Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the responsibilities of housing developers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am pleased to have secured this debate on housing developers and the challenges that my constituents face around the multiple housing developments that are currently taking place in our area.

Housing developers have a huge impact on local communities and our national potential. We are all acutely aware of the challenge of our national housing supply. It is vital to supply the right houses in the right places and to the right people, and without developers that would not be possible, but new housing also has a huge impact on local people. Done poorly, new developments can completely change the existing settlement. They can reduce access to local services and make it harder for a child to secure a school place. They may also make it more difficult to get a doctor’s appointment, or they may add to traffic congestion. Those practical effects make a huge difference to people’s lives. For towns such as Silsden in my constituency, a perfect storm of planning regulations can change the character of the local area.

From a town of a few hundred properties, Silsden has grown by hundreds of houses in just 10 years and looks set to grow even further. Given the huge power that local developers have in both urban and rural communities in areas like mine right across Keighley and Ilkley, it is vital that we regulate them and ensure that they act responsibly. We must not forget that developers are businesses and must rightly consider their profitability first, but it is beholden on this place and local councils to ensure that the desire to make a profit does not come at the expense of local people.

I want to talk through some of the challenges that my constituents face when developments take place. I will start with early consultation. It is vital, when new housing schemes are developed and initially thought through by a developer, that consultation with local people takes place before a planning application is submitted.

Since I became an MP in 2019, Silsden has seen Persimmon, Harron Homes, Countryside Homes, Barratt Homes, the Lindum group, Newett Homes and Skipton Properties all developing houses. Those multiple developments took place in one town. It is right for the local authority to look at the masterplanning associated with the whole town when looking at the collective impact and the level of services provided, and therefore work out any negative consequences of those individual developments.

The planning system currently struggles to take separate developments properly into account when consulting with the public. Proper early engagement is vital. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend speaks well about the challenges in Keighley and Ilkley. On the point about consultation, residents in my area might not object to the location of a development, but they are concerned about the impact on doctors and schools. When those concerns are raised with the developer, it pushes back and says that that is not its problem, but rather a matter for the local authority and the Scottish Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that that balance needs to be changed? Developers should take greater cognisance of the impact that their developments will have on services, working with the local authority to address those concerns as part of the consultation stage.

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend’s excellent intervention gets to the nub of the point that I want to make. When multiple applications or developments are coming down the pipeline, they must all be considered duly and properly by the local authority. Bradford council, the unitary authority for my area, does not do that, which is incredibly frustrating because in order to work out the negative consequences, or indeed the positive impacts, that multiple developments will have on a community, those issues all have to be considered in the round. Residents need to feel that infrastructure and services are being properly considered.

That brings me on to a point that I had planned to make later about section 106 money and community infrastructure money. All too often, a local authority awards planning consent and then enters into a negotiation with the developer to agree the section 106 moneys that must then be paid to the local community, via the local authority, to mitigate any negative effects of the development. Unfortunately, in my constituency Bradford council is not taking a sufficiently robust negotiating position with the developer to extract as much financial benefit as possible for the local community so that that money can be spent in places like Silsden, Keighley and Ilkley and properly set against any negative impacts of the development.

I will give an example. With the development on Occupation Lane on the outskirts of Keighley, it was agreed that Barratt Homes would put in play facilities for children of all ages, up to the early teens. But what did we see when the development was complete? We saw play facilities that were more suitable for one or two-year-olds. The developer did the very bare minimum, which was obviously not what the residents expected when they purchased the homes. I could give other examples.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Many of these planning issues hark back to the Eric Pickles reforms, which the hon. Gentleman will remember all too well. One issue that I find in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes is that when it comes to section 106 funding, the power lies with the developers: they have much more negotiating strength. They do not want things like social homes as part of their developments, because they think that they will impact on the profits that the hon. Gentleman says are so important to securing the developments in the first place. Does he think that we need to regulate to ensure that the section 106 funding goes to the areas it was intended for, and ensure that local authorities are properly supported to acquire the expertise that they need to work against these developers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The reality is that section 106 money should be spent within a closely defined community area to mitigate any negative impacts resulting from the development. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, has the power to hold developers to account so that they ringfence money for the specific communities in which it should be spent. My worry is that the local authority is not spending that money in Silsden or Keighley; it is taking it back to Bradford city and spending it within the city heartlands, rather than allowing my constituents to benefit from it. That is a real challenge.

