Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) made clear earlier, the ONS statistics are very clear: 109,000 fewer on payroll in May alone and 276,000 fewer since the autumn Budget. As UKHospitality points out, the NICs changes were

“felt most intensely by foundational sectors like hospitality,”

which “necessitates an urgent review”.

My question to the Minister is simple: where will his red line sit? How many more jobs have to come off payroll before the Department for Business and Trade will stand up to the Treasury on this? Another 100,000? A million? Where is the line?

[Justin Madders]

Again, it is interesting that those on the Conservative Front Bench do not seem to be in agreement with their own leader any more about the national insurance hikes. I will just point out some statistics to the hon. Member: the International Monetary Fund has predicted that growth will increase this year and the Lloyds business barometer found that business confidence was up. We are putting money back into people’s pockets and investing in this country. We are doing things that the Conservatives failed to do for 14 years and that is why they are out of power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The Retail Jobs Alliance is very clear in its warning that the Government’s changes to business rates will

“accelerate the decline of high streets, reducing footfall…and creating a cycle of economic downturn.”

That letter was also signed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—a Labour-affiliated trade union. Once again, the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade have a choice. Will they stand up for high street retailers, actual employers and even their own affiliated trade union, or will they just go along with Treasury diktat?

[Gareth Thomas]

Once upon a time, the Conservatives supported business rates reform to help the high street; the hon. Gentleman now seems to be shifting his party’s policy. Indeed, time after time his Government promised that they would reform business rates, but one of the reasons they lost the confidence of British business at the last election was because they did not act to reform business rates. We have said that we will introduce permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer set out our initial thoughts on that in the Budget in October, and we will publish an update on where we are on that issue in the coming months.

[Greg Smith]

We support business rates reform, but when Labour’s own trade union says that its plan is not going to work, Ministers should really sit up and listen.

Let me turn to another issue affecting our high streets: shoplifting—which continues to devastate many high street retailers. I see that in my own constituency in high streets in Princes Risborough, Wendover and Great Missenden. How is the Minister actively engaging with the Home Office, police and crime commissioners and police forces to move shoplifting up the agenda across the board, just as my home force of Thames Valley has done with its Disc scheme? Before he comes back with police numbers, let me tell him that there are more police in Thames Valley than ever before, let alone since 2010. Just talking the talk on numbers is not enough. What is he going to do proactively to make this issue go up the agenda?

[Gareth Thomas]

I think the hon. Gentleman, in his own way, is congratulating the Government on increasing police numbers in his constituency, and he is certainly right to do so. We have committed to an extra 3,000 police officers over the course of this financial year and a total of an extra 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. We are also taking action to end the immunity that his party introduced for shoplifters and taking steps to increase the powers that the police have to take action when shoplifters and others are violent against retail staff.

Space Industry

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) not only on securing this debate, but on his comprehensive opening speech—his knowledge is almost encyclopaedic. I also thank him for the leadership that he has shown on space in this Parliament and previous Parliaments, in particular as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for space.

We have had a very good debate this morning, with contributions of great quality from both sides of the House. In that cross-party spirit, let me say that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), in particular, hit many nails directly on the head. We clearly share an interest in the Satellite Applications Catapult, which has a base in my constituency, although I detected a note of disdain in his voice when he talked about battered Land Rovers. I would argue that a battered Land Rover is a sign that that great miracle of British engineering has been used properly and to its full capability.

It is a privilege to speak in this important debate on the state of the United Kingdom’s space industry, a sector of strategic importance to our national economy, scientific capability and future prosperity. Let me begin by making one thing very clear: the United Kingdom has the potential to be a true spacefaring nation. We have the scientific expertise, entrepreneurial ambition and geographic advantage to build a world-leading domestic space sector.

In my constituency, the space industry is totemic. From the Westcott space cluster and the national space propulsion centre at Westcott Venture Park, to UK Space Command’s headquarters and the national space operations centre at RAF High Wycombe at Walter’s Ash—the nation’s military hub for space operations, workforce development and space capability delivery—Mid Buckinghamshire stands out not only as a showcase for the space industry, but as an incubator for research and development. It is a true representation of the sector in its entirety.

The Labour party came into office with a good promise of a bold new era for science and technology. Its manifesto committed to supporting high-growth sectors, including space, and spending on sovereign capabilities to secure Britain’s place on the global stage. I hope the Minister can confirm that all that will become a reality, because in practice—and the Opposition are right to challenge the Government and kick the tyres when good promises are made—we have seen little more than rhetoric and inaction so far.

Since July 2024, the space sector has been left in policy limbo. Programmes vital to our future competitiveness have been stalled or scrapped. Promised investment zones with a focus on aerospace innovation have failed to materialise. I hope the Minister can correct that. The much vaunted Labour industrial strategy, which was supposed to support clusters in places such as Harwell, Leicester and Cornwall, remains a mystery. Perhaps she can confirm when we will finally see it.

