Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The increase in housing delivery that the Secretary of State is committed to requires a 50% uplift across the board in housing numbers, yet according to the House of Commons Library, urban and major conurbations have seen an increase of 17% while mainly rural areas are seeing an average increase of 115%. How is that fair?

[Angela Rayner]

The shadow Secretary of State will know that our mandatory housing targets were based on affordability and were introduced to ensure that people are able to get the houses they desperately need. His Government removed the mandatory housing targets, we saw speculative development, and they failed, year on year, to deliver the housing that this country desperately needs. We are going to deliver the houses where they failed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that everyone should be treated equally and be seen to be treated equally before the law, including planning law?

[Angela Rayner]

I do not know where the shadow Secretary of State is going with this, but yes, I think people should be treated equally.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Great. Why, then, is it that the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all intervened in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy, overriding the wishes and concerns of local residents, the local planning authority, the Metropolitan police, the security services and, most likely, the incoming US President?

[Angela Rayner]

These are live issues, but the security of our country and nation always comes foremost, and that is always what this Government think of first.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister, and indeed my shadow Ministers, the other Opposition spokespeople and all parliamentarians who have helped with the passage of the Bill, as well as the Clerks and officials—not that I would like to see the Bill progress any further. Aristotle, in his book “Politics”, over 2,000 years ago—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order!

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Over 2,000 years ago, Aristotle talked about deviant government. Alongside tyranny, he placed democracy. He said the risk is that, sooner or later, a Government will come along who represent only their own interests and those of their supporters, and that that Government will pursue the politics of envy. Let us see who the Minister’s supporters are. They are not the 12.6 million pensioners in this country, if we judge by the winter fuel allowance; not the 89,500 farmers whose livelihoods will be damaged by the family farm tax; not the 5 million businesspeople who will be damaged by the changes to business property relief, who employ 14 million people and pay £200 billion a year in taxes; not those people who live in rural areas; and not the families of the 550,000 young people who are in private and independent education. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—this is not scaremongering —90,000 of them may go back into the state sector as a result of the Government’s choices.

The Government have the gall to say that the fact that business rates or VAT do not apply to school fees is a tax break. It is no more a tax break than there being no VAT on housing, children’s clothes or food. Those measures are there because we should encourage people to pursue education, particularly those who scrimp and save to send their children into private education.

What about businesses? Businesses are suffering on the back of the employer national insurance rise of £25 billion a year, and are worried about the future because of the withdrawal of business property relief and agricultural property relief. The reality is that this Bill means a cut in support for many of those whom the Minister said he seeks to protect—people who work in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. The 75% discount is down to 40%. That will mean a tangible difference for the average pub of £5,500 a year. That comes on top of the huge increases in employer national insurance. Some 250,000 businesses will be worse off to the tune of £925 million. That is the tax charge he is placing on those businesses he says he seeks to protect. If he is honest with them, those taxes will go up again in April 2026. That is the reality of the situation.

What promise did Labour make before the election? They said they would scrap business rates completely—another broken promise. In their manifesto, they said they would change the balance between high streets and the online giants. That is not what the Bill does. The Bill also taxes breweries, airports, football stadiums and bricks-and-mortar retailers such as John Lewis, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons. That is the reality behind the Government’s changes: not scrapping business rates, nothing on the online giants and big taxes on many businesses. This is the politics of envy. It is the tyranny of socialism, and that is why we will vote against the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I draw the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is not wrong, spurious or specious to stand up for 11 million tenants. We know that tenants and landlords are two sides of the same coin. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we agree that tenants need a better deal, but this Bill will not give that to them. The Minister is following in the footsteps of Scotland. The Bill will reduce supply and push up rent, and that is why we are against it—

Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Yemm]

That is exactly what I am saying. I wish to address the issues that are being endured by social housing tenants at the hands of those who are consistently perpetrating domestic antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhoods, and a “three strikes and you’re out” approach would take many, many years of them suffering this type of abuse. I will outline why I think such an approach would be lacking in its effectiveness of outcome and deterrence.

First, my experience is that there are issues with the evidence threshold. Councils in my area and many others are asking victims of antisocial behaviour in social housing to bear the burden of proof by taking their own recordings and notes and submitting them. Many constituents who attend my surgeries have gone through all the stress and anxiety of doing that on numerous occasions, having put their mental wellbeing and often their personal security at risk, only to then be told that the evidence does not meet the threshold required to instigate an intervention.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I agree very much with the hon. Member’s points, and I wonder if he is a member of the right party on that basis. Is he not dismayed that the Secretary of State has ditched our plans to remove social housing for people who are consistently guilty of antisocial behaviour?

[Steve Yemm]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. My dismay is at what I hear from my constituents, many of whom have suffered for many years trying to prove a single instance of antisocial behaviour. Indeed, they are often then notified that the advised method of evidence collection—often recordings on a mobile phone app—does not satisfy the evidential requirements to take action. After many years of threats to their own security and a great deal of effort, they find that the action is dropped and has to be started again. This is not an isolated incident in my constituency. Many, many women—and it is almost always women—have come to me in tears at my surgeries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate, because all of us have experienced distressing constituency cases, which are a real problem for our communities. I agree with his description of the issue: it can cause mayhem and misery throughout our local communities.

I also agree that social housing should be a privilege, not a right, and that those houses should be kept in good order. When canvassing in our patch, we have all gone to areas with social housing and seen overgrown gardens with litter and furniture in them. That cannot be right for the people in those houses, and particularly the children, but also for the neighbours. It is simply not right.

It is good to see that we seem to be in violent agreement on both sides of the Chamber on the three-strikes policy, which I will talk about in a second. That seems to be a maximum, not a minimum. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) argued for a two-strikes policy, and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) argued for a one-strike policy. I am encouraged by that, because it is fair to say that everyone in the debate so far—I am interested to hear what the Minister will say—has said that we need to do more.

[Richard Tice]

Competition is a good thing. It may be that the Minister wants “no strikes and you’re out”.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That might be a bit tricky—people do deserve to live in a house as long as they demonstrate good behaviour.

My predecessor as shadow Secretary of State—now the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch)—has said:

“Those who break the law, make neighbours’ lives a misery, or treat the UK as a hotel they’re just passing through, should not be given subsidised housing…The public wants to know that only decent and hardworking people who have contributed to this country are given social housing.”

I agree with that point.

The Minister is a very decent chap, and I am really interested to listen to what he will say, but let us contrast those comments with what the current Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister, has said. She has confirmed Labour’s plans to ditch proposals from the Conservative Government to take away social housing from criminals, including those with a history of antisocial behaviour. The Deputy Prime Minister also binned the Conservatives’ commitment to prioritise social housing for those with local and British connections. I am very disappointed by that approach, and we need to revisit it. I very much hope the Minister will do that, based on what has been said in this debate. That is all despite the Prime Minister pledging a new clampdown on criminal and violent disorder.