I would like a specific response from the Minister on how we can make sure that we hold the developers, and indeed the local authorities that have these powers, to account in order to ensure that section 106 money and community ownership money are spent in the communities where they should be spent.

My next point is about on-site conditions when a development takes place. Unfortunately, in my constituency I have far too often seen new developments—I will give the examples of Harron Homes in Silsden and Accent Properties in Long Lee just outside Keighley—where the quality of the build has been so poor that I, as the local MP, have had to chase the developer on snagging-related issues. Indeed, there have even been challenges with highways or drainage. A Long Lee resident contacted me to say that their property, which bordered on the development, had been negatively impacted by the work of Accent Homes, because the developers had not taken proper access provisions or proper boundary-related issues into account. That resulted in huge holes appearing in the gardens of neighbouring properties. Those properties had nothing to do with the development taking place, but they were still negatively impacted.

This should not be happening. Conditions of build should be properly assessed, and the developers should be held to account by the local authority through the enforcement powers available to it. Again, I fear that Bradford council is not being robust enough, when it has awarded planning consent for a build to take place, in going on to hold the developers to account throughout the build process. I have repeatedly raised that issue since becoming the Member of Parliament for Keighley and Ilkley.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

This is a timely debate, because I have just written to Solihull council about the Arden Triangle in my constituency and the lack of sufficient detail around the masterplan that is being put forward and considered tomorrow. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about this? One of the points I raised was that developers need to give consideration to infrastructure such as GP surgeries, but also to the road network, so that it can deal with the increase in housing.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention. All too often, we see little pockets of development taking place on the outskirts of relatively small towns, without due consideration of the wider challenges with traffic congestion on highways, schools, doctors’ surgeries and indeed the retail offering. Crikey, how many huge developments do we now see taking place where no thought is given even to having a local corner shop within easy access of the residents? Masterplanning and properly considering the impact of these developments on communities such as mine are vital.

That brings me to the next issue, which is that when a development has gone through the planning consent process and been built, and residents start moving in and to reside in the development, there is a challenge around how the site is maintained. I will use the example of the Miller Homes development in Eastburn, which is just next to Silsden and Steeton in my constituency. Miller Homes had completed the development, and then all residents were expected to pay a levy charge to a maintenance company, for the maintenance company to then use that money to instruct a contractor that would carry out any maintenance of the grassed areas or hedging within the development. What we were finding was that a resident had no control, necessarily, over how much levy they were paying that maintenance company, but neither did they have any control over the quality of the work being undertaken or over how regularly grass was being cut or hedges were being maintained. The system was not working.

I have had many meetings with residents on the issue. I have written to Miller Homes; I have also written to the management company dealing with the matter, because I feel that the situation is geared up for it to be able to make too much profit, and the quality of the service delivered for residents in Eastburn is so much less sufficient. In effect, those who have contacted me are trapped: they are paying for a service that they are not receiving and they cannot escape the situation without moving entirely. That cannot be fair. Better regulation of maintenance levy money for carrying out works on the ground and having a proper quality of work being carried out need to be looked at.

As I have said many times in this place, local people are not opposed to new housing, but they want guarantees that services and infrastructure will be upgraded to accommodate the new influx of people. We should be encouraging our housing sector to see the benefits of extra engagement and extra investment in order to open up public support so that more developments are able to take place further down the line. We must also convene developments and developers that work collaboratively with communities, so we can ensure that local communities are getting what they want. Based on the ambitious targets that the new Labour Government have released for increasing the number of houses and on their willingness, effectively, not to take into account local consideration and local consultation, I fear that there will be a dramatically negative impact on many small communities.

I will give a further example. In the village of Addingham in my constituency, people went through a very long process of negotiating their neighbourhood plan. They came to the conclusion that over the next 15 years Addingham would be able to accept about 75 new homes being constructed. Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, comes along and effectively says, “No, no: we are going to ignore what you have spent the last God knows how many years developing, and say that another 181 new houses in Addingham would be far more appropriate.” That goes against all the work that the local community had done and against any need assessment that had been properly established for that community to grow. I urge the Government to ensure that they always take into account local need and local assessments, as well as the negative impacts on local communities.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I would like to make two quick points. Constituents of mine who live in the Brockhill area have been waiting 20 years for roads and areas of grass to be adopted, for upkeep discussions to happen and agreements to be made. That has happened under both blue and red local administrations, so I do not think this is a party issue. This is about a system that has been failing residents for a very long time.

