Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
Gareth Davies Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I thank Members from across the House for their contributions today, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this debate on trade—granted, of course, by the Backbench Business Committee.
Before I turn to the specifics of what we are debating today, it is important to be clear from the outset that Conservative Members, like all Members who have spoken, want to see an end to violence and conflict in the west bank and in Gaza. Israelis, Palestinians and people across the region deserve to live in peace with security, and it is my party’s long-held position that this can be best achieved through a two-state solution. We also want to see the Abraham accords expanded and wider regional barriers to peace overcome. At the same time, the official Opposition’s view is that settlements are not conducive to achieving long-term peace. We believe that the Israeli Government should firmly clamp down on settler violence, and we are against the expansion of settlements.
Yasmin Qureshi
The shadow Minister says that the Israeli Government should stop these settlements, but as he knows, the Israeli Government have put their full weight behind them. The IDF are there when the settlers are doing these things, so on what basis does he say that the Israeli Government should be doing something about it? They are behind it.
Gareth Davies
I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. I will address the point that she raises later in my speech, but our shared aim across this House, which is peace in the region, cannot be achieved without Britain maintaining an enduring relationship with Israel and with our allies in the region. It is through engagement that we will be able to achieve the resolution we all want. Engagement is vital to achieving the peace that unites the House today.
That is why I regret that, in my view and the view of the official Opposition, Britain’s influence has been diminished to such a degree due to a series of misjudged decisions. These include the decision to cancel trade talks while Hamas were still holding hostages after the 7 October attacks; the decision to impose export licence suspensions while Israel was burying hostages so barbarically taken from their loved ones; and the decision to recognise a Palestinian state when no formal peace process had been agreed. Of course we support a two-state solution, and it is right that we would recognise a Palestinian state, but recognition of a Palestinian state is only meaningful if it is part of a formal peace process. As my shadow ministerial colleagues have pointed out, the Government’s actions to date have left our relations with Israel in a deep freeze, with our ability to influence the situation in the region severely diminished.
Melanie Ward
The shadow Minister has been talking about the views of our allies in the region. I wonder when he last met or spoke to our allies across the Arab world, because they have been crying out for many of the actions that our Government have taken. They have been calling on us to act in support of a two-state solution, and to avoid dithering and doing nothing, which is what he is suggesting his party supports.
Gareth Davies
The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest that we are saying we should do nothing. If Members remember, it was a Conservative Foreign Secretary in 2024 who imposed sanctions on the settlements. The House has heard me say from this Dispatch Box that the expansion of settlements is wrong. She is being unfair. What I am talking about is a point of execution. We have to engage with our allies—Israel is a critical ally of the United Kingdom—and that is not done by banning trade with Israel.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The shadow Minister says that Israel is a critical ally. Is it not possible ever to be critical of one’s allies in return?
Gareth Davies
We can be critical of our allies and we can be critical friends—of course we can—but what I am saying is that disengagement is not a solution to achieving what the House wants, which is peace in the middle east.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gareth Davies
I will make a little progress in the interests of time, because I know that Members will want to hear from the Minister. It is the official Opposition’s view that a proposed ban on the trade of Israeli settlement goods and services will bring about the same result as I have been talking about and will prove counterproductive and ineffective.
Secondly, aside from the ineffectiveness of the policy, it is not even clear that it could be implemented, according to the Labour Government. The Government have repeatedly pointed out, as have many Members today, that a ban on settlement goods would be difficult to enforce. At the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said that countries imposing such a ban are encountering “technical difficulties”. Will the Trade Minister address that point when he responds to the debate, and confirm that the Government still hold these concerns about practicality? Labour Members have been questioning that. It is all well and good making a point and arguing for an action, but the Government say that it cannot be executed, and it needs to be explained.
I realise that many anti-Israel campaigners will not be concerned with the answers to these questions that I am posing of the Minister. They may not care whether a ban is effective or having an impact, but only that it should be in place. By the way, I have heard nobody in this debate mention that one in seven medicines dispensed by the NHS comes from Israel. Those who have suggested that we should have an outright ban on Israeli trade have offered no solution to that point. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is vital that the Government take the full impact of any policy into consideration.
Gareth Davies
Not right now, and I have already taken an intervention from the hon. Lady.
Finally, and more broadly, we worry that the campaigners ultimately want this ban to become a gateway to a wider ban on trade with Israel. If that is the case, they simply do not accept the importance of the relationship that we have with Israel. On trade and the economy, Israel is a technology and health superpower, with the UK-Israel trading relationship worth £6 billion. When the last Government launched bilateral trade talks in 2022, we estimated that the reduction in trade barriers could benefit almost 7,000 UK businesses in all Labour Members’ constituencies, including 5,600 SMEs employing 1.7 million people. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on the status of the trade agreement discussions. [Interruption.]
I see that you are asking me to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker. We firmly believe that the proposed trade embargo would have no practical effect whatever on the situation in the region. We are concerned that it is part of a broader push by Israel’s opponents to isolate the Jewish state politically and economically. The ban would be legally and administratively complex, it would have limited economic effect, and it would hinder diplomatic efforts to find a sustainable, long-term peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. No matter what Members might say or shout, the ban would not bring about peace in the middle east. We have already seen Britain’s voice marginalised and Britain’s ability to influence Israel diminished. To go further down this path would not serve British, Israeli or Palestinian interests at all, so we cannot support the proposed ban.
Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026
Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trade Union Ballots
Gareth Davies Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve on this Committee and, as always, to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I thank her for the explanation that she offered of the Government’s intentions with the draft order.
