premiums, higher mortgage rates and an inability to sell their homes. Will the Secretary of State meet him and others to see what additional measures need to be taken? Can she share with the House when announcements will be made on the future memorial on the site? Indeed, can the renovation of properties in the Grenfell community be accelerated? Can we get a target for when that will be completed? Accountability must be at the heart of the response, and those who knowingly cut corners on building safety must face justice. Grenfell was a tragedy of unprecedented scale, but it must serve as a turning point. We owe it to those who lost their lives, to the survivors and to the public to ensure that their legacy is one of justice, reform and safety. Let us move forward with determination to build a safer future for all.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I used to have ginger hair as well! May I give the right hon. Lady the answer to my question? It was the Foreign Secretary. In opposition, the now Home Secretary warned that the Chinese Government are “attempting to influence Parliament”, and trying “to interfere in our democracy and undermine our security.” —[ Official Report , 11 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 667.] Those risks are all heightened by this development. Are this Government so desperate to counteract the disastrous Budget and their own growth-wrecking trade union Bill that they are now willing to override national security, national interests and the sensible concerns of their Home Secretary by kowtowing to the Chinese Government?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  At whose request did the Secretary of State call in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was part of the fairer funding formula for schools in my area, which had the worst-funded local authorities in the country. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that schools in my constituency improved under the stewardship of the Conservative Government. Surely that is the key metric, rather than just how much money is put in.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister confirm the continuation of small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I remind him that it was not the Conservative party that voted to leave the European Union, but the people of this country. We respect democratic mandates. I hope every Member on the Government Benches who walks through the Lobby to support the Bill tonight realises the price their constituents will pay for that decision. If the Government will not publish the likely consequences of the Bill, let me set out what I believe the consequences will be. The Government claim to be cutting business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England, but that is not the case. The business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that we introduced cuts 75% off bills, but that support is being reduced by the Labour Government. They are almost halving that relief to 40%, meaning that shops, restaurants, cafés, pubs, cinemas, music venues, gyms and hotels will all see their business rates rise.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House observes that the Autumn Budget 2024 has cut central Government funding for retail, hospitality and leisure business rate relief in 2025-26, and that this Government funding will end completely in 2026-27; expresses concern that the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill represents a stealth increase in business rates on high streets and the hospitality sector, as well as on larger businesses, on top of the Government’s increases in National Insurance contributions; regrets the lack of a proper cumulative impact assessment on the effect on business; notes that the removal of charitable rate relief on independent schools, taken together with the imposition of VAT, will mean fewer children going to private schools and will therefore create extra pressure on state schools, will undermine aspiration and parental choice, and mean larger class sizes in state schools and increased costs for taxpayers; and therefore declines to give a Second Reading to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.” It is a privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. The Conservative party has a proud record of supporting businesses on the high street. We cut business rates to support small businesses, including doubling small business rates relief from £6,000 up to £15,000, and almost trebling higher rate relief from £18,000 to £51,000. We increased the frequency of business rate revaluations, making our business rates system fairer for businesses and more responsive to local economic trends, helping businesses to invest, create jobs and grow. The contrast with this business-bashing Labour Government could not be greater. They have brought forward a mass of new red tape for business by means of the Employment Rights Bill. I note that the Regulatory Policy Committee released its commentary today on the impact assessment, which it said is “not fit for purpose”. It says that the annual costs to businesses could be much higher than £5 billion, and the impact assessment has received a red rating. The Government have also imposed huge new tax increases on businesses. The worst thing is that they were not even man enough to tell businesses that they were going to do it—quite the opposite—which is why, as much as the Minister says that businesses have confidence in his plans, the Institute of Directors has said that it has seen the biggest one-month fall in investment confidence in its history. The Confederation of British Industry said today that 50% of its members will reduce headcount, and two thirds are scaling back hiring. Is that the kind of growth that he imagined he would bring forward with his legislation? Infamously, the