Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) for securing this most important debate. When thinking about the debate, I looked up some quotes on hair. My favourite was, “Invest in your hair: it is the crown you never take off.” That is a very true sentiment, although I apologise to the men among us who are perhaps lacking in the hirsute department. Naming no names—they are kings in their own right.

Hair is such an integral part of our being and our confidence, and we can appreciate how traumatic it is when people lose their hair while undergoing cancer treatment or suffering from alopecia. We often expect to walk on to our high streets and find a hair and beauty salon that can help to tame our locks or restore our nails, but we cannot take the sector for granted. According to the British Beauty Council and Oxford Economics, the sector contributed £8.541 billion to the UK economy in 2023, supporting the direct employment of more than 224,000 people.

I have many excellent hair and beauty salons in South Northamptonshire, but it really pained me when Defern Beauty in Brackley and The Beauty Works in Towcester met me and explained how desperate the position is for the industry. It was heartbreaking to see them explain how their life-long work is being eroded by this Chancellor. After NICs increases and business rate relief changes, they desperately need help.

One of their asks is for a review of the VAT position, which would help not only to save businesses and raise revenues for the Exchequer, but also to save apprenticeships. The British Hair Consortium’s February 2025 report explains that as VAT is applied evenly across goods and services, it has a disproportionate burden on labour-intensive industries such as hairdressing and beauty, where 60% of the costs are wages. When they are unable to reclaim the VAT on their primary cost, which is people, there is a distorted market with competition between VAT-registered and non-registered businesses, which incentivises VAT avoidance tactics such as bunching, disaggregation and disguised employment. We should not be surprised by the rise in cash-only salons, and should think carefully about what that means in practice. The consortium is also calling for a mandatory register of all hairdressing professionals. Without a register, VAT avoidance and disguised employment will continue unchecked, costing the Treasury billions while putting responsible businesses at a disadvantage.

My businesses pride themselves on taking apprentices and bringing the next generation along, but my fear is that, as the British Hair Consortium believes, apprenticeship starts are set to reach zero by 2027, which contravenes the Government’s objective of reducing inactivity among 18 to 21-year-olds. These businesses simply cannot afford to take on the next generation, which will stifle the industry in the long term. I implore the Government to engage with the industry and take immediate action. Hair is a beautiful form of self-expression. Where will we be left without it?

Employment Rights Bill

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Baggy Shanker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about individual members coming together to do what is right for themselves, for their trade unions, and for the companies and businesses that they work for.

I welcome the Bill’s introduction of a right of access for unions to meet with workers. Government amendment 163 expands union access agreements, so that unions can communicate with workers digitally as well as by entering the workplace. I urge meaningful implementation of those digital access rights to enable direct conversations between unions and workers, as would take place during in-person meetings in the workplace.

When we work together, we get more done. It is important that workers have access to union representatives and know how joining a union can support them in the workplace. I welcome the measures in the Bill to expand that access, which will further strengthen the rights of working people in Derby and beyond.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

There are 5,310 businesses registered in my constituency of South Northamptonshire. Of those, 99.6%—or specifically 5,245—are small businesses. This Bill, among many of the Government’s policies, is a calamity for those small businesses. Not only are many of them rural, meaning that they will be affected by the family farm tax and now by the removal of the sustainable farming incentive, but as the chair of the Federation of Small Businesses has said, these small and medium-sized enterprises will struggle to adapt to the 28 major changes that the Bill makes to employment law.

First, it was the Government’s jobs tax, then it was their cuts to rate relief for hospitality businesses, and now they are smothering SMEs with red tape. Analysis published by the Department for Business and Trade says that this will impose a cost on businesses in the low billions of pounds per year, but that is not money that many of my small businesses can afford right now. This is why the Opposition have called for small businesses to be exempt from the parts of the Bill that would heap unsustainable costs on them.

Why do the Government seem to hate small businesses so much? Perhaps it is because the majority of the Cabinet have spent their careers in the public sector and have zero understanding of what life is like for the many entrepreneurs with SMEs across the UK, including in my constituency. We learned this week that, for the first time since records began in 2012, the number of companies registered at Companies House has fallen. Growth forecasts have been downgraded and the number of vacancies has declined. All this is a result of the choices the Government have made and continue to make in this Bill.