The consequences are tangible and severe. We are already seeing UK-based satellite developers and launch technology firms relocate to more supportive environments abroad. Domestic providers face growing uncertainty in accessing long-term capital, while investors are left wondering whether the Government have any meaningful plan to support this vital sector. That is a blow not just to British industry, but to local economies. The space industry is not confined to a few square miles of south-east England; it is an ecosystem that stretches from satellite testing in Glasgow, to launch infrastructure in the Shetlands and mission control in Oxfordshire. Cornwall, as others have spoken about, also plays an important role. Every contract cancelled and every research and development grant deferred is a missed opportunity for skilled employment in communities that need it most. By contrast, under the previous Conservative Government, in late 2023, UKSA launched its national innovation programme, with up to £65 million distributed over four years, including a £34 million first tranche aimed at low technology readiness level disruptive technologies.

What of the young people inspired by the promise of a career in space science? The previous Conservative Government made education and outreach a priority. We backed science, technology, engineering and maths education, supported apprenticeships through the National Space Academy, and ensured that British students were represented in flagship European and international missions. Labour, by contrast, has made no clear commitment to supporting science education in the context of space, nor has it outlined any plan to secure future UK participation in global space exploration partnerships.

I must also raise the issue of our highly specialist supply chain, which sees components built in Wales, avionics manufactured in the midlands, propulsion systems designed in Surrey, and the excellent work of the national space propulsion centre at Westcott in my constituency. These are the unsung heroes of the UK’s space sector. They rely on steady R&D investment and long-term procurement planning. However, Labour’s failure to provide certainty on either means that many of those SMEs face an existential threat. They are simply relying on measures that we originally put in place.

The space industry, by its nature, is built on long-term vision. The last Conservative Government understood that. We launched the national space strategy, invested in sovereign launch capability through Spaceport Cornwall and SaxaVord, and worked to ensure that the UK could lead in space sustainability. We stood up for British science post Brexit by negotiating critical participation in global satellite projects. We now need a recommitment to that vision, which this Labour Government have so far failed to provide.

When will the Government publish a revised and fully funded national space strategy? When will they provide certainty for R&D tax credits to incentivise investment? When will they deliver on their manifesto pledges to support sovereign UK capability in launch, satellite navigation and Earth observation? If they are serious about Britain being a science superpower, they must start treating the space industry as the strategic asset that it is; otherwise, we risk watching our world-class talent, our world-leading innovation and our national ambitions quite literally leave for other shores.

Conservatives remain committed to the UK’s future in space technology. We will continue to make the case for ambition and leadership in a sector that speaks to the best of our country, scientifically, economically and aspirationally.

Carer’s Leave

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate.

On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I too want to underscore the indispensable role of unpaid carers in our society and highlight the pressing need to protect and enhance carer’s leave. Such individuals, often family members or friends, provide vital support to those with long-term care needs, enabling them to live with dignity and independence. Unpaid carers, as others have said in this debate, are the backbone of our social care system. Their contributions are not only compassionate but economically significant—estimates suggest that unpaid care in England and Wales alone is valued at approximately £162 billion annually. Without their dedication, our health and social care services would face insurmountable challenges.

Moreover, many carers balance their responsibilities with some employment. The ability to take carer’s leave is crucial to helping them maintain that balance, reducing the risk of financial hardship and social isolation. The last Conservative Government recognised the vital role of carers, but first I want to pay tribute to the private Member’s Bill—now the Carer’s Leave Act 2023—in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife. I think that all of us who have had private Members’ Bills know how difficult it is to navigate the various systems and to secure the Government of the day’s support in order to get those Bills through. I am pleased to say that, under the last Conservative Government, the hon. Lady persuaded the Government to support her Bill, and we now see it on the statute book. It was enacted in April 2024, granting employees the right to one week of unpaid leave annually to care for dependants with long-term needs. That was a landmark achievement, providing carers with much-needed flexibility and acknowledging their invaluable contributions.

Furthermore, under the last Government we increased the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance from £151 to £196 a week, enabling carers to earn more without losing benefits. That change enabled carers to work up to 16 hours a week at the national living wage, offering greater financial stability. Regrettably, this new Labour Government appear to be undermining those advancements. Recent welfare reforms have led to significant cuts in disability benefits, with over 150,000 carers losing access to carer’s allowance. Those cuts not only jeopardise the financial security of carers, but risk increasing pressure on our already strained health and social care system.

While the Labour Government have introduced the Employment Rights Bill—or the unemployment Bill—it notably lacks provision for paid carer’s leave. The omission is a missed opportunity to further support carers, particularly those on low incomes who may struggle to afford unpaid leave. To truly support them, the Government must take note of the foundations laid by the Carer’s Leave Act by continuing the introduction of paid carer’s leave, providing greater flexibility in how leave can be taken and ensuring that carers are not financially penalised for their invaluable contributions.

Additionally, the Government must do more to ensure that any welfare reforms do not disproportionately impact carers. Their wellbeing is intrinsically linked to the health of those they care for, and by extension, to the wellbeing of our society as a whole. Carers are the unsung heroes of our communities. They deserve our recognition, support, and commitment to policies that will empower them. It is incumbent on the Government to protect and enhance carer’s leave, ensuring that they can continue their vital work without undue hardship.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, if you can, please leave time for the proposer to wind up. I have no idea if we are going to have a Division, but it might be wise if we can finish before 5.30 pm.

US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this urgent question, although I agree that the Government really should have offered a statement to the House on this important subject.