Labour party promised in its manifesto not to raise national insurance. Next week, we will have the Second Reading of a Bill that reneges completely on that promise by raising employer’s national insurance contributions by £24 billion a year. Labour has also hit business through the family farms tax, and our best family businesses in other sectors by halving business property relief. I remind the Minister that family businesses employ 13.8 million people in this country and pay over £200 billion every year in taxes. The Government are killing the geese that lay the golden eggs. In its manifesto, the Labour party promised to “replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way. This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants”. In a speech to the House on 12 May 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister said: “We would scrap business rates to help our high streets flourish.” —[ Official Report , 12 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 300.] The Treasury Minister himself also stated his party’s intention to “scrap business rates” to the House on 25 October 2023. The Bill before us breaks those promises because it does not “replace” or “scrap” the business rates system. Not only that, but as a result of the Bill and the measures in the Budget, business rates are actually going up, both for online companies and businesses on our local high streets—yet more broken promises from a Government of broken promises. Maybe the Government do not realise exactly what they are doing, perhaps because members of their Cabinet have no experience of starting and running a business. Shamefully, there has been no consultation with businesses about the changes. True to form, the Government have not published a full regulatory impact assessment alongside the Bill on the changes to business rates multipliers. It is a discourtesy to the House and to our constituents for the Government to refuse to consult with businesses, consider the impact their policies will have or publish the information that would allow Members of the House to scrutinise the plans properly. Instead, they are using their majority to ram through the half-baked damaging measures in the Bill.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill is about raising rates on private schools, which is why I mention them, but I am very happy to talk in glowing terms about the state schools in my constituency, including the one that I attended as a boy and the ones that my children went to. I am for state schools, but I am also for independent education. Why is it either/or? Why would anyone ever tax education?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that 90,000 pupils will be transferring to the state sector as a result of these plans. We Conservatives hold firmly to the principle that education should not be taxed. The only other nation to have tried is Greece, which abandoned the policy within months because of the disastrous consequences. The Independent Schools Council has said that some independent schools will close entirely and others will scale back the education they offer, causing significant upheaval and disruption to the lives of tens of thousands of children. As surely as night follows day, that will mean fewer children going to private schools and increased pressure on state schools. I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened me about whether this policy complies with article 14 of the European convention on human rights. The legal issues memorandum considers the principle of non-discrimination regarding the difference in treatment between private schools and state schools, but not between private schools that are charities and other charities that will still qualify for charitable rates relief. I look forward to the Minister’s clarification. During our time in government, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world, a legacy that this Government seem determined to trash. In short, this Bill may be short, but it is long on disastrous consequences. I implore Government Members to think about their local schools and their high street businesses that are about to be clobbered, and about the resulting job losses, higher prices and boarded-up shop fronts. I ask all Members to think about what is in their constituents’ best interests, do the right thing and vote against the Bill.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister knows, it had been renewed every year since 2021. The Conservative party supports businesses. When that 75% was passed on in England, the same moneys were provided to Scotland and Wales. What did Wales do? Only 40% relief was passed on, not 75%. That is the Welsh Government’s attitude to business. The Conservative party supports businesses, but the Labour party does not because it does not understand them. Businesses face a stealth tax from Labour, with a £925 million rise in rates next year. That will add more than £5,000 to the business rates bill for the average pub, on top of £5,000 per year in extra costs for national insurance rises. It will also add more than £9,000 to the rates bill for the average restaurant, on top of the £12,000 national insurance increase, which means an additional £21,000 in total per annum for a typical business. There will also be an increase of up to £2.7 billion in 2026 through higher business rates via the new multipliers, despite Labour’s manifesto promise not to increase the amount raised by the levy. These tax rises, as the CBI has said again today, will be passed on to workers through lower wages and to consumers through higher prices, making a mockery of Labour’s claim that it would not raise taxes for working people. The British Retail Consortium has warned the Government: “The sheer scale of new costs and the speed with which they occur create a cumulative burden that