It is important to make it clear from the outset that secondary legislation is always a balancing act. In this case, the balance is between modernising participation and trade union democracy, and ensuring that the safeguards protecting the integrity, security and fairness of statutory ballots keep pace with the methods used to conduct them. Those aims are not mutually exclusive, and it is our job to ensure that we get them right. To that end—this will be no surprise—I have a set of questions for the Minister, and I hope that she will be able to provide some answers.
First, parts 1 and 2 of the draft order will, for the first time, permit electronic, hybrid and workplace voting for statutory trade union ballots, as the Minister said. Paragraph 5.14 of the Minister’s explanatory memorandum explains the Government’s reasoning against the pilot for electronic balloting, but I could not see any equivalent justification for workplace balloting, which, as the impact assessment contained in the memorandum confirms, has not been costed. Will the Minister explain why workplace voting, an entirely new voting method, will be introduced by the draft order without a pilot or costed evidence?
Secondly, the Government confirm on page 2 that the trade union itself will be the responsible person determining which voting method or methods are used for its own statutory ballots. Will the Minister explain why the trade union has been designated the responsible person for its own ballots, rather than, for example, an independent scrutineer? How does she seek, under the proposed set-up, to avoid a conflict between the union’s interest in the ballot outcome and its judgment on the practicality and security of the method used?
Thirdly, paragraph 9.9 of the explanatory memorandum refers to a requirement for scrutineers’ electronic systems to be independently audited and certified. Will the Minister clarify which body is responsible for enforcing that standard and what happens if a system is found to be compromised or fails that certification process? Paragraph 9.2 gives an estimated annual savings range from
“£2.0 million to £8.2 million, depending on the level of take-up”,
which is confirmed in paragraph 9.3 as unknown. Why such a massive range from £2 million to £8 million, and why is there not a clearer estimate of the likely take-up of the new methods? As I said, the Government have said in their documentation that it is unknown. Paragraph 10.3 confirms that
“A statutory review clause is included in the instrument.”
When will that review take place, and what criteria will be used to judge whether the new voting methods have operated safely and fairly?
Finally, law firm Morgan Lewis has warned that this statutory instrument
“may reduce the scope for successful challenges based solely on procedural irregularities.”
What is the Minister’s reaction to that statement? Do the Government accept that the measures will narrow employers’ practical routes to challenge a ballot’s validity?
Overall, the draft order forms part of the wider Employment Rights Act 2025, which, as we in the official Opposition have consistently said, has damaged jobs and opportunity across our country. My party’s long-standing and long-held policy is therefore to oppose any parts of the legislation that we believe hand unions sweeping powers. As I have highlighted, real questions remain about the process used to bring this statutory instrument forward. For those clear reasons, we will vote against the measures.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and questions.
The draft order addresses a simple issue: the current requirement to conduct statutory trade union ballots solely by post has not kept pace with how people engage today, and balloting has become an overly burdensome and expensive process. That is why the range of options I outlined—online, hybrid and workplace balloting—which the shadow Minister alluded to, are necessary. The requirement to conduct ballots by post was born out of the legitimate need to guarantee secrecy and protection from union, third-party or employer interference, but those principles will not be reduced by this statutory instrument; they will, in fact, be improved upon in many cases.
On the shadow Minister’s point about the chosen methods, electronic balloting has been a well-established option for businesses and political parties—including his own party—for many years. The Government will deliver modern and secure electronic workplace balloting, as we made clear in our manifesto and our wider Make Work Pay agenda. We are pleased to have progressed in that work and to have laid this legislation—it is a shame that the Opposition cannot support it. We have engaged with stakeholders, worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering the balloting methods for statutory union ballots. We are confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy and enables the increased participation of union members, while ensuring high security standards.
The shadow Minister reflected more widely on the varied options in the legislation and asked in particular about the review. We will, of course, keep him updated as we proceed with the wider scrutiny board and as the legislation comes into force. That is important, because we want to ensure that every measure in our Make Work Pay initiative and in the Employment Rights Act works in practice in workplaces across the country, particularly for trade unions.
That leads me to the shadow Minister’s second point, on the responsible person and the independent scrutineer. As he said, the responsible person will decide which voting method, or combination of methods, will be used to conduct a statutory ballot. When determining the method or combination of methods to be used for a ballot, the responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors specified in the legislation and the code of practice. Of course, if the union is acting on that ballot, it is best placed to decide what the combination of methods must be. That is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballot.
We are making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. Under that section, a new method may be permitted only if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard. A method meets that standard
“if it is such that…those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so…votes cast are secret…the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.”
Gareth Davies
The Minister has sought to address my question about the responsible person, but can she see the logic that I am trying to deploy? Why can a trade union be designated a responsible person, but an independent scrutineer cannot? Does she see how that opens up questions about the independence of the process, and did she think consider an independent scrutineer to avoid that criticism?
Kate Dearden
I was just getting to the powers that we are using for the statutory instrument. Trade unions will be required to be the responsible person because they are best placed to consider the factors and criteria before choosing the ballot method.
We have gone through the range of options that will be available. As I mentioned, the choice must include postal voting, even though that is not a new method. As I have mentioned, we have included in the legislation a presumption to reduce the factors and criteria to be considered for postal voting, to reflect the fact that it is a long-established method with which members will already be familiar and that trade unions know how best to approach it.
However, the responsible person must not be aware of
“any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relate to the means of voting which are to be used in the ballot or election.”
