ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and colleagues for how they have engaged so carefully on this issue for such a long period of time. I look forward to working with them in supporting the workforce. He makes an important point that alludes to the strategy of the company. The company did not present the Government with a viable investable proposition. It has also closed a chemicals plant in France and has confirmed that it is reviewing its European assets. I think we have reached a point where we have to accept that the company has made its decision. However, even though the company could not find a buyer, as I have said, I understand that some expressions of interest have been made and we would be happy to work with anyone who is interested in the plant. We have vehicles such as the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund that stand by to support any viable business proposition in our industrial strategy areas.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The closure of the ExxonMobil plant is bad news for the whole of the UK economy, and it is the direct result of Labour’s economic and energy policies. Does the Minister accept that by pushing up taxes and energy prices, his Government are making the UK an uncompetitive environment for energy-intensive industries? What policy changes will he make to ensure that this is not the first of many such closures?

[Chris McDonald]

As I pointed out earlier, the business has suffered from a lack of competitiveness for the last five years, in part due to the relative lack of competitiveness of UK energy prices, and it is important to point out the things that we have done and are doing to address that. We have the energy-intensive industries support scheme and the supercharger scheme, which is providing up to 90% relief. We also have the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce prices for over 7,000 businesses by £40 per unit of power over a period of time. Of course, with this business, the energy input was gas. We are competitive on gas with Europe, but the issue has been the much cheaper gas prices in the US; the ethylene imports coming into Europe are primarily coming from the United States of America. On that basis, as an exporting business in the UK, the competitiveness issues are fundamentally why the business does not see a future in the plant.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I will call only Sir Ashley Fox and the Minister to make speeches. There will not be an opportunity for Sir Ashley to sum up after the debate.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Royal Mail and the universal service obligation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to move the motion and introduce this debate on Royal Mail and the universal service obligation. This issue affects every household and small business in the country. The postal service is a vital part of our communities. Its future and the changes to the universal service obligation, or USO, particularly affect my constituents.

Our postmen and women are among the most remarkable workers in the country. Out on their routes, come rain or shine, they are often well loved in their communities. The pandemic showed us at first hand the impact that a good postie has—especially for elderly or vulnerable people who were shielding or who had little other human interaction in that period. People in rural areas rely on the service to stay connected.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I also respect the men and women of Royal Mail but, in my office, one major issue has been delay. For those who are elderly, with sometimes complex and severe health problems, the mail is not arriving in time. They miss their appointments and the follow-up. The fines from Government are not working. What else does the hon. Member think the Government should do to ensure that Royal Mail is accountable to our constituents for the delivery of mail?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

If the hon. Gentleman stays, he will find that I answer most of those points in the remainder of my speech. Since 1840, the principle of the USO has been simple: everyone in the United Kingdom, no matter where they live, should have access to a reliable and affordable postal service. It is a promise of fairness. If I post a letter in Bridgwater, it costs the same to deliver to an address in Inverness as it does to one down the road in Taunton.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

I fully agree with the USO, but in some postcodes in my constituency 20% of first-class mail is delivered late. In Buckland, there is no mail service at all when the postlady is on holiday. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must work with Royal Mail to improve service?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman will find that if only 20% do not get next-day delivery, they are doing better than average; that does not speak highly of Royal Mail. Since I was elected last year, many of my constituents have told me that Royal Mail is not working as it should. After hearing those concerns first hand, I visited the sorting office in Bridgwater.

In January, I ran a sample survey to ascertain the scale of the problem in my constituency. I ensured that each town and village was sampled, as I wanted to ensure that every area was covered. I had hundreds of responses. Only one in three got a delivery every day; 15% said they received post once a week or less frequently.

In North Petherton, a constituent repeatedly received a bundle of letters delivered once a week, with no Royal Mail van spotted during the rest of the week. I had a report of no deliveries in Othery for more than a fortnight. My constituents had to travel to the sorting office in Bridgwater to collect post personally. In Cossington, a constituent’s weekend magazine subscription went missing for seven weeks in a row. No one area had a wholly good or wholly bad service. In Burnham-on-Sea, 48% of respondents gave Royal Mail 10 out of 10 for reliability of service, and 30% gave it zero out of 10.

It seems that if a household is on a route with a good postie, it gets a great service, but if that route is not allocated, the letters sit in the rack for days on end with nothing happening. That is simply bad management.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. That situation has occurred at Bexleyheath sorting office in my constituency, and Royal Mail asked whether I could help advertise its vacancies. Should Royal Mail do more to try to fill vacancies on routes that are not filled?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Indeed it should. We have evidence of poor management and, dare I say, occasionally unco-operative unions.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have found that local post workers are really keen to innovate where they can to try to deal with the issues. One thing they pioneered was putting the NHS barcode on healthcare-related letters. Does the hon. Member agree that the Minister should liaise with his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that every NHS organisation puts that barcode on so that those letters can get to the people who need them?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Lady.

I know that there are plenty of local problems, but I also want to look at the national picture. In the first quarter of this financial year, Royal Mail’s performance under the existing USO targets fell well short of expectations. The target for first-class deliveries is 93%, meaning that 93% of first-class post should arrive the next working day. In practice, Royal Mail managed only 75.9%. For second-class deliveries, the target is 98.5% delivered within three working days, yet only 89.3% were delivered on time. That is millions of items delayed across the country. When we look at daily deliveries, the story is even more concerning.

