Greg Smith MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Can you give us a hint of the ambers? It is important that the Committee knows where different sectors are concerned. Allen Simpson: There is something around statutory sick pay, which is worth considering. There is a tendency, when we look at what a good job means, to build around the paradigm of an office, when working in hospitality—not unlike my wife, who is a nurse, working in a medical setting—is a different way of working. We need to think about whether or not sick pay kicking in from day two might be more appropriate than day one. Equally, I have an amber around the notice of shifts and how we manage things like major events at Ascot, Wembley or anywhere else. You did not ask, but I will say that for green, I am very supportive of changes in general to zero-hours contracts.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us for this session late in the day. The Bill is multifaceted. It has a lot of measures in it. It could rapidly become a Christmas tree Bill. What do those you represent see as the good elements of it? More significantly, what are the areas that perhaps need amendment or change to avoid unintended consequences, and what straightforwardly will not work for you? Alasdair Reisner: One of the benefits of being tail-end Charlie is that I have been able to watch some of the earlier evidence, so I was primed for this question. From an industry perspective, the first reaction is that it is a very big Bill, and that does create challenges. We have about 360,000 employers in our industry, more than half of which employ fewer than four people, so even raising awareness of the existence of the Bill is a particular challenge. In terms of how we take things forward, whatever happens during the rest of this process, a big engagement process is required to raise awareness of the outcome. That said, generally speaking, based on the feedback that we have had, I think there is a lot of positivity about some elements of the Bill, particularly on tackling sexual harassment and looking at improving equality in the industry. I think our members would say that this is stuff that they do as custom and practice already, so it is almost raising the level of the wider industry and trying to cut out poor behaviour among not bad actors in industry, but those that are less developed. There are a couple of points where we do have particular concerns. One is the redundancy piece. I suspect that, as MPs, you are all sick and tired of people special pleading and saying that their industry is different, but I am afraid that I am going to say that our industry is different. We deliver on a geographical basis, and when a project comes to an end, understandably, there will be cases where redundancy is the only option. To enforce upon the whole business the requirement for consultation feels like it was not the intent of this policy. It seems that we should spend some time trying to find a way through that works and results in productive outcomes. I have seen personally the impact of people being on multiple rounds of redundancy. It is miserable for the individual, and that is what I think we should seek to avoid. The other area we have some concerns about—we have heard this a number of times today—is day one unfair dismissal claims. In construction, it takes a lot of time to get people ready to work. Coming down from two years to day one feels like a big step for an industry that, as I articulated, may not even be aware that this is coming towards them. We would want to look at how that might work. I am sure you may have questions on that, so I do not want to spend the time garbling on—I would rather give you the chance to ask questions.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Gray? Martyn Gray: To clarify, I am a director of organising for a trade union, so I will answer from the perspective of whether the legislation goes far enough, if that is okay.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Carberry, I will come to you shortly, but Mr Simpson, to continue that theme: this is a pretty wide-ranging Bill with a lot of measures. Which of them do you think the Government have got wrong, which you would like to see either deleted or amended? Allen Simpson: I have a red, amber and green list in front of me, so I can tell you what is on the red if that is useful. First, it is the aggregate cost: the cost of this, alongside the employer national insurance and national living wage increases, is going to be a barrier to employment. You can take the 50,000 job losses that the Government’s impact assessment describes or the 100,000 that Deutsche Bank have, but there is an aggregate cost question. More specifically, there is a question around the variation of contracts—we can talk about that in more detail—and making sure that that protects against what we can probably call a P&O event. Equally, we need to allow for like a restaurant moving from one high-street premises to another so that contracts are not accidentally novated. There are questions around how we manage union thresholds, which we need to think through in detail. Those would be my reds, but equally, I have ambers and greens as well.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to come back on this point, as it goes to the nub of any change to employment law. This does not mean that I am against employment law—I want to make that clear before anyone suggests otherwise. Alex, you mentioned the net impact of this legislation on the number of people in the United Kingdom in employment and the number of new jobs that will be created—or not, as the case may be—and you gave clear data from the 700 business leaders you spoke to. Could I ask the other two witnesses about your research among your members? What is your assessment of the likely impact of the Bill on job creation and job losses? Matthew, you talked about the risk of redundancy actually becoming greater as a result of some of the measures on fire and rehire. What is your assessment of the Bill’s impact on job numbers? Matthew Percival: It is very difficult to put a number to it, because there are so many unanswered questions in areas where details are intended to be put into the Bill at a later stage. That leads to a wide range of potential estimates about the impact of a number of the measures. Work we are doing at the moment will give us updated figures on sentiment around a number of measures. We are looking to publish that soon, and I will make sure that we include those numbers in our written evidence. Jane Gratton: The feedback we have had from members has been concern about increased cost, complexity and lack of flexibility to manage the workforce in the way that a business needs to. Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights, unless there were at least a nine-month probation period with a light-touch approach. There would be a preference for contractors and temporary staff, again to reduce the risk and avoid legal complications. To give some figures, 38% said that there would be a hiring freeze, 25% said that the Bill would result in less pay, and 30% spoke of less investment in their business. There would be significant risks and costs, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises. Alex Hall-Chen: In addition to considering recruitment levels at the higher level, we are also getting feedback about types of recruitment and the impact that the policies will have on that. We have had a lot of feedback, particularly with respect to day one protection against unfair dismissal, that essentially boils down to the fact that, under the current system, employers are very likely to take a risk on hiring a borderline candidate who may not have quite the right experience or qualifications, but they will now be much less likely to take that risk because the cost of getting it wrong will be considerably higher. I think there are really important questions about what that means for people on the fringes of the labour market, especially as those are precisely the people the Government need to get back into work to meet their 80% employment rate target.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Hale, do you have a view on that perspective? David Hale: If the Government had a good process for the Bill, which I do not think they do, we would be exploring what the participation harm is. Part of that is not just whether firms choose to recruit, but who they choose to recruit. On the whether, from a small-business perspective, you might get a contract, you might choose to scale to meet it, or you might not. It is not the case that all small businesses will choose to scale regardless. There is a risk there, and if you increase risk, you lessen the chance that somebody will do that. Part of the importance of participation harm is not just whether, but which people are employed. We know we have a CV culture in this country. We know that managers at all levels—I am talking not only small employers, but managers in small and large businesses—look down CVs and look for gaps. If people find gaps in CVs, we know that in the UK, they are less likely to feel that that is a risk they can bear. If you add risk to employment, part of the problem is not just whether they take that risk, but who they take that risk with. Small businesses are currently most likely to take that risk. Small businesses currently recruit most from outside the labour market. If they do not do that—and we know that small businesses are responsive to risk—it is not just small businesses that lose out, but the businesses that in turn recruit from them. Larger businesses might well be more likely to recruit someone who has two years at a small business on their CV or experience doing bar work when they were a student, and they might benefit from the introduction to work they have had. But the whether and who is currently missing from the conversation, and I think that is because we have had such a quick process. That is the main thing. Does the Bill help somebody take that leap? The Government should be making that case. I have not seen a case for how the Bill would help somebody want to recruit more.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning, gentlemen. In the last session, we heard evidence that this Bill could have a £5 billion-a-year impact, disproportionately impacting SMEs. Is that something that you both recognise as a risk of this legislation? David Hale: The impact assessment was quite clear that the bill would be more than £5 billion a year. For example, it did not include any of the consequential impacts on businesses from the changes to unfair dismissal. It merely counted the ability of the Government to change. Changes to unfair dismissal are one of the things that businesses flagged, so £5 billion is very much at the low end of that estimate. You may well have seen the Regulatory Policy Committee say yesterday that the impact assessment as a whole is not fit for purpose. The only question about the £5 billion, or the £5 billion-plus, is where that cost is borne. Obviously, businesses can bear the cost. People who are not in work can bear the cost, or people who are in work can bear the cost through wages or through lower hours. The £5 billion is a very low estimate, but where that cost falls is the more complex question. Dom Hallas: The starting point from our perspective is that tech start-ups and scale-ups are unusual businesses—unusual small businesses, frankly. They scale rapidly—they can be growing at 50% or 100% a year. They pay unusually well—disproportionately well. The average salary is in the range of £50,000 to £60,000. They change really fast, because they are scaling and doing things really quickly. They treat staff like royalty—they treat them incredibly well—because it is a highly competitive labour market for technology talent, and they need to be able to hire in it. That means they really value flexibility. I cannot speak to the £5 billion figure, and the reports out today throw some scepticism on that. What I will not do is sit here today and tell you that this piece of legislation would be disastrous for our ecosystem—clearly not—but what it would do is present a series of speed bumps, a series of bumps in the road, for these kinds of businesses, the cumulative effect of which is to chip away at some of the flexibility that our companies prize.