Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of employment rights on businesses.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Members across the House will know that I have the distinct honour of being the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, which is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is everything south of Heathrow airport until hon. Members get to the River Thames. There are 4,500 small businesses in my constituency. They are its lifeblood. There are also huge employers: BP’s global headquarters is in Spelthorne, as is the world’s second biggest film studios, at Shepperton. I visit as many small businesses as I can, and it is always fascinating to get their insight.

Indeed, I am very much looking forward to next Wednesday, when the Spelthorne Business Forum riverboat trip will see a number of small and medium-sized enterprises come together to go two hours along our beautiful stretch of the River Thames, networking and comparing stories and views. I have to be frank and say that our consideration of the Employment Rights Bill comes in the context of these businesses already smarting, struggling and, in some cases, closing as a result of this Government’s Budget—in particular, the triple whammy of the rise in employers’ national insurance, the minimum wage and business rates.

I should explain that I have a fair experience of life in business. After my 25 years in the Army, I spent 10 years in venture capital and private equity, running, investing in and, we hope, improving small businesses, and growing them into mid-sized businesses and publicly listed bodies. They were mostly in the financial sector, and all had a tech underpinning. Latterly, I spent four years attempting to get Britain’s first ever defined-benefit pension consolidator, the Pension SuperFund, past the Pensions Regulator—an experience from which I still bear the scars.

Yesterday, the House had the opportunity to discuss the measures in the Employment Rights Bill in some detail and to vote on a number of proposed improvements thereto, but I want to concentrate today on the cost of the Bill for businesses. In my view, the cost has been significantly underestimated, and I fear it will come as a shock when the Government see the extent to which it acts as a further sea anchor on growth and employment. Sadly, we have already seen unemployment rise by, I think, 300,000 since this Government took office.

The Government’s impact assessment estimates that the measures in the Bill could cost businesses up to £5 billion annually. According to the Institute of Economic Affairs,

“the £5bn figure is likely to be a considerable underestimate. It almost entirely relates to increased administrative burdens, failing to calculate the significant impacts on business costs and hiring from making it more expensive to employ people.

There is no attempt, for example, to calculate how many fewer people will be hired due to limiting zero hour contracts and day-one rights to unfair dismissal protection”

or

“the costs of more strike action as a result of repealing the measures that made it harder to strike in the Trade Union Act 2016.”

I have been in businesses where people are making very hard decisions. They want to generate growth, they know there is considerable work to be done, and they want to take the next step and make the next investment, but that is a very big decision point, as we will see as I develop this theme. I have seen with my own eyes, talking to Spelthorne businesses, that even today people are curtailing their growth and investment plans. My huge fear is that the new measures in the Employment Rights Bill, which will eventually become an Act, will further dent business confidence, meaning that these businesses will not grow and natural leavers will not be replaced.

Economic studies and business surveys suggest that that will largely be passed on to consumers through higher prices, workers earning lower wages or job losses. I am sure that the Government Members never wanted that to be the outcome of this legislation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that around 80% of the extra costs are passed on in the form of lower wages than would otherwise have been paid. According to the Government’s impact assessment:

“Costs will be proportionately higher for small and micro businesses due to the fixed costs of admin and compliance burdens”.

There is, of course, an irreducible minimum: if a business needs a menopause management plan and it has only three employees, someone still has to write and manage that plan. The legislation does not seem to derogate, whereby certain sizes of business can just take a knee and have a bye.

The Regulatory Policy Committee, which assesses the quality of Government impact assessments, says that the Government’s impact assessment for the Employment Rights Bill was “not fit for purpose” and that the Bill could lead to lower wages and fewer jobs. It assessed eight of the 23 individual impact assessments as not fit for purpose, and six were at the highest impact measure category of the original assessment.