will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty.” The Bill will replace retail, hospitality and leisure relief with a lower multiplier for businesses with a rateable value below £500,000. That will be funded by the new higher rate multiplier for premises with a rateable value of more than £500,000, as the Minister set out. Setting the threshold at that higher level is a blunt instrument. I can assure the Government that it will have consequences for businesses that are not big online retailers. It will hit large supermarkets, supermarket delivery, large department stores, football and cricket clubs, conference centres and airports. Some of those on whom the new charges will be levied pay tens or hundreds of millions of pounds in rates. At the maximum level, it will mean a 20% increase to their rates bill. It is no wonder that the outgoing chief executive of John Lewis has criticised Labour’s lack of business rates reform and warned that, alongside the national insurance increase, this is a “two-handed grab” from businesses. The Cold Chain Federation has warned that the business rates changes and the NICs increases could lead to the cost of food and medicine going up. That might be a double whammy for consumers, as the National Farmers Union has warned that the cost of food will go up because of the family farm tax. The Labour Government do not seem to have thought that through. The Labour party used to say that the business rates system created uncertainty, but now KPMG has described the Government’s plan to change the business rates system, as set out in the Bill, as “creating uncertainty for businesses”. The Bill is silent on the matter of small business rates relief, which is a lifeline for many businesses on our high streets. When the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution winds up the debate, will he confirm that the Government intend to retain small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament? Business is listening, and it needs to know. Let me address the sting in the tail of the Bill: Labour’s education tax. The shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), feels passionately, as do all Conservative Members, that the Government are making the wrong decision. This Bill is part of the Government’s education tax, because removing the charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities goes hand in glove with the utterly wrong-headed, anti-aspirational and counterproductive policy of charging VAT on private school fees.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Budget: Implications for Farming Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about the transition. I talked to my farmers in Bedale on Friday, and the only transition they can see is the transition from family farms to the state. Does he realise that the farming industry is one of the least profitable sectors in the country? The return on capital employed is 0.5%—that is the Government’s own figure—and that is around a 20th of the typical profit margin in the UK. Other than by some warped socialist ideology, how can he justify taking away 40 years of profits for the typical farmer?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  If Labour Members going back to their seat this weekend were thinking of going to a local pub for a pint and a chat with local farmers, I would think again. A publican with a mid-sized pub contacted me last night to say that because of yesterday’s changes, he would be £120,000 a year worse off, moving him from profit to loss. Labour said that its plans were fully costed and fully funded. Yesterday was a massive broken promise, was it not?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s choice was to hit businesses, and that is because there is not an ounce of business experience among them. Labour’s death taxes will hit farms and businesses. Families with a typical farm will have to find hundreds of thousands of pounds or see their farms broken up and sold. The Environment Secretary said 10 months ago that he had no intentions of putting death taxes on businesses. That was a broken promise, was it not?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As drafted, that is certainly the case. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Members may not know that small businesses stand the cost of statutory sick pay. It is not reimbursed by the Government, so the Bill would have a significant cost for businesses.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. We should be low tax and low regulation. One of the saving graces of this legislation is the detail, although the Bill itself is light on detail: many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. This morning we met representatives from UKHospitality, who said exactly that: the Bill is coming on the back of a number of changes and some difficult times during covid for industries that employ a lot of people, which will be particularly badly affected by this legislation. The Government should think twice about implementing it at this moment in time.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will make a little progress. The cost of all these measures—in individual opportunities and to the wider economy—is huge. The Government may try to deny that, despite their clear lack of experience of the real world of business. It is extremely alarming that not one of those on the Front Bench today have ever started or run a business that employed anyone. Even worse than that, only one member of the Cabinet has ever done so, and that is the Secretary of State for Scotland. Shamefully, given what is at stake, the Government cannot deny our case that the Bill will have a huge economic cost, because today—finally, two hours before this debate—they have actually produced the impact assessments. The cost of the Bill is on the very first page: up to £5 billion per annum. The word “uncertain” appears 302 times in those impact assessments, and the word “risk” is used 432 times, so the cost is likely to be much more.