In 2024-25, the proportion of daily routes that were delivered was 87.8%. That is against a target of 99.9%. On any given day, more than one in 10 routes were simply not delivered at all. That explains why locally, even within a small village, some people appear to get a good service while others get next to no post at all. A constituent in Spaxton wrote to me to let me know that his postie had complained of severe staffing shortages and that the new contracts being offered were making the jobs unattractive to new starters.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I wrote to the Post Office in July, three and a half months ago, and it emailed a response this week—I think three and a half months might be a record. The posties in the west highlands, a very rural area, get paid an amount of money that is not attractive to them. We have areas in Wester Ross and Skye that are getting no post at all and have not for some weeks. Does the hon. Member not agree that the Post Office should use the flexibility that it has to pay a reasonable sum to attract postal staff?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Yes, I agree. We can all agree that Royal Mail faces real challenges. Many people now communicate primarily online and fewer letters are sent, which impacts revenue.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the unions earlier. We could perhaps acknowledge that the Communication Workers Union has called out the clear mismanagement of the senior leadership and the need for Royal Mail to fix its recruitment retention crisis.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the issue is much wider across the sector in that it is vastly unregulated, creating an advantageous environment for parcel couriers such as Amazon? That has an impact on Royal Mail’s ability to deliver its services when it is being fined by Ofcom. Some see that as a very punitive measure, given that Amazon and other parcel couriers carry on unregulated and make no contribution to the universal network itself. They hive off profits and pay workers a pittance.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reading out the Communication Workers Union press release. I did refer earlier to bad management and occasionally militant unions. I think good management will overcome the problems, but I do not think the solution lies in more regulation of other private operators. I want to make a little progress now.

The national figures that we see represent a consistent decline in performance over several years, despite the clear legal and moral obligations that come with being the nation’s postal service. Ofcom has noticed. In 2022-23, Royal Mail was fined £5.6 million for failing to meet its delivery targets. The following year, 2023-24, the fine almost doubled to £10.5 million. In 2024-25, it more than doubled again—a staggering £21 million penalty for failing to deliver the service that the public expects and deserves.

In the face of mounting pressures, changes to the USO have been adopted. I must admit that I am sympathetic to some of the arguments that have been made. If I asked many of my constituents whether they would rather have post delivered consistently every other day, they would gladly accept, but I worry that that will not happen.

Under the changes being discussed, the number of delivery days would be reduced, meaning fewer days on which post must actually be delivered. But that is not all. The performance targets have been watered down. On first-class mail, the target is set to drop from 93% to 90%. For second-class post, the target drops from 98.5% to 95%. The post will now come less frequently and Royal Mail expects to deliver even less of it on time.

In my local survey, residents scored reliability at an average of only five out of 10—some, of course, scored as much as 10, and others, zero. They already experience an unreliable service. These changes will not improve either the perception or the reality.

Let us be clear about what the situation means. This is not just a few percentage points on a chart; it is millions of people waiting longer for vital letters—legal documents, hospital appointments, prescriptions and personal correspondence. It is small businesses waiting an extra day or two to deliver goods. It is rural communities, already struggling with connectivity and transport, being pushed further to the margins. It also sets a dangerous precedent: instead of holding Royal Mail to the standards it has committed to, we simply move the goalposts to make failure acceptable.

A constituent in Bridgwater complained that his letters were being delivered in bundles of 16, 18 and, once, 23 at a time, and up to four weeks late. Does the Minister think these changes will reassure that constituent?

The Government and Ofcom need to remember that the universal service obligation is not just a technical regulation; it is a public promise. It is what makes Royal Mail more than just another delivery company and gives it a unique place in British life. Reducing delivery days, reducing targets and accepting lower standards risks eroding that promise. Once lost, it will be incredibly difficult to restore.

It is important to ask ourselves what message is sent when a national institution misses its targets so widely, is repeatedly fined, and instead of being required to improve, is allowed to relax the very standards it is meant to meet. If the argument is that letter volumes are falling, which they are, let us have an honest conversation about how that service can adapt. Right now, targets are being missed and the answer should not be, “Water down the targets until they are met.”

Royal Mail’s decline in performance is not inevitable. It is the result of choices about investment, priorities and accountability. The choice before us now is whether we accept decline or demand better. I urge Ofcom, the Government and Royal Mail to consider whether the changes, in the long term, will really improve services. Or do they, in fact, represent another step backwards?

The last time this matter was debated in Westminster Hall, in 2023, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who was then the shadow Minister for business and consumers and is now a Minister in the Foreign Office, said that

“Labour is committed to the universal service obligation as the company’s central mission. The next Labour Government will want to ensure that the USO is secure for the future and continues to be provided by Royal Mail in a way that is affordable and accessible to all users…We will also strongly oppose any attempts, whether by the Conservatives in the future or by the leadership of Royal Mail Group, to weaken or abandon the USO.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 324WH.]

Does the Minister agree with his hon. Friend? What do the Government think of these changes? Has Labour forgotten the promises it made only two short years ago?

I conclude by referring once more to my local survey. Of those who did not use the postal service regularly, over a third said that was because it was too slow or too unreliable. My residents already consider the cost of posting a letter to be too expensive. The new system risks being slower, more expensive and less reliable. That is not a way to attract new custom. In April 2025, Royal Mail was acquired by the EP group, a Czech-based company owned by Daniel Křetínský. I wish the new owners well, and hope that the acquisition leads to improved levels of service and efficiency so that we have a postal service that serves everybody, everywhere. Mr Křetínský can be assured that we will watch him very carefully.

Employment Rights Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my proud membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who has just popped out for some well-earned tea, for his hard work steering the Bill through the House. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my equally hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to her place; we both know that she has big shoes to fill.

Today, we finally arrive at the concluding stages of this historic Bill’s long journey through Parliament. It is a moment that has been many years in the making. For well over a decade, working people have been calling for the protections that this landmark piece of legislation will introduce. It is our duty to deliver them, and to deliver them in full. Last year, people voted for change. They are crying out for change, and this Bill delivers real, meaningful and positive change. It is therefore immensely frustrating, although sadly not surprising, to see the old coalition band get back together in the other place, to have one final go at obstructing this Bill through changes, like Lords amendment 1, which will be the focus of my remarks.

One of the defining aims of the Bill is to end exploitative short and zero-hours contracts. The right to a guaranteed-hours contract is at the heart of the new deal for working people because, as I said on Report, the rise of one-sided flexibility has been one of the most damaging labour market developments of the past 14 years. Such contracts leave workers—often the lowest paid—vulnerable to sudden changes in income, with weekly working hours varying unpredictably. It is an unstable, precarious life that many are forced into, and it is long past time that this exploitative practice was brought to an end.