The Regulatory Policy Committee said that the Government need to provide more evidence to support an

“imbalance of power between employers and workers in certain sectors of the economy”

as its rationale for introducing the Bill. I am sure hon. Members will have seen that the Bill is, to a certain extent, riven with trade union speak—they will have seen trade union interests being played out in the legislation. Of course, hon. Members in certain parts of the House benefit hugely from being the recipients of donations, as does the Labour party as a whole.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the flaws in the impact assessment—there has been wider commentary supporting that point. Does he agree that one of the issues is the accumulation of different aspects of the Bill? For example, not only will there be more hooks for grievances to be based on, but the removal of the 50% threshold for strike action makes it easier for strikes to follow as a result of those grievances. That is at odds with what Ministers themselves have said. For example, when the British Medical Association went on strike, the Health Secretary criticised the low turnout in the ballot, yet this Bill makes it easier to take strike action on some of those more dubious grievances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. When these measures kick in, we could see the law of unintended consequences playing out, with a series of compound impacts.

The RPC said that the fundamental basis for the creation of the Bill in the first place had not been made, and that there had been insufficient “considerations of alternative options” and an “inadequate assessment” of how the Bill would impact small businesses. Some of the individual impact assessments had

“missing business impacts, lack of proportionate monetisation and insufficient assessment of key risks.”

The areas in the impact assessment with the weakest scrutiny included day one unfair dismissal rights, reforms of trade union legislation, flexible working and third party harassment. Looking at the overall cost of the reforms, the Regulatory Policy Committee said:

“The direct impact on business estimate does not account for the likelihood employers may offset the costs of regulation and mandated benefits through wage adjustments, benefit reductions or other compensatory mechanisms which would eventually be borne by the employee.”

Let us see what other people think of the impact assessment. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development published a report in April 2025 entitled “The (Unintended) Consequences of the Employment Rights Bill”. Its survey of 2,000 employers showed that about eight in 10 believed that the measures in the Employment Rights Bill will increase their employment costs. About half of the employers surveyed believed that, overall, the ERB measures will negatively affect employment at their organisation. When we look at how employers plan to respond to the seven measures, one by one, we can see that between 5% and 20% of employers indicate that each of the measures will lead them to reduce staff through redundancies and/or recruiting fewer workers to their organisations. So much for the No. 1 mission of growth.

Out of the measures proposed, the planned changes to the rules on unfair dismissal are expected to have the largest negative impact on employers’ recruitment and redundancy intentions. The conclusions from the report were that eight out of 10 employers believed that certain measures in the Bill, such as changes to unfair dismissal rules and the introduction of the new statutory probation period, will have the effect of increasing their workforce costs. Of those organisations, four in 10 expected to have to raise prices as a result, and a quarter said that they will cancel or scale down plans to invest or expand their business.

Of the organisations that said that employment costs will rise, almost a third anticipated cutting headcount due to reduced hiring or redundancies, and a further fifth reported that they will reduce overtime and/or bonuses, and cut spending on staff training. Of the organisations that expected the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs, nearly a fifth reported that they are more likely to rely on temporary workers, while 10% reported that they will increase their use of what they call

“a typical workers and self-employed contractors”.

The legislation is not improving the lot of employees; it is reducing the number of employees, as employers find alternative solutions.

That potential shift to more temporary forms of employment is much higher in certain sectors. In addition, some employers anticipate recruiting fewer workers who may need more support, such as young workers or those with health conditions. A fifth of employers reported that the removal of the unfair dismissal qualifying period and the introduction of the new statutory probation period will make them less likely to recruit from those groups.

I want to make one last point. It is obviously a big thing to take on new employees and assimilate them into teams. Culture eats strategy for breakfast in business, and those crucial hires are some of the biggest decisions that any employer will make. I have taken part in hundreds of interview boards, and often, there is what is identified as the “risk candidate”. They are the different person, who thinks differently from the employer. They are the person the employer does not fully understand. More often than not, they are the person the employer should employ. My great fear is that, as a result of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, fewer diverse candidates will be employed, because people “won’t want to take the risk”. I believe that, ironically, as a result of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, far fewer women are going to be employed.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp).

Next year will mark 125 years since Seebohm Rowntree’s report into poverty. It was that report that sparked Seebohm and Joseph Rowntree to use their family business to institute rights for workers in my constituency: paying decent wages; introducing pensions and good terms and conditions; and providing welfare, education and leisure. Sickness levels fell, productivity boomed and workers were better off.