I would like to pick up on what my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), said in his remarks. I totally agree with many of the points he made, but particularly on right to buy. I grew up back in the‘70s in a little town in North Yorkshire with large council estates. I used to deliver milk there as a young man, and those council estates were not in the best order. Some of the behaviours were not the best, and nor was the condition of some of the houses, because people did not look after them. One of the benefits of right to buy, as well as giving individuals the benefit of right to buy, was that the individuals who bought those homes also improved them significantly. With double glazing, extensions and smart gardens, the quality of those estates increased dramatically. It is therefore a real concern that the Government have decided to cut back and water down that policy and to make it more difficult for people renting social houses to buy them. That cannot be right, particularly when the Deputy Prime Minister herself—this is her policy—has benefited from those very opportunities. It is rank hypocrisy, and it cannot be right.

[Gideon Amos]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government are going to provide for the selling off of council houses, they should invest in replacing them, so that we do not have a massive loss of council housing in this country as we have had over the last few decades?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have increased the amount of affordable housing significantly since 2010; there are more than half a million new affordable homes. I do not think he knows that there is a limit on how much money we have. The more social housing we provide, the more expensive that will be. He set out lots of plans that would be very expensive and would take the tax rates in this country through the roof. If that is what people want to vote for, that is what they should vote for, but that is not what I believe. There are finite resources, and we must use them very carefully.

We set out plans to give preference to local residents and to armed forces veterans, but, crucially, to disqualify those with unspent antisocial behaviour convictions and those guilty of other offences. I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Ashfield that his calls—presumably, both as a member of our party and while in his current party—fell on deaf ears. People may argue that it was not enough, but much work was done while we were in government.

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. He talks about my history of being in a different party. If I were still in the Conservative party, I would be sat on those empty Conservative Benches today showing that I care about this important issue.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I know that the hon. Gentleman would be. He has always stood up for his constituents and, indeed, for mine and for those of every Member of this House. I always admired that, and I know that he will continue to do it.

In the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, we gave more powers to social landlords and to victims. We have all met victims at our surgeries and been to see the situations that they live in, but now they can demand that the agencies ensure that their problems are dealt with more effectively by bringing those agencies together. We also gave social landlords more power to evict offenders—the people who are guilty of this kind of abuse—and we added resources of £160 million.

Legislation is nothing without implementation, and we need the right policing resources, as a number of Members referred to. I must pick up on the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), about policing numbers. I agree that we should have more police on our streets, and we have record numbers today, but he cannot simply walk away from some of the choices made by his party and my party post-2010, when police numbers were cut. Looking back now, that was the wrong thing to do, but he cannot walk away from that. Police numbers dipped and then grew again under subsequent Conservative Governments. They now stand at a 50-year record, which is probably a record in anybody’s lifetime.

I will pick up on the point about the three strikes policy, which formed the basis of the speech by the hon. Member for Ashfield. He thinks that it should be three strikes, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said that it should be two strikes, and the hon. Member for Mansfield, in a fantastic speech, which was most unexpected—he is welcome to join us on the Conservative Benches any time he wants—said that it should be one strike.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness made the point that benefits are a privilege, not a right, and that people should have to search for a job and behave well, for example, to get those benefits. We introduced the claimant commitment to do exactly that, so we have taken action in this area, which was of course extremely controversial. We have had to stand up time and again in debates to defend our sanctions policy, because we do not think it is right that people can simply leave the labour market and not try to find work. Again, action was taken there.

The hon. Member for Ashfield talked about where people would live if they were kicked out of these houses, which is a controversial point, of course. That made me think about my mum, who was a social worker who rehabilitated offenders. When people came out of jail, she would try to find them a job and a house. Eventually, she convinced landladies to put up those people, who were trying to get the second chance that most of us would like to ensure that people have. She then built a purpose-built hostel for them, but she had a very clear rule: no drink or drugs while they were in the hostel or one of the bedrooms provided by the landladies. The Probation Service said, “You can’t do this because these people have very difficult lives.” The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) pointed that out, and I agree that these people have very complex lives. Nevertheless, my mum always stuck to the line that if the person did not abide by the rule, they could not be in the landladies’ guest houses or the hostel. It was “one strike and you’re out”—as simple as that. Everybody knew the rule. It was tough love, but it worked. She got many people back on the straight and narrow because she was very straight down the line about it. I am sure that there were no more resources then than there are today. Resources will always be tight, so we have to show tough love to people in that situation and say what the rules will be.

I am keen to hear what the Minister is going to do about this issue. He is a very decent man, but I do not believe that he is going to show the tough love that we need. I fear that he—well, not him personally, but his Government—will be too weak, and I think that in 2030, when possibly his ministerial career has ended and a new Minister has taken his place, he will look back in anger at the fact that he did not do more.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I gently remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for Lee Anderson to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I could talk all day about Clement Attlee. His policies and politics were rooted in organising in the east end of London. We often forget this, but—well, the hon. Gentleman is no stranger to internal Labour party dynamics. Clement Attlee was a man of exceptional privilege, but he chose to go to the places where life was hardest. He looked at the living conditions of individuals in the east end of London and non-judgmentally sought to change them. He understood that some people had substance abuse issues—they manifested perhaps a little differently compared with today, but it is the same principle—and others had mental health or physical health issues. There was domestic abuse. We are talking about the 1930s, but it is not so different nearly 100 years on. He sought to change those things, but he never sought to divide people into worthy and unworthy people. He would never write people off.

There is an important conversation at the nub of this debate: what is too much? Where is the line? What is tough love? What is an effective way of changing things? The hon. Gentleman talked about not caring where those who are evicted go. I do care, and I will address that point in a little while. There is a balance.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Minister touched on the point about people being unworthy. Can I make the point that my mum would have made? It was not the person who was unworthy as an individual; it was just that they were unworthy of living in a social house, or in her hostel. We have to have tough love to create an incentive for people to behave properly.

[Alex Norris]

I totally accept that point. The challenge will be, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his leadership in his business career and his senior status in the previous Government, that every individual reacts differently to different circumstances. Like many colleagues, I like sport. No one needs to shout at me about the mistakes I have made. I know the mistakes. I carry them and think about them all the time. I need an arm around my shoulder. Other people need shouting at. It is about finding the model to make a change, if change is the thing we want, which I think it is for most of us. But people like me, who advocate change and perhaps take a longer lens on it than Conservative Members, cannot lose sight of the fact that in that moment, the people living next door are living in misery. That is why we have to have a line and I will talk about where that might fall.

The shadow Secretary of State should not be surprised by the quality of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm); if he hears him speak on other issues, he will see that the quality is there. With both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ashfield here, I had to check whether this was 2024 or 2014—had we got the old band back together? There is a lot of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire here. We have all known each other for a very long time. I associate myself with the comments that my hon. Friend made about Nottinghamshire police and how important it is that we have good policing and we give the police the tools and resources to do that well in our community.

The thing that I took from both my hon. Friend’s contribution and that of the hon. Member for Ashfield is just how frustrating the process is. Having sat for 13 years on the local authority and in this place, I know about sitting there yet again saying, “Well, have you done any diary sheets?”, the burden of proof constantly being on those who are doing the decent thing, and the seemingly ever-higher mountain to climb to get some degree of justice. Again, that is something I will return to shortly.