Lords amendment 1, a throwback team effort from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, seeks to replace the Bill’s right to a guaranteed-hours contract with a far weaker “right to request”. At just five words long, the amendment may seem minor, but it is anything but. As working people know from bitter experience, a right to request often means no right at all. Unfortunately, it is clear from the comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) that either Liberal Democrats do not understand or they are wilfully misrepresenting the amendment.

Lords amendment 1 creates a loophole, enabling unscrupulous employers to use pressure or coercion to deter employees from making requests. It also puts that crucial protection out of reach of those who simply are not aware of their rights in the first place. Far from delivering a new right, it reopens the door to workplace conflict, insecurity and exploitation, something of which I am sure the Liberal Democrats would not be proud. It is completely at odds with the spirit and purpose of the provision, and it must be rejected.

We must deliver greater security, stability and dignity to people in their working lives. The right to a guaranteed-hours contract, and the increased financial security that brings with it, is central to achieving that. It will be transformative for living standards, productivity and the economy. I urge colleagues from across the House not to undermine this essential provision and to reject Lords amendment 1. Working people are counting on all of us to do the right thing by them.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I am pleased to speak in favour of the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 21, which commits the Government to reviewing whether to add special constables to the list of roles that entitle an employee to request unpaid time off work from their employer under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Special constables are volunteers who give their time freely, at no cost to the taxpayer, to support our police forces and keep our communities safe. They hold the same powers as regular constables: the power to arrest, to search and to detain. They carry the same responsibilities, face the same dangers and accept the same risks. Yet, unlike their regular colleagues, they are unpaid.

The special constabulary is one of the most remarkable institutions of British policing, with its history stretching back almost two centuries. The Special Constables Act 1831 allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers to help restore order during riots and unrest. The specials were called upon again during the first world war, when regular officers enlisted to fight. Their success led to the Special Constables Act 1923, which ensured their permanent place in policing.

From their inception, specials were designed to be a national contingency force: citizens stepping forward in times of crisis to strengthen the police service when needed most. That role is no less relevant today. The Government recently published a resilience plan, addressing the higher level of threat we face from Russia, global instability and multiple risks here at home. In such a context, specials are not a relic of the past, but a vital part of our security and civil defence framework, and a reserve force in all but name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

I agree, especially if we look at unfair dismissal. The issue is not the cause of the dismissal; at its core, this is about denying people recourse. If a worker cannot claim unfair dismissal because of the two-year threshold, their recourse is substantially weaker. The course of the conduct is not changed simply because a worker has been in a place of employment for 23 months, as opposed to two years.

This issue is real and corrosive. I have had young people in my constituency office who have experienced this issue, especially in the run-up to consideration of this Bill. There has been a course of conduct in the workplace that has resulted in them wanting to leave, or somebody wanting to force them out, and this issue makes it substantially easier for bad employers—not every employer, of course—to force an employee out. It does not change the nature of the conduct, or what we should be tackling, which is poor employment practices.

I do understand the concern that has been raised, but a two-year threshold often leads to workers, early on in their careers, being taken out of the workplace without process or prior warning. Their only right of recourse, as I have said, is taking the employer to court through a far weaker form of redress that is often time-consuming, exhausting, fruitless and restrictive, and so deters them from pursuing their rights.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many small businesses are fearful of day one rights because they worry that they might take someone on, only for it to become apparent within a few days that they are not appropriate for their business, and they then fear an employment tribunal for procedurally unfair dismissal, and the costs involved. The result of granting day one rights is that small businesses will be less likely to employ more people, and far less likely to employ people at the margins of the labour market, such as someone recently out of prison or someone with mental health problems. The Bill will increase unemployment.

[Euan Stainbank]

I have to disagree with the characterisation of the Bill as increasing unemployment. We have heard the same about other measures. To tackle the hon. Gentleman’s point about somebody coming into a workforce and not being cut out for it, which I have seen happen in hospitality and retail industries, I believe that is addressed by the probation provisions in the Bill.

Businesses in Rural Areas

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone]

We have started the list, so let me reinforce and add my support to that ask. I hope it is something the Minister might be able to discuss with colleagues in DESNZ, to see whether some joined-up thinking might happen.

I have spoken much about challenges and struggles, but I also want to talk about the huge opportunities that our rural businesses could seize on with the right support from the Government. The unique character of our rural areas sets them up perfectly to benefit from some of the most exciting advances in science and research. Norwich research park, which is not in my constituency but is not far away, hosts many of the country’s world-leading research institutes in the field of agriscience, and they are making incredible scientific progress that could make our food and farming healthier, more efficient and more sustainable. Having such research excellence almost on our doorstep is incredibly exciting, and its location within touching distance of many of our farming and agricultural businesses provides opportunities for easy roll-out of a new generation of science. Our farmers could benefit from world-leading research, and our researchers are already benefiting from our world-leading farmers.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the trade agreement signed with the EU will stymie gene editing and the important research that the United Kingdom is doing in that field? In fact, the treaty will prevent us from rolling out gene-edited crops in the United Kingdom.

[Steff Aquarone]

I am a cautious supporter of the latest developments in food science. I have met the researchers who are leading on the development of that scientific frontier and the safeguards as well. I am concerned about some of the detail. I accept that there is a difficult trade-off with the other demands that farmers make of me, to ensure standardisation for import-export and harmonisation with the European market that they can sell into. However, I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention; it is an important point, well made.

It is not just the deployment of research that can benefit our rural areas; these businesses add an exciting new link to our supply chain. With better connectivity and support for these new, progressive, science-led businesses to source locally, our rural businesses can see a huge boost from encouraging progress in our cutting-edge science and tech sectors.

However, we must not forget the middle of the chain. Still, too much of what is grown and reared in North Norfolk is shipped elsewhere for value adding and processing. With greater support for local leadership, we could create more resilient local supply chains from R&D all the way through to the finished product. That could vastly reduce food miles and improve quality standards and innovation. Additionally, many researchers, scientists and more might choose to come and live in North Norfolk if we had the necessary public transport links to make us a commutable destination. Instead, they are contributing to the overheating of the housing market in our main city.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Since the election last year, our rural businesses have been let down by the Labour Government. Their family farm tax has had a grave impact on the rural economy. Constituents talk to me of the enormous worry that that proposal is causing them. It threatens their family businesses with a huge tax bill when the owner of the farm dies. It is causing investment in rural areas to fall as families wonder how they can pay the tax; many will be forced to sell productive land or assets just to pay it. That not only is deeply wrong, but puts our food security at risk. If we combine it with the Chancellor’s jobs tax, the Government seem to be designing a system to cause as much damage as possible to family-run businesses in rural areas.

