Nick Timothy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  We are sent here not to consider anecdotes and individual case studies, but to consider legal frameworks and systems. If the hon. Gentleman wants to remove some of the systemic barriers to house building, which regulations—particularly pertaining to the environment and biodiversity—might he be interested in seeing removed?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Would my hon. Friend give way?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I should probably make reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an unpaid trustee at the Index on Censorship, which may be relevant to this debate. I do not think anybody here is a free speech absolutist. My hon. Friend is trying to test scenarios, but he is in no way talking about issues such as incitement of hatred, which are already criminal matters. We are talking about the codification of things that may be subjective in the light of the law of unintended consequences. To bring some colour to the conversation, I thought I would make reference to a recent Independent Press Standards Organisation ruling. I cannot imagine that that was ever the kind of ruling that was intended at the time that IPSO was created. Gareth Roberts, who sometimes writes for The Spectator , was writing about a third party who had, in turn, written about issues relating to gender, and referred to them as “a man who claims to be a woman”. That person then complained to IPSO, which ruled that it was not wrong as a statement of fact, but still upheld the complaint on account of its being a prejudicial or pejorative reference to that person. I do not think that that is the kind of thing that was ever intended when IPSO was created, but it is the type of example that we may be talking about right now. I would love to know what my hon. Friend thinks about that.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way just one more time? I have an excellent example that I would like to share.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It has just been drawn to my attention that the Health Secretary is the subject of an official complaint to the Labour party for his jokes about the former Transport Secretary at The Spectator party last week because his comments were considered “bullying and uncomradely” according to the complaint. That may be another example of this kind of subjective test.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. One in 50 Albanians in Britain is in jail, and foreign nationals such as Jamaicans, Iraqis and Somalis are also disproportionately likely to be criminals. We need better data to inform immigration, asylum and criminal justice policies. Will the Government publish the nationality, visa and asylum status of all offenders in prison—if yes, can we have a timeline, and if not, can we have a good reason why not?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have absolutely no intention of correcting the record, because the record will be correct. I think the hon. Member misunderstands my point, which was not to say that in that case the conduct was an example of harassment; I am fully aware that the IPSO ruling said that it was not harassment. My point was about the laws of unintended consequences. When IPSO was established, I do not think anybody thought that there would be cases such as this, where a journalist would be penalised by IPSO for saying something that IPSO acknowledges was a statement of fact on the grounds that it may be offensive.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I assure the Education Secretary that we are very positive about schooling in this country. I am sure that she will want to thank all school leaders for their work to help English schools to soar up the rankings for the programme for international student assessment and programme for international student assessment rankings—PISA and TIMMS—but will she join me in sending personal congratulations to Katharine Birbalsingh, whose approach to discipline, the curriculum and teacher-led instruction makes her school Michaela the best in the country?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech about the “protect” element of the counter-terrorism strategy. It is clear from the Manchester attack inquiry report that the asylum system is a big part of the story. Salman Abedi and his brother Hashem—who planned the attack and prepared the explosives, and was as guilty of the attack as Salman—were born in Britain to Libyan asylum seeker parents. Their father, Ramadan Abedi, was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an Islamist militia. He was granted asylum in this country, but travelled back and forth between Britain and Libya throughout that time, which is a story that we often hear about people who are granted asylum here. Given the number of people who come here illegally and across the channel, whom we have no ability to investigate and on whom we cannot make checks, how does the hon. Gentleman think we might reform the asylum system to prevent such things from happening again?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What has been striking about the debate so far is the extent of cross-party consensus on this matter. My worry is that the Bill contains a set of proposals that we might be supporting because they are something that we deem possible to do, whereas we may be neglecting some things that are harder to do. In the inquiry into the bombing, several aspects of the story were very concerning, from the way the asylum system worked through to the Prevent programme. While 90% of MI5’s counter-terrorism casework is Islamist, the latest data shows that the number of Prevent referrals for young people suspected of Islamist radicalisation has fallen from 3,706 in 2016-17 to only 781 in 2022-23. As a former police officer, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to do something to ensure that Prevent is properly targeted at the real threats we face?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think the answer to the question must be no. That may be fair enough, but can the Minister tell us whether she has had any conversations with her opposite numbers in the Home Office, which sponsors MI5, or the Foreign Office, which sponsors GCHQ and MI6?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about process: at the point at which the Bill came before the House for a Second Reading, how many of its clauses were already subject to revision within the Department?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what conversations she has had with MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to understand whether, given their unusual, specific, specialist operations, there are any circumstances that might go beyond those already set out.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for the universalism, or near-universalism, of employment rights and presumably, within that, trade union rights. The power to withdraw one’s labour is a very important part of modern employment practice. We are talking about the three security and intelligence agencies listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, but I want to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to give his view about the universalism of these rights, including the right of the police, for example, to join a union and to strike.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to test everyone’s patience. We have heard at different points during the proceedings that “Good employers do this already.” Undoubtedly, that is true, and where employers want to be able to offer certainty, they will. The full quote the Minister just read was “by and large”, because employers cannot do that in all circumstances, even those that set themselves up to be that thoughtful. Does the Minister recognise that where businesses do not do the things in the Bill, it is not necessarily because they are bad employers? Obviously, some employers may be bad. If he recognises that, does he therefore recognise that through standardisation and an increase in things such as compliance costs, the Bill is, in a cumulative sense, adding costs to businesses that are not bad employers?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to add a couple of thoughts, not so much about the principle of the amendments, but about what they say about the process. I note what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said about the history and about the Law Commission having made its proposals in 2020. That rather adds to our confusion about why the amendments are being introduced in Committee and why they were not part of the Bill on Second Reading. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us a little about the preparation of the Bill and what his officials said at the time of Second Reading about how many more amendments would be necessary in Committee and about its readiness. Will he also tell us more about the precise impact of the amendments, and what they mean for the Bill’s impact assessment?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the cumulative effect of the pressures that are building on business, during our evidence sessions last week with various witnesses, the compelling point was made that we should not look at the Bill in isolation. The impact assessment states that the costs are a minimum £5 billion a year for business. Some witnesses thought that that was actually an underestimate, and that the true figure will be higher and will grow when more details emerge as we go through this process. We should also look at the Bill alongside decisions such as the equalisation of the national living wage for young people, the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions and other business taxes that were in the Budget. I thought my hon. Friend might want to say something about the cumulative effects of all those decisions.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Management of Public Finances · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the Chancellor told the CBI conference that she would not come back “with more borrowing or more taxes”. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister hung her out to dry and refused to repeat those words. Will she repeat them today and rule out any more borrowing or any more taxes—yes or no?