Of course, the House has still not yet seen the full detail of the trade agreement with the United States of America. The Secretary of State says that this is just the beginning, but there are still a great many unanswered questions about what we have so far, including what are clearly ongoing negotiations on pharmaceuticals. In his answer, the Secretary of State said that the UK will have significantly preferential rates, but what does that mean in practice? Where is the detail about what “significantly preferential rates” actually means? There are similar questions about the digital services tax.

Last week, the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), asked the Trade Minister a straight question: whether this trade agreement would

“protect the special status of Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 8 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 899.]

The Minister was unable to provide an answer at the time, and I remain unconvinced by what the Secretary of State has had to say today—there is still a lot of talk about the risks of goods entering the European Union. Clearly, this is a far more complex situation than the Secretary of State would like us to accept. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim made clear, the EU is still hugely influential in Northern Ireland trade law. The points he made about steel, for example, were accurate and deserve clear answers.

It is clear that this deal will have a number of implications for the functioning of the dual customs regime, yet businesses in Northern Ireland have been left in the dark for too long by the lack of detail in last week’s announcement. I would therefore be grateful if the Secretary of State would confirm what discussions he has had with his US and EU counterparts about rules of origin and the green lane in Northern Ireland. What specific measures are the Government implementing to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses are not disproportionately burdened by increased costs and administrative complexities as a result of this trade agreement? Finally, given that the Prime Minister is gearing up for his surrender summit with the European Union next week, can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no backsliding on Northern Ireland’s place as an integral, absolute and total part of our United Kingdom?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

That was a fairly odd stream of consciousness, if I am being totally honest. It appears that I have given a stronger defence of the Windsor agreement negotiated by the former Conservative Government than the Conservative party has managed today.

The shadow Minister has asked for detail. I acknowledge that, particularly when dealing with the US and the style of the US system, negotiations have a pace—a pulse—and they are perhaps different from how we would present the detail of a complete trade agreement, such as the one we agreed with India. However, I think he would acknowledge the importance of last week’s announcements, because such a significant part of our exports to the US is covered by its sectoral tariffs, not the reciprocal ones. Businesses would have had to start planning this week for a world of—in some cases—25% tariffs, which would have had major repercussions for jobs, businesses and growth in the UK. Being able to give those businesses reassurance, alongside a clear indication of the ongoing nature of the negotiations, is a significant win for British business. I hope the Opposition recognise that.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about preferential rates on pharmaceutical products. Those in the United States have not yet completed their own investigations in respect of some of the sectoral tariffs to which they have alluded, and have not announced what they are putting in place. The nature of the agreement, given that it covers the sectoral tariffs, is to recognise that we would want the UK to be in a preferential position on those as well, rather than agreeing what we have already agreed on sectoral tariffs and then seeing further sectoral tariffs announced in future.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the digital services tax. It is not in the agreement; it is not a part of what was announced last week.

As for the question of the special status of Northern Ireland, this is the agreement that the Conservative party struck. It manages two very difficult countervailing pressures. The Conservatives might have thought more about this during the Brexit process, but they did not. They had to resolve the issue after the agreement, and to be honest, I do not think they did a particularly bad job in reaching the compromise that Windsor represents.

Exports from Northern Ireland are covered by the preferential trade terms that we have secured with the United States. When goods come into Northern Ireland, there is a differential depending on whether they are staying in the United Kingdom or there is a risk of their entering the EU’s single market. That is what the Conservative party agreed. I think that the new degree of complexity comes from differentials between the EU’s approach to trade and trade defence, and our own, but surely we all recognise that part of what we are talking about here reflects the fact that we are not in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman again engaged in some language about the European Union.

This country did a trade deal with India last week, one that the Conservative party promised many times but never delivered. We reached an agreement with the United States in the same week. We have the EU summit coming up. Everything that we have said about how this country does not have to pick just one trading partner—it can be the best connected market in the world—is borne out by the agreements that we have signed. Every Member of this House should get behind a UK that is strong on the world stage and connected to each and every one of the major economic markets that we need to be our partners.

Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on not only securing this debate but delivering a superb opening speech. She spoke with passion for the automotive sector, particularly Toyota in her constituency, and she spoke with realism about the challenges that we face, and the other way that is possible to ensure that consumers get to choose vehicles of the future that are greener and cleaner and do not rely on fossil fuels, but do not necessarily fit in with the Government’s chosen winner, despite the fact that they claim to be technology neutral. That is battery electric, whose sales figures, once we remove fleet sales, are utterly appalling because people simply do not want to buy one of those vehicles.

Employment in the automotive manufacturing sector— a sector that has long been the backbone of British industry, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and driving innovation—is the foundation of regional economies across our great United Kingdom. My constituency does not have any major vehicle manufacturers, but it sits in the absolute heart of motorsport valley. The motorsport sector and its supply chains do so much to create the next big thing and innovate. They find solutions, yes, for speed and the racetrack, but there is often a direct translation from the race car to the road car. So much British innovation in motorsport has found itself in the cars that I am sure all of us in this Chamber and people across the country drive today.

It is therefore with great concern that I speak about the marked lack of support for the vital automotive sector under this Labour Government. Let us be clear that this is not a new challenge: automotive manufacturing has been under pressure for many years from the combined forces of global competition, supply chain shocks and the urgent transition to cleaner technologies—note the plural, cleaner technologies; there is not just one. We now see a deeper, more systemic failure, which is rooted in the inability of this Government to deliver on their own promises and provide the strategic direction that the industry so desperately needs.