Concurrently, in the crucible of industrialised Britain, the trade unions were making a case for similar rights, often to less amenable employers. They organised, they fought, they spoke up and they succeeded in winning their battles. They wanted those rights for all workers, so they found their political voice and founded the Labour party. At this point, I will refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was a trade union official for 17 years and a national officer for 12 years, and I have worked across many industrial sectors.

In response to the speech by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I would say that if we have strong partnerships between trade unions and business, or between trade unions and the public sector, we have the opportunity to hit a sweet spot. We will therefore not see the industrial action that he talked about and that we saw in spades under the last Government. We will also advance the interests of businesses and workers side by side, which is a strength, and where economic power comes from having strong employment rights.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Was the hon. Member affected by the tube strikes the other day?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend has spoken powerfully and brought that observation to the attention of the House. Low productivity was also a major feature of the last Administration.

The letter goes on to highlight how worker protection positively impacts productivity, how investment in skills improves the competency of workers, and how collective bargaining raises wages and stabilises employment. Over time, that positive investment will spill out to the wider economy and Government, so that there can be investment in the public services that have been so broken. If workers have more in their pockets, they are more likely to spend in the local economy, and wage disparities will be addressed so that wealth is more evenly spread, boosting local business. We also still have parts of the Taylor review and its 53 recommendations to implement to help small employers and those in irregular work.

[Lincoln Jopp]

A few months ago, The Times invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to address its CEO summit. Just before the Chancellor was called up to the stage, the host reminded the audience that the Chancellor had promised that this would be the most pro-business Government ever. The host then invited the chief executive officers—I think there were 200 of them—to say how many of them, having seen the Labour Government at work, think that it is pro-business. Not a single hand went up. Is the hon. Member aware of that?

[Rachael Maskell]

In the first of five years, we have had to repair the economy. That has been our focus, but as we move forward, businesses will see the vision that Labour has for rebuilding the economy. In my constituency, I see the vibrant boom of entrepreneurs and their business concepts coming to fruition. People want to start a business and see its success. We will certainly build the wider infrastructure needed for that.

There is much more that we need to do to advance the rights of workers. Sector bargaining is a must, with standards and terms to boost economic sectors across the economy, address labour shortages and provide sector security. I would like to see workers on company boards, co-producing with businesses and seeing the success of workers. A single status for workers is really important as we move forward. That is an issue that I have worked on for many years.

On changing the culture in workplaces, I want to ensure that workers no longer have to fear negative behaviours at work. An issue close to my heart, and one that I have worked on for many years, if not decades, is bullying at work. In two different parliamentary Sessions, I have introduced a Bullying and Respect at Work Bill, addressing negative cultures in the workplace. Bullying costs business £18 billion, and 17 million working days are lost.

We need a legal definition of bullying, a route to an employment tribunal and a positive duty to prevent, as in Australian legislation. I hope the new Minister, who I welcome to her place, will be willing to meet me and campaigners to discuss such legislation to ensure that we can introduce such a measure on one of the biggest issues blighting business today.

If workers are not subjugated and their wages are not extracted, we will build a more equitable society, a strong economy and flourishing businesses. A cohesive society is certainly something that I know working people long to see under this Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I absolutely agree that all workers will benefit in some way from the Bill and be able to give back to the economy, whether by spending in the local economy or by contributing to other local businesses.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I think I am right in saying that the impact assessment’s estimate of a cost of £5 billion was at the higher end, but I read out quite an extensive set of quotations from the RPC saying that it was an inadequate impact assessment and that it completely under-gunned the financial impact of the measures. Does she just think that the RPC is wrong?

[Kate Dearden]

I will come back to the hon. Member’s point in a moment. A number of the measures already have strong support from businesses. An Institute for Public Policy Research survey of businesses found that the majority—at least 75%—supported the measures in our Bill, including nearly seven in 10 small businesses.

The hon. Member also mentioned the Regulatory Policy Committee’s opinion. I want to make it clear that that refers to the evidence and analysis presented in the impact assessment, not the policy itself. Our impact assessments provide initial analysis of the impacts that could follow, and we will be updating and refining them as we further develop the policy and continue our consultation and engagement. I reiterate just how important that is in our next steps with the Bill. I am keen that we continue to work with businesses as part of that consultation and engagement.