Secondly, at the last election the Labour party proposed 1.5 million houses, but the hon. Member will remember that his party’s manifesto proposed 1.6 million houses. When we are talking about building houses that people need, we should also have honest discussions about the fact that homes will need to be built.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but he started off by saying, “I’m not going to make this political,” and then went on to make a very political point.

I secured this debate to raise the concerns that residents have been raising. I robustly say to this new Labour Administration that communities like mine in Keighley, Silsden, Addingham and Ilkley, across the Worth valley, are fed up of having housing development after housing development approved by our Labour-controlled local authority without any due consideration of the negative impacts on our communities and infrastructure. There will be impacts, for instance, on our community’s ability to get a doctor’s appointment and on the development of our proper road infrastructure. This is political if Labour’s ambitions are to effectively get rid of the green belt and open up the grey belt when there is no due consideration of the local impacts that that will have.

My constituents and people across the country will want to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to address the concerns that I have raised. The public must have confidence in the housing process. Otherwise, they will resist new developments, and quite rightly so. If the Government are truly ambitious in their plans to build new homes, they must tackle the issues that I have raised before the impacts are exacerbated and have negative consequences on, I suspect, most of the constituencies of hon. Members speaking in today’s debate.

It concerns me deeply that the rhetoric from the Government now seems to be that we need to loosen the housing and planning systems even further, yet we have heard no comments so far from the Government that address the existing concerns about the current system and the services and infrastructure being put in place. As I said, no one can object to the right houses for the right people in the right places—that is why local consideration is so important. If we want to achieve that, we must ensure that our developers behave responsibly and do not damage the vital link of trust between them and the public. Towns like Silsden in my constituency, villages like Long Lee and, indeed, the whole of the housing market rely on it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this debate and on his introductory speech. He made important points about the importance of consultation, the responsibilities of housing developers and the need for quality service provision, community infrastructure and a range of other issues. Those are important points that we can all relate to from our own constituencies.

Other Members raised the important issues of housing supply and the housing crisis. We can all agree about the need to address the housing shortage in our country. It was helpful to be reminded of the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment of 1.6 million, along with my party’s commitment of 1.5 million over the next five years. On this important agenda, there is much that we can agree on. It is vital that national Government, regional government, local government and, of course, developers, on which we rely to deliver good-quality, safe and secure housing fit for communities and our country, work closely in partnership. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity—the first since the developments of the 1950s—to provide the housing that our country desperately needs.

We are in the middle of the most acute of crises in living memory; I see that first hand in my work as homelessness Minister, given the pressures of the housing shortage in many parts of our country. For too long, too few homes have been built and even fewer have been affordable, putting the dream of home ownership out of the reach of too many. That is creating an intergenerational set of tensions. Today’s under-30s are less than half as likely to be homeowners as those of the same age in the 1990s. There were only 210,000 first-time buyers last year, and they were particularly concentrated in the younger generation. That is the lowest figure since the global financial crisis.

We have seen house prices rise during that period, too. I know that across parties we can agree that we need to ensure that the younger generation have the hope of home ownership, should they wish to be homeowners, and that those who want to live in other forms of housing can get access to good-quality, affordable accommodation, be that shared ownership or other types of accommodation. We have inherited a set of challenges that we must address. That requires serious work across parties, where possible. There are 123,000 households, including 150,000 children, in temporary accommodation, which affects communities and constituencies up and down the country. We have a shared responsibility to tackle those issues.

As for the points made on planning and local consultation, we take those very seriously. The suggested changes to the national policy and planning framework, which we consulted on this summer, are first steps to correcting some of the issues that have arisen. By strengthening the housing targets and allowing development on poor-quality grey belt land, we will get Britain building again to kick-start our mission for delivering those 1.5 million homes. We are clear that our mission cannot be at the expense of quality. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and others have made important points, and although I will not be able to address them all, I will make sure that officials pick them up. Colleagues have raised a number of specific constituency cases, and I am happy to pick those up in writing as well.

[Robbie Moore]

I want to pick up on the point about the grey belt. I will use an example from my own constituency where we have challenges. The local authority is developing its local plan, but genuine concerns have been raised that where houses are being allocated, the need is not being identified—in other words, green belt or grey belt is being prioritised over brown-belt land. Could the Minister outline what conversations she is having with the likes of Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, so that brownfield sites can be prioritised rather than green belt and greenfield, which has negative implications?