I was pleased, as always, to hear the contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As he said, in Northern Ireland policing is a reserved matter, but the issues are similar. I suspect that people in Bulwell, in my constituency, and Newtownards, in his, are not that different. They want decent treatment, and the vast majority of people in both his community and mine are decent people who do the right thing. That is why it is all the more frustrating when individuals do not. I particularly took his point about reputation; people sometimes talk my community down, and that angers me, because my community is chock full of brilliant people who, whether by being great parents, by being great friends, or by contributing and volunteering, make the world a better place every day. That is why it angers me that a small number of people choose to cause a big amount of disruption.

The hon. Member mentioned legislation. Some colleagues have said that we need legislation; others have said we do not. I will set out the case for why we do. Given that the Renters’ Rights Bill is back next Tuesday for its Report stage, this is a good moment—an amendment window—for colleagues to bring forward ideas, and there are also the stages in the other place. Clearly there is a broad interest in this issue, and there could be a lot of very good contributions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) set out, the rebirth of social housing is at the core of what this Government intend to do. We think that having a social house can be a foundation on which people build their lives. That makes it all the more important that we have appropriate checks and balances for those who do not behave properly in social housing. I will address his point about policing shortly, because without police, it does not matter what laws or rules we have; we simply will not be able to enforce them.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness talked about the broken windows theory, which is interesting and important, but I might challenge it slightly. It is not as simple as saying, “We don’t want any broken windows round here.” It is saying that when we have broken windows, we fix them: if there is one broken window, a second window is more likely to be broken, because people think, “Hey, you break windows round here.” It is about having the resourcing to do that.

The hon. Member also talked about a visible police presence, which is very important to this new Government. There is a trade-off here—as he says, these things need to be paid for. Balancing that is the challenge for the Government of the day, and it will be the challenge for Opposition parties.

[Alex Norris]

I totally agree with that, and I have that conversation with my constituents. I was the shadow Policing Minister before the election, and I saw the Policing Minister and Home Secretary at the time, both of whom I hold in high regard, tearing their hair out over this question. As the hon. Gentleman says, we have employed more police officers than ever before; we have cut them and then we have added them back. Why are people not happier? The reality is that the funding mechanism squeezed out civilian staff, so that we now have 10,000 fewer police officers in frontline roles. There have never been more police officers—6,000 in this case—sat behind desks, doing things that they were not trained for and that their skills are wasted on. We have to change that, and getting 13,000 more police and police community support officers is part of our neighbourhood policing guarantee.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I take the Minister back to the broken windows point. Broken window policing was not just about fixing the windows. He is right to say that that was part of it, because people not caring creates the opportunity for more crime, but it was also about arresting people for low-level crimes and antisocial behaviour. That is an effective and important part of that policy.

[Alex Norris]

I totally agree with that. To continue the New York example, I think of Red Hook and the courts there: the idea was that they would not just nick people for low-level crimes, but get them through court very quickly and ensure that there were sanctions, as a proper deterrent. Sadly, we are very long way from that. One of my biggest challenges with constituents is that they fear there is no point in staying in the game with the courts system, because they are already getting hearing dates for 2026. That is a real challenge at the root of justice in this country.

The issue starts with social housing providers. We would always want any issues to be nipped in the bud. If someone has done something that they should not have—had a loud party or left a bicycle in the way—then the necessary interaction should be quite an easy one, and there should be a resolution and no recurrence. That reduces antisocial behaviour. We want to see providers do that and they ought to do that.

Similarly, it is right that, when preventive measures fail, landlords can move decisively and quickly to tackle tenants who persistently abuse their tenancies. There are a range of powers already on the statute book, including eviction, but again, as we know from colleagues, that process does not feel like it always works. We have had conversations with social landlords. Of course, we would emphasise that they can apply to a court to remove tenants who carry out antisocial behaviour, but the process can be very difficult. I will talk shortly about how that might be made better.

It starts at allocation. There is a little bit of conversation about who gets access to social housing. Local authorities, including my own, can and do deprioritise tenants who have a history of bad behaviour. The majority—we believe it is about 75%—of local authorities undertake antisocial behaviour or other criminal behaviour-type tests ahead of allocating a social home. I suspect that colleagues may be interested in checking with their local authority whether they are in the three quarters or the quarter, because that is the front door to ensuring that those who have behaved badly in the past do not get access and the opportunity to do it again.

When it comes to eviction, there are powers at the moment—the Housing Act 1985 and the Housing Act 1988—but it is difficult. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness suggested that there should perhaps not be more legislation, but our plan is for more legislation in this space. Through the Renters Rights’ Bill, we will enable housing association landlords to make a claim to a court for repossession immediately in the most serious cases, rather than having to provide a notice period, with all the harm that can happen in those cases.

We will also amend the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary ground. This is very important—to give judges particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants. Often, as we know from our casework, they simply do not answer letters or let the housing patch manager in. That will be a factor in the future, which is very welcome.

On the point about not being interested where people go, I am interested in that—not least because, as the crow flies, Kirkby to Bulwell is about eight or nine miles. One way or the other, either people being booted out of houses in my constituency end up in that of the hon. Member for Ashfield, or vice versa. That is why we should take an interest. If we can help people to resolve mental health issues, we should do that. If we can help people to address substance abuse issues, we should do that. We cannot pretend that, if we evict them from their housing, they suddenly will not be a problem elsewhere. I do not think that is the case, which is why we must take an interest and want to reduce reoffending and improve and promote rehabilitation.

My particular issue with the three strikes point is the rigidity. I would be very clear with my local authority that, if someone set their neighbour’s car on fire or attacked them, or was the organiser and perpetrator of a drugs network from their social house, one strike should be plenty. I would also say that, in a case where perhaps a lone parent is doing the best they can do, and they have a child who is clearly struggling and showing bad behaviours, I would try to solve that problem before thinking that shifting them out of their house would help rather than hinder.

The three strikes system is not flexible enough, and I fear it is at risk of being weaponised. We will have situations where we see both neighbours in the constituency surgery. If there is a hard and fast rule, and someone knows they only have to get three complaints found against their neighbour and they are out, it might promote that type of activity.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

Here we go again. I would think that after 14 years of councils being on year-to-year watch to find out what position they would be in, the Conservatives would at least welcome the preparation now for multiyear settlements. They had 14 years to get their house in order, and they could not even line up to give councils more than 12 months’ certainty about what was coming. The one thing councils were absolutely certain about was that it was only going to be bad news after bad news. When there were crises in adult social care and children’s services and when homelessness was rising at a rate of knots, the last Government were completely missing in action—that was what councils were facing. How many councils went bust on their watch? Councils were lining up saying to the Government that they could not afford—

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Birmingham.

[Jim McMahon]

Let us talk about Birmingham, because the Opposition referenced the £3 million new homes bonus. The new recovery grant—£600 million of brand new money targeted at those councils with high deprivation and low tax bases—just for Birmingham is £39 million. That will start the repair work of rebuilding the foundations.

When we talk about fair funding and why it is needed, we will not do what the previous Government did, where they put party politics ahead of the national interest. Let me remind the Conservatives of what the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), said in Tunbridge Wells in 2022:

“We inherited a bunch of formulas from Labour that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and that needed to be undone. I started the work of undoing that.”