Take, for instance, Labour’s 2024 manifesto commitment to “supercharge the electric vehicle revolution” and make the UK “the best place in the world to manufacture electric cars”. Those are bold words yet one year into their term, we see precious little action, only rhetoric that seems to accept an electric future rather than a technology-neutral approach.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Greg Smith]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Does the hon. Member regret the lack of action to bring forward battery manufacturing in the UK under the Conservative Government?

[Greg Smith]

What I regret is the ZEV mandate, which is why I voted against it at the time. It puts shackles around our automotive industry, and it needs to be revisited so that our automotive sector has the freedom to get on, innovate and provide future solutions that consumers might actually want to buy.

Even with the electric obsession, the promised gigafactory developments remain stalled or mired in uncertainty, commercial investment incentives have been vague at best and crucial supply chain support has failed to materialise in any meaningful way. Labour also pledged to spend on a national training programme to reskill workers for the green transition, yet we still await details of how, when and, crucially, where that will be delivered.

The skills gap in the automotive industry is widening by the day. Thousands of jobs are at risk, not because there is no demand for people to work in that sector, but because we do not have a pipeline of trained, job-ready individuals. The industry has been crying out for a co-ordinated national effort to address this, and what it has received instead is a patchwork of pilot schemes and a lot of ministerial hot air.

Contrast that with the pragmatic and targeted steps taken by the last Government, which launched the Advanced Propulsion Centre and the Faraday battery challenge—programmes that secured investment in cutting-edge technologies and laid the groundwork for the electric vehicle sector in particular. To attract global investment, we need to back British innovation and give investors confidence in our long-term industrial strategy. In government, the Conservatives also took real action to support jobs: the automotive transformation fund, which was backed by Conservative Ministers, delivered vital support to manufacturers, and let us not forget the commitment made to freeports, which are already starting to attract inward investment and create highly skilled jobs, including in areas directly linked to automotive logistics and component manufacture.

Now, under Labour, we see dithering where there should be decision making. The industry does not need more consultations; it needs action. Businesses are ready to invest—yes, in electric, but also in synthetics and hydrogen. However, they need the certainty that they can get on and do that. They need clarity on planning reform, energy prices, trade policy and the Government’s commitment to industrial growth.

The Government must address the ever-growing training deficit. They must launch a comprehensive industry-led training strategy that spans apprenticeships, technical colleges and adult reskilling programmes. It must be tailored to the needs of automotive employers, not devised in isolation by Whitehall, where the Government pick the winners and losers at odds with what consumers want to buy. The Government must do more to attract foreign direct investment into the automotive sector. That means tax incentives that are actually internationally competitive, a planning system that works at pace and a stable regulatory environment. Labour’s flirtation with regulatory overreach is already spooking the investors.

The Government must ensure that the UK’s de-fossilisation transition is an opportunity for jobs and growth, not a burden on industry. I repeat: that means genuine technologically-neutral support, embracing other technologies beyond battery electric, such as synthetic fuels and hydrogen, as well as putting realistic deadlines around any transition.

The automotive manufacturing sector is not asking for handouts; it is asking for clarity and leadership. The last Conservative Government took steps in that direction. Labour, in contrast, have offered slogans over substance, and pledges over performance. We cannot allow this Government’s inaction to cost Britain its place at the forefront of the global automotive industry. The time to act is now.

Non-disclosure Agreements

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Betts.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this debate. I remember sitting as the shadow Minister on Report of the Employment Rights Bill, listening to her speak about her amendment to the Bill in that debate. All too often, we sit in the main Chamber and listen to speeches from Members in all parts of the House that are, perhaps loosely, hung off handouts from Whips.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

By you. [Laughter.]

[Greg Smith]

I can say in response to the Minister’s quip from a sedentary position that I have never spoken with a handout from the Whips.

Sometimes, we sit there in the main Chamber listening to the usual yah-boo of party politics, but every so often there is a speech—it can come from any part of the House—that makes our ears prick up a little bit and think, “They have a point.” The Member is making a genuine case about a real grievance or a real problem out there in our country that needs resolution, almost undoubtedly via primary legislation. I therefore congratulate the right hon. Lady on her passion and dedication to this cause, and on ensuring that we continue to debate it here in Westminster Hall this morning.

The right hon. Member was absolutely right to highlight the two-tier absurdity brought about under the current law. I was particularly struck by her point that 27 states in the United States of America have passed legislation on this issue. The United States is hardly a nation that is looked to for high-end employment rights. It is a country where, for example, most people get only two weeks’ holiday a year, and where maternity and paternity rights are far short of those we have here, so the fact that those 27 states have passed laws on this issue in varying respects is something that we should reflect on.

During the debate the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke powerfully about the creative sector; the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) clearly brought extensive experience of this matter from her time as a solicitor; my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought his usual eloquence to supporting this cause; the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) gave powerful examples from his experience working for a trade union—the example he gave about a school setting was particularly powerful—and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) powerfully cited a local case. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who is Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, gave a particularly powerful speech, reminding us that of course this issue is not about banning NDAs in their entirety, but about stopping this very particular abuse.