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the fact that there is at least some business experience on the Government Benches. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman joined the wrong party. The hon. Gentleman will recognise the picture of what the Bill means for businesses. They will be terrified to take new people on for fear of huge compliance costs and legal action. They will be tied up in red tape, something that the Prime Minister said he was taking an axe to. They will have to cope with measures such as the need to frequently recalculate all workers’ hours for each reference period for each separate employee, each of which will have a unique date as they will be required to proactively offer guaranteed hours. This is not even restricted to those on zero-hours contracts. It will be for anyone on low hours—a bureaucratic nightmare. They will have to deal with a new right to demand flexible working, such as a four-day week. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) must be proud. Businesses will have to become the free speech police to prevent any of their customers offending their staff. They will have to deal with a new regulator, the fair work agency, which will have the power to enter any business premises, confiscate documents and levy fines—all backed up by new criminal offences with penalties of up to two years in jail.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was not here at the time, but it is clear nevertheless that the minimum wage and the national living wage have had a positive effect on prosperity in this country, and I would be the first to admit it. I want the hon. Lady, and other Government Members, to understand that those measures fell equally on all businesses across the UK. The measures in this Bill fall disproportionately hard on small businesses. What the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) fails to understand is that the implication of these measures, such as a day one right to an employment tribunal, is that even a spurious case of unfair dismissal costs time and money. It is potentially tens of thousands of pounds to defend that case. As one business organisation put it, “You lose when you are accused.” Most small businesses saddled with such a cost would be sunk without trace. It is not just that, but the deterrent effect, which it would have had on me, and which will be felt right across the economy and by every existing and aspirant business person across this entire nation. When the Deputy Prime Minister reflects on what she is hearing from people who have actually run a business, will she at the very least consider exempting small and medium enterprises from this catastrophic Bill?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very concerned about that. Today there are 4 million more jobs in our economy than there were in 2010, and 1.2 million fewer people are unemployed. I am very worried about the things that my hon. Friend is very worried about. Making work pay is a laudable aim, but as one stakeholder put it this morning, “work doesn’t pay if there’s no work”. Most people recognise that one of the reasons why the UK is the third most popular destination in the world for inward investment, which creates hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the economy, is the flexible labour market that the Government are now seeking to eliminate. Do the Deputy Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues realise that? Perhaps they secretly do, given that nine out of 10 of those Cabinet colleagues recruit on terms that are at odds with these new regulations. Sixteen Cabinet Ministers, including the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Energy Secretary, have hired people for roles that involve working outside regular hours and at weekends; six Cabinet Ministers have hired people to roles with extended probation periods; and seven Cabinet Ministers, including the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy Prime Minister, have hired on “insecure” fixed-term contracts. Why would they introduce legislation that they do not understand or even comply with themselves? The answer is, of course, their union paymasters. Much like the more than 200 Labour MPs who have taken trade union cash, the Deputy Prime Minister has her donations to think of. She declared her interests as a union member, but she did not declare her interests as someone who had taken £13,000 from unions in donations. The question of what is orderly is up to your judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it seems to me that that should be declared at the start of any Member’s contribution. This is not an Employment Rights Bill, but a trade union charter—a charter that will bring about no-knock warrants that allow unions to access all business premises, from the local takeaway to the local pub. Clearly, shutting the beer gardens is not enough for this Government; they are now relying on strike action to stop you getting a pint. Under this trade union charter, trade unions will revert to requiring people to opt out of donating to unions’ political funds. That will line Labour’s pockets with default donations from working people. This trade union charter will abolish the thresholds for strike action, unleashing waves of low-threshold strikes, and crippling public services by putting power in the hands of militant trade unions. This trade union charter will force employers to inform their staff that they can join a union at every turn. This trade union charter will reduce notice periods for strike action, meaning that businesses will be plagued by zero-warning strike action, which will unleash misery on the public at the last minute.