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning to the witnesses. This is clearly a very large piece of legislation. Previous witnesses have said that perhaps it should be broken up. Do your organisations and those you represent think that it should be broken up? Is it too complicated? Is it putting too much on HR advisers, for example, in one swoop? Ben Willmott: There is no doubt that the cumulative impact of the proposed regulatory changes will be significant. Our members are responsible for making changes to employment contracts and workplace policies to ensure they align with any changes in employment legislation. They communicate any changes to staff and, crucially, ensure that managers have information, advice and, where necessary, training so that they meet any new legal obligations in the workplace. Of course, we know that there will be a likely increase in the number of tribunal applications, which our members will have to respond to. That has not just potential compensation costs; there are HR and management costs to responding to tribunal claims, even those that do not actually make it to tribunal in the end and those that do not have any merit. Without a doubt, there will be a significant impact on workload. The other point I want to make is that the time resources spent on those activities mean that employers will not have the time to invest in addressing the skills gap, upskilling staff and supporting technology adoption. That is the other challenge, which may undermine the other productive activities that you want HR and people management specialists to engage in. So, yes, phasing these measures and really thinking about how they will be implementable is really important. Cathryn Moses-Stone: Echoing Ben’s last point, which moves the discussion on quite nicely, we know that broadly there is quite strong support for the Bill among British managers. We have polled our managers over the past year and the last month, and in the last month over 75% were supportive of improved workers’ rights as a means to boosting productivity and 65% felt that it should be a top national priority. But obviously these are just changes. We know that they are meant to be the catalyst for implementing better working practices and more improved working cultures; the extent to which they can do that will very much depend on the implementation, which depends on the time and the process that we give to the managers who have to deliver it day to day, on the ground, to get it right. Our data shows that over 82% of people are accidental managers, which means they go into a management position without any formal management training. If you are expecting them to deliver a whole suite of really complicated reforms, we need to ensure that the consultation period is long enough and that they are consulted in the right ways. Also, things like the fair work agency really have to take into consideration what the legislation means for allowing managers and leaders to upskill to deliver things in the right way, and the agency should not assume ill intent as a first port of call but work with people to understand what it might look like for them in practice, when they deliver it in their organisations. Carly Cannings: I would probably echo the comments of the other panel members. It is not necessarily a case of splitting the Bill up; it is about giving enough time, and enough time with the detail. On reading the Bill initially, it is quite obvious that there are intentionally large gaps, because they are to be filled by secondary legislation for the most part. It is a case of ensuring that employers have enough time to get used to the changes introduced by the broad brush of the Bill, which should then be followed up with further consultation and enough notice on those changes.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Sticking on that theme of flexibility, particularly from the start-up perspective, and thinking back to the post-2010, pre-pandemic period, a huge proportion of economic growth and the success of economic growth in that period was down to the growth in self-employment and people making that leap to set up their own business and become entrepreneurs. Do you think the lack of flexibility, or making the rules more rigid, as this Bill does, and some of the factors that previous witnesses talked about—dissuading people to take on new hires and making the risk of new hires that much greater—will dissuade more people from choosing to leave payroll and start up on their own, whether through self-employment or registering a business? Dom Hallas: I leave self-employment to one side, but from the perspective of an entrepreneur trying to build one of our tech businesses, the truth is that any number of things the Government may or not do in policy are not necessarily what persuades or dissuades someone from starting a business. The reality is that they are probably going to do it anyway. The question is, are we going to make it harder or easier for them? In truth, what we consistently see—and I think this is where you have the conversations around taxation and the Budget layered on top—is the risk of a number of pebbles in the stream for entrepreneurs that will not prevent them from trying to build their business, because they will crack on and try to do it. One of the things we consistently talk to entrepreneurs about when we ask them about policy is, “What are the challenges you face?” The answer they give far too frequently is, “There are loads of things, but we just have to get on with it.” I put to the Committee that the question is ultimately how we prevent our policy environment from being seen as a barrier to overcome by the entrepreneur community and the founders who are building these kinds of businesses and creating these kinds of jobs. How do we create a situation that is as open and flexible as possible for them to operate and, therefore, a competitive jobs market that will ensure that the workers are treated really well?