That has been made clear to trade unions, which will have been designated the responsible person, alongside the range of other options that they must consider. That communicates clearly to trade unions their roles and responsibilities as the responsible person. As the shadow Minister knows, the responsibilities of independent scrutineers will continue in their role under the legislation.
Independent scrutineers, which the shadow Minister asked about, are either named in or meet the requirements of the Trade Union Ballots and Elections (Independent Scrutineer Qualifications) Order 1993, which sets out clear requirements on who can be a scrutineer. The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years, and we are confident in their independence. In the coming months, we will progress work on updating that order to expand the list of named permitted scrutineers. If he is interested, we will be happy to keep him updated on that particular work strand.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment of the introduction of electronic balloting. The primary impacts include up to £70 million of net present social value. The introduction of new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices used regularly by many other organisations, including political parties and private companies, as I said. Requiring them to pilot those balloting methods would unnecessarily restrict their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected.
We have no reliable evidence suggesting that electronic balloting will increase the frequency of participation. That is why a review will be important to our understanding of how the range of available balloting methods work out in different workplaces and trade unions. The range in savings estimates varies as it will depends on the uptake of the different balloting methods. As electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or mobile numbers, unions will need to gather that information from their members before they commence.
The draft order details operational, audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods well beyond those required for postal voting, to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting. We have developed those clear, secure and proportionate approaches to enable statutory ballots to be conducted via means other than post. The draft order has been carefully considered, through engagement with stakeholders, to ensure that their legitimate concerns about security and interference are managed while ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remain central to the balloting process. The draft order requires stringent processes to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting, to ensure that the integrity of the ballot remains unquestionable.
As I have mentioned, this change is long overdue. I am pleased we are the Government to finally introduce legislation to modernise these processes. I believe I have answered all the questions, and I look forward to the Committee’s support for the draft order and the associated draft code of practice.
Question put.
Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026
Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trafe Union Ballots
Gareth Davies Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve on this Committee and, as always, to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I thank her for the explanation that she offered of the Government’s intentions with the draft order.
It is important to make it clear from the outset that secondary legislation is always a balancing act. In this case, the balance is between modernising participation and trade union democracy, and ensuring that the safeguards protecting the integrity, security and fairness of statutory ballots keep pace with the methods used to conduct them. Those aims are not mutually exclusive, and it is our job to ensure that we get them right. To that end—this will be no surprise—I have a set of questions for the Minister, and I hope that she will be able to provide some answers.
First, parts 1 and 2 of the draft order will, for the first time, permit electronic, hybrid and workplace voting for statutory trade union ballots, as the Minister said. Paragraph 5.14 of the Minister’s explanatory memorandum explains the Government’s reasoning against the pilot for electronic balloting, but I could not see any equivalent justification for workplace balloting, which, as the impact assessment contained in the memorandum confirms, has not been costed. Will the Minister explain why workplace voting, an entirely new voting method, will be introduced by the draft order without a pilot or costed evidence?
Secondly, the Government confirm on page 2 that the trade union itself will be the responsible person determining which voting method or methods are used for its own statutory ballots. Will the Minister explain why the trade union has been designated the responsible person for its own ballots, rather than, for example, an independent scrutineer? How does she seek, under the proposed set-up, to avoid a conflict between the union’s interest in the ballot outcome and its judgment on the practicality and security of the method used?
Thirdly, paragraph 9.9 of the explanatory memorandum refers to a requirement for scrutineers’ electronic systems to be independently audited and certified. Will the Minister clarify which body is responsible for enforcing that standard and what happens if a system is found to be compromised or fails that certification process? Paragraph 9.2 gives an estimated annual savings range from
“£2.0 million to £8.2 million, depending on the level of take-up”,
which is confirmed in paragraph 9.3 as unknown. Why such a massive range from £2 million to £8 million, and why is there not a clearer estimate of the likely take-up of the new methods? As I said, the Government have said in their documentation that it is unknown. Paragraph 10.3 confirms that
“A statutory review clause is included in the instrument.”
When will that review take place, and what criteria will be used to judge whether the new voting methods have operated safely and fairly?
Finally, law firm Morgan Lewis has warned that this statutory instrument
“may reduce the scope for successful challenges based solely on procedural irregularities.”
What is the Minister’s reaction to that statement? Do the Government accept that the measures will narrow employers’ practical routes to challenge a ballot’s validity?
Overall, the draft order forms part of the wider Employment Rights Act 2025, which, as we in the official Opposition have consistently said, has damaged jobs and opportunity across our country. My party’s long-standing and long-held policy is therefore to oppose any parts of the legislation that we believe hand unions sweeping powers. As I have highlighted, real questions remain about the process used to bring this statutory instrument forward. For those clear reasons, we will vote against the measures.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and questions.
The draft order addresses a simple issue: the current requirement to conduct statutory trade union ballots solely by post has not kept pace with how people engage today, and balloting has become an overly burdensome and expensive process. That is why the range of options I outlined—online, hybrid and workplace balloting—which the shadow Minister alluded to, are necessary. The requirement to conduct ballots by post was born out of the legitimate need to guarantee secrecy and protection from union, third-party or employer interference, but those principles will not be reduced by this statutory instrument; they will, in fact, be improved upon in many cases.
On the shadow Minister’s point about the chosen methods, electronic balloting has been a well-established option for businesses and political parties—including his own party—for many years. The Government will deliver modern and secure electronic workplace balloting, as we made clear in our manifesto and our wider Make Work Pay agenda. We are pleased to have progressed in that work and to have laid this legislation—it is a shame that the Opposition cannot support it. We have engaged with stakeholders, worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering the balloting methods for statutory union ballots. We are confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy and enables the increased participation of union members, while ensuring high security standards.