In fact, the hon. Lady’s most powerful point—on top of the one about self-employment, which is a subject that I will always prick my ears up about, having been self-employed myself for 15 years before I entered this House in 2015—was that people are being forced into signing these agreements at the lowest ebb of their lives, at the time when they are at their most vulnerable. We should face that fact and reflect upon it.

I am grateful for this opportunity to continue the debate on non-disclosure agreements, which have become a tool that too often is used to silence victims of harassment, discrimination and abuse in the workplace. This is not just a matter of employment law; it is a fundamental issue of justice, accountability and transparency. At their worst, NDAs allow perpetrators to escape scrutiny, enabling toxic workplace cultures to persist unchecked. Undoubtedly, some victims, facing an imbalance of power, are pressured into signing away their right to speak out in exchange for a financial settlement. This not only denies individuals the justice they deserve, but prevents organisations, and indeed our society at large, from learning from past failure and making necessary change.

Of course, we are not in any way suggesting that every single NDA out there is inherently wrong. There are legitimate reasons for their use in protecting trade secrets or commercially sensitive information. However, when they are used to cover up wrongdoing, they become a shield for bad employers and an obstacle to a fair and open working environment. Like other Members, I believe that the vast majority of employers do act in good faith and are good people, but where it goes wrong and they are acting in bad faith or—let’s say it how it is—criminally, NDAs should not be a shield for that.

The Government have said they are committed to tackling workplace discrimination and harassment. There are elements of the Employment Rights Bill that the Opposition support, but we had a particular debate about the provisions on third-party harassment. I say this in a spirit of wanting to solve this problem: we all want to see harassment stamped out, but those provisions will have the unintended consequence of what we call the “banter ban”, whereby an employee can take their employer to court if they happen to overhear something that politically offends them in a hospitality setting or whatever it might be.

[Mrs Russell]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I will just finish the point; I am pre-empting the hon. Lady. There is still time, as the Bill passes through the other place, to look again at this legislation. Instead of risking those unintended consequences in hospitality settings, for example, the Government could put provisions in the Bill to tackle the serious, life-changing problem that we are debating this morning and stop this use of NDAs to silence victims.

[Mrs Russell]

There is a defence to that form of discrimination, which is where an employer has taken all reasonable steps to prevent it—and I speak only of reasonable steps, not every single magical thing that could be thought of. In fact, there was a case just last week in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in which an employer did successfully defend a harassment claim on the basis that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the position is not as extreme as he is presenting by any stretch of the imagination, and that as long as hospitality businesses have taken all reasonable steps to prevent their employees from being harassed, they will be fine?

[Greg Smith]

I do not particularly want to relitigate our debate in the main Chamber a few weeks ago. It is the job of the Opposition to kick the tyres on legislation that the Government put forward, and that is what did in that debate. I hope the hon. Lady turns out to be right, but the Employment Rights Bill is still a Bill, and when it undoubtedly becomes an Act due to the parliamentary arithmetic at the moment, we will be able to fully test that and see who is right.

I want to focus on the importance of the issue before us today. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition echo the question that Members have asked the Minister this morning: when can we expect legislation to be brought forward to tackle this issue? Will it be stand-alone, or will the Government amend the existing vehicle available to them in the House of Lords?

We also need to ensure that the Government’s own house is in order on this front. I gently ask the Minister for transparency on the Government’s own use of NDAs. How many non-disclosure agreements have been used across the civil service since the Government took office last July? Do the Government rely on these agreements to settle disputes within their own Departments? If the Government believe, as I hope they do, that NDAs should not be misused—and misused is a light term for this—they must lead by example.

I do not believe that this is about party politics; it is about ensuring fairness and justice in our workplaces. We must end the practice of silencing victims and start fostering a culture where wrongdoing is exposed and addressed. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, more importantly, seeing the meaningful action that every Member who has spoken in this debate this morning wants to see come to pass.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. I would appreciate it if he could leave two minutes at the end for the mover to wind up.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The news from Scunthorpe is deeply concerning. Jobs are at risk and our thoughts are with all those who now face uncertainty. The world is becoming more dangerous and we need to bolster our defence industry. Without the ability to produce our own primary steel, those efforts could be put in jeopardy. What impact does the Minister believe the news will have on Britain’s defence industry and what impact does she believe closure would have on our national security?

It takes a special something to be able to offer someone £500 million and for them to reject it, but whatever it is, I guess the Business Secretary has it. Whenever Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Whether with Mauritius, AstraZeneca or now British Steel, the Government confirm that—and so far, at least, that appears to be the case with the United States too. The Government pretend that tariffs on steel are inevitable, which, as we showed in government, is simply not the case. Therefore, will the Minister update the House on United States trade negotiations, in particular in relation to steel? Will the Minister confirm that the Business Secretary has engaged further with Jingye since it rejected him?

Tariffs are but one challenge facing the industry. Alongside the jobs tax and the unemployment Bill, the steel industry is being choked by the Government’s ideological green targets. Will the Minister tell the House what concerns British Steel has expressed about those net zero targets? As I said at the beginning, this news will be deeply concerning for steelworkers in Scunthorpe. Has the Minister or the Secretary of State spoken with them about the news and, if so, what support are they being offered?

