Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Mike Martin Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Creasy]

The right hon. Member had the luxury and benefit of being on the Public Bill Committee. I did not have the ability to ask the questions that he is asking, but I look at the evidence under the previous Administration. When there was the ability to diverge, what actually happened? The reality is that very little divergence happened, because it is not in our national interest. We can, and do, fight many things in this place —indeed, in British politics—but geography really is not one of the things that it is worth our time arguing about.

Given that we do five times more trade with our European Union neighbours than with America, China and India put together, it obviously makes sense to have a regulatory regime that makes that trade as friction-free as possible, which is where this piece of legislation comes in. Indeed, under the previous Government, there were only five cases of active divergence—the sort of changes that the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is worried about—that might affect small businesses. That is with good reason, because if we have a sensible regulatory regime, it makes sense to be aligned. The Prime Minister has talked about that, and it is also what businesses want. The Engineering and Machinery Alliance, which represents over 1,600 firms from 11 different trade associations, puts it very simply. It says that our businesses

“are trading in European markets and are part of European value chains. They have European customers and suppliers. For companies operating in highly specialised, high value markets, the UK is unlikely to provide the mass needed to develop and successfully market their products. They need to be international and that means working to international standards—the EU’s being, almost always, the most appropriate.”

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Tory/Reform Brexit has been a complete disaster for our economy?

[Ms Creasy]

I cannot even look you in the eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know I should not be tempted into quite that level of analysis. Very practically, we are trying to deal with the fallout of Brexit. The hon. Member will have heard me say that we need a salvage operation, because of the consequences seen and the damage done as a result of the way that our leaving the European Union was conducted. I see this Bill as part of that salvage operation. We used to be part of writing such regulations with our colleagues in Europe, which we do not do any more, but we need a process to maintain them because of the reality of the supply chains, of how we do business and of where divergence has hit small businesses—and it is small businesses, in every single constituency, that have paid the price for this version of Brexit.

[Mike Martin]

I’ll take that as a yes.

[Ms Creasy]

The hon. Member can take it as yes, but he will know that I am sticking very closely to the amendments, because I want to come on to how we make such decisions.

First, though, we need to be clear that this legislation will affect the lives of our constituents. Let me give one example. I am a child of the 1980s; I remember the Glo Worm. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for looking surprised—I hope it is a look of surprise, but perhaps you are remembering the Glo Worm yourself. The point is that the Glo Worm turned out to be quite a dangerous toy because of the chemicals it contained. Regulations help to keep us safe, so when we are talking about sharing regulatory regimes and being able to promote markets, there is a good reason why we are seeking high standards. I hope that everyone will hold the Glo Worm as an example—it has now been reissued without those chemicals in it, thank goodness, so that children of the 2020s can enjoy those squidgy toys.

What matters is how we make decisions about such regulations, and the debate on this Bill heralds a bigger conversation that we need to have in Parliament about how we can be involved in those decisions now that we are not part of the European Union. Obviously, agrifood and sanitary and phytosanitary goods are not included in the Bill, but the Government have now committed to dynamic alignment with EU rules for a very common-sense reason. As the Prime Minister has said,

“we are currently aligned in our standards, but we do not get the benefit of that. We want to continue to have high standards; that is what the British public want”.—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 894.]

I hope that is the ethos we take in how we use the powers in this Bill. It is certainly what businesses would like us to do.

Employment Rights Bill

Mike Martin Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

Twenty-four hours later, the Minister still cannot name a small business that supports the Bill. That shows how out of their depth this trade union Government are when it comes to supporting businesses in this land. In the words of the Chancellor, this Bill is

“choking off innovation, investment and growth.”

To pretend otherwise would be taking the public for fools.

On new clauses 89 and 90, almost everything this Government have done is contradictory to the objective of growth, if that remains their objective this week. Whether it is the national insurance jobs tax, the changes to business rates or this Bill, everything they do seemingly goes against growing the economy. It is little surprise that, under Labour, the economy is flatlining.

The Prime Minister said earlier this year that everything the Government do will be subject to a “growth test”. However, the details of that test have been sparse, at best—so sparse, in fact, that people may well think it does not exist.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Could the shadow Minister describe Liz Truss’s growth test?

[Greg Smith]

Well, cut red tape for a start. We see from Lib Dem Members that “The Orange Book” tradition of the Liberal Democrats is well and truly dead; they now position themselves firmly to the left of the Labour party.

There is no greater evidence that the growth test does not exist than the Bill, because if such a test did exist, this Bill would fall at the first hurdle, but today I come with good news: I have two amendments that the Government can back this afternoon to help them to grow the economy. Those amendments are, of course, new clause 89 and new clause 90.

New clause 89 would require the certification officer to advance the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy, and new clause 90 would require the Secretary of State, who is again not in his place, to have regard to international competitiveness when passing regulations under part 4 of the Bill concerning the trade unions. The Government have been asking regulators for ideas to boost growth—it is a contradiction in terms to ask the regulator to boost growth—but we are happy to help them with their quest. The Government should be able to support these amendments. If they cannot, it shows that they are not serious about economic growth and, more tellingly, that they do not intend to use the powers in part 4 of the Bill to achieve growth or international economic competitiveness, because they do not intend to exercise them in a way that is compatible with those objectives.

New clause 88 on trade union political funds will, I am sure, get the Government a little bit hot under the collar. This is a “Labour party first, country second” Government. Nowhere is that clearer than in the changes that the Government are making to the political fund through the Bill. Let us be in no doubt that the changes have one simple purpose: to bolster the coffers of the Labour party.

Clause 52 will mean that members of trade unions will automatically contribute to their trade union’s political fund without being asked about it first. Members will have to opt out, rather than opt in, as they do at present. [Interruption.] Did someone want to try to defend that? No? Okay. If trade union subscriptions are to be used for party political campaigning, it should be a conscious decision of the trade union member to endorse such campaigning.

Budget Resolutions

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

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

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

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

[Andrew Griffith]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

Without that, we lose trust.

[Mike Martin]

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

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Steve Tuckwell was a great man!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

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

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

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

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