All in all, with this legislative framework, we need to ensure that we can make work pay, by addressing the challenges that Britain faces today and by including up-to-date employment protections in areas that have cost Britain’s workers and businesses so dearly over a number of years and that are desperate need of updating. For that reason, the package is pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker. It supports our Government’s objective to boost growth and improve living standards for all.

The scale of the impacts will, of course, depend on further policies, which are ready for secondary legislation. I have already said that we will continue to engage and consult—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I want every single worker, no matter where they work, to have a good standard of rights in their workplace and to know their rights. The Bill will ensure that we can provide that opportunity for so many people, including young workers, and that they benefit from the legislation.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kate Dearden]

I want to make a bit of progress and respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank him for his warm welcome and his contributions to the debate. Our small businesses are absolutely crucial for our economy, and I pay credit to the businesses in his constituency that he mentioned.

The hon. Member also mentioned sick pay and cost. Our legislation is so important because 1.3 million employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay. The Health and Safety Executive found that stress, depression or anxiety accounted for 17.1 million working days lost in 2022-23. That is the equivalent of more than £5 billion of lost output annually. That is why it is important that sick pay is extended to so many workers in our economy; it will ultimately benefit businesses, because we can keep people in work, but people do not have to make that decision. The pandemic shone a light on the terrible situation that many workers face; I am proud that we will be extending sick pay to so many people, so they will not have to make that decision. Ultimately, that will help businesses, because we can keep people in work and support them when they need it.

We have listened carefully to concerns raised by business groups, trade associations and individual employers. I have already mentioned my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, who was tireless in his efforts to engage with stakeholders, and spoken of my intention to do the same.

The Bill brings an opportunity to modernise outdated practices and reduce exploitation. It aims to create a level playing field for responsible employers to start to operate and build their businesses. We are also, of course, mindful of the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. I speak as someone with personal experience: I come from a family of small business owners, and I know at first hand the pressures that they face.

That is why many provisions will be phased in, giving time to adapt, and the Department will give clear guidance and consultation. We are committed to ongoing engagement with businesses. The implementation road map, which we published on 1 July, has received high levels of praise from businesses for the clarity that it has provided. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), as she also mentioned it in her remarks.

Decent employers stand to gain when the rules are fair. The shadow Minister mentioned her concerns about the impact of the Bill on growth. In the three months to July, GDP grew by 0.2%, meaning that cumulative growth this year has already exceeded the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast for the whole of 2025. I am absolutely confident in this Government’s growth agenda. We want to be bolder and more creative, and to ensure that every single area of this country feels the benefit of this Government and our growth priority. This Bill is absolutely key to that, as I have already outlined.

Our new Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle) has already spoken with more than 100 business leaders. He made putting that partnership at the heart of our growth mission a priority on coming into office. That laser focus on implementation, with his priority to double down on growth, is an absolute cornerstone of building powerful partnerships with business. We have shown we are listening; he touched on that a lot in the debate yesterday, so I will not repeat the arguments that he made very eloquently in the House.

To conclude, I reiterate that this Bill is about raising standards. It is about fairness, unlocking growth and future-proofing our economy. Fairness can drive growth. Businesses that treat their workers well can innovate more and grow faster. Stronger employment relations are absolutely essential to that.

As is typical with employment legislation, the technical details of many of the policies in this Bill will be provided through regulations, and in some cases codes of practice, following Royal Assent. We will be consulting extensively, because this Employment Rights Bill is a positive step forward for workers, for employers and for the economy. I look forward to working closely with all hon. Members of this House, and people outside it, to deliver on this landmark reform and make a real difference to workers, employers and our British economy.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. I fear that it has been a bit of a conversation of the deaf, but we will see whether the number of women employed in this country goes up or down. We will see whether the number of disabled people employed in this country goes up or down. We will see whether these new regulations contribute to growth in the economy, or to further shrinkage and further increases in unemployment. I fear for the British economy; I think we are heading in a really bad direction, and this Employment Rights Bill is going to turbocharge our getting there.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of employment rights on businesses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

We will always work across Government with the Treasury to look at issues that affect businesses, whether on the high street or beyond. In the discussions the hon. Member has had with the particular businesses in her constituency, I am sure she will have noted our plans to reform business rates, which will help many businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. She will also have noted that more than 40% of businesses will pay no business rates in the coming year.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Lky7 Sports is a small cycle and nutrition business in Ashford in my constituency. It has been hammered by the loss of small business rate relief, and wrote to me yesterday saying:

“The Government say that they are helping small business, but this is a joke when our business rates have gone from nothing to £1,800. We are seriously considering closing the shop down.”