The shadow Minister reflected more widely on the varied options in the legislation and asked in particular about the review. We will, of course, keep him updated as we proceed with the wider scrutiny board and as the legislation comes into force. That is important, because we want to ensure that every measure in our Make Work Pay initiative and in the Employment Rights Act works in practice in workplaces across the country, particularly for trade unions.
That leads me to the shadow Minister’s second point, on the responsible person and the independent scrutineer. As he said, the responsible person will decide which voting method, or combination of methods, will be used to conduct a statutory ballot. When determining the method or combination of methods to be used for a ballot, the responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors specified in the legislation and the code of practice. Of course, if the union is acting on that ballot, it is best placed to decide what the combination of methods must be. That is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballot.
We are making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. Under that section, a new method may be permitted only if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard. A method meets that standard
“if it is such that…those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so…votes cast are secret…the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.”
Gareth Davies
The Minister has sought to address my question about the responsible person, but can she see the logic that I am trying to deploy? Why can a trade union be designated a responsible person, but an independent scrutineer cannot? Does she see how that opens up questions about the independence of the process, and did she think consider an independent scrutineer to avoid that criticism?
Kate Dearden
I was just getting to the powers that we are using for the statutory instrument. Trade unions will be required to be the responsible person because they are best placed to consider the factors and criteria before choosing the ballot method.
We have gone through the range of options that will be available. As I mentioned, the choice must include postal voting, even though that is not a new method. As I have mentioned, we have included in the legislation a presumption to reduce the factors and criteria to be considered for postal voting, to reflect the fact that it is a long-established method with which members will already be familiar and that trade unions know how best to approach it.
However, the responsible person must not be aware of
“any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relate to the means of voting which are to be used in the ballot or election.”
That has been made clear to trade unions, which will have been designated the responsible person, alongside the range of other options that they must consider. That communicates clearly to trade unions their roles and responsibilities as the responsible person. As the shadow Minister knows, the responsibilities of independent scrutineers will continue in their role under the legislation.
Independent scrutineers, which the shadow Minister asked about, are either named in or meet the requirements of the Trade Union Ballots and Elections (Independent Scrutineer Qualifications) Order 1993, which sets out clear requirements on who can be a scrutineer. The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years, and we are confident in their independence. In the coming months, we will progress work on updating that order to expand the list of named permitted scrutineers. If he is interested, we will be happy to keep him updated on that particular work strand.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment of the introduction of electronic balloting. The primary impacts include up to £70 million of net present social value. The introduction of new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices used regularly by many other organisations, including political parties and private companies, as I said. Requiring them to pilot those balloting methods would unnecessarily restrict their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected.
We have no reliable evidence suggesting that electronic balloting will increase the frequency of participation. That is why a review will be important to our understanding of how the range of available balloting methods work out in different workplaces and trade unions. The range in savings estimates varies as it will depends on the uptake of the different balloting methods. As electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or mobile numbers, unions will need to gather that information from their members before they commence.
The draft order details operational, audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods well beyond those required for postal voting, to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting. We have developed those clear, secure and proportionate approaches to enable statutory ballots to be conducted via means other than post. The draft order has been carefully considered, through engagement with stakeholders, to ensure that their legitimate concerns about security and interference are managed while ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remain central to the balloting process. The draft order requires stringent processes to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting, to ensure that the integrity of the ballot remains unquestionable.
As I have mentioned, this change is long overdue. I am pleased we are the Government to finally introduce legislation to modernise these processes. I believe I have answered all the questions, and I look forward to the Committee’s support for the draft order and the associated draft code of practice.
Question put.
Summer Jobs
Gareth Davies Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets the combination of the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions, the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the regulations that make it more difficult for young people to get their first job; further regrets the destructive impact that the Government’s policies have had on entry-level, flexible and seasonal work in particular; also regrets the Government’s plans to give Mayors powers to introduce an overnight visitor levy, making staycations in England less attractive and less affordable, while risking jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries that depend on domestic visitors; calls on the Government to change course to support summer jobs, flexible working and seasonal work, on which the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors depend; and further calls on the Government to abolish business rates for high street businesses, to boost the economy and save summer jobs.
We know that a good start in life is critical, and that is certainly true in the world of work. Everyone remembers their first job—sometimes fondly, other times not. A first job, however, is not just a first wage; it is the first time a young person learns the world of work. It teaches them that it will pay them for what they can do, that they have a role to play, that they are needed and that they belong. It is where they learn to turn up on time, to look a customer in the eye, and to take pride in a shift well worked and a wage honestly earned. So this debate is not insignificant; it is about whether the next generation gets that same chance or whether the Government pull the ladder up behind them. I contend that, rung by rung, that is exactly what they are doing.
As a Conservative, I have always believed in the dignity of work, of the security and freedom that a regular wage brings, but today too many people are being held back. For their sake, it is important that we reflect on why. They are not being held back by a lack of their own ambition—that exists in abundance. Nor are many people being stopped by their parents, schools, colleges or universities—they all want them to succeed. Instead, more often than not, as the chief economist at the Institute of Directors has pointed out, it is Government policy that, in her words, is
“choking off work opportunities for young people”.
Over 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are now not in education, employment or training.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. I can well remember my first job. It was not just about the pocket money, because it was not much in those days; it was about punctuality, turning up, social engagement and meeting people—all those things were important. Nowadays, my constituents in Strangford tell me that it is business rates, energy costs—all the things that prevent them from employing somebody, not just for a Saturday job, but for a student job. They just cannot do it any more. Does that responsibility fall on the shoulders of the Labour party?