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Clearly, this is quite a thick Bill; it has lots of measures in it. If you were able to change any element of it, what would be your top priority? David Hale: There seems to be a big question about whether the Bill should be split up. It is a very large Bill. Overwhelm is the primary response. The second response is, to put it politely, bemusement about what the Government are trying to achieve and how these measures are intended to achieve it. We know the very high level, but the high level does not match the measures. If you are talking about security at work, the Bill does not appear to give extra security at work. There is bemusement about that. Like most of us, small businesses are scared of getting sued, so there is fear about that. The Bill increases the risk of litigation against small businesses. The next question is about the possible harms of the response to that fear, which are things like the participation harm, harm to the work environment, and harm to individuals and the whole economy from the knock-on effects. I am not sure whether there are 28 or 70 measures—maybe some of you could list them all, but I do not think anyone else could. I do not think a small business would be able to tell you what they are or implement them all at once, so there is a question about whether the Bill should be split up. Dom Hallas: I agree on the scale point. The Bill has a big impact. The top practical concern from a start-up ecosystem perspective is day one rights and exactly what that means. Obviously, there is an open discussion about the probationary period and exactly how that is going to work. From a start-up ecosystem perspective, the core point is ultimately that you have fast-moving businesses whose needs change, and the experiences of employees change. The practical impact of the Bill in that area will be that people are less likely to continue to take a risk on someone, even when they have hired them after a probation period, because of the changes the Government are looking at. What we will get is a situation where employees who might be doing well, but not as well as you might hope, are more likely to see their employment terminated at that stage, as opposed to over a longer timeframe, with the business saying, “Well, we can’t take the risk.” So there seems to be a perverse incentive that ends up being created.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you, Mr Stringer, and good morning, witnesses. I always like to get down to the nitty gritty and the nuts and bolts of any legislation in front of us. This is quite a weighty Bill that makes significant changes to employment law. What do the organisations that you represent fear most in it? Jane Gratton: Let me just say that there is a lot in the Bill that represents what good businesses are doing already, but there are five areas where we have received concerns from members. First, on trade union access and ballot thresholds, increasing access and making it easier and quicker for unions to call strike action does not mean that the union is representative of the workforce, and does not improve the relationship with employers. From our members’ point of view, it simply makes it easier to reach an end point that nobody wants. They can see nothing in the Bill to reassure businesses that the relationship will be better, so we do not think that there should be any change to union access or ballot thresholds. Matthew Percival: Our members support the idea of thoughtfully designed and appropriately enforced employment laws—a strong floor of rights that supports fair competition in the labour market. It is not as simple as saying that employment laws are bad for business; lots of them are very good. That is why we have supported a number in the past, as well as a number of the measures in the Bill, very much as Jane said for her members. Your question encourages me to give a quick checklist of the top issues, in the order that they come up in the Bill. There are a number of areas of concern around the regulation of zero-hours contracts, which has less to do with zero-hours contracts and more to do with the issue of guaranteed hours within contracts—it is low-hours contracts as well. We get a number of concerns about the removal of waiting days from statutory sick pay. We get concerns around the landing of probation periods during the initial period of employment, which are more about the tribunal risk than the sorts of processes that employers might put in place. It is the cost of demonstrating compliance, rather than having a good process, that is more of a concern. In the redundancy space, we are quite concerned about the increase in the frequency with which people will be put at risk of redundancy and the greater uncertainty for people in that environment, and that there might be an unintended kickback for workers. In the fire and rehire proposals, there is a risk that we might be making it easier to make people redundant than to change contracts, so we might go too far and not find that landing zone where it is a last resort short of redundancy. In the industrial relations space, there are a number of concerns similar to those that Jane outlined. A big one is that there has been a lot of focus on the trigger threshold for whether a ballot for recognition should take place. Between 10% and 2% is what the Bill outlines, but the far more significant change from employers’ perspective is the removal of a requirement for a sufficient level of support in the result of the ballot. There is a risk that it could, in the extreme, become a simple majority vote in which hardly anyone votes in a large workforce but it leads to recognition. Alex Hall-Chen: I completely agree with what has been said so far. I would add that a key fear for us is the cumulative impact of all the 28 reforms in the Bill coupled with everything else that is happening in the employment space. Taken as a whole, the measures make hiring someone riskier and more expensive for businesses. Our research shows that businesses will hire fewer people as a result. We polled over 700 business leaders on this topic in August and 57% said that the reforms would make them less likely to hire. I would say that the situation has actually worsened since then, given recent announcements around employers’ national insurance contributions, so the cumulative impact cannot be overstated. For the first time since October 2020 our data is now showing that more business leaders expect to reduce their headcount in the coming year than increase it. The Bill is a key reason for that change.