That is a record of shame. It is nothing to preach about. To right the wrongs of the past 14 years and finally get money where it is needed, this Government will work for public service, not party interest.

Building Homes

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. First, I welcome the ambitious target of 1.5 million homes in this Parliament. I think he may have unintentionally misled the House regarding the “dire inheritance” that he claims. Conservative Members are rightly proud of our record on housing delivery. [Interruption.] Really. Between 2013 and 2023, we saw a record level of new housing formations, greater than any other period since the 1960s. We delivered 550,000 affordable homes since 2010, including 63,000 in 2022-23 alone.

What we do not welcome is the war on rural England that the Minister is pursuing. Following on from the family farm tax and the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant, we now see a massive shift to mass house building in rural areas and on green belt. We do not welcome the bulldozing of democratic accountability. We do not welcome the lowering of housing targets for urban areas, including a 20% reduction in London, which is already missing its targets by 50%. We also do not welcome an average doubling—a 100% increase—for predominantly rural areas.

The reality for local residents in areas such as Westmorland, Cumberland, North Yorkshire and the home counties is that they will one day wake up to realise that they will face targets of up to 600% increases. They will call their local councillor to ask them to oppose a specific application and be shocked at the response, which will be, “I am sorry; we no longer have the right to vote against an individual application.” They will be even more shocked if they become aware of what Labour said in opposition. Its Opposition motion on 21 June 2021 called on the previous Government to

“protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”

The Minister is now taking that away.

Local residents will be more shocked again when they become aware that the Minister himself used that right in 2021 to object to an application for 1,500 homes on a brownfield site in his constituency. Indeed, the Secretary of State also used that right to object to a development in her constituency in 2017. Same old Labour: do as I say, not as I do.

The reality is that the Government will fail to deliver on their target. Members need not listen to me; they should listen to the chief executive officer of Homes England, who admitted in a leaked email that it is a two-Parliament objective rather than deliverable in this Parliament. The Centre for Cities and the Office for Budget Responsibility have both said that only 1.1 million homes will be delivered in England in this Parliament, and indeed there will be only 1.3 million homes across the UK, which is lower than we delivered in the last Parliament—another broken promise from Labour. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we will be there for the Minister and the Secretary of State when they fail to deliver on that promise.

This planning framework pushes development to rural areas, concreting over green belt, green fields and over our green and pleasant land, rather than focusing and supporting building in urban areas where we need to build the most. And to what end? Due to the loosening of restrictions on visa requirements such as the salary threshold, and the scrapping of the Rwanda deterrent, the majority of the homes that the Government deliver will be required for people coming into this country rather than for British citizens.

Labour has also consistently failed on affordable homes. Under the London Labour Mayor, new affordable housing in London is down by 88%, yet across England, the Conservative Government delivered more than half a million homes. They have already weakened their requirement for 50% affordable homes on the green belt by allowing the use of viability assessments. That change will mean fewer affordable homes.

The Labour Government have already failed first-time buyers. The Conservative Government doubled the number of those buying every year compared with 2010, by means of the stamp duty discounts, Help to Buy, right to buy and our affordable homes programmes—some of which helped the Secretary of State herself get on the housing ladder. Those have been axed by this socialist Government pulling up the housing ladder. They will build over rural areas while claiming it is grey belt land, but we delivered over 1 million homes in the last Parliament alone. It is vital more than ever that we build in the right places with the right infrastructure, but the Prime Minister has already admitted that he will bulldoze through the concerns of local communities. If the Government really want homes to be built where they are needed, they must think again.

Finally, how many of the Minister’s 1.5 million homes will be affordable? What does he expect will be the split for social rent, affordable rent and affordable homes to purchase, particularly given the use of viability assessments? On planning capacity, will he set out why his resourcing of planning authorities, which we broadly welcome, has risen from £20 million in his manifesto, to £46 million in the Budget, to £100 million today? How is that consistent with the Budget? Why is he deliberately making it more difficult for first-time buyers to buy a home? What percentage of the 1.5 million target does he expect will be needed for immigrant households?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his responses, and for those questions. I am glad that he broadly supports the Government’s target of 1.5 million homes. As he will know, the previous Government did not achieve their target—300,000 homes a year when disaggregated—once in 14 years.

There were so many inaccuracies and misleading statements in that response, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the framework that we have planned, that I am not sure where to start. The assertion that we are waging war on rural England or that we have distributed housing targets predominantly towards rural areas is simply wrong. We are focusing—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might wish to listen to the response and focus on the detail of the framework that we have published. We are focusing growth across our city regions. Housing need across mayoral combined authority areas will increase by over 20% compared with the current standard method. Similarly, on the green belt, it is not the case that we are allowing viability assessments—I was very clear in my statement. We are restricting the use of site-level viability assessments on green belt release until we have refreshed viability planning policy guidance in the new year, at which point we will consider exemptions for previously developed land and large sites.

We prioritise the importance of up-to-date local plans. We inherited a system from the previous Government of less than a third up-to-date local plan coverage. That is unsustainable. We want communities more involved at an early stage, shaping their local plans. That is the best way that they can shape development. The hon. Gentleman mischaracterises our working paper proposals on planning committees; as we discussed at length in the urgent question earlier in the week, we are simply talking about streamlining the planning system to ensure that trained, professional planning officers take the appropriate decisions, and elected members get to focus on the largest and most controversial applications.

I am not going to respond to the taunt about sites in my constituency.

Planning Committees: Reform

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The evidence speaks for itself. Partly as a result of the change that the previous Government made to the national planning policy framework in December 2023, housing supply in this country has nose-dived. Permissions and completions are at their lowest in a decade—

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

That is not true.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is true. The Office for Budget Responsibility is projecting that supply will dip below 200,000 homes this year, and the affordable homes programme is on course to deliver between 110,000 and 130,000 affordable homes, not the original 180,000 that were allotted to it. We are taking steps to increase the supply of social and affordable homes, including using the £500 million in additional funding secured for the affordable homes programme in the recent Budget.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Grenfell Tower fire was an unthinkable tragedy that claimed 72 lives. It is one of the few moments in life when we all remember exactly where we were when it happened. Our thoughts are with those who lost loved ones, the survivors who endured unimaginable trauma, and all those who were affected by that devastating night. The state failed them in its duty to protect, and we must ensure that such failures are never repeated. We will work collaboratively with the Secretary of State and the wider Government in the interests of everyone directly and indirectly affected by this tragedy, and I very much welcome today’s announcement about the acceleration of remediation.

Following the tragedy, the Conservative Government took decisive action to uncover the truth, initiating a public inquiry to learn lessons and implement changes to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. The right hon. Lady may remember that we served briefly together on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee which, under the extremely capable leadership of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), led much of the thinking and debate following the tragedy. We successfully campaigned for a banning of combustible materials on the outside of new buildings over 18 metres, and for a Government remediation fund for existing buildings. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) who was the first to properly grasp that nettle as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Chancellor, and Prime Minister. More than £5.1 billion has since been allocated for building remediation, and we have acted to strengthen regulations and implement recommendations from the inquiry’s phase 1 report.

