Employment Rights Bill

Mike Martin Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Budget Resolutions

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

The ability to continue to invest in our public services, and the sterling work done by the predecessor Government on levelling up every part of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] Government Members do not like it, but that work relies fundamentally on private enterprise, which pays the taxes that fund the prosperity and the infrastructure that this country needs. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is merely showing once again his party’s deficient understanding of how a modern economy works—it is markets, not Governments, that drive up prosperity—and how free trade has improved human health.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State think that the Conservative-designed and implemented Brexit is good for markets, good for business, and good for growth?

[Andrew Griffith]

Well, we will talk a little later about stability. If colleagues do not have maiden speeches to make, I will be very happy to talk at great length about the many benefits of Brexit and the important ability for a country to make its own laws and deliver benefits for the economy.

Let me make some progress. The Secretary of State has talked much about infrastructure, and, indeed, that is partly the subject of today’s debate. Although creating infrastructure is a noble goal, important to all the constituents who send us here, words, I am afraid, are cheap, and the actions of his party somewhat undermine his position. His party voted in the other place against measures to allow 100,000 homes to be built, and his Labour Mayor of London failed to build to such an extent that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government now proposes lowering his targets. This Labour Budget has pulled up the housing ladder for so many, by increasing the burden of stamp duty for first-time buyers. Currently, an estimated 80% of first-time buyers pay no stamp duty, but from April 2025, that could fall to only half.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have heard fantastic maiden speeches from across the House, and I am sure that we have all enjoyed the insights from them. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson). I loved the way he set out his aspiration for the kind of country of abundance that we should seek. He is entirely right, but I am just not sure that this Budget is the way to get there. If the penny drops with him over time, I hope that he will be able to engage with us in coming up with a more constructive way of delivering the growth that this country needs.

Not only is this a Budget of broken promises, but unfortunately—and this is an important issue—it is a bad faith Budget. I do not want to rehearse—although there is so much to rehearse—the 50 promises not to raise taxes or the bogus £22 billion that was not validated by the OBR, but those are serious points. It is good to see the engagement from Labour Members, because in politics one cannot afford to have a reputation for being dishonest and not doing what one says. [Interruption.] Labour Members who laugh at that should remember Cicero’s advice. He was always better at giving advice than following it, but he said:

“The foundation of justice is…good faith; that is, truth and fidelity to promises and agreements.”

Without that, we lose trust.

[Mike Martin]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip was honest at all times?

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Steve Tuckwell was a great man!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I will start by welcoming a few measures in the Budget, in particular the increase in the carer’s allowance and the funding for the NHS that is sorely needed after the last Government. There is something that I am confused about, though. This, as trailed in the Labour manifesto, was meant to be a Budget for growth—indeed, that was how the Chancellor introduced it last Wednesday, and the Secretary of State in opening the debate today said that the Budget will bring growth—but it does not appear to help small businesses, which are the engine of our economy, employ over half the people in it and provide 50% of the revenue.

In my constituency of Tunbridge Wells is Adrian Scripps, which grows 10% of the UK’s apple crop. James, its managing director, tells me that its labour costs will go up by 8%, so this year, if he does nothing about it, he will lose 50% of his profits—and this is a good year, so in a lean year he would lose money. If a business producing 10% of the UK’s apple crop is to lose out from the Budget, what does that mean for the wider SME sector?

As an aside, if I were to ask James what he thinks about the Government’s policy on Europe, which is essentially a continuation of the previous Government’s, I could not repeat what he would say in the Chamber. As a result of this Budget, James will have to lay off staff. People losing jobs does not grow the economy.

I have a short time left, but I would like to talk about Toby, who runs The Chapel salon in Tunbridge Wells. He is also the head of the Salon Employers Association, which represents 1,900 salons across the United Kingdom. He estimates that more than 25% of salons may go under as a result of this Budget. Cutting hair is labour intensive and the margins are wafer thin. Businesses going insolvent does not grow the economy. I understand, and I agree, that we need to invest in our public services—I think the Government have got that bit of the Budget right—but I disagree with who is taxed to pay for it. The Liberal Democrats think that we should tax big businesses, and the Labour Government think that we should tax small businesses. That is not on.