Gareth Davies
I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He clearly learned in his first job the importance of showing up and he certainly does every single day in this place, which I commend him for. I agree with him, and I will set out in detail what I believe are the causes of the situation we find ourselves in today, with 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 not in education, employment or training.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend not incredulous that the Government’s proposed amendment to the motion
“welcomes the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the…Plan to Make Work Pay”?
Does he think this is just another example of the Government burying their head in the sand, and that work may pay but there is nothing to work at?
Gareth Davies
That is exactly right. There is no point in pay being on an upwards trajectory, which we all support, if there are no jobs in the first place. Actually, under this Government, the record is clear that employment levels are in decline, not on a positive trajectory.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest tragedy is for those kids who go to university, with all the costs that involves and three years of their life, only to find that they are no further forward? Does he agree that the Government would be well advised to focus on skills through further education, rather than obsessing about higher education, which I am afraid is a fraud on young people?
Gareth Davies
Of course, that is exactly why the previous Conservative Government had such a huge focus on skills, training and vocational courses. My own constituency of Grantham and Stamford benefited at the time from much-needed funding to boost skills and vocational training, so my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Chris Vince
The hon. Member nearly forgot which constituency I represent, which would have been disappointing.
I do not agree with some of the conclusions the hon. Member is making and will make—for example, young people being out of work has been an issue for far longer than two years—but on skills, where I think we can find some cross-party consensus, there is a need to embed some skills earlier in young people’s education. Does he agree on the need to broaden the curriculum to include those vital employment-related skills at an earlier age? I am thinking of financial education and computer literacy, for example.
Gareth Davies
I will always agree on the need for financial literacy, but the point we are making today is that we believe in work—work as a route out of poverty, work as a way to increase the prosperity of this country—and we are highlighting the red tape that is now strangling businesses and preventing them from hiring young workers, which would otherwise give them a step on the ladder.
Gareth Davies
Let me make some progress for the moment.
It is clear that something is not working, as we have all been saying, so we have to try to understand and explain why that is the case. We should not need to point this out, but higher taxes and more regulation are simply not conducive to economic growth or higher employment. If we consider what a business must now weigh up before looking to hire somebody, first, of course, there is the jobs tax—a tax that targets not profit or success, but the very basic act of employing another human being.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that is perhaps the most corrosive consequence of all? Businesses have all the pressure that is bearing down on them, and so many are telling me that it is just not worth it. The correlation between effort and success is being depleted, their self-confidence is being eroded and, as a result, our economy is being sapped of any desire to contribute because the effort does not reap any reward.
Gareth Davies
Time and again, we in the Opposition try to make the point that it is not the result of any one particular policy; it is the overall environment. We do not, as a state or as a Government, create jobs; it is businesses that create jobs, and they need to know that the Government are behind them. They need to know that there is an environment in which they can invest in people. Right now, for a combination of reasons, that is not the case.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. Obviously, in some parts of the world, including mine, many jobs are on offer but it is hard for young people to take them up. Some 60% of employers in the hospitality and tourism industry in the Lake District find it difficult to recruit staff. One reason is the lack of public transport to get young people to the places where they are needed. Another reason is the lack of affordable housing. Does he recognise that this is a structural problem affecting young people everywhere, but particularly in rural areas such as Cumbria?
Gareth Davies
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. As I was saying, it is not one particular policy that impacts this issue. As he points out, it is a combination of factors, particularly to do with geography in rural areas such as his but also in Lincolnshire, and I agree that transport connectivity is a critical part of that. The way in which we pay for more public infrastructure, by the way, is to boost tax receipts through work, employment, enterprise and risk taking, but that point has been lost right now, because Labour’s £25 billion jobs tax has forced businesses to cut back hiring at every level, especially young people. Thousands of people have now been let go because of the Chancellor’s choices.
Secondly, there are the permits, restrictions and forms—all the red tape that is wrapped around those looking to employ young people who simply want to work during the summer. That is a fact that we are trying to highlight through our motion today, and I encourage everybody to look at the detail of it, because it is not often talked about in this place, but out there, among young people, it is.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In areas like Fylde, which are very dependent on tourism—I would say it is the most beautiful part of Lancashire, but I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr Speaker, so I will say it is the joint most beautiful area—the local economy is based on seasonal trends. Summer jobs are important for not just the young people who get them, but the viability of the tourism and hospitality economy as a whole. Does the shadow Minister agree that this has a wider impact on the economy that sustains areas like Lytham St Annes and other coastal towns across Britain?
Gareth Davies
Completely. There is even now a tax on the great British holiday, which impacts my hon. Friend’s constituency, Mr Speaker’s and many others. The overnight visitor levy, known as the holiday tax, threatens my hon. Friend’s area, just as it threatens Whitby, Scarborough, Blackpool, Bournemouth, the Norfolk coast and even my county in the Lincolnshire Wolds. The Government call it “modest”, but the seaside landlady who is struggling to fill her rooms calls it the difference between a season that works and one that does not. UKHospitality has warned that this tax means that consumers visiting destinations in England are charged double the tax of visiting Paris and 70% more than in Barcelona or Rome. In effect, the Government’s half a billion-pound holiday tax represents little more than a self-inflicted trade tariff on domestic breaks, driving holidaymakers overseas.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Is it not the truth that we have a Government who simply do not understand business? They think that they can squeeze and squeeze, tax and tax, legislate against and tangle up in red tape the very businesses that we need to drive our economy, get the growth that the Government say they want and provide jobs and opportunities for working people and young people. They simply do not get it.