New taxes are not the only issue causing harm to businesses. Look at the disastrous scrapping of the sustainable farming incentive scheme earlier this year. The SFI was one of the main sources of Government support available to farmers, but it was closed to new applications with no warning whatsoever in a move the National Farmers Union described as “crushing”.

Digital infrastructure is critical to supporting the rural economy. Across Somerset, the Government have scaled back plans to install gigabit-capable broadband. In my constituency of Bridgwater, average speeds are already far below the national average, and now 1,450 properties have been descoped and are not included in the new deal. In the spending review, the target for Project Gigabit has been pushed back from 2030 to 2032. Minister, how can we close the productivity gap between urban and rural areas when digital infrastructure is not a priority for the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Of course, our industrial strategy will speak to the whole country about the way that we are supporting businesses to grow and thrive. We have identified eight growth-driving sectors as the arrowheads of growth, but there are also policies that we believe will lift the whole country. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on the support that the local community showed in the recent Hamilton by-election, and look forward to talking to him further.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

As part of the Government’s industrial strategy, will the Minister and her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology carefully consider Somerset’s bid for an artificial intelligence growth zone? Its unique advantages—the Gravity local development order, and its existing connections to the grid—make it an ideal location to boost jobs and growth.

Business and the Economy

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

Let us hope that the Minister does indeed have an answer. I am somebody who always travels optimistically, and though we have sparred on the important subject of the 300-page, 120,000-word Employment Rights Bill, it is never too late. That Bill is undergoing scrutiny in the other House as we speak, and the Opposition would welcome and support the Government’s shelving it until we have dealt with the cacophony of headwinds that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) talked about earlier, including the changes to the tax system and other changes; the damage that has already been inflicted on the economy; the headwinds on costs that we saw this morning, with inflation 75% higher than the Bank of England’s target rate, which will mean that interest rates are higher for longer; and the failure to reform business rates. There is an opportunity to revisit bringing forward specific proposals on employment to enduringly reduce business rates, if the Government feel a burning desire to do so.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) is quite right: would it not be good if the Minister could use the ample time that we have this afternoon to consult, and to bring forward some sensible answers that will give us all confidence that we are going to see a Government who are properly on the side of business?

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the cumulative effect of all the Government’s measures over the past 12 months—a £25 billion jobs tax, the £5 billion burden of the Employment Rights Bill, the removal of business property relief, which is reducing the incentive to be an entrepreneur—will be to drive unemployment higher?

[Andrew Griffith]

Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend, but it does not actually matter what I or others think, because the reality is that the data does not lie. As of now, we have 100,000 fewer people on payroll than we did 12 months ago, so the data is already telling us about the cumulative chilling effect of those measures.

That is perhaps unintended. We learn today that the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister are at odds, and perhaps the Business Secretary is the third leg on that stool, with each of them bringing forward measures that are enormously damaging to business. They are perhaps not adding up the sums and seeing eye to eye to understand the lived experience of what it is like to be a business on the receiving end of all of those changes, cumulatively and all at the same time.

Many businesses will, from the start of April this year, not only face a payroll increase of around 10%—in an economy without such a level of topline growth, so that hits margins directly—but, because of the failure of the Government to maintain business rates relief at anything like the same level for our retail, hospitality and leisure, have seen their business rates double. Imagine that all hitting a business on 1 April this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you are far too kind. Can I start by joining others in congratulating the Veterans Minister on his epic adventure to the peak of Everest? Before I get into the politics, I say anecdotally that I often see him in the gym, and he talks about his gym routine, which is considerably more thorough than mine. It is also a pleasure to speak so early in a debate—I am often compared to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in that regard—so thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is a privilege to speak in the debate. As hon. Members across the House know, I will take any opportunity to talk about my town of Harlow and the greater constituency. As I told the Prime Minister yesterday, Harlow is home to some great businesses. It is ironic for me as a vegetarian that the first business that contacted me following my election was a bacon company called A1 Bacon, which raised legitimate concerns about the increasing costs of import from and export to the EU. From what the Prime Minister said yesterday, I am hopeful that the deal we have negotiated will help A1 Bacon and businesses like it in Harlow to continue to thrive and to trade with our EU neighbours.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Could the hon. Member tell us whether A1 Bacon—indeed, any business in Harlow—believes that the Employment Rights Bill will enable it to employ more people?

[Chris Vince]

In all honesty, A1 Bacon has not contacted me about the Employment Rights Bill. As I said, it is concerned primarily with the increase in tariffs since we left the EU. I do not want to reopen that debate, as some hon. Members across the House seek to do, but I hope that the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister will help deal with that issue while ensuring that we maintain our sovereignty, which so many people who voted leave clearly want.

I want to recognise some other businesses in Harlow. What is brilliant when we are first elected as MPs is that we get to see many hidden treasures in our constituencies that perhaps we could not see before we were elected. One of my early visits was to Harlow Group, which makes components for Boeing aircraft that travel the globe. I understand that it is the only business in the UK that produces the boxes into which all the electrics go on a Boeing 747, which is pretty awesome. I also pay tribute to Wright’s Flour; New Ground café; Stort Valley Gifting, where I do my Christmas shopping, as did my predecessor; O-I Glass; and Ecco, which is a fantastic environmentally friendly charity that I will visit next week. Of course, the Minister would rightly criticise me if I did not mention our wonderful local Co-ops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

I cannot help but agree with the hon. Lady. At the very least, that is what the Government should do, and other hon. Members have suggested that too. To be fair, it cannot be easy to form a new Government—it certainly does not look easy. Any new Government must come in, make decisions and quietly think, “Och, I wish we had not done that.” I am certain that APR was put under the nose of a Minister by a civil servant, in the full expectation that the Minister would have the wit to say, “We are not going there—we are absolutely not doing that.” And blooming heck, they have gone and done it. I am sure that when the civil servants walked away they were saying, “Oh God, we never expected that.” And so it is with business property relief, because of the consequences. The cost-benefit relationship between what they are doing to enterprise and business and what they will accrue to the Treasury is out of all kilter. The damage is way in excess of the potential accrual, and that is before behavioural changes are brought into effect.