[Rushanara Ali]

I will come to that point, which picks up on the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point about consultation, proper partnership working and engagement. We very much want to see that partnership with local authorities and communities, and I will come to the points about planning requirements as well.

We have been in government for only just over five months, but I hope colleagues can see that we have hit the ground running on a number of agendas, including leasehold reform and decent homes, which have been mentioned. We recognise that there is an urgency and a backlog of issues that need to be addressed. I hope that we can work on those issues collectively, because our constituents desperately need us to bring improvements.

Since coming into government, we have taken immediate steps to support the rapid delivery of homes by launching the new homes accelerator and establishing the new towns taskforce. We believe that the generation of new towns will provide new opportunities for millions of people and unlock much-needed economic growth. The construction sector, for instance, will generate additional jobs for communities up and down the country. These are important opportunities for our country.

We have also secured investment through the investment summit, including £60 billion and £0.5 billion on housing specifically. We need to see that investment in housing in our country. The Government have also put a down payment on our commitment, announcing £5 billion towards a housing supply package for England over the next five years, including £0.5 billion for social and affordable housing schemes.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley is absolutely right about developers. We need to ensure that developers fulfil their responsibility. He is very aware of safety, and other colleagues also raised that issue. The remediation action plan, following the recently published Grenfell phase 2 report, set out some of the issues relating to quality and safety. It is vital that the next wave of housing that is built is safe and secure. The legislative programme that will come with the remediation action plan and the response to phase 2 is critical to ensure that we address those issues.

More widely, it is vital that we do not compromise on the quality of housing when increasing the supply. We are mindful that we need to address both issues. The points about the contributions made by the community infrastructure levy and section 106 planning obligations are well made. In particular, section 106 delivers nearly half of all affordable homes per year. The hon. Gentleman made some important points about the need for local communities to benefit, which is crucial. He will be aware that local authorities have that strategic role. We have seen some great examples in different parts of the country—I have seen it in my own constituency—of how well that can work if communities are engaged and involved. I hope that happens with the hon. Gentleman’s local authority and with others, whether they are Labour or Conservative-controlled. We all want to see that benefit to our communities.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues related to consultation. Local planning authorities are required to undertake local consultation as part of the process of preparing a plan for their local area, to comply with the specific requirements in regulations 18 and 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. He will be aware, as will others, of the requirement to consult and involve communities, including the commitment to a statement of community involvement.

We are committed to the devolution agenda. Contrary to what the shadow Minister said earlier, that means giving more power to local communities, including devolved budgets, to empower local leaders and mayors to work strategically with national Government, in order to deliver on the housing agenda. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also raised issues in relation to section 106, which I have already addressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made a point about 200 planning officers. The Government have already committed £46 million to boost the capacity and capability in local planning, which will be crucial in local areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

As Members of Parliament, I often think that our role is to be both problem solvers and place makers. That is why today’s debate has been so important.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The common themes have been obvious: early consultation is really important, as well as addressing the challenges around multiple developments and their cumulative impact on wider communities. We also talked about section 106 and community ownership moneys and the importance of the quality of build when it comes to place making. It is right that we get the right homes built in the right locations, designed around the need that has been identified.

We have been joined by the farmers protesting outside Parliament, whose noise has been coming into the Chamber. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) rightly said that he welcomed the John Deere orchestra. I only hope that all Government Members are listening to the reasons why those farmers are here today.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

On behalf of right hon. and hon. Members, I thank the broadcasting and sound team for an excellent job this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the responsibilities of housing developers.

Employment Rights Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I congratulate those who have given their maiden speeches today and spoken with such passion for and about their communities.

There is much in the Bill that I support, and I support the sentiment behind it. I am sure there is common ground in wanting to improve conditions and rights for workers, but there is a balance to be struck, and I have grave concerns about some provisions in the Bill—those that increase burden and red tape on employers and on employees, and those that are a threat to and a drag on economic productivity.