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q But the only real businesspeople who have been here have been unambiguously against it. Justin Madders: I think you will find that the Co-op is a real business, and it employs an awful lot of people.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Indeed. With not just the Bill, but the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions and things like the equalisation of the national living wage for young people—you also mentioned energy prices, Mr Johnson, which are a particular concern of mine—you sound very worried about the future of innovation, investment and ultimately jobs in this country. You have a platform today to send a message to the Prime Minister and all the Ministers who are involved in this legislation. What would that message be? Luke Johnson: I think there is a complacency about our current prosperity. There is this belief that jobs will always appear, that businesses will always invest and that living standards will naturally rise. It sometimes feels as if Britain is a nation running on fumes at the moment. We have large amounts of debt, certainly at Government levels. We have public spending projected to take, I think, 45% of GDP—a very high level compared with 10 years ago—and that crowds out the private sector. Interest rates, especially if you have to borrow from the bank, are pretty punitive. As for the idea that we can continue to occupy the role in the world that we used to occupy decades ago, it is a dramatically more competitive place. There are dozens and dozens more countries where money can be invested, factories can be sited and jobs can be created. Many of them are much lower-cost than we are. They might argue that they have a hungrier workforce, or whatever it may be. No country has ever taxed and regulated its way to a higher standard of living. It feels as if that is what this Government are about. They need to get real about how prosperous economies are actually created. Michael Lorimer: If I were speaking to him, I would say, “Listen well to those who matter most.” To go back to the White Paper, you simply cannot create jobs without the private sector on board. You can listen to all sorts of people who will give you incredibly important stakeholder advice, but if you want to create jobs and grow the economy, the business community has to be on board. If we want to create prosperity, the private sector is where it is going to happen. I would say, “Listen well to those who matter most.” Secondly, I would say, “Take your time and consult widely on this.” I feel that at the minute the consultation is not wide enough. We are here today: there are two of us speaking, broadly on the same message. Take time and do not rush it through for the sake of meeting a timescale. Take time and speak to business. Go out to the country and speak to small and medium-sized businesses and employer groups. A lot of this stuff is not controversial. It is tick-box and—to go back to the first question—it is reinforcing a lot of stuff we do in the business anyway. We have 600 employees; at the minute I think we have three people in total on long-term sick, so we do not have a lot of problems. We have an engaged workforce and we are delighted to pay people well, at above the national living wage. All that stuff is about us trying not only to help our people to prosper, but to help our customers and the Banbury community to prosper. All this feels quite counterproductive and could have a lot of unforeseen consequences.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is true. That is a correction.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Can you name some? Justin Madders: I cannot name individual CEOs. Octopus has been very positive, Sainsbury’s has been very positive and, as we heard today, the Co-op has been very positive. I think the CBI welcomed the Bill and welcomed the engagement as well, and Make UK too. There are quite a lot of organisations on the employer side that are generally welcoming of the intentions of the Bill, and I think that has been reflected in the evidence.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I thought that I would quickly clear up the disagreement that seems to have broken out between the two sides of the Committee, so I have gone through the record of Tuesday’s session. Paul Nowak said: “It is very likely that we will see increased unionisation as a result of the Bill” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 67.] and Mick Lynch said that the Bill will mean that “many workers”—more than 50%, he hoped— “are covered by collective arrangements in one form or another.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 62.] That is up from 22% today. So I think it is fair to describe that as re-unionisation. I do not really understand why the Labour party would be so ashamed of doing such a favour for the Labour movement, of which it is a part. But anyway, you just mentioned P&O. I just wanted to ask you, who did you think was right about P&O? Was it the Transport Secretary or the Prime Minister when he slapped her down for criticising them? Professor Deakin : I am not sure I quite understand the question.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is quite conspicuous that you are the first two witnesses, I think, who actually run businesses yourselves, and your evidence is rather different from much of the— Luke Johnson: Has any of the other witnesses ever created a single job?