With all of this, the UK risks becoming a globally uncompetitive economy, particularly when other countries such as the United States are slashing regulation and unleashing their businesses to grow their economies. The Opposition have tabled new clause 90 for exactly this reason. It would ensure that when the Secretary of State makes regulations under part 4 of the Bill, he has to have regard to growth in the medium to long term. I join the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), in calling on the Government to support new clauses 89 and 90 to ensure that growth happens. Our economy is already struggling under the weight of Labour’s tax rises. Why are the Government opposing our efforts to ensure that they consider how burdensome regulation might impact on businesses?

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

A lot of people outside this place might feel that the answer to that question is that the trade unions have funded Labour Members—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), who is talking from a sedentary position, received more than £27,000 from two unions in the latest year of declarations and did not think it appropriate in this debate even to mention that number, which may well have influenced his thinking and led to the dire outcomes that my hon. Friend is explaining to the House.

[Sarah Bool]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I think all Labour Members must reflect on this because we need the public to understand truly why this legislation is going through.

That the Government have seen fit to table 87 of their own amendments at this stage alone is indicative of how uneasy they must feel about the Bill. We are even told by the media that the Treasury has warned the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the consequences for the economy of enacting these laws, yet they seem to have seen fit to plough them through anyway. As per usual, Labour is paying lip service to growth while sticking true to form with their socialist ideology. I was not born in the 1970s but it appears that I am going to live through the equivalent in the years ahead, as Labour plays Abba’s 1976 hit “Money, Money, Money” for its trade union paymasters.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade unionist and a member of Unite the union. I have been supported from across the labour movement with the cleanest money in politics, which I do not think Conservative Members can say about themselves.

For over a year, Swedish Tesla workers have been on strike demanding the basic right to collective bargaining. Their struggle has inspired solidarity across industries. Postal workers, painters, electricians, cleaners and dock workers have all launched secondary action in support. Denmark’s largest trade union, 3F Transport, has also joined the fight, preventing Danish dock workers and drivers from handling Tesla shipments bound for Sweden. This level of solidarity is possible because Swedish trade unions are not shackled by restrictive laws designed to suppress collective action. Unlike here in the UK, the legislative landscape in Sweden does not act against the interests of organised labour. Almost 90% of Swedish workers are covered by collective agreements, and their labour laws ensure that workers have the right to negotiate and defend their conditions without undue interference.

As a result, Swedish trade unions are more than a match for billionaires like Elon Musk. When Tesla refused to sign a collective agreement, it was not just Tesla workers who fought back—the entire trade union movement did. That is what real industrial democracy looks like, and it is a powerful reminder of what British workers have been denied for too long by some of the most draconian anti-union legislation in the western world.

While I welcome the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and much of the Trade Union Act 2016, the fact remains that many of the worst Thatcher-era anti-union laws are still in place. One of the most damaging is section 224 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which makes secondary action unlawful. That ban on sympathy strikes isolates workers, weakens their bargaining power and prolongs disputes—all to the benefit of exploitative employers. That is why I have tabled new clause 31 to repeal that restriction and return power to working people.

Secondary action built the trade union movement as we know it. It helped us secure the very rights that we all benefit from today. But in an era of outsourcing and subcontracting, the ban is even more harmful than it was three decades ago. Under current legislation, two workers performing the same job in the same workplace cannot take industrial action together if one is directly employed and the other is outsourced. Employers exploit that loophole to divide workers. They shift responsibility through complex corporate structures, like what we are seeing at Coventry University in my constituency, and undermine union action by transferring work or hiving off companies. Workers are even prevented from taking action against parent companies and suppliers during disputes.

In many ways, secondary action is more essential than ever in the fight for fair pay and conditions. Most European nations, including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, allow secondary action in some form. Even those with restrictions, such as Germany, France and Spain, stop short of imposing an outright ban. Labour’s new deal for working people committed to repealing anti-union laws and ensuring that the UK’s industrial action laws comply with international obligations, including those under the International Labour Organisation and the European social charter. Yet, as it stands, the Bill fails to deliver on that promise.