I also pay tribute to the right hon. Lady’s predecessor, the former Member for Surrey Heath, for his work in this area, not least the establishment of the building safety levy, which is the source from which much of the funds will flow. However, publication of the phase 2 report in September 2024 revealed the scale of failures that occurred over decades and across multiple sectors, making clear that much more remains to be done, as the right hon. Lady set out. Even those of us who have followed the inquiry closely find the report truly shocking to read. The phase 2 report, chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and supported by panel members Ali Akbor OBE and Thouria Istephan, makes 58 recommendations to improve fire safety and address systemic issues within the construction industry. Crucially, the report concluded that the Grenfell Tower fire was the result of decades of failures by Government, regulatory bodies and the construction industry to act on the known dangers of using combustible materials in high-rise buildings.

One of the most alarming findings was the role of systemic dishonesty in the construction industry. Companies engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate safety testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. For instance, the insulation product Celotex RS5000, used on Grenfell Tower, was found to have been sold using manipulated test results—incredibly, with the Building Research Establishment complicit in those practices.

[Mr Betts]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the work of the Select Committee. On product safety and product testing, what the Hackitt report, as well as the Select Committee, found was the extent to which product manufacturers were going from one testing place to another until they found one that agreed that their product was safe. Products often failed the tests, but those failures were never in the public domain. Does he think that there ought to be a change of process, so that when a product fails in one testing place, that failure is made known publicly?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I did during much of our work on the Select Committee. One of Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations was exactly that: that all test results should be published, not just the ones that support the safety of the product. That would go a long way towards ensuring that the true safety of the products is established.

The BRE findings highlight a shocking betrayal of trust, and a callous disregard for public safety, driven by financial gain. The report also identified severe leadership and management failings within the London Fire Brigade. It described a chronic lack of effective management, an undue focus on processes, and a complacency among senior officers regarding the brigade’s operational efficiency. Those weaknesses hindered the brigade’s ability to respond effectively to the crisis, and underscored the need for systemic reform and improved leadership in fire services.

To address those failings, the phase 2 report made far-reaching recommendations, including the establishment of a single construction regulator; centralising fire safety responsibilities under one Secretary of State, to end fragmentation across Departments; regular updates to approved document B, to keep fire safety regulations current; and the creation of a chief construction adviser and a college of fire and rescue to ensure high standards in fire safety training and practices. We fully support those recommendations and urge the Government to implement them swiftly and effectively. We will scrutinise their progress to ensure that the necessary reforms are delivered without delay.

Some have questioned the pace of the remediation efforts. I think the Secretary of State was right to do so. I emphasise that the remediation efforts prioritised the highest-risk buildings, and by July 2024, 98% of high-rise buildings with the most dangerous, Grenfell-style ACM cladding had either completed or started work. On the remaining buildings, enforcement action is being taken against non-compliant owners. The complexity of the buildings and legal disputes over responsibility have caused delays. Nevertheless, all building owners must step up, take responsibility, and act swiftly to address the issues, or face the consequences of their inaction. It is important to note that the building regulations regime was established under the Building Act 1984, and fire safety reforms were introduced by other Governments in previous decades, as the Secretary of State acknowledged.

From 2010, the coalition Government sought to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, but fire safety and building safety were explicitly excluded from those reviews. The inquiry acknowledged that key safety regulations, including the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 were excluded from deregulation initiatives. Under our leadership, safety was never treated as red tape. Nevertheless, as the report confirms, mistakes were made by Ministers and officials on our watch. The frequency of changes under Governments of different political stripes, and the frequency of changes in housing Ministers and Secretaries of State, would not have helped. I hope that Parliament may learn that lesson for the future. Since 2017, the Conservatives in Government led comprehensive reforms of building compliance and fire safety. Measures introduced include the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, which created the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stricter compliance with standards.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

One issue that arose at an early stage, about a year after the tragedy at Grenfell, was the need for fire safety surveyors. These people are experts and take about three years to train. In retrospect, does the hon. Gentleman not think that a lesson for future Governments of any colour is to look at such issues at an early stage, because we still have a shortage of those people now in 2024?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree. Mistakes were made—there is no doubt about it. As the phase 2 report recommends, there should be greater oversight and regulation of people who proclaim themselves to be experts in these fields. I agree with the hon. Lady’s points.

Accountability must remain a cornerstone of our response. Those who knowingly cut corners on safety to maximise profits must face justice. We call on the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue criminal charges against those responsible, be it through a deliberate act, a willingness to look the other way, or gross incompetence. Companies implicated in such wrongdoing should not receive future public contracts. Let us be clear: this was not the responsibility of any single Government, Minister or official. As the report sets out in its opening paragraphs, failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations of all political colours. We must approach these difficult questions with the honesty and determination that they deserve, ensuring that we learn the lessons of the past to protect lives in the future.

While we have made significant progress, the journey is far from over. As we look to the future, we must acknowledge the hard questions raised by the report about past governance. Those failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations led by Labour, the coalition Government, and Conservative Governments. This was a systemic failure, which requires an open and honest response. Our party’s record demonstrates our commitment to making things right. We took swift action after the tragedy to establish the public inquiry, launch the independent review of building regulations and fire safety, and allocate significant resources to remove unsafe cladding from high-risk buildings. The Fire Safety Act 2021 implemented recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, and the Building Safety Act 2022 overhauled existing regulations, setting up the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stringent compliance measures.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Bournemouth East constituents, such as Katie from Queen’s Park in Charminster, have been in touch, horrified about the Grenfell Tower tragedy and desperate for a turning point. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to reach such a turning point? We need justice for those who were let down by the last Government. Does he also agree that we need to get rid of the social housing stigma, which has made so many people in social housing feel like they live in shame?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are so many lessons that I hope will be learned across the House. The report is clear that there has been failure by Governments of all stripes over the years, in terms of both building safety and social housing. With the Regulator of Social Housing and the new fire safety regulatory regime, it is hugely important that we turn the page, but I do not think that we will win back the trust of the people affected by this scandal, or by the cladding scandal in other areas, until we have made progress, completed the remediation, and put in place a regime that is seen to be working and bringing about the cultural change to which the Secretary of State referred. It is hugely important that we make that progress.

The actions that we have taken have made strides towards addressing safety concerns, but we recognise that more is needed. I welcome the Labour Government’s pledge to respond to all 58 recommendations within six months and to provide annual progress updates to Parliament. This is a critical moment for accountability and reform, and we stand ready to support all proportionate and necessary measures to protect public safety. Does the Secretary of State agree with the recommendation of a single construction regulator, with one Secretary of State holding end-to-end responsibility, and will that be her? Does she also agree with the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East about product manufacturers being held responsible for remediation costs, too? It is her stated policy to continue the use of the CE marking scheme for construction products in the UK, but those standards were set in 2015, three years prior to the post-Grenfell standards revision in the UK. How will she ensure that all products sold in the UK meet the post-2018 UK standard? That issue has been raised on the Floor of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is next to me on the Opposition Front Bench.