My first concern is the unnecessary introduction of a new concept of statutory probation. As the law currently stands, workers get protections against things like unfair dismissal. Those long-standing principles have survived different Governments, and indeed survive in this Bill. The debate has been about when those rights are accrued—whether it is after two years of employment or one—and there has been a fluctuation. This Bill attempts to introduce those rights from day one, but then to row back on them by introducing a statutory probation period, during which, in the Deputy Prime Minister’s own words, there is only a “light touch” approach to unfair dismissal. It creates a new concept that is vague and unclear, and it will increase the glut of litigation in the employment tribunal. Indeed, it will need to do so to create case law so that employees and employers can understand what a “light touch” approach to unfair dismissal means.

My second concern is the increased burden on smaller employers. Indeed, that is contained in the Government’s own analysis, and much has been said about that, so I will turn to my third issue: specific burdens in specific sectors, such as social care. The Government’s own analysis says that the Bill will increase costs for employers, but employers in social care cannot bear any more cost. The Government have said they will bring forward reform of social care; that must come first, before this law is brought into force.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the crux of the issue is that the Bill is lacking in detail? The issues he is discussing have been identified and indeed referenced in the Government’s own economic analysis, and we cannot get into the detail of this debate without having that level of information on the face of the Bill.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree that the Bill lacks detail. It also contains a lot of powers that are intended to come about through secondary legislation. For example, we do not know how long that probation period will be, because it is not set out in the legislation.

Turning to the NHS, we understand that the Chancellor will increase the money to the NHS in the Budget but, as an employer, the NHS will have increased costs through this Bill. If national insurance contributions on employers are to be raised in the Budget, it will have that cost as well. That means there will be less money available to cut waiting lists. I urge the Government to delay this Bill, get the detail right and put some detail into it, and ensure that sectors such as health and social care get the support first so that, as employers, they can deal with the increased costs from this legislation.

--- 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 ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) on his maiden speech. Knowing his constituency a little, I can guarantee that the weather is not the link between Airdrie and Rome. I congratulate him on taking his place in this House.

Today’s debate is deeply important, and it will have huge ramifications for businesses of all sizes across the country. Hiring new staff is a big moment for small businesses, like many in Keighley and Ilkley, and it comes with huge potential but also risk. That is why many businesses in my constituency have contacted me in advance of the introduction of this Bill to express their concerns about the proposals before us today.

At a time when we need to grow the economy, we do not need a Bill that the Federation of Small Businesses has described as

“rushed…clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.”

It has to be noted that this Bill will have a disproportionately negative impact on smaller businesses compared with larger companies that have their own HR departments.

Simply put, Labour’s day one rights and other similar measures are worrying for many small businesses across the country. The Government have made this situation worse by adding clause after clause of clarification, exception, regulation and definition, in an attempt to micromanage every possible situation for businesses across the country. This has created a quagmire of regulatory jargon that small businesses will simply have to cope with, and they will not be able to cope. The fear of falling foul of these regulations has been made clear to me by many businesses in Keighley and Ilkley.

The Bill will also prevent the backbone of our economy from hiring staff, expanding and growing our economy. Even the Government’s own economic analysis stipulates that the risks are highest for workers with the weakest attachment to the labour market, such as low-paid workers, disabled workers and the youngest workers, who are still gaining the experience and skills they require.

[Rebecca Harris]

An SME in my constituency once found someone sleeping rough on its premises and offered them a job. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when this Bill is enacted, it is very unlikely that a business will go to such lengths to give someone that kind of break in future?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend highlights that this Bill will not give businesses the certainty and confidence to recruit individuals who need that little bit more experience to get into the job market. Indeed, the Government’s own analysis points to an unintended consequence:

“Where businesses cannot absorb the increase in labour costs, they may look to pass them onto workers by reducing expenditures that benefit workers (e.g. staff training) or scaling back future improvements to T&CS (e.g. wage growth).”

This is not a pro-growth Bill, and it is not even a pro-work Bill; it is a pro-union Bill. The Government have even said this themselves. Their plan to make work pay has referred to this Bill as an “Employment Rights Union Bill”. Perhaps that is because the Bill is chock full of changes to union regulation made by our previous Conservative Government—changes that were specifically designed to protect the public from the unscrupulous practices of the unions and their more militant members.

Minimum service provisions were introduced by the last Government specifically to protect the public from being caught in the crossfire between the unions and the Government—yet, by lifting those restrictions with this Bill, Labour is showing that it is more interested in appeasing its union bosses than in ensuring that minimum service is guaranteed throughout any dispute between the public sector and the Government.

[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.