I recently spoke to a large-scale potato farmer near Kirriemuir, in my constituency, who has massive cold storage, a vital element of potato production, so that farmers can keep the potatoes in tip-top condition and ensure that the supermarkets are supplied as and when, just in time. I sometimes think that the Government think that farmers are trotting around in their tractors, chewing on a bit of straw, but these are really switched-on businesses that are doing the utmost to keep food prices down. We have some of the lowest food prices in Europe, and that does not happen by not investing seriously massive sums in capital and equipment. At a stroke, the Government have catastrophically disincentivised the very behaviour that helps keep food prices down and is anti-inflationary. Look what is going to happen with that.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will raise relatively small amounts for the Treasury, but they will have a devastating effect on those businesses, and the reason they are being brought in is that Government Ministers have no idea how small businesses and farmers operate?

[Dave Doogan]

I do agree; I would rather not agree, but I do agree. That is why I implore the Treasury Minister, who is in his place, to have whatever private conversations Ministers have in their Departments about things that they may have got wrong. They cannot U-turn or row back on everything, but honestly, agricultural property relief and business property relief is an absolute landmine for businesses to be pulled across by this Government. He does not even have to address it in his summing up; he can just go back and quietly look at it again and have a review—kick it into the long grass at least.

I want to speak briefly on quantitative tightening by the Bank of England; I probably will not have too many supporters in the Chamber on this issue, but no change there. I have raised this matter a couple of times with the Chancellor and she talks about all manner of things in response, none of which are quantitative tightening. The over-zealous nature of the Bank of England’s disposing of Government bonds is hugely costly to the Exchequer. There is no need for the rate of quantitative tightening that the central bank of the UK is undertaking. It is not replicated by other central banks. Even if the Bank was to go to a passive model of quantitative tightening that would have substantial, multibillion-pound savings for the Exchequer, at a time when the Chancellor returning from China was getting excited about £600 million for the whole UK economy over five years; £600 million is not even the annual budget of my local health board in Angus and Perthshire Glens. If those types of numbers are important to the Chancellor, the total quantitative tightening cost of £45 billion since 2022 should really be nearer the top of her red box for her attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

This Government were elected on a promise to go for growth. They said that they had a costed programme and that everything else they wanted to spend money on could be paid for by increasing growth. Despite those promises, almost every single action that Labour has taken since entering office has been to stifle growth, not to improve it.

Before the election, many businesses backed the new Government. They believed their promises on tax, stability and growth. Many of those businesses have now lost confidence in the Government, and who can blame them? The impact of the hikes in national insurance contributions and business rates, combined with the red tape of the Employment Rights Bill and the removal of business property relief, has totally undermined business.

I had the pleasure of serving on the Employment Rights Public Bill Committee for more than 20 sittings to go through the legislation line by line. It is 300 pages of additional regulations and costs on our businesses. It is a pay-off to the trade unions for giving their support to the Labour party before the election. That is why the Bill was introduced within 100 days, basically unfinished, and why so many amendments had to be made to it in Committee and on Report. The Bill was written by the trade unions, which explains why the Government show no willingness to compromise on its most damaging parts.

The Deputy Prime Minister is using the Bill to burnish her credentials with the left of her party, for the same reason that she and her team briefed the press yesterday on why she wants another £4 billion of tax rises: it is all in order to be ready for a tilt at the top job. That is why one part of the Government are not listening to businesses when they say how badly they will be impacted by this legislation. However, there is another significant contingent: those who simply do not understand business at all. Vanishingly few Labour Members have experience in small businesses, and practically nobody in the Cabinet has any experience of business at all.

Who is going to be hit the hardest by the cumulative effect of this Government’s punitive attack on business? It will not be Amazon, Tesco or Shell; it will be the people at the margins—those who are looking for a job in their local family-run business. The real impact will be on those who are looking for work, because everything that this Government have done is an attack on jobs. Members must ask themselves: why would a small business, as an employer, take a risk on taking on an additional member of staff in this environment? It will be taxed more and it will be opened up to litigation from day one if it fails to follow the complicated legal processes in dismissing them.

Day one rights will have a disproportionate effect on those people who we most want to help into work: young people without qualifications, those who have taken long-term sick leave, those with disabilities who need reasonable adjustments, and former criminals. Right now, if a small business gives someone a chance, it can let them go easily if it does not work out for either the employee or the business. Why on earth would it take that risk in future?

It is deeply regrettable that unemployment is already on the rise. We know that every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they started. It is regrettable that business confidence is at an all-time low after this Government have been in office for only 10 months. That is all caused by their disastrous business policies. I urge the Minister that it is not too late to change course, but if the Government do not do so, they will create a whole new generation of people who are locked out of the job market altogether.

Employment Rights Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

Well, cut red tape for a start. We see from Lib Dem Members that “The Orange Book” tradition of the Liberal Democrats is well and truly dead; they now position themselves firmly to the left of the Labour party.

There is no greater evidence that the growth test does not exist than the Bill, because if such a test did exist, this Bill would fall at the first hurdle, but today I come with good news: I have two amendments that the Government can back this afternoon to help them to grow the economy. Those amendments are, of course, new clause 89 and new clause 90.

New clause 89 would require the certification officer to advance the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy, and new clause 90 would require the Secretary of State, who is again not in his place, to have regard to international competitiveness when passing regulations under part 4 of the Bill concerning the trade unions. The Government have been asking regulators for ideas to boost growth—it is a contradiction in terms to ask the regulator to boost growth—but we are happy to help them with their quest. The Government should be able to support these amendments. If they cannot, it shows that they are not serious about economic growth and, more tellingly, that they do not intend to use the powers in part 4 of the Bill to achieve growth or international economic competitiveness, because they do not intend to exercise them in a way that is compatible with those objectives.