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a final question on the upskilling of professionals, which Cathryn just mentioned, so that they can advise on the new measures coming in through both the Bill and the secondary legislation that will follow. What would be the cost burden and the impact on the whole sector to get into a position where it can give accurate and good advice when the Bill finally reaches the statute book? We can see the parliamentary maths: it will become an Act. Cathryn Moses-Stone: I cannot talk to the specifics of the Bill’s initial cost implications, but I can talk to the cost implications of having really highly trained managers in the workplace. When thinking about general management training, we know that chartered managers, on average, boost a business’s revenue by £59,000. We know that the average pay rise of a chartered manager is £13,000. We see in a lot of our data that there is a direct productivity impact on an organisation from having highly skilled, highly trained managers who are able to implement policies that increase retention, retain talent, boost morale and create a more positive workplace culture, which prevents turnover, which saves a business from losing money. It probably also comes back to the point that managers need time to get it right and to understand it, so that the burden on their business in the long run is not huge because they have the right amount of time to understand how they will work with their employees so that they do not have to escalate everything to tribunal. The early training period is crucial for the wider cost savings, because we know that there are lots of concerns from businesses on these issues, as well as the broader sentiment of being in support of the Bill. Ben Willmott: One of the challenges for a business looking to upskill its managers is that that will incur a cost. If we look at the proposed increases in employment costs overall, we see those from the different measures in the Bill and those from the changes in the Budget, which also need to be taken into account. Businesses will have to find the money to upskill and train their managers. That is one reason why we are saying that ACAS needs to be resourced, particularly to help those smaller businesses that are more resource-challenged and have less knowledge and capability around the HR and people-management side of the business, which is so important to this. Carly Cannings: Ben made a really important point about making sure that small businesses are adequately resourced to deal with the changes. I am, as many employers are—as the statistics bear out—very supportive of raising the standards of employment, and the Bill certainly takes a step in the right direction towards raising standards. The balance that needs to be struck is about making sure that employers, and particularly small employers, are able to cope with the changes. There are lots of businesses out there already doing really good things, and some of the things in the Bill will be measures, practices and policies that lots of employers already have in place. That is not the case for everyone and, in particular, that might not be the case for small businesses. Echoing Ben’s point, small businesses are more likely to fall foul of the legislation accidentally, rather than intentionally, because they do not have the right access to support and advice in the same way. That is an important point that must not be missed. Cathryn Moses-Stone: Would it be all right if I added a point? It is true, obviously, that there is a cost to training managers, but that is why we are also really concerned about the proposed defunding of the level 7 apprenticeships, because there will be a huge knock-on impact. Potentially, a huge skills gap could open up in highly trained management across the UK, at a time when businesses are going to be required to know their staff and to implement the legislation in the right way. We are concerned about how that aligns with the development and delivery of the Bill.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What is enough time? Ben Willmott: We understand that the changes to the unfair dismissal regime in any new initial or statutory probation period will not come in until autumn 2026 at the earliest—that is the sort of timeframe you need to be thinking about. The other thing is that, because of all the other measures, it would help if you could push that out, as that is possibly the most substantive change that will affect all workplaces. If you could phase in some of the other changes over a longer period of time—say three years in total—that would certainly help. The other point I have been echoing is that ACAS absolutely needs more resources to support the implementation process. We have called for ACAS’s budget to be doubled to £120 million a year. It is really crucial to support compliance, particularly among those small and medium-sized businesses that we know are more likely to fall foul through accidental non-compliance. They are less likely to know what their employment regulation obligations are and have less resources to adapt to the changes. Cathryn Moses-Stone: Similarly, we would like to see consultation throughout the whole of 2025, which would be a really nice long period to try to understand exactly what the legislation means for managers. When we are looking at training courses and development for managers and leaders, that does not happen overnight. If there is an understanding that there will be a management gap in some particular area of the Bill, you then have adequate time to try to find the ways to support the people delivering it to upskill, so that they can do it in the right way. Although we cannot give specifics, I think 2026 echoes a decent period of time with implementation.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Storm Bert · Hansard source

  More