I recently met campaigners, including Steve Day, who raise the case of the 1.7 million leaseholders who do not currently qualify for the Building Safety Act 2022 protections and who still suffer from higher insurance premiums, higher mortgage rates and an inability to sell their homes. Will the Secretary of State meet him and others to see what additional measures need to be taken? Can she share with the House when announcements will be made on the future memorial on the site? Indeed, can the renovation of properties in the Grenfell community be accelerated? Can we get a target for when that will be completed? Accountability must be at the heart of the response, and those who knowingly cut corners on building safety must face justice.

Grenfell was a tragedy of unprecedented scale, but it must serve as a turning point. We owe it to those who lost their lives, to the survivors and to the public to ensure that their legacy is one of justice, reform and safety. Let us move forward with determination to build a safer future for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I have got the point. The problem with a public inquiry is that it starts from ground zero. It assembles a group of people who may be expert, but most of the lawyers will not be expert and will have to learn everything from scratch. The advantage of a standing capability is that there are experts who are permanently employed and who really understand everything about building safety, as it would be in this case. There would be human factors analysts, structural engineers, architects—key people with key skills, fully knowledgeable about the safety system that exists. They would start immediately after a tragedy, and they would conclude much more quickly on the basis of much better expertise.

I had hoped that the inquiry would adopt this recommendation, as did the Cullen inquiry into Ladbroke Grove, and also the inquiry into offshore safety following the Piper Alpha disaster. It now falls to the Government and Parliament to get this right.

The second recommendation in our submission is for a comprehensive reform of building control. Building control is the inspection system which should ensure that building regulations are followed, but Grenfell demonstrated its failure. I accept that there has already been some reform here since we wrote our submission. Much has been said, as we heard earlier, about how private sector building inspectors are endemically conflicted because they are appointed and paid by constructors and others, but that misses a horrible truth about the Grenfell case. Ironically, it was the building control function of a local authority, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, that failed so disastrously in Grenfell’s case. Despite that, everyone’s emphasis still seems to be more focused on restricting private sector involvement than on reform of the whole building control sector.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. One of the facts that the phase 2 report has established is that the system is too fragmented, and needs to be brought together under a single construction regulator, as he recommends. Does he envisage the functions that he has described, involving investigations of incidents, not falling to the responsibility of that regulator?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

No, because a regulator is a part of the system, whereas a safety investigation body stands above the system. It is very simple. If you are a regulator, you are a participant. You are capable of making mistakes, and you need to be independently investigated, or checked, to confirm that you are not breaching rules, or failing in some way—through no fault of your own, perhaps. Everyone makes mistakes. Most bad things happen because of human error, not because of bad people doing bad things.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

At whose request did the Secretary of State call in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy?

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. Despite him being on the Opposition Benches, we seem to have a lot in common: we both came to Parliament in the 2015 intake, represent constituencies in the north and think the Tories deserved to lose the last general election. We take planning decisions in the normal way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I used to have ginger hair as well! May I give the right hon. Lady the answer to my question? It was the Foreign Secretary. In opposition, the now Home Secretary warned that the Chinese Government are “attempting to influence Parliament”, and trying

“to interfere in our democracy and undermine our security.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 667.]

Those risks are all heightened by this development. Are this Government so desperate to counteract the disastrous Budget and their own growth-wrecking trade union Bill that they are now willing to override national security, national interests and the sensible concerns of their Home Secretary by kowtowing to the Chinese Government?

[Angela Rayner]

We have got record investment into the UK through our international business summit. I am proud of our Employment Rights Bill, which is pro-worker and pro-employer. It will reward good employers and put money back into the high street. This Government take national security very seriously and will continue to do so.

Employment Rights Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House notes the balanced reforms made by previous Conservative governments to improve workers’ rights, including the National Living Wage, the prohibition of the use of exclusivity clauses or terms in zero hours contracts and the introduction of shared parental leave and pay, and declines to give a Second Reading to the Employment Rights Bill because it has been rushed into Parliament without full consultation to meet an arbitrary 100-day deadline and Monday 21 October 2024 Business Today: Chamber 19 has not been accompanied by an Impact Assessment considering the impact on the Employment Tribunal, especially as a result of the removal of the qualifying period for the right to claim unfair dismissal or the impact of the extra red tape on SMEs or the impact of establishing the Fair Work Agency; because the repeal of trade union laws will lead to more strikes and intimidation in the workplace, and will force taxpayers to foot the bill for inflation-busting pay hikes without public service reform; because the Bill undermines choice for workers about whether they want to fund political campaigning and forces firms and public bodies to bankroll more trade union facility time, including trade union diversity jobs; and because the Bill is contrary to the Government’s stated goals of improving productivity and economic growth and will increase costs for businesses and consumers.”

The Conservative party will always be the party of business, but we are pro-business and pro-worker, not least because many Conservative Members have been both workers and people who have started and grown their own businesses. Those who have done so are the first to appreciate the symbiotic relationship between the two. We acted during our time in office to improve workers’ rights in several areas: flexible working, parental leave, redundancy protections, ensuring that workers keep the tips left for them by their customers, and significant increases to the national living wage.

I started my first significant business back in 1992. Over three decades, we grew to become a national business employing hundreds of people. We valued every one of those people. We were one of The Sunday Times’s best 100 companies to work for and were certified by Investors in People. I believe that business is a force for good and that businesspeople do great service to our communities and the wider economy. As Winston Churchill put it, they are the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.

The question I now ask myself is whether I would start that small business again today if the Bill were in place. Sadly, the answer is probably no—certainly not a business that employed any people. The very high cost of these measures will be borne by all companies and passed on in the form of higher prices, reduced wages and lost jobs. The measures will fall most heavily on small businesses, for which they could be existential.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Member remember 1997 and 1998, when the Conservative party said that the social chapter and the national minimum wage would cost half a million jobs? In the late 1990s, half a million jobs were actually created.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was not here at the time, but it is clear nevertheless that the minimum wage and the national living wage have had a positive effect on prosperity in this country, and I would be the first to admit it. I want the hon. Lady, and other Government Members, to understand that those measures fell equally on all businesses across the UK. The measures in this Bill fall disproportionately hard on small businesses.

What the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) fails to understand is that the implication of these measures, such as a day one right to an employment tribunal, is that even a spurious case of unfair dismissal costs time and money. It is potentially tens of thousands of pounds to defend that case. As one business organisation put it, “You lose when you are accused.” Most small businesses saddled with such a cost would be sunk without trace. It is not just that, but the deterrent effect, which it would have had on me, and which will be felt right across the economy and by every existing and aspirant business person across this entire nation. When the Deputy Prime Minister reflects on what she is hearing from people who have actually run a business, will she at the very least consider exempting small and medium enterprises from this catastrophic Bill?