What advice does the Minister have for that boss?

[Gareth Thomas]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman— I say this gently to him—will have explained to that particular business that we inherited a very difficult economic situation because of the decisions that his party took, including on tax, but our small business strategy will set out more plans to help small businesses, such as the one in his constituency. Our business rates relief package will make a significant difference for retail, hospitality and leisure. [Interruption.] He asks when we will publish the small business strategy—it will be shortly.

Employment Rights Bill

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti]

I could not have made the point better. The number of amendments, and the cost and regulatory burden being placed on businesses, large, medium and small, have worried many businesses, not just in my constituency but across the country. This will do immense harm, and it will take a long time to fix the mess that has been created.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

There are 24 Members sitting on the Government Benches. Would my hon. Friend like to issue an open invitation to them to name a single small business that has been in touch to say that it supports this legislation?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I am more than happy to extend that invitation. Madam Deputy Speaker may get annoyed with me if I take 24 interventions, although I do not see anyone jumping to their feet, so we will take that for what it is.

There is also anxiety about the clauses on access to the workplace. The Government have now gone further and talked about digital access. This is a huge burden to put on small businesses, and it is shameful of the Government wilfully and blindly to ignore their concerns. Labour Members will have to answer many questions from businesses in their communities. Those same businesses contribute to the Treasury coffers and pay for the public services that Labour Members champion. This will be really important, and the burden will of course increase.

Before—and after—the election, and during the passage of this legislation, Labour has said time and again that it was listening to businesses. Clearly that is not the case. Businesses continue to feel that they have been led up the garden path by this damaging Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my fellow member of the Business and Trade Committee for his intervention. As he will have seen from the amendment paper, the Government are not proposing the return of secondary picketing.

New schedule 2 will give unions greater protection from unfair practices during a recognition process and make winning it more likely. I wish that Ministers had gone the whole hog and deleted the three-year lockout; perhaps there will be an opportunity to take that forward.

In conclusion, as a whole, this package of modern industrial relations will lead to more sitting roundtables sorting out issues, fewer picket lines, fewer strikes, more productive relationships, more long-termism across our industrial base, better jobs, higher wages, higher skills and higher productivity. That is why the changes in this Bill to both collective rights and individual rights are so crucial, and so opposed by the Tories and the absent Reform party. This is the type of growth that my party stands for—the type of growth where proceeds are shared by all. It is time to make work pay.

[Lincoln Jopp]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). She is such a compelling advocate that I am tempted to go on strike myself. I do sense a certain amount of antipathy between the two sides of the House, so, before I come on to make a fair point in support of amendment 292, I want to prepare the ground by doing two things.

First, I want to try to convince Labour Members that they missed an opportunity, because I am, at heart, a rabble-rousing potential motivator of people. When, about three Christmases ago, the ambulance drivers went on strike, it irked me that the soldiers who were going to stand in for them at no notice would have their Christmas ruined, so I started a campaign to try to get them an additional £20 for every day they stood in for the ambulance drivers. This plan was—the Chancellor would have loved this—net positive to the Treasury. Of course, the departments that employ the ambulance drivers and the arm’s length bodies do not pay them on strike days, and the pay differential between them and the £20 bung to the soldiers meant that the Government still saved money. I managed to get The Sun on board and get a letter into the paper, and did a bit of television.

[Mrs Russell]

Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed that, under his Government, hard-working ambulance drivers felt they had to go on strike?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I think the hon. Lady has slightly missed the point of what I was saying. Reading the body language of Members on the Government Benches, I think they all wanted to hear how this story ended up.

It did help that the then Secretary of State for Defence was a friend of mine, with whom I served in the Scots Guards. We did get the £20 bung for all the service personnel who stood in—regardless of the fact, interestingly, that all the generals, air marshals and admirals were against it, as were all the officials. There you go—I very much have the same values at heart.