[Sarah Jones]

I do not want to insult this House by suggesting that there was any kind of deal on the table under the previous Government and that anything happened on steel other than a halving of production over the last decade—a halving. Lots of things shut down and closed during that period, not just in the steel industry but in many others. I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) for proof of that.

Whether in steel, in shipbuilding or in the automative sector, the previous Government had neglected to take major decisions or had kicked the can down the road. All we inherited were a series of industrial crises that we are now trying to solve. We delivered a better deal with Port Talbot than had been negotiated under the previous Government. We are still in talks with British Steel and hoping that we can come to a resolution, and not just because of the very many very highly skilled workers in Scunthorpe who we respect, honour and want to make sure stay in their jobs. I have nothing more to say on that front.

On tariffs and the situation with the US, we are in a good position in this country in that the relationship that our Prime Minister has built with President Donald Trump and his team means that we are in active conversations about a potential trade deal. This is a good, positive thing, and we are carrying on having those conversations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been talking regularly with our American counterparts, as Members would expect. We will have cool heads in this space and navigate our way through. We—our officials—are talking daily with British Steel. We are talking with the trade unions and all the players to try to ensure that, in the difficult global landscape that we find ourselves in, we are doing right by the people of Scunthorpe.

Shipyards: Economic Growth

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing this debate on the often overlooked but critical contribution of great shipyards to our nation’s economic strength, employment prospects and national security. Many hon. Members have spoken with great passion and knowledge about the sector and about yards in their constituencies. My own constituency is a stone’s throw from Leighton Buzzard, which is the furthest point in England from the sea, so I cannot speak with any local knowledge but I absolutely acknowledge the shipbuilding sector’s critical role.

For centuries, shipbuilding has been a cornerstone of British industry, sustaining local economies, providing skilled jobs and securing our place as a maritime power. As we have rightly heard during this debate, the UK’s shipyards have played a dual role—driving economic growth at national and local levels while ensuring our security at sea. Under the previous Conservative Government, decisive steps were taken to secure the future of British shipbuilding and maintenance, including supporting jobs, upskilling our workforce and reinforcing our defence infrastructure. Under the new Government so far, we have seen a more lacklustre set of steps taken towards supporting this sector.

Shipyards are more than just industrial sites; they are economic lifelines for the communities that surround them. For example, in Portsmouth and Govan, BAE Systems surface shipyards have been instrumental in building the Royal Navy’s cutting-edge fleet. The last Conservative Government’s commitment to the Type 26 and Type 31 frigate programmes guaranteed long-term employment and training opportunities for engineers and apprentices. Those contracts not only secured local jobs, but strengthened the wider economy.

In Cumbria, the BAE Systems submarine yard in Barrow-in-Furness has been at the heart of our nation’s defence. Thanks to strategic spending by the previous Conservative Government, Astute-class and Dreadnought-class submarines continue to provide thousands of highly skilled jobs while reinforcing Britain’s nuclear deterrent. That is a prime example of how economic security is directly linked to national security. Spending on our defence industry ensures that we remain prepared for the threats of the future.

In Birkenhead, Cammell Laird has been a stronghold for commercial and defence-related shipbuilding. Contracts secured under the previous Government provided much-needed stability, supporting jobs in the north-west and reinforcing the UK’s ability to maintain its naval and commercial fleets.

One of the most important aspects of shipbuilding is its role in training the next generation of workers. The previous Conservative Government recognised that, and supported and backed apprenticeship schemes that ensured that young people could gain the skills needed to drive innovation in the sector. The workforce at shipyards such as Govan and Barrow-in-Furness includes thousands of highly trained welders, engineers and naval architects. We ensured that their skills were passed down through new training programmes and partnerships with local colleges.

Without continued spending, there is a real risk of losing that expertise to foreign competitors, yet the current Labour Government have failed to provide the necessary assurances to sustain those initiatives. The lack of new contracts, clear strategic direction and industry support has left many shipyards facing an uncertain future.

[Richard Baker]

I share the hon. Member’s ambitions for our shipyard sector. I was recently at the Rosyth dockyard in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), where the workforce were excited about the future. They were already looking forward to a long order list and now feel in a position for that to grow, given the prospect of increased defence spending. Does the hon. Member agree that the strategic aim set out by the Government provides great opportunities for our shipyards and shipbuilding sector?

[Greg Smith]

That is indeed good news. The Conservative party, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, has supported the Government’s increases in defence spending. We moderately disagree on the pace of that increase, because we want to go considerably faster, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about the good news for that particular shipyard.

I ask the Minister whether, following the defence uplift, the Government will commit to construct all our military vessels in the United Kingdom. The link between economic security and national security cannot be overstated. A strong shipbuilding industry means a strong Royal Navy, ensuring that the UK remains a global maritime power. It also means domestic manufacturing capabilities, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers and keeping critical national infrastructure under British control.

The Conservatives understand that reality. When we were in government, our national shipbuilding strategy was designed to create a steady pipeline of work to provide stability for our shipyards and to ensure that Britain could defend herself in an increasingly unpredictable world. That approach guaranteed not just warships but support vessels, reinforcing our ability to project power on the world stage.

However, the Government’s delay in awarding many new contracts and the absence of a clear vision for the future of UK shipbuilding weakens our defences and threatens those skilled jobs. That threat extends to virgin steel production—a critical component in the shipbuilding supply chain. The Government have failed to negotiate a deal with the United States, whereas we secured the 500,000-tonne tariff-free agreement when in government. The lack of a deal is a real threat to the industry.