[Graham Stuart]

Like my hon. Friend, I started a business—I started mine a little earlier than him, but that is how much older I am. I followed the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech as carefully as I could. From what I could understand, because of the changes in the Bill, someone can fail to turn up to work on day one claiming that they are sick and then, because they will now have rights against unfair dismissal, they will be able, without ever doing a day’s work, to hold a small business to ransom and put that business at risk.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As drafted, that is certainly the case. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Members may not know that small businesses stand the cost of statutory sick pay. It is not reimbursed by the Government, so the Bill would have a significant cost for businesses.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Leeds East.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

I have listened with interest to what the shadow Minister is saying about people being entitled to go all the way to an employment tribunal hearing from the moment they take up employment. Has he ever heard of pre-hearing reviews for employment tribunals?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The point I was making is that the case may go all the way to an employment tribunal, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but there would also be the cost of defending the case even if it does not. That small business will have to bring consultants in and will have to speak to lawyers. That itself costs money, and in many cases that will be thousands of pounds. That is what the hon. Member fails to understand: when you are accused, you lose.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I will make a little progress. The cost of all these measures—in individual opportunities and to the wider economy—is huge. The Government may try to deny that, despite their clear lack of experience of the real world of business. It is extremely alarming that not one of those on the Front Bench today have ever started or run a business that employed anyone. Even worse than that, only one member of the Cabinet has ever done so, and that is the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Shamefully, given what is at stake, the Government cannot deny our case that the Bill will have a huge economic cost, because today—finally, two hours before this debate—they have actually produced the impact assessments. The cost of the Bill is on the very first page: up to £5 billion per annum. The word “uncertain” appears 302 times in those impact assessments, and the word “risk” is used 432 times, so the cost is likely to be much more.

[Paula Barker]

The shadow Minister has just said that shamefully there is only one person on our Front Bench who has run a business. How many of his Front-Bench team are trade union members?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not a trade union member, and I would not know about my colleagues, but I started a business, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), as did the shadow Chancellor and as did many others in our party. We are proud of that fact.

This morning I met business representatives covering all parts of the British economy. Like us, they have serious reservations about this Bill. The Institute of Directors highlighted the fact that 57% of its members will be less likely to hire staff, with only 2% saying that would be more likely. The Confederation of British Industry said that the costs associated with this Bill cannot be afforded by 54% of businesses.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This legislation applies to England and not Northern Ireland, but I echo the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I am concerned about small and medium businesses that employ a small workforce. If one or two of them have a long-term illness, they may be off for a while, come back to work and then go off for a while. Is there not a need—I look to the Deputy Prime Minister—for a methodology whereby small businesses can employ someone in the short term for those positions, otherwise they will go to the wall?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree. I was interested that the Deputy Prime Minister said that her menopause measures would be exclusive to large businesses. I welcome that, and I ask her to look at attaching the same conditions, ideally, to the entire Bill, but if not to certain parts of it. The risks for small businesses are simply catastrophic. Even one or two cases could completely sink a business.

[Dr Luke Evans]

When it comes to risk, is my hon. Friend concerned about the timing of this legislation if, as reported, the Budget raises national insurance for those businesses? Is that yet another risk in addition to this legislation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is right. This morning we met representatives from UKHospitality, who said exactly that: the Bill is coming on the back of a number of changes and some difficult times during covid for industries that employ a lot of people, which will be particularly badly affected by this legislation. The Government should think twice about implementing it at this moment in time.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the 302 mentions of uncertainty. It is hard to know how that can foster growth. Let us be honest: businesses are already more highly taxed and regulated than ever before. We all know the reason—the pandemic— and we have to take responsibility for that. Will he assure me that, as a party, we will use this period of opposition to once again proclaim our values as a low-tax, deregulated economy? Otherwise, how will we foster growth in an increasingly competitive world? If we tax businesses more, we simply lay the foundation of a future Labour Government.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree. We should be low tax and low regulation. One of the saving graces of this legislation is the detail, although the Bill itself is light on detail: many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make some progress. The Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that the measures will mean price rises for consumers and job losses. In it, 40% of firms surveyed said that prices would go up, and 17% said that they will reduce the number of employees. That is hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk.

The criticism of the Bill does not stop there. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that it risks lower employment rates and lower wages for employees. The Local Government Chronicle has warned that the Bill will place financial pressure on councils. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation has said that the Bill will fuel long and complex litigation. The Financial Times has warned that the Bill is causing deep unease among business leaders. In short, jobs down, wages down and prices up.

In their failed attempt to allays concerns about the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister and the shadow Business Secretary have stated that they have consulted businesses—

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)]

You are the shadow Business Secretary.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Sorry, though I think the Prime Minister is guilty of similar; I do apologise. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have stated that they have consulted businesses. Really? The Federation of Small Businesses said not only that the Bill will

“inevitably deter small employers from taking on new people”,

but that it is a

“rushed job, clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned”

and that the Government are guilty of shallow engagement. So much for the “strong horse”. Several representatives at this morning’s meeting said that they have been talked to but not listened to—including those representing the hospitality and retails sectors some of the most labour-intensive in our economy, which is acknowledged in the impact assessment.

[Kit Malthouse]

Alongside the many negatives relating to the Bill that my hon. Friend has laid out, does he recognise the strong possibility that, particularly in small and micro businesses, the legislation could inject quite significant resentment among the staff body itself? For example, just to amplify my previous point, if you have six members of staff and three of them apply for flexible working, that has an immediate impact on those who do not have flexible working. The ability of the business to offer flexible working to future workers is also reduced, which turns the whole thing into a massive negotiation between six or seven people. That could have a significant impact on morale and sense of fair play within businesses themselves.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There speaks somebody who has actually run a business and understands the impact on a small employer. That is why we say there should be a carve-out, certainly for small and micro businesses.

We have to ask ourselves this: if the Government are not listening to businesses who “pull the whole cart”, who are they listening to? I think we all know the answer to that. A consultation is not five minutes inside No. 10 and a photo opportunity. Proper consultation is working with business, listening, taking your time and not rushing things—the exact opposite of what the Government have done. We know why that is. The Deputy Prime Minister made a misguided promise to Labour’s trade union paymasters that legislation would be introduced within 100 days. Despite 100 days of gloom and doom, talking the economy down and wrecking business confidence, they managed it—just.

The Government are not even listening to their own legal experts. Only last week the Attorney General said:

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”

Because the Bill is such a rushed job, it takes swathes of delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, meaning the final policy will be decided later at the Secretary of State’s whim—not now by Parliament. Legislating that way is causing real concerns for businesses today. The Deputy Prime Minister and her colleagues preach stability, yet in the same breath they are causing instability, uncertainty and falling confidence at a cost of jobs and investment today. There are already 58,000 fewer payroll jobs than when Labour took office. Confidence levels at the Institute of Directors on future investment intentions have dropped from plus 30 in June to minus six today. The Government are planning 30 consultations on the measures in the Bill. They should have taken place before the Bill was introduced, so the legislation could be precise about what it will do.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He talks about trade unions. I have just seen a news update on the Unite union’s Birmingham hotel and conference centre being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. The total cost was £112 million, but it has now been valued at £29 million. Who will hold the trade unions to account in the Bill?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. That certainly needs looking at very carefully.

As the Government’s attempt at business consultation has clearly failed, and as no one on their Front Bench has any business experience, I will draw the right hon. Lady a picture of what the Bill actually means for businesses.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

As the owner of two successful small businesses—[Interruption.] I know Opposition Members like to do that—it’s pantomime—but they can listen. As the owner of two successful small businesses and an employer of 25 people in the hospitality sector, I welcome the Bill. Do Opposition Members agree that the main reason they are against this groundbreaking employment Bill is because they are embarrassed about their own record over the past 14 years?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I welcome the fact that there is at least some business experience on the Government Benches. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman joined the wrong party.