New clause 88 on trade union political funds will, I am sure, get the Government a little bit hot under the collar. This is a “Labour party first, country second” Government. Nowhere is that clearer than in the changes that the Government are making to the political fund through the Bill. Let us be in no doubt that the changes have one simple purpose: to bolster the coffers of the Labour party.

Clause 52 will mean that members of trade unions will automatically contribute to their trade union’s political fund without being asked about it first. Members will have to opt out, rather than opt in, as they do at present. [Interruption.] Did someone want to try to defend that? No? Okay. If trade union subscriptions are to be used for party political campaigning, it should be a conscious decision of the trade union member to endorse such campaigning.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The shadow Minister may recall that in Committee, every single Labour member of the Committee declared sponsorship by the trade union movement. Does he agree with me that this clause is simply payback for the trade union movement, after its financial support for the Labour party?

[Greg Smith]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Lady is putting up a smoke-and-mirrors argument to try to cover the fact that the Government are changing the status quo from an opt-in system to an opt-out system. To me, it is just straightforward common sense that people would expect to have to opt in rather than, in this particularly egregious case, being casually reminded every 10 years that they could save a bit of money by opting out of a cause that they perhaps did not even agree with in the first place.

In fact, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), pledged to end auto-renewal subscriptions. When the Conservatives were in government, we passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which contained two significant proposals on subscription contracts that are notable here. One of those was reminder notices. Businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will renew and payment will be due unless the consumer cancels. The second proposal was to allow consumers to be able to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward, cost-effective and timely way. Businesses need to ensure that the process for terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single communication.

The Labour party, which was then in opposition, supported those aims—in fact, the Bill did not go far enough for Labour at the time. On Report, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) tabled new clause 29, which the Labour party voted to add to the Bill. The new clause had a two-pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt into subscriptions renewing automatically either

“after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or…if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.”

The second aim of the new clause, which the Labour party used to support, would have required that if the consumer did not opt into the arrangement described, the trader had to

“provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.”

If the consumer did not provide a notification, the subscription contract could not renew.

Where am I going with this? [Interruption.] Government Members are chuntering too early, because there has been a considerable shift in the Labour party’s policy position on subscription traps. It seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but that it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to the trade union political fund. Under amendment 292 and new clause 88, trade union members would have the same rights, pushed for by Labour, as other individuals with a subscription.

New schedule 2 could be used to give sweeping powers to Labour’s trade union paymasters, as the Secretary of State could reduce the threshold for trade union recognition to as little as 2% of the workforce. Trade unions could easily be imposed on workplaces across the country, with small employers being particularly vulnerable. In a workplace of 200 workers, fewer than five of them would be required for workplace recognition. Paired with the other measures in this Bill, that will strike fear into business owners across Britain, who could now be forced to deal with all-powerful trade unions as part of Labour’s return to the 1970s. The way in which Labour has gone about this is just another example of the shoddy nature of this Bill and of Labour’s approach to workplace regulations. The Attorney General has said that

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined,”—

I am quoting him—

“but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”

On facility time, amendments 293 and 295 would remove clause 54, “Facilities provided to trade union officials and learning representatives”, and clause 55, “Facilities for equality representatives”. They would remove the requirement to provide reasonable time off for facility time, the creation of facility time for equality representatives and clauses that will reduce transparency requirements over facility time, respectively. Together with amendment 296, they would prevent facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance. Trade union facility time already costs the Government nearly £100 million a year. Under the last Labour Government, the civil service spent 0.26% of its annual pay bill on facility time, compared with 0.04% in the private sector. Under the last Conservative Government, in 2022-23, the average for the civil service was 0.05%.

Labour councils are still the worst culprit. The transparency data collected by the Government in ’22-23 shows that Transport for London under the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has 881 full-time equivalent union officials on the books, costing £8 million a year. Bankrupt, Labour-run Birmingham city council has 30 full-time equivalent union officials on its central books, costing £1.2 million—no wonder that it went bankrupt. Furthermore, the council had 12 full-time equivalents in its maintained schools, costing £583,000.

Clauses 54 and 55 will increase that cost by giving more time off to public sector union officials at the taxpayer’s expense. That is not right when the Chancellor is asking Ministers to make cuts to their Departments across the board. Public services will be worse and the taxpayer will be expected to contribute more.

Furthermore, the Bill extends the right to facility time to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off work to carry out activities for the purposes of

“promoting the value of equality in the workplace…arranging learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace…providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace…consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”

and

“obtaining and analysing information relating to equality in the workplace”.

Those are all noble goals, but that should not be done at the taxpayer’s expense.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the shadow Minister agree that the only jobs that will be created by these Bills are for people employed by trade unions?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before Mr Smith responds to that intervention, I must add that we have just shy of 40 people hoping to contribute to this debate, and I want to get them all in.

“Chapter 4A

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question. We are aiming to work on this once the Bill has passed this stage, and consultation will take place in due course. I have to say that the chuntering from those on the Conservative Benches really shows how they fail to appreciate the power imbalance that there is in some workplaces and the exploitation and harassment that arise from that.

Our measures on guaranteed hours, reasonable notice of shifts, and payment for short-notice cancellations seek to ensure that workers, often in fragmented sectors with little voice of their own, do not bear all the risk of uncertain demand. However, we recognise that there are cases where unions and employers, working together, may want to agree more tailored rights than the provisions allow, which would benefit both the workers and the employer given the unique context of that particular sector. Unions, businesses and trade associations have made a case for that flexibility in their meetings with us. We want to allow for that, while also providing a baseline for sectors where unionisation is uncommon or agreement cannot be reached. New clause 33 and associated amendments will allow employers and unions to collectively agree to modify or opt out of the zero-hours contract measures.

Like the other workers covered by this part of the Bill, agency workers deserve a baseline of security and access to a contract that reflects their regular hours. Many agency workers have a preference for guaranteed hours, according to survey evidence. We know that 55% of agency workers requested a permanent contract with their hirer between January 2019 and September 2020, according to the Department for Business and Trade’s agency worker survey. We are keen not to see a wholesale shift from directly engaged workers to agency workers as a way for employers to avoid the zero-hours provisions in the Bill.