  A couple of weeks ago I held a roundtable with some Mid Buckinghamshire farmers on the measures required to mitigate flooding, especially after extreme weather events such as Storm Bert this weekend. At the top of the list was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made about dredging and river capacity. On top of that, however, communities in Buckinghamshire such as Calvert Green and Fleet Marston are being flooded for the first time in decades as a result of some of the big infrastructure that is being built, particularly HS2. It seems that HS2 will concrete over a field, completely unaware that that will have a knock-on effect on farmland next door. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with the Transport Secretary and, I suggest, the Deputy Prime Minister, given their plans to concrete over the countryside, to ensure that where construction takes place, there are proper—and I really mean proper—flood mitigation measures?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Condition of Local Roads · Hansard source

  More

  I am just trying to get answers for our councils. Of course, it was the previous Government who committed £8.3 billion to road repairs, using money from the rightly cancelled sections of High Speed 2. Back in May, when it was in opposition, Labour tried to claim a backlog of more than £16 billion in road repairs, but now it just trumpets funding of £500 million. That is not enough, is it?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Condition of Local Roads · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the tributes paid to Lord Prescott. Talking of pothole repairs and road resurfacing, the director of the RAC, Steve Gooding, said: “The long-term solution is a long-term funding settlement for councils so they can finally get on top of what has been a perennial problem.” But councils— [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members might laugh, but our councils, which have to do the work of repairing our roads, do not know how much money they will get from the much-trumpeted £500 million. When will our councils actually get their allocations?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House will have surely seen the thousands of hard-working farmers who came to Whitehall on Tuesday to protest against the cruel family farm tax. While he was at COP29, the Prime Minister tried to defend his policy by quoting BBC Verify, but BBC Verify has now deleted its comment supporting the Government. Likewise, The Telegraph has reported this week that a Treasury source has told it that no impact assessment will be published on the family farm tax until just before the next Budget. Will the Leader of the House get the Chancellor to come to the Dispatch Box, so that we can have an informed debate about the actual impact the family farm tax will have on the constituents of all Members of the House, including her own Back Benchers who represent rural seats? Her colleagues can then decide whether they stand with their party or with the farmers.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. As the Minister said, this draft statutory instrument was largely consulted on and prepared by the previous Conservative Government, so clearly the Opposition will not divide the Committee this afternoon. I congratulate the Department for Business and Trade, however, on managing to update the explanatory memorandum, unlike a Department for Transport statutory instrument that I responded to the other week, which still listed Guy Opperman, a Minister in the previous Government, as having signed off the declaration. The measures in the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024 build on legislation passed under the previous Government. The memorandum that accompanies this statutory instrument directly references historical concerns about fire and rehire tactics, which—I put it to the Committee—the last Conservative Government addressed through the establishment of a statutory code of practice. I gently suggest to the Minister that that should be reflected in the Bill that comes to Committee next week. In government, we were clear with employers that they must not use threats of dismissal to pressurise employees into accepting new terms, and that they should have honest and open-minded discussions with their employees and representatives. In accordance with the code of practice, businesses must consult with employees in a fair and transparent way when proposing changes to their employment terms. The Conservatives took the initiative to uphold and secure employment rights. Meanwhile, the Government—this is where some contention sneaks in—seem content with their disastrous national insurance jobs tax on employers and employees, the latter shouldering 76% of the cost according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, and to see businesses struggle and in many cases risk failure all together. There cannot be employee protections without employees in the first place.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Shared Rural Network · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, only 40, 50 and 60 miles away from this House, villages such as Cuddington are still complete mobile notspots. Will the Minister explain how quickly the Government intend to move on activating the shared rural network, to ensure no rural community is left without a reliable mobile signal?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Shared Rural Network · Hansard source

  More

  1. Whether he is taking steps to accelerate the roll-out of the shared rural network.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  National Grid’s rationale for rebuilding East Claydon substation is based on speculative applications, not consented real schemes. Will the Minister therefore meet me to find a way to get National Grid more grounded in reality rather than speculation?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rail Performance · Hansard source

  More