Shipbuilding depends on steel production, which is already suffering from Labour’s failure to negotiate. Will the Minister provide the crucial update on talks with the United States that people whose jobs are on the line are desperate to hear? We need urgent action to safeguard our economic and national security interests. Does the Minister have any ongoing concerns, or is she confident in the future of those sites? The Government’s handling of Harland and Wolff when the company needed financial support—it was threatened with administration, and the Government did little or nothing to stop that—was hardly a boost of confidence for the thousands of jobs that depend on the supply chain.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I thank the hon. Member for taking an intervention. I am not sure whether he misheard or did not hear the earlier part of the discussions in Westminster Hall this afternoon when Members on this side of the House and Liberal Democrat Members talked about the fact that Harland and Wolff was saved in both Methil and Northern Ireland. That is surely something to be celebrated across the Chamber.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, and it is absolutely good news that Harland and Wolff has survived, but throughout the entire summer, not long after the new Government were elected to office, there were constant asks for financial support that were not forthcoming. It took a very long time. This is fundamentally a debate, but I would gently suggest that the saving of Harland and Wolff—which I reiterate is good news—happened in many respects despite the early actions of the new Government and not because of them.

[Patricia Ferguson]

Would the hon. Member take another intervention on that point?

[Greg Smith]

It is a debate, so by all means.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I am grateful for that good-humoured response. Does he accept that the problems with Harland and Wolff did not just arise after a Labour Government were elected? Given that the Labour Government were able to announce that Harland and Wolff would continue and survive in December—fewer than six months after they came into office—it seems to me that the Government really care about the industry and worked really hard to make that happen.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the points that the hon. Lady makes. The point from my earlier comment still stands—I was the shadow Minister over the summer; I survived my party’s reshuffle—that many asks were being made by Harland and Wolff much earlier, and that was something that was not initially forthcoming. I fully accept the timeline that the hon. Lady sets out. This was not something that suddenly happened on 4 July, but when a new Government come in they should be judged on the speed of their response and exactly what is done to save that sector. We must continue to back our shipyards, provide long-term certainty for workers and reinforce Britain’s position as a global leader in shipbuilding. By doing so, we will not only create a prosperous economy, but ensure that our nation remains safe and secure for generations to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Yesterday, the owner of the hugely popular Rumsey’s, which is celebrating 21 years on Wendover high street in my constituency, emailed me to say:

“We estimate the changes coming in April will add 15% to our staff costs that we simply don’t have. Therefore we have had to sadly make redundancies, put in a recruitment freeze and implement staff hour cuts to offset this.”

With real-world testimony like that replicated up and down the country, will the Minister finally acknowledge that an urgent change of course is needed to support high streets, scrap the employer NI rise, save jobs and protect communities?

[Gareth Thomas]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that it would be interesting to know whether he now regrets the enthusiastic support he gave the Liz Truss Budget, which did so much damage to our country’s public finances. Our Budget in October last year started the process of sorting out those situations. I looked with interest at his website recently, which has a “My plan” section. It is completely blank. Although that is probably better given that he so strongly supported the Liz Truss Budget—there is at least a bit of progress.

[Greg Smith]

Well, that was no answer to my question whatsoever. It is almost as if Labour Members have not realised that they are in charge and that it is their decisions that are having this impact. Let me tell the Minister something else that Rumsey’s reported to me:

“The reduction in business rate relief will leave me no choice but to raise prices simply to break even, further limiting growth and accessibility for customers.”

I just do not know how much more the Minister needs to hear to understand the scale of the problem on our high streets. He talks of business rates reform, but the only business rate change we have seen is the devastating cut to business rates relief, which is hurting high streets now. Will he reverse it?

[Gareth Thomas]

Had the hon. Gentleman’s party been elected, retail, hospitality and leisure relief would have come to an end. We have extended retail, hospitality and leisure relief. We have set out in the Budget our plans to permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties on the high street from 2026-27. We are taking measures to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour on the high street, which his party could have done more to tackle but chose not to. We are bringing in new legislation to end the immunity for crime on the high street where shoplifters steal goods worth £200 or less, and we are creating a specific offence of violence against retail workers to try to make it easier for businesses operating on the high street.

Employment Rights Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Ahead of getting into the detail of the many amendments before us, which the Minister rattled through in just 10 minutes, let me say that overnight we learned that the Government are moving the responsibilities of one quango to another. They are moving the responsibilities of the Payment Systems Regulator to the Financial Conduct Authority, putting one quango into another. Conveniently, they already share a building. The Prime Minister has hailed that as “the latest step” in the Government’s attempt to “kick-start economic growth”, though the amendments we are discussing do the very opposite.

The Chancellor said:

“The regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of choking off innovation, investment and growth”,

but that is precisely what the Bill does. I do not know how the Government can say that with a straight face when, as we stand here today, blocking regulatory burdens cost every business in the land—small, medium or large—£5 billion.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

In the Chamber yesterday, it was quite clear that the Minister and his team did not fully understand the definition of a small business. I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister does understand it. Does he agree that that is fundamental to understanding why the balance of this legislation is wrong?