New clause 32, new schedule 1 and associated amendments will narrow the broad power currently in the Bill and instead include provisions for similar rights to be extended to agency workers. Hirers, agencies and agency workers can then be clear where responsibilities will rest in relation to the new rights. These amendments reflect the call for clarity from stakeholders in their response to the Government’s public consultation on this issue. Given the important role that agency work plays in businesses and public services, we recognise the need to work with the recruitment sector, employers and trade unions to design detailed provisions for regulations that work—that is, regulations that achieve the policy objective of extending rights to agency workers without unintended consequences for employment agencies and hirers—and we will work on that in due course.

The Government have also tabled amendments in relation to dismissal and redundancy practices. This Bill will help employers to raise standards in relation to these practices, so that the vast majority of businesses that do the right thing by their workers will no longer be undercut by those with low standards.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I had the good fortune to serve with the Minister for 21 sessions in Committee, and at the end of that we had a Bill 192 pages long. We now have 270 pages of amendments, most of which come from the Government. Why are they tabling so many amendments and giving them just two days’ scrutiny? Are these just more union demands?

[Justin Madders]

I have literally just explained how we have been consulting with businesses and trade unions and put down amendments as a result. Of course, if the hon. Member is concerned about the length of the amendment paper, he can withdraw his own amendment, which we will no doubt be debating later on.

We are tabling some technical amendments to clause 21 on unfair dismissal that will update cross-references in other legislation to “the sum”, which is the existing cap on the compensation that can be awarded by an employment tribunal in most unfair dismissal cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely right. There are many organisations, including the BBC, that as a policy do not use NDAs.

Imagine suffering that kind of treatment at work: losing your job, losing your health, and then being banned from explaining to another potential employer, or even your closest friends, what has happened to you. It makes it next to impossible to recover from the experience, very difficult to find work again and vanishingly unlikely that the organisation will face up to its wrongdoing and enact change.

For Mr B, for survivors of monsters such as Mohamed Al-Fayed, and for the thousands of victims across our society who have been legally required to suffer in silence, I hope the House can agree that such agreements have no place in modern society. And if it can happen in organisations such as ITN, whose job is literally to expose injustice, or in trade unions, whose job is to protect workers, then it can happen anywhere. Organisations in these instances, no matter who they are, will circle the wagons and protect themselves rather than the victim. By doing so, they protect abusers. That is why we must simply remove the tools of their abuse and end the use of NDAs in these circumstances.

I am very grateful to the Minister for his earlier response and for confirming that the issue warrants further consideration, but may I press him a little further on exactly how we can see progress? And we must see progress. It is sickening that across the country women and men will have suffered abuse in their workplace and that, instead of action against the perpetrator, they are the ones who are shamed and silenced, ganged up on by lawyers and sentenced to a lifetime of regret.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

As a member of the Public Bill Committee for the Bill, I was surprised by the number of amendments the Government tabled to their own legislation in Committee. There were hundreds of amendments, demonstrating how badly the Bill was drafted when it was first proposed. It was clearly a bad idea to commit to introducing such a major piece of legislation within 100 days of the election, but I guess that was the price of trade union money to fund the Labour party. Having had 21 sittings in Committee scrutinising the Bill line by line, we now find ourselves with another vast number of Government amendments once again, but this time with only two days to scrutinise it. Most of the amendments on the amendment paper are the Government’s. The amendment paper is thicker than the original Bill.

This is a bad Bill. It pushes up the cost of labour, makes our flexible labour market less flexible and will increase unemployment. I am pleased to have tabled new clause 30, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties. Special constables are volunteers who give their time at no cost to the taxpayer to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers to combat riots and social unrest. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, both on and off duty, and put themselves in harm’s way without payment to keep our society safe.

Today, the special constabulary—an institution that has served this nation for nearly two centuries—faces a crisis. The number of volunteer officers has fallen by two thirds in the past decade; in the past year alone, we have seen a 20% drop. Many police forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. This is not just a temporary dip, but a long-term trend. There are multiple factors at play, but clearly becoming a special is not an attractive proposition to too many potential recruits. I believe we must act now to ensure that the special constabulary continues to play a vital role in policing for generations to come.

It is in that context that I bring forward my amendment to the Bill, which seeks to amend section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For those who are not aware, section 50 allows those undertaking a number of community roles to request unpaid time off work to perform their duties. On the list are magistrates, local councillors, school governors and even members of the Environment Agency. It seems strange to me that we would exclude those prepared to keep us safe from the list of community-minded citizens.

Department for Business and Trade

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

My hon. Friend refers to the increase in regulation. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which I have in my hand, is 192 pages long. Only this week, Government amendments totalling 216 pages have been tabled for this House to consider in two days next week. Does that not present any business with a vast quantity of new regulation to consider?

[Alison Griffiths]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The time that we have next week to consider this number of amendments seems wholly inadequate.

Businesses are facing ever-changing regulations and increasing tax burdens. Many have said that they were misled—duped—into believing that this Government were pro-business when their actions tell a very different story. Analysis by the Nuffield Trust has found that if the fair work agency were to increase social care workers’ wages to match the NHS Agenda for Change band 3, the cost could be as high as £6.3 billion, including an increase to the real living wage costing £2.2 billion. That is another measure in the out-of-touch Employment Rights Bill. It is as if the 32 members of the Cabinet have a very limited understanding of the private sector and of business as a whole.

Business owners, entrepreneurs and workers do not need more red tape and tax hikes. They need a Government who understand that growth does not come from the state dictating terms, but from unleashing the potential of enterprise, and they need policies that encourage investment, not deter it. Businesses in my constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are already struggling with the global impacts on their business environment, let alone the challenges at home. The day one rights given by the Employment Rights Bill give the presumption of innocence to workers and the presumption of malevolent intent to employers. The reality is that neither is correct.