Secondly, to win over the other side of the House to the very fair point I will come on to make, let me pay tribute to the remark of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), in respect of union membership, that he wanted people to

“make a fair choice one way or the other”.

I note that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) also referred to fair work. I want to come back to that theme of fairness in addressing amendment 292.

The Bill is, to put it politely, something of a cat’s cradle of clauses, so I will briefly remind the House that the Bill seeks to place on employers an obligation to give their workers a written statement that they have the right to join a union, and, if they do join, to contribute to the political fund. Amendment 292 would simply inject a bit of balance into the legislation by requiring trade unions to notify their members annually that they have a right to opt out of the political fund and to obtain an annual opt-in from their members.

This all puts me in mind of November 1988, when Mrs Thatcher was about to visit Poland. At Prime Minister’s questions, just prior to her going, an Opposition Member stood up and asked whether she would raise with Lech Wałęsa the right to join a trade union. There may be some Members present who were there—I will not be so ungallant as to ask. A roar went up from the Labour Benches, and the redoubtable Mrs Thatcher replied that she would raise with the Poles the right to join a trade union, but that she would also raise the right not to be a member.

The Bill seeks to whack the pendulum pretty hard in favour of union power; our amendment would bring it back into balance somewhat. We all know someone, after all, who has fallen prey to one of those charity muggers who stop people in the street and try to sign them up to whichever charity they are being paid by that day. I have known people who have done that job, and it is not an easy one. Similarly, any Member of this House who stood in a precinct and tried to sell their political brand and get people to sign up will attest to that completely. Sometimes, the charity collectors are successful, and the all-important direct debit details are extracted. In fact, I remember hearing a number of Labour Members railing against this practice in the previous Parliament.

Amendment 292 would remind workers that they still have an off-ramp, if they want one—they still have agency, and they still have freedom of choice. We have heard Member after Member stand up over the past two days of debate and declare—in some cases sheepishly, in some cases more proudly—the money they receive from the trade unions. This is only right and proper. The public can make up their own minds as to whether this money has coloured the judgment of Labour Members, or whether it is simply support from an organisation that shares their values. But to turn down amendment 292 would, in my view, be a dreadful look. This is a totally measured, balancing amendment and, if Labour Members vote against it, the public would be right to conclude that the Government are being motivated not by a sense of equality, fairness and justice, but instead by something else. I urge hon. Members to vote for amendment 292 and to give power to the people.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak for a second time on Report. I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union.

Much has been said about trade unions and strike action, as if the only purpose of a trade union is to get workers out on strike. It is a mischaracterisation of unions, as was so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). It is also a mischaracterisation of corporate Britain to think that everyone is exploitative and abusive. The majority of companies in our country adhere to environmental, social and governance principles, and they make that commitment; they want to demonstrate that they are responsible people. They want that for their investors and for long-term sustained investment, so we have to draw back on those views and step away from the disdain and the contempt for working people and for trade unions, which is not helpful.

Employment Rights Bill

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford]

It is always a pleasure to follow the King. [Laughter.]

I rise on behalf of my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook who are opposed to this fundamentally anti-business Bill. Nothing has highlighted more clearly than this debate the old adage that where we think the Labour party is wrong, it thinks that we are evil. Nothing that has come from Labour Members has given any consideration to the absolutely correct concerns that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), raised in his opening remarks.

The Bill, which has been bodged both in Committee and today, has been put together simply to assuage the union paymasters that fund so many Labour Members. The Bill highlights Labour’s complete misunderstanding of how to help business, employees and, of course, the economy overall. We have a Government who talk about growth but legislate to destroy it.

The Government claim to be pro-growth and pro-business, yet the Bill is precisely the opposite. The Institute of Directors has warned that it will lead to slower growth, deter investment and bury business under an avalanche of unnecessary regulation. Even the Government’s own impact assessment, which Opposition Members have mentioned on a number of occasions, concedes that business will face a staggering £5 billion in additional costs: an economic straitjacket that will choke innovation and job creation. Labour Members seem to have failed to realise that being pro-business, as the Conservatives are, is being pro-worker, because if businesses do not exist there will be no one to employ workers.