Gareth Davies
The facts are there for all to see. As I was saying, it is vital that we support the business community, and that includes small businesses. So often the narrative is about large multinationals, but it is SMEs and small business owners who drive our country forward and employ people across the country, especially young people.
Another thing that businesses in this country are facing is the now infamous Employment Rights Act 2025, which has created so much red tape that the corner café has to focus on hiring a lawyer before it hires a waiter. The Government have laid down so many requirements for employers who need to move underperforming employees on. Indeed, their own law says that after six months, employees are protected from unfair dismissal, but I have to ask, where were these protections for the poor old Prime Minister, with whom they dispatched over a single weekend on WhatsApp? He got less probation than a probationary barista. It is one rule for the shop floor and another rule for the Labour Front Bench.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that the right to guaranteed hours contained in the Employment Rights Act is of great concern to hospitality and leisure businesses. In Burnham-on-Sea in my constituency, they are worried that if they enjoy a period of good weather during which they engage more casual staff, followed by a period of poor weather when they have potentially very few customers, they will be compelled to offer guaranteed hours to those staff they have no need of. Does he share my concern that the right to guaranteed hours will prevent many young people from getting their first job this summer?
Gareth Davies
The whole point here is that businesses, the country and people need flexibility. The whole country runs on choice and flexibility, and if there are unnecessary restrictions that harm economic activity and prevent young people from entering the workforce when they want to, that is clearly not a good thing for our country. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he makes a very good point about the Employment Rights Act, which we have made it very clear we disagree with.
This is not just about the dismissal elements of the Employment Rights Act. The Act also makes British businesses have a fair and open recruitment process. Businesses must find the right candidate, on merit, from a proper field of candidates, and yet here we are today with the Government filling the highest office of the land from a shortlist of one! They will regulate the Saturday job to within an inch of its life but run their own leadership contest with all the rigour of a one-ticket raffle. They will hold a whole by-election to find work for one man, while imposing a permit form on every under-16 in the country, a Sunday working ban and a levy on the town in which they live. It is the same old Labour time and again: “Rules for thee, but not for me.”
It is two years since the last election, and Labour’s policies are starting to bite. Job vacancies are down by almost 150,000. Thousands of job opportunities have gone, and the youth unemployment rate is up by 2.5%—that is 735,000 young people now out of work. Borrowing costs have hit record highs. Labour is spending more on welfare than defence, education and prisons combined. Our economy is shrinking.
It does not have to be this way. We have a plan that respects young people and the fact that they want to work hard and succeed. We have a plan to back young people already in work and support those who want to find work and gain experience, especially through a summer job. Where Labour’s red tape harms employment, we will work with businesses to scrap it. That includes red tape on the employment of under-16s, such as the two-hour Sunday working limit.
In sectors where Labour’s taxes threaten the largest impact, we will choose a different course: we will abolish business rates entirely for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on our high streets, with a 100% relief benefiting one quarter of a million firms. We have ruled out the Government’s disastrous holiday tax on working families and treasured domestic tourist destinations. Unlike the Government, we understand that to back businesses and employers is to back their customers and the people they employ too.
We cannot lose the aspiration of a generation because of the barrier raised by the failed choices of this Government. Young people want to work. They want to do their bit; they want to build their own futures. It is our job not to stand in their way but to support them. Our plan does just that. The Labour party has spent all summer worrying about one man’s job. We say worry about all the others, back British businesses, back our high streets and back the young people of this country, who ask for nothing more than the chance to work.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gareth Davies Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Our most critical supply chains are those that are directly linked to our national security. From autonomous vehicles to blast protection, British small and medium-sized enterprises are the vital link in the supply chain, ensuring that our armed forces have the capabilities to face down our adversaries. The Government have said that the Defence Office for Small Business Growth has an important role to play in supporting the sector, so how is the Minister co-ordinating with the office? If I am a defence SME, how will it help me?
Chris Bryant
What is really important is the work that the Department for Business and Trade does in knitting together all our different policies—for instance the trade strategy, which looks at these issues, the critical minerals strategy, the small business strategy and the industrial strategy. All those need to mesh together. One of the key things we have done is to produce, for the first time, a growth-driving inputs list that specifies the particular elements that are vital for SMEs’ growth into the future. That is precisely the kind of action that a Government need to take to guarantee economic growth for the future.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful for that very comprehensive answer to a very different question—less of an answer, more of an interpretive dance.
Gareth Davies
I just want an answer! Defence SMEs have said that the delay of the defence investment plan caused great uncertainty and disruption to the sector. In addition, they are completely confused by this Government’s endless offices, initiatives and quangos. Will the Minister commit—if he is still in position in a few weeks’ time—to providing more certainty to such an important sector?
Chris Bryant
I know from my constituency and across south Wales how important it is to have a defence investment plan that delivers jobs across the whole of the United Kingdom. One of my anxieties about the previous Government was that they refused to take action either to invest in our armed forces or to ensure that we were able to produce things in the UK, rather than relying, for instance, on steel to produce everything that our armed forces need. That is why we introduced our steel trade measures earlier this week.
And there is nothing wrong with interpretive dance, Mr Speaker. As you know, the creative industries are an important part of our economic future, with 5% growth under this Labour Government.
Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Gareth Davies Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee and to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford, and of course to see the Minister. I refer Committee members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly my prior career in asset management, which involves some of the structures we are debating today.
