Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I assure him and the House that the Government are committed to securing better environmental outcomes alongside facilitating the development that our country so desperately needs. In our consultation on proposed reforms to the NPPF, we made it clear that land safeguarded by existing environmental designations will maintain its current protections. We are exploring how we might streamline house building and infrastructure delivery by using development to fund nature recovery where both are currently stalled. However, we have made it clear that we will act with legislation only when we have confirmed to Parliament that the steps we are taking will deliver positive environmental outcomes.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Ministers dropped the last Government’s plan for the development of Cambridge and connections to nearby towns including Haverhill in my constituency. When will the Government come forward with an integrated plan to develop Cambridge and improve road and rail links to towns like Haverhill?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I wrote to local leaders in the greater Cambridge area a few weeks ago to make it clear that the Government believe the area is a site where we should take forward nationally significant housing growth. We will set out further details in due course, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Cambridge growth company is taking plans and pulling together an evidence base to set out precisely what the scale of development should be and how it should take place in that area.

Employment Rights Bill

Nick Timothy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) on his maiden speech. I look forward to the best dog in the world, Monty, taking on Scooby in the Westminster dog of the year competition.

Everybody in the House knows that every Labour Government in history have ended with unemployment higher than when they started. Bills like this are part of the reason why, whatever the intention. If the purpose of this Bill really is to improve workers’ rights, and it is not just about paying back £40 million of union donations made over the past few years, why is there no provision addressing one of the worst labour market abuses in our country: substitution clauses, which allow delivery drivers to lend their identities to others? These clauses are in contracts from huge firms such as Amazon and Deliveroo, and they fuel worker exploitation and immigration crime. We know that hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom cannot work here legally, trade identities. By undercutting British workers and exploiting those with no right to be here, these companies are privatising profits and socialising the costs that they cause, so why is that issue missing from the Bill?

Why will the Government do nothing about the international trading system? Countries aiming to run trade surpluses, such as China, hold down their labour costs and destroy industry in deficit countries such as ours. Trade wars, as two authors like to say, are class wars, and the Labour party usually likes to fight a class war, yet this Government want to flood Britain with cheap Chinese electric cars because of the Energy Secretary’s obsession with net zero. That is just one way in which our economic model needs to change, because while the Government’s characterisation of their inheritance is, I am afraid, cynical and wrong, there is a case for economic change, if only the Government were prepared to undertake it. I think the Business Secretary might be one of those capable of doing that, but I am not sure that some of his colleagues are. Today, Ministers could be launching a plan for reindustrialisation, for competitive energy prices, for domestic steel manufacturing and for a strategy taking in better infrastructure, skills and training, planning, regulatory reform and more—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Lady like to intervene?

[Antonia Bance]

No; I am fine, thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

The Government could be doing something about the fact that nearly 22% of the workforce is economically inactive and a record number of men is leaving the labour market. They could be backing British business.

[Robbie Moore]

This again highlights the point that there is so much detail yet to be released into the public domain about this Bill. I highlighted this before. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had that detail, we could provide more reassurance to the small and larger businesses dealing with the challenges he has mentioned?

[Nick Timothy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right; I agree.

The Government could be backing British business, not burdening it with all these new regulations. Instead, we have an Energy Secretary driving up energy prices, a Chancellor planning a jobs tax, increases to capital gains tax and the imposition of inheritance tax on small family businesses, and a Deputy Prime Minister reregulating the labour market at a cost to business of £5 billion, to pay back the unions who fund the Labour party. The Prime Minister promised us that his priority was “growth, growth, growth”, but like everything else he said before the election, he did not mean it, because the only three things that this Bill will bring are more costs, less investment and fewer jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

The hon. Gentleman just quoted the CBI approvingly. Can he name the chief executive of a real business who approves of this Bill?

[Peter Swallow]

I have spoken to many chief executives in my constituency who approve of this Bill. I will not go into private conversations, because I have not warned them that I was about to quote them in the House, but I am sure that we will hear many such examples in contributions from other Members.

This Bill will bring in historic new rights for working people. It will make work pay, and it will be good for boosting our national productivity and supporting businesses and growth in this country, because we all know that when workers feel that the jobs that they do are valued, they contribute more to the economy. That is why this Bill is good not only for workers but for businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

Earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) whether there are any business leaders who actually support the Bill. Is my hon. Friend aware of any?

[Robbie Moore]

I have spoken to and received correspondence from many businesses, both small and large, in my constituency, but not one gave the Bill their full backing. In fact, they raised concerns about the relationship between the employer and employee being tampered with by the Government.

One of the most unsurprising parts of the Bill is clause 48, in which the Government want to force union members to pay into the political fund of the union, unless they explicitly decide to opt out. No matter what views hon. Members may have about unions, this clause is simply not right; working people should not be paying into political funds without giving their prior consent, especially when that money ends up in the pockets of a political party. Having received over £29 million in donations from the unions, we know which political party that money will end up going to—the party in government; and all this from a self-proclaimed Government of supposed transparency. Every employment is different, every job is different and every circumstance is different, but this Bill fails to recognise that.