International bodies have repeatedly condemned the UK’s ban on secondary action. The European Committee of Social Rights and the ILO criticised the UK for that restriction most recently in 2023 after the P&O Ferries scandal, when 800 crew members were sacked via video call and replaced with agency workers. P&O knew that it could get away with its disgraceful actions because the law prevents other workers from striking in solidarity.

I also support a number of amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), such as new clause 61, which would define employment status in law to end bogus self-employment. That is long overdue. For too long, employers have exploited gaps in employment law to deny workers basic rights. Today, in our country, black and Asian workers are disproportionately trapped in precarious, low-paid jobs on bogus self-employment contracts and denied statutory sick pay, holiday pay and protection from unfair dismissal. This two-tier system must end.

Every single worker deserves dignity and respect in the workplace, and by strengthening the Bill with these amendments, we would be taking a step forward towards rebuilding the power of the working class. I urge Members across the House to stand on the right side of history and with the workers who keep this country running.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to support high street businesses.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to support high street businesses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

We are continuing to work with colleagues across Government to develop a programme that will revitalise the nation’s high streets and support businesses. We will publish a small business strategy later this year, and high streets will be a key pillar of that. We have already committed to continuing funding for business growth programmes such as the growth hub network and announced plans for a new business growth service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I recognise that there will be a lot of concern in the hon. Member’s constituency following that news yesterday. I agree that banking hubs can make a significant difference, which is why we have been quick to roll out more than 100 of them. Plans for another 76 have already been developed and we are committed to rolling out 350 in total. In the spirit of one Thomas trying to help another Thomas, I am happy to meet him.

[Sarah Bool]

Our small businesses are the lifeblood of our high street and often give young students their first opportunity for a job on a Saturday or in the holidays. However, one of my local small business owners says that she can no longer afford such roles because of the increase in employer national insurance contributions and changes to business rates, among other things. What will the Government do to support our young people into jobs when small businesses are left in that awful position?

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Lady might want to check again with the business she refers to, because, in the most recent Budget, the employment allowance was raised to some £10,500, which will help every small employer’s national insurance bill every year, and should ensure that more than 1 million firms benefit. That is a very practical measure; more broadly, on the point about national insurance contributions, she will know that Labour inherited a very difficult financial situation because of mistakes made by the Conservatives, and difficult decisions have had to be taken.

Pub and Hospitality Sector

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate on pubs and the hospitality industry. In my rural constituency of South Northamptonshire, we have 95 pubs and four breweries; they support 1,950 jobs, generate £26 million in tax and contribute £48 million to the local economy. But pubs contribute so much more than that—and I do not just mean the Towcester Mill Brewery in my constituency providing the Strangers Bar with the famous Bell Ringer beer, well known for its zesty orange marmalade notes and earthy, spicy aftertaste.

I was invited to visit The White Hart in Hackleton in my constituency at the end of September to hear at first hand what it is like to run a pub in 2024. Aside from alcohol duty, VAT and business rates, one of the most striking points from the conversation was what it would actually mean for local people, should the pubs be forced to close. We cannot underestimate the power of the community that is created and fostered in rural areas around the local pub. With the lack of bus services and the wider transport issues, pubs are a crucial source of truly local employment for some villages. I was told of one pub that had taken on a local girl with Down’s syndrome, who would otherwise have struggled to access employment outside the village due to the lack of transport. For her it was a real lifeline, and she developed not only her resumé but her professional and social skills.

My ask for the sector is that we cut VAT, continue the freeze on alcohol duty and extend the current 75% business rate relief for hospitality businesses. Like me, many hon. Members may enjoy settling down of an evening to watch one of our great British soaps, be it “EastEnders”, “Coronation Street” or even “Emmerdale”. And what is at the heart of those? The pub. We must make sure that the scriptwriters do not have to change their scenes because we have destroyed this industry.