I thank the Minister for providing such a thorough and clear explanation of the Government’s intentions with the regulations before us today. Whenever we debate regulations, we should always remember that it is essentially a balancing act—in this case between privacy in business and ensuring fairness, governance and transparency. Those aims are not mutually exclusive. It is our job to ensure that we get that balance right as often as we can.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, he said that the regulations remove the requirement to provide trust names for applications looking to access unpublished information through the trust disclosure service. Paragraph 5.3 of the explanatory memorandum states that that is because many applicants have been found
“unlikely to have this information”,
resulting in their request being rejected. The Minister said that just moments ago. Can he therefore tell us how many applications have been made to the trust disclosure service since it was launched in August 2025? How many were rejected for that reason? That would help us understand the basis for the regulatory changes today.
By lowering the bar for applications and applicants, Withers law firm has warned that the change could open the door to speculative fishing expeditions. The Minister will be aware of that challenge from Withers, so I wonder what his response is to that specific challenge and concern.
Secondly, the regulations seek to introduce a requirement in most cases for the provision of a replacement address for individuals who submit a suppression application to remove their home address from the register of overseas entities. Can the Minister clarify whether those who have already successfully secured suppression of their home address from the public register will now be required to provide a replacement address, and whether it will be retrospective? If so, will they be informed, how will they be informed and what is the timeline for that information to be provided?
Finally, on the measures relating to LLPs, which the Minister discussed at the end of his remarks, page 3 of the explanatory memorandum states that these regulations are required because legislation was brought forward and passed in error by the Government last year, before adequate
“Companies House systems had been developed”.
I understand that the Government intend to bring the service requirement back, so when does the Minister expect Companies House to have the systems up and running so that they can process what they originally intended to last year? When will the reinstating regulations be laid before the House?
Business and Trade
Gareth Davies Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies
The Government’s industrial strategy rightly states that improving skills in the construction sector is essential to keeping our country building. In fact, on page 44, there is a commitment to invest
“£625 million to train…60,000 more skilled workers”.
It has been one year since publication, so how many more skilled workers have entered the construction workforce as a result of that commitment?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of construction skills. In fact, on a recent visit to a construction skills academy in east London, I had the opportunity to do a bit of tiling myself—that has come in quite handy at home, actually—and to talk to some of the young people, who realise that they are developing skills for life. The Government are incredibly committed to that. The hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but he will be pleased to know that the Government have announced five new technical excellence colleges to help young people to get those skills for life in the construction sector.
[Official Report, 21 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 683.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald):
Oral Answers to Questions
Gareth Davies Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
The Government’s industrial strategy rightly states that improving skills in the construction sector is essential to keeping our country building. In fact, on page 44, there is a commitment to invest
“£625 million to train…60,000 more skilled workers”.
It has been one year since publication, so how many more skilled workers have entered the construction workforce as a result of that commitment?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of construction skills. In fact, on a recent visit to a construction skills academy in east London, I had the opportunity to do a bit of tiling myself—that has come in quite handy at home, actually—and to talk to some of the young people, who realise that they are developing skills for life. The Government are incredibly committed to that. The hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but he will be pleased to know that the Government have announced five new technical excellence colleges to help young people to get those skills for life in the construction sector.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful for the update on the Minister’s tiling skills, but I did not hear a number showing how he is making progress on the £625 million commitment. Perhaps he can write to me on how they are making progress. One of the existing schemes that supports training is the Construction Industry Training Board, but many industry leaders believe that it is no longer working or delivering. Construction firms are facing significant bills as a direct result of the levy, all while the CITB is reducing training provision. What is the Minister’s view of the CITB, and has he engaged with the construction industry to discuss it?
Chris McDonald
Yes, indeed. I engage with the construction industry extremely regularly as the co-chair of the Construction Leadership Council, and skills, along with health and safety, are absolutely at the top of our agenda. The views of the construction industry on the Construction Industry Training Board are discussed there and decided there by the industry.
British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme
Gareth Davies Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for coming to the House proactively this morning. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my former career in asset management.
I very much welcome the Government’s recognition that industrial energy bills remain incredibly high. This is an issue that businesses across the country have been raising for many months. I have heard what the Secretary of State has to say, and there are a number of areas where I would appreciate further clarity. First, according to the Government’s figures, at least 99% of companies will not benefit from the scheme, even after the announced expansion. Pubs, restaurants, farmers and retailers also face energy cost challenges, and innovative companies such as OpenAI have halted planned multibillion-pound investments in our country. What action will the Government take to address those businesses’ concerns?
Secondly, although businesses are being told today that they will be supported and that their energy bills will be reduced, no relief will actually come their way until next year, so what plan is there to provide a more timely relief for businesses who have to pay their energy bills right now? Finally, I am not clear on how this one-off additional payment next year will be funded. Just this week, the International Monetary Fund has expressed concern about the UK economy, saying that we are the most exposed of all major advanced economies, so can the Secretary of State provide clarity to the markets this morning about how this will be paid for?
High energy costs for British businesses did not start with the conflict in Iran. We all know that energy prices have been far too high for far too long, and we now have the highest industrial energy prices in the whole G7. We should look at the root of the issue at hand: the structural energy challenges that we face as a country. I am pleased that in the regulatory consultation launched today the Government have committed to the removal of carbon price support from April 2028. That is adopting one of the key provisions of the Conservatives’ cheap power plan, so I very much welcome that, but why wait until 2028, and why stop there? The Secretary of State could go further and adopt the plan in full, ending the carbon tax and green levies right now, as well as scrapping the 78% tax on North sea oil and gas companies. Those pragmatic and sensible steps are actionable right now, today. If he does those things, he will have our full support.