  Chiltern Railways was absent from the Secretary of State’s statement, but when it comes to rail performance, for my constituents —both those on the Chiltern main line and those on the Aylesbury branch—daily overcrowding is a reality, with passengers often being left on the platform. Given that the previous Government stepped up, with a commitment to ensuring that Chiltern got more rolling stock to tackle the overcrowding challenges, will the Secretary of State make it a double priority to get Chiltern those extra trains and end this overcrowding?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State mentions rural crime, and I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge. In the last Parliament, with Labour’s support, my private Member’s Bill got Royal Assent. It just needs a statutory instrument to be laid before the House to bring in the definition of “forensic marking”, which the police say will be a big power for them in combating rural crime. Will he talk to the Home Secretary to ensure that my Act starts to help him to deliver his rural crime strategy?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that British farming does not operate on mega margins. Our farmers do not have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds in the bank. They operate on such tight margins that, even if we play devil’s advocate and accept the Government’s argument—which, for the record, I do not—most farmers in this position will struggle to pay a tax bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds over a 10-year period. The margins simply are not there. Of course, there are many things that we can and should do to increase the profitability of farming, but it is fanciful to pretend that a 10-year payback period would be anywhere near enough. It would symbolise the end of British farming. Of course, that was not the only threat to British farming in the Budget. There was the attack on basic equipment such as pick-up trucks, whereby farmers face paying an extra £5,000 simply for having the audacity to want back seats for their children. Then there is the carbon tax, which will see the cost of fertiliser rise by between £50 and £75 a tonne, which will have a detrimental impact on either farmers’ margins or food prices, or potentially both. Across the country, either outcome would be devastating. Other Members have spoken about rural crime, about which I too am incredibly frustrated. I intervened to ask the Secretary of State about this subject. After being lucky enough to come quite high in the 2022 private Member’s Bill ballot, I spent two and a half years promoting my Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which requires immobilisers on quad bikes and high-standard forensic marking, including GPS units, on agricultural equipment. It requires the passage of a statutory instrument that the then Policing Minister and now shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), said was ready to go when the general election was called, but it was thwarted by the Dissolution of Parliament. The Act was passed with the Labour party’s support. Labour Members did not howl it down or attack it on Second Reading, in Committee or on Third Reading in either House. It is not as if the Act is in any way controversial. We just need the statutory instrument to be passed to give the police the powers they need. Police officers like Superintendent Andy Huddleston, who is the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on rural crime, say that these powers will make a huge difference. I have raised this matter with the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House. I doubt that this simple SI would cause any controversy for any party or any Member of this House. Why can the Government not introduce the statutory instrument? I take their desire to tackle rural crime at face value, so why do they not get the ball rolling on passing this legislation? Every time I meet a police officer from Thames Valley Police or anywhere I go in the country, the first thing they ask is, “What is happening with your Act?” I cannot answer that question, because I just do not know the reason for the Government’s delay. I appeal to the Minister to work with his Home Office colleagues to find a way to get the Act functioning. Finally, this Government’s approach to planning and energy is causing devastation across our rural communities. My constituency has been plagued by so many ground-mounted solar applications—the largest one is Rosefield in the Claydons. These projects take away agricultural land, take away the ability to produce food and in many cases displace farmers, including tenant farmers. And what for? It is an inefficient technology that requires thousands of acres of agricultural land, when other technologies, such as small modular reactors, which require the equivalent of just two football pitches, can produce far more energy. I urge the farming Minister or the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to go into battle with the Energy Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister on these planning changes, so that we can have a sensible approach to our countryside and keep it for what it is best at: the production of food.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  There are many issues I could raise in such an important debate on rural affairs, but in their Budget a couple of weeks ago, the Labour Government introduced a new threat on such a scale that it simply must be the topic on which I open my remarks. As I said in last week’s Budget debate, the changes to agricultural property relief are a threat to family farms and rural communities across the country, including in Mid Buckinghamshire. I cannot believe that Mid Buckinghamshire farmers are so different from the farmers found in Labour-held constituencies, but many of the farmers who have contacted me are absolutely petrified about what the change means for the future of their farm. They tell me that they may even have to sell up to a third of their farm to meet their inheritance tax bill. There is no way to sugar-coat this: it will be the end of British family farming if these changes are allowed to go through. When I gave my maiden speech on Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament, the now Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, who was then a shadow Minister, kindly said in summing up that I was “every Cambridge leftie’s nightmare”, and I agree. I gently suggest that, if he does not talk to farmers, to the NFU and to the people who are petrified about what these changes will mean, he may well become the nightmare of every farmer in this country.