The hon. Gentleman will recognise the picture of what the Bill means for businesses. They will be terrified to take new people on for fear of huge compliance costs and legal action. They will be tied up in red tape, something that the Prime Minister said he was taking an axe to. They will have to cope with measures such as the need to frequently recalculate all workers’ hours for each reference period for each separate employee, each of which will have a unique date as they will be required to proactively offer guaranteed hours. This is not even restricted to those on zero-hours contracts. It will be for anyone on low hours—a bureaucratic nightmare. They will have to deal with a new right to demand flexible working, such as a four-day week. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) must be proud. Businesses will have to become the free speech police to prevent any of their customers offending their staff. They will have to deal with a new regulator, the fair work agency, which will have the power to enter any business premises, confiscate documents and levy fines—all backed up by new criminal offences with penalties of up to two years in jail.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

As someone who has started and run a business, I should like to know the hon. Gentleman’s opinion of the views of the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), that the minimum wage is a burden, that statutory maternity pay is excessive, and that equal pay protection in respect of race and disability is akin to segregation policies in South Africa—or does he want to distance his party from her comments?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is not what my right hon. Friend said at all. I worked with her when she was Business Secretary, and at no point did she ever say that about maternity pay. She was talking about regulation costs. She was simply pointing out that for many businesses, particularly in retail and hospitality, the rise in the national living wage has been very difficult to cope with. She was not talking about abolishing it. Businesses will have to deal with new union powers to gain access to any business premises and contact its staff—wonderful!—in order to recruit and organise members and make it much, much easier for a union to gain recognition. As the impact assessments state—this is great news; this will really cheer everyone up—there will be “increased industrial action” and tax rises to pay for increased pay demands. [Interruption.] That is what the Government’s impact assessments say. Labour Members should check their impact assessments. 1970s, here we come! There is much more, but in short, it all means that the tail will be wagging the dog.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the history of Labour Governments since the second world war. Every single one of them has left office with employment higher than it was when they started. Is he concerned about the possibility that this Government will repeat the same mistakes, especially given their lack of business awareness and understanding of the private sector?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very concerned about that. Today there are 4 million more jobs in our economy than there were in 2010, and 1.2 million fewer people are unemployed. I am very worried about the things that my hon. Friend is very worried about.

Making work pay is a laudable aim, but as one stakeholder put it this morning,

“work doesn’t pay if there’s no work”.

Most people recognise that one of the reasons why the UK is the third most popular destination in the world for inward investment, which creates hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the economy, is the flexible labour market that the Government are now seeking to eliminate. Do the Deputy Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues realise that? Perhaps they secretly do, given that nine out of 10 of those Cabinet colleagues recruit on terms that are at odds with these new regulations. Sixteen Cabinet Ministers, including the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Energy Secretary, have hired people for roles that involve working outside regular hours and at weekends; six Cabinet Ministers have hired people to roles with extended probation periods; and seven Cabinet Ministers, including the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy Prime Minister, have hired on “insecure” fixed-term contracts. Why would they introduce legislation that they do not understand or even comply with themselves? The answer is, of course, their union paymasters.

Much like the more than 200 Labour MPs who have taken trade union cash, the Deputy Prime Minister has her donations to think of. She declared her interests as a union member, but she did not declare her interests as someone who had taken £13,000 from unions in donations. The question of what is orderly is up to your judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it seems to me that that should be declared at the start of any Member’s contribution.

This is not an Employment Rights Bill, but a trade union charter—a charter that will bring about no-knock warrants that allow unions to access all business premises, from the local takeaway to the local pub. Clearly, shutting the beer gardens is not enough for this Government; they are now relying on strike action to stop you getting a pint. Under this trade union charter, trade unions will revert to requiring people to opt out of donating to unions’ political funds. That will line Labour’s pockets with default donations from working people. This trade union charter will abolish the thresholds for strike action, unleashing waves of low-threshold strikes, and crippling public services by putting power in the hands of militant trade unions. This trade union charter will force employers to inform their staff that they can join a union at every turn. This trade union charter will reduce notice periods for strike action, meaning that businesses will be plagued by zero-warning strike action, which will unleash misery on the public at the last minute.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

We have just had a general election. The Labour party won a historic majority on the basis of a manifesto that was pro-business, pro-worker and pro-growth. Through the Bill, we are bringing forward provisions that were sketched out in our manifesto. Why is the hon. Member choosing not to listen to the result of the election? In choosing to reject the provisions in the Bill, he is not learning from the result of the general election.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We deserved to lose the election fair and square, but the hon. Gentleman should look at that result, because it was not a popular vote for Labour. The party’s popularity is dropping by the day, and the business confidence that we need to protect in this country is dropping by the day.

The Bill is a trade union charter. By repealing the Trade Union Act 2016, it will increase the number of strikes by 53%. It is a charter that will take Britain back to the 1970s—a stated goal of the Deputy Prime Minister. The public will pay the price not just through uncollected waste, dysfunctional local government and picket lines outside hospitals, as in the 1970s; they will be forced to pay through higher taxes—a fact that the Government have now admitted in the impact assessment, despite pledging not to increase taxes on working people.

At a time when the Government claim to be scrambling for cash and are taking the winter fuel payment from 9.5 million pensioners, they have the gall to drive up taxes to reward their trade union paymasters. That will be done not just through higher national insurance, a hike in fuel duty or whatever other punishing measures the Government choose, but through council tax. Because of the Government’s Corbyn-style collective bargaining for social care, councils will be required to stump up an additional £4.2 billion, or £150 per household.

The path that we took in government was pro-worker and pro-business. Whereas this Government put party first and country second, we worked in partnership with businesses and workers to deliver improvements without risking investment, unemployment and businesses going bust.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I just want to double-check: have you actually read the Bill? It talks about a consultation period with businesses, and the provisions will not be rolled out until 2026. There will be a probation period for certain businesses. We are pro-business, and maybe the shadow Minister should read the Bill properly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We should not refer to other colleagues in the Chamber as “you”. It is quite simple.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I wish the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) was with me for the hour I spent with the representatives of organisations this morning. They do not feel as she does—that there is nothing to see here and nothing to worry about. They are very concerned, and we should all be worried about that.

Through our approach, we doubled the minimum wage, boosted employment by 4 million, cut taxes on working people by £900, cut youth unemployment, slashed the employment rate and rolled out the biggest ever expansion of free childcare. Our approach recognised that by harming business, which is the strong horse that pulls the whole cart, we are harming workers—a fact that this Government have clearly failed to grasp. This Bill puts the cart firmly before the horse. For small businesses particularly, it creates an existential crisis of a magnitude not seen since the pandemic. The future of hundreds of thousands of business people and millions of jobs is in the Deputy Prime Minister’s hands. I urge her to think again, withdraw this legislation and listen carefully, not just to the unions but to the voice of business, before it is too late.

[Several hon. Members rose—]