Peter Kyle
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the scheme. I know it is qualified support, but where that qualified support exists, I am grateful for it. Let us be very clear about the scheme, which I have been designing for quite some time: it is a competitiveness scheme, and it is targeted; it is not a general scheme for the entire economy. It is to increase the competitiveness of businesses, so that they can compete globally and be more profitable domestically. The scheme will be highly impactful for those businesses. Many of them are already profitable and doing great work. Through the scheme, we can turbocharge their ability to be competitive, both domestically and internationally. I have announced a range of other schemes, including the supercharger for energy-intensive sectors, and I have made other interventions, just in the six months that I have been Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman was gracious in praising parts of the scheme. He could have also mentioned that the growth figures that came out today show that we approached the challenges in the middle east by busting the forecasts and exceeding expectations for growth. That is good for every single business in the entire country. Growth is the No. 1 mission of the Government, and that is what we have been getting on with. That, of course, means that, going into this challenging period, we have more resilience and success in the British economy.
The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. As I said in my statement, the scheme is being funded through reliefs on three schemes, and through support from the Exchequer. It is fully funded and within the fiscal rules, and that is fully set out. More details will flow as we work with business to ensure that we get the implementation absolutely right.
The hon. Gentleman went on to call for a whole set of measures that he would like to see. I would like him to hold himself to the standard to which he holds me, and to set out how he will fund all the commitments he is making.
Draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Gareth Davies Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair presiding over us, Mr Twigg. I am very grateful to the Government Whip for setting out the regulations. It is clear that this is a matter of great importance across Government, and it is an important matter for the Opposition, too. In fact, the regulations carry on work that the Conservatives started—work that the Labour Government are now continuing.
The aim has always been for reforms that support our domestic tourism and hospitality industries, while still providing appropriate protections for consumers. That is exactly what our goal should be with all regulations. I am pleased that, in this area at least, the Government seem to recognise that growth is increasingly being held back by red tape that brings little benefit to anyone. At least one of the four changes before us reduces regulation, which is a good thing and something that I applaud.
While I welcome the sensible measures to alleviate the regulatory burden, however, we must always remember that there is little point having pro-growth deregulation while increasing anti-growth taxation. Over the past two years, many in the domestic tourism and hospitality industries have felt like a target—in fact, many have felt like target No. 1—when it comes to additional red tape and higher taxes. At least two of the four changes we are considering still act to increase regulation. I have a few questions on those changes.
First, as type A linked travel arrangements become absorbed into the package definition, in the explanatory memorandum the Department has clearly set out that this will increase the regulatory burden. The ongoing compliance costs for businesses offering those services will increase. Can the Minister now give us an estimate of how many businesses the Department feels this will impact, and can she confirm that she has at least met with some of those businesses to hear their views on how the regulations will impact their day-to-day operations?
Secondly, as the Government Whip set out, the regulations also establish a 14-day period for the refund of cancelled services. Can the Minister therefore set out the rationale for arriving at that 14-day period? When the Government come up with these periods, I am always interested to know how they arrived at, say, 14 days rather than another period. Is there a specific reason for that number of days?
Finally, I was contacted overnight by Expedia Group, which has set out its detailed thoughts on the regulations. I will write to the Department with the concerns it has raised. Its requests include that the Government publish guidance defining the terms “single visit” and “facilitate” within the regulations before commencement takes effect, so that operators such as Expedia have legal certainty about the scope of the new package definition. On that specific point, I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain her views.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Thank you for chairing, Mr Twigg, and I apologise for arriving late—I was confused about whether there was another Division in the Chamber. I thank the Government Whip for stepping in and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, for his remarks.
The regulations build on legislation from the previous Government, and we have worked really closely with the sector, which is an important driver of growth in the UK. Great holidays bring so much joy to consumers all over the country, and our reforms are all about strengthening the package—which the hon. Gentleman touched on—for the travel framework, ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from strong protections, while clarifying those obligations to ease the burdens on business, supporting the sector and supporting a healthy and thriving economy.
The shadow Minister asked a couple of questions that I will respond to, first on the cost and the impact on businesses. The policy will deliver a net benefit to business of £19 million over 10 years, with £98 million in costs outweighed by £117 million in savings. The analysis considered a range of sources, including feedback from the consultation.
The best estimate we can point to from published analysis is from the 2023 impact assessment of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, as the hon. Gentleman might know. That analysis estimates that 13,979 UK businesses sell packages. I hope that provides him with clarity on the costs.
Gareth Davies
Can the Minister clarify whether she has met any businesses since taking office in this specific industry, and not just relied on the 2023 piece of work?
Kate Dearden
I was getting to those points—I thank the hon. Gentleman for the nudge.
Kate Dearden
We have expressed our intention for the regulations to come into force on 6 April 2027. These regulations are commencing next year to give businesses almost a year to implement the changes, and they have been aware of these changes since the Government response in December.
We have been working closely with industry to develop guidance and will continue to do so in the coming months. Officials have already conducted engagement and consulted on the regulation at pace. It is really important for these changes that we work closely with the industry and that it welcomes them. We want to make sure we work closely with the industry on that guidance.
The shadow Minister also asked about the 14-day refund period for businesses. Travel organisers are required to refund consumers within 14 days of cancellation, but sometimes that will be because of a failure from a third party. Introducing a 14-day refund period for businesses from those third parties will create more certainty for travel organisers, helping them to manage cash flow and recover costs. That covers most of his questions, but I am happy to answer any more if he has any. Otherwise, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.