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes a superb point, as she always does. Every single small business that I have talked to in my constituency is very concerned about the measures in this—

[Justin Madders]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will if, 24 hours on, he can name a small business that supports the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

I am asking the shadow Minister to give way, but the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) could have intervened on me during my speech. One of the reasons why there is so much confusion about the definition of a small business is that the shadow Minister moved an amendment in Committee that said that a small business

“means an organisation or person employing 500 or fewer employees”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 3 December 2024; c. 177.]

So if there is any confusion, it is on the Conservative Benches.

[Greg Smith]

Twenty-four hours later, the Minister still cannot name a small business that supports the Bill. That shows how out of their depth this trade union Government are when it comes to supporting businesses in this land. In the words of the Chancellor, this Bill is

“choking off innovation, investment and growth.”

To pretend otherwise would be taking the public for fools.

On new clauses 89 and 90, almost everything this Government have done is contradictory to the objective of growth, if that remains their objective this week. Whether it is the national insurance jobs tax, the changes to business rates or this Bill, everything they do seemingly goes against growing the economy. It is little surprise that, under Labour, the economy is flatlining.

The Prime Minister said earlier this year that everything the Government do will be subject to a “growth test”. However, the details of that test have been sparse, at best—so sparse, in fact, that people may well think it does not exist.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Could the shadow Minister describe Liz Truss’s growth test?

[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.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to try to defend that, I will give him the opportunity.

[Gareth Snell]

I am happy to declare my interest as a member of three trade unions, but I got less from them than the shadow Minister got from a small business—I think his declaration is £12,500. Does he feel the need to declare that, given that he is now making a case against legislation that would impact that company?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am making a point about the trade union movement, which I have never been a part of, and certainly never received any money from. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to look at all my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

[Gareth Snell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

For the avoidance of all doubt and in all transparency, I declare all my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for all to look at. They are all there for anybody to see.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

This argument about opting in and opting out of trade union levies goes back to at least the 1970s—probably beyond—when I remember arguing about it as an undergraduate. If there are to be levies that people have to opt out of, a defensible case can be made for them provided that the process of opting out is easy and advertised to every member. Does my hon. Friend know whether the Government propose to institute mechanisms to make it known to every member how easily they can opt out?

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. If we look at the detail of this Bill, it is very clear and obvious that the Government are trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to opt out of the trade union political fund. That is the very point of them changing this legislation.

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will make a bit of progress, then I will come to the hon. Lady.

An opt-in is the default under consumer protection law and information law. Combined with the 10-year reminder change, it is highly likely that many trade union members will not be aware that their subscriptions are being used in this way or that they are eligible to save money on their trade union fees by not being a member of the political fund. Despite all the talk of supporting working people, it is clear that that concern simply does not apply when working people’s money is being taken to fund the Labour party and other political causes. We have tabled amendment 291 because we believe fundamentally that people should consent explicitly to what is, in effect, a subscription trap. Amendment 291 would simply maintain the status quo; it is the right thing to do.

[Mrs Russell]

I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Community and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many times such a ballot has actually resulted in the closure of a political fund? I think he will find that the answer is none.

[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.

[Greg Smith]

As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take your advice and will speed up. [Interruption.] The Minister urges me to carry on, but of course I would not ignore your advice—never say never again.

I make no comment on the value that those activities will add to public sector employers and their productivity. What I will say is that we have already seen this Government being happy to hand over large pay increases to trade unions with no guarantee of anything in return. That is why we have tabled amendments 293, 295 and 296, in an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession to the trade unions.

On amendment 297, trade unions can create significant disruption in the economy, whether by stopping work from taking place or preventing people from getting to work, school, hospital appointments or many other activities. We must strike a fair balance between the ability of trade unions to strike and the public whom we all serve.

Our amendment 297 will mean that vital public services such as the NHS can better plan and prepare for strikes. It simply seeks to keep the status quo of two weeks’ notice. Without adequate warning, constituents of Members from across the House are more likely to miss hospital appointments, not be able to travel to see loved ones or get to work, or suffer greater disruption when schools close due to strikes. That is part of the reason why, in the consultation on thresholds, 58% of those who responded supported retaining the 14-day period as it currently is, with 7% preferring a longer period. Two thirds of respondents therefore wanted the period to stay the same or be longer. Labour promised that it would work with business on this Bill, but its response to that consultation is just another example of the Government having their fingers in their ears and simply not listening. The reduction to 10 days is against the wishes of business and will do harm to all our constituents. That is why we have tabled amendment 297 to retain the notice period of 14 days.

On amendment 299, strikes should only take place when there is a clear mandate for them, but clause 58 will mean that strikes can happen with low thresholds by removing the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. Combined with Government amendments to extend the mandate for strikes from six months to 12 months, this Bill allows unions to unleash waves of low-support, rolling strikes. Those costs will come on top of the national insurance jobs tax and changes to business rates—mistakes that the Government are already making—making it more difficult to run a business. That is why we have tabled amendment 299, which will remove clause 58.

There is much in this Bill to speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not test your patience or the patience of the House further by going into those things. I look forward to a thorough debate that will further point out—not least through Conservative Members’ contributions—why the amendments to this Bill that the Government have tabled this afternoon will harm our economy, destroy jobs, and just give more power to the trade unions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]