The Government need to understand that when business thrives, Britain thrives. That is the only way in which we will restore confidence, protect jobs, and secure a growing economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Government were elected eight months ago with a promise to go for growth, but so far most of their policies seem designed to make life more difficult for business. Their £25 billion national insurance jobs tax is a direct assault on the businesses that create jobs. The increase in capital gains tax, the introduction of the family business tax and the family farm tax all discourage entrepreneurship.

The 1970s-style employment laws are slowing business growth and discouraging job creation. Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will increase costs to businesses by £5 billion, borne mostly by small businesses. Take day one rights. If, after less than one week, it becomes apparent that a new employee is the wrong fit for a business, a complicated process must be followed to dismiss them. Speaking as a former—though fully qualified —solicitor, I know the businesses that will be hit hardest are the ones with no human resources department. Get the process wrong, and they could be taken to court for unfair dismissal. Another example is the obligation for the employer to notify an employee in writing that they have the right to join a trade union. Is that something we would reasonably expect from the local publican, or the proprietor of a family newsagent? In what world is that really going to occur? Yet if it does not occur, those small businesses will on the hook for an additional four weeks’ salary in damages. That will have brutal consequences for very many microbusinesses and will deter them from employing people.

The Bill also establishes an advisory board for the enforcement of labour market rules. That body will advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to the labour market. It is an expensive and pointless exercise. The Secretary of State has plenty of avenues to collect advice already. There will be a complicated process for selecting members of the panel, which will consume considerable amounts of civil service time and money. The members of the board will be paid hundreds of pounds a day. This is a sham process designed to allow the Secretary of State to hand out sinecures to receive advice on strategy from his union friends that he could have got for free.

The first instinct of this 1970s-style old Labour Government is to regulate, to stifle innovation and to back the unions over business every time. We Conservatives will stand up for business and the people who make the economy work, and will continue to champion its success.

Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Good morning, Sir Christopher. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to move the new clause, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties.

Special constables are volunteers. They give their time, at no cost to the taxpayer, to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, on and off duty. They put themselves in harm’s way, without payment, to keep our society safe.

I tabled the new clause because my constituent, Ms Emma-Elizabeth Murphy, asked me to do so. She came to see me at one of my first constituency surgeries and asked me to help her and her fellow special constables. Ms Murphy joined up as a special in 2021 and took the oath as a constable. Since then, she has recorded more than 1,300 hours of duties, arrested multiple offenders and dealt with fatal accidents. Last year, she was recognised as student special constable of the year.

Ms Murphy explained that she and many of her colleagues use their weekends and holidays to perform their duties. They may ask their employers for unpaid leave, but 60% of employers who were surveyed do not grant it. Bringing specials within the scope of section 50 would mean that their employer had to consider the request officially and grant a reasonable amount of unpaid leave. That would put them in the same position as councillors and magistrates.

The number of people who volunteer as a special has fallen by two thirds over the past decade. Many forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. Applications have slowed significantly, with most special constables joining purely as a stepping stone into the regular force. The two-year attrition rate of the force is 90%. That means that the constabulary does not see a good return on the time and training that it invests in new recruits.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you, Sir Christopher. I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the GMB.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater is making a powerful case. Were the Government to accept his new clause, would he support the Bill as a whole?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

That would not be quite enough to offset the £5 billion-worth of costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. The advantage of the new clause is that it would not cost either the taxpayer or employers any money. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.

The truth is that, currently, many people simply do not have the time to offer to the role without employer support. The measure I propose would make it easier for specials to perform their duties and, I hope, help recruitment. Unlike so many of the proposals in the Bill, it would not cost either employers or the taxpayer any money.

I am pleased that this campaign has the support of the Association of Special Constabulary Officers and more than a dozen MPs from Government and Opposition. We also have the endorsement of 10 police and crime commissioners. Importantly, Assistant Chief Constable Bill Dutton, acting in his capacity as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the special constabulary, has provided his written support for including special constables under section 50. The Minister has received letters from hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I believe that some of his ministerial colleagues, too, may have received letters or held meetings with Government Back Benchers.

The new clause could help with the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and it would make our streets safer. It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in this country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. I ask the Minister to consider that.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has proposed. The first duty of Government is to protect citizens from threats abroad and keep them safe at home. Given all the other rights and extensions of rights that the Government are pushing in the Bill, it would seem unusual if support for our special constables, whom I salute for all their hard work day in, day out as part of the mission to keep the British people safe, were not included. I urge the Minister to consider the new clause in a genuine spirit of trying to work together on this issue.

I am tempted to rise to the bait set by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles. We have many differences of opinion about the Bill’s provisions, but, in the spirit of the Bill, surely we can find some cross-party consensus on extending employment rights to special constables going about their duty—the often dangerous duty that they carry out on behalf of us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

We have had various discussions within the Department. Information has gone over to the Home Office, and we are waiting for a response. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Home Office, so I cannot set out its position. As I say, I think it is time more generally to consider all the legislation relating to the right to time off for public duties. It is too soon to accept this new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Bridgwater is assured that we are taking this issue seriously and considering it.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Although I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the new clause, I will withdraw it at this stage. I can count 10 Government Members and only five on the Opposition Benches, so my chances of success in a Division would be limited. I hope the new clause can find its way back into the Bill, perhaps in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35

Carer’s leave: remuneration

“(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—

(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and

(b) includes terms and conditions about remuneration.’”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is an opportunity to extend carer’s leave across the whole of Great Britain. I hope it falls on more fertile ground than the previous new clause. There are 10.6 million carers across the United Kingdom, yet only 2.5 million are actually in paid employment. That shows that, although some of those carers may be beyond or even below working age, there is still a significant untapped pool of opportunity to drive productivity in our economy.

The economic growth figures released this morning show that the handbrake is sadly still on in our economy due to the appalling state that the Labour party inherited from the previous Government, so we need to think about how to allow people to work in our economy as strongly as possible. Centrica has found that there is an £8 billion cost to our economy for those who choose to leave the workplace due to having caring commitments. This would potentially allow a goodly number of those to remain in the workplace and continue to contribute. Although this is a probing amendment, I hope the Minister will give it some serious consideration and advise the Committee on what exploration the Government may choose to undertake of this golden opportunity for us as a society.