In my constituency alone we have over 5,000 businesses, the vast majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. Many of them operate in the education, retail and hospitality sectors, which rely on flexibility to survive, yet the Bill’s attack on zero- hours contracts threatens to wipe out opportunities for students, part-time workers and those juggling multiple jobs to make ends meet.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Among the 5,000 small businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, has my hon. Friend come across one that is in favour of the Bill or lobbied him to vote for it?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am happy for the Minister to come to Farnham and Bordon—or Haslemere, Liphook or any other of my villages—to meet all the people who tell me what a damaging effect the Bill will have on their small business. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the simple fact is that the Government have not consulted small business properly. If they had, the Bill would be scrapped.

I think of the University for the Creative Arts students who rely on flexible work and the NHS paramedic in Farnham picking up extra shifts at the Nelson Arms, as I mentioned earlier. Those are real people whose livelihoods are at risk because of the Bill. That is why I support new clause 83 and amendment 283 on zero-hours contracts and employment tribunals.

UKHospitality has been clear that for 90% of workers on zero-hours contracts, that is their preference. The sector relies on these contracts to manage fluctuating demand, and removing that flexibility could devastate those businesses and lead to job losses. There is no job security for those who do not have a job. The House of Commons Library briefing actually supports that, confirming that zero-hours contracts provide essential flexibility for both employers and, most importantly, employees. That is why I support new clause 83 and amendment 283, which would demand a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the provisions concerning zero-hours workers before the Government recklessly legislate against them. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has already made it clear that banning zero-hours contracts will hurt the very workers the Government pretend to protect. But yet again, Ministers plough ahead, blind to the economic damage that they are about to unleash.

I turn to amendment 286 and new clause 86 on unfair dismissal and business confidence. The Government’s proposal to grant employees the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one is another reckless intervention, and one that is raised with me by small businesses day in, day out. The amendment and new clause seek to introduce an impact assessment before clause 21 and schedule 2 come into force. Without that, we have to be clear that businesses will be discouraged from hiring in the first place. Flexibility in employment is not one-sided; it benefits both workers and their employers.

Similarly, the right to request flexible working must be assessed properly. New clause 84 and amendment 284 rightly demand that the Secretary of State assess the impact of clause 7 before it comes into force. Rushed policymaking will not help workers or businesses; it will create uncertainty and drive investment away. That is why it is essential that we accept new clause 87 in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, because we need an impact assessment of how the Bill will affect businesses.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I fear the clock may not have started for my speech, so I will draw to a close. [Hon. Members: “More! More!”] In that case, I shall carry on! No, no; I am conscious of my hon. Friends who wish to speak.

This Government seem to have learned nothing from history. We have heard history lessons from Government Members, most of which have seemed to take us back to the 1970s. Economic success does not come from shackling businesses with red tape or giving trade unions unchecked power. It comes from fostering an environment where employers can hire, invest and grow.

North Sea Energy

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I welcome my hon. Friend�s question. What GE Vernova is doing and the jobs it is providing are incredibly important for her community. We will continue to encourage growth in that sector and beyond through our industrial strategy with its eight sector plans, one of which is clean energy. These things are all connected. We can grow the economy and deliver clean energy, and we can do it together.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

BP�s global headquarters are in my constituency. As the Minister meets industry �all the time�, to use her words, she will be fully aware that it announced a major reset last month, whereby it is increasing its investment in upstream oil and gas to the tune of $10 billion a year from next year. That is investors� money, not taxpayers� money. Is the Minister not concerned that by making Britain a hostile environment for oil and gas extraction, we are simply kissing away that investment to overseas?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

When we were in opposition, we set out a five-point plan to help with the revival of high streets. We are working to bring forward that plan. My hon. Friend will see more detail in the small business strategy Command Paper that we are committed to publishing next year.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

We have an anomalous situation in Spelthorne whereby people can use an oyster card to pay for six different red buses, but not the train. That is crippling small businesses and people going into London. Will Ministers in the Department use their combined might to lobby on my behalf and get me a meeting with the Minister for Rail, so that we can get Spelthorne into the correct zone?

[Sarah Jones]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ability to shoehorn in a question on a subject that is not in the Department for Business and Trade’s remit, but we are of course happy to help with his endeavours to talk to Ministers in the Department for Transport.