Hospitality Sector

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

It is interesting that the Conservatives’ motion acknowledges the important role that hospitality businesses play in offering a first step on the employment ladder to

“young and often excluded groups”.

If they care so much about young and often excluded people, I would have thought they would have backed Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, because right now in Ealing Southall, young workers and the many workers of Indian heritage in my constituency can be sacked for no reason whatsoever in their first two years in a job. These are often hard-working, qualified people but they are completely at the mercy of bad employers because the right not to be unfairly dismissed applies only after two years in a job.

There are some great hospitality businesses in Ealing Southall, including the Plough in Northfields, a Fuller’s pub I visited recently, which does a lot to train and support its staff. However, over half of employees under 30 have been with their current employer for less than two years, and 42% of black, Asian and minority ethnic employees have been with their current employer for less than two years, compared with 28% of white workers. The very young, black and Asian workers that the Conservatives claim to care about are therefore exactly the people who will be helped most by Labour’s Employment Rights Bill. In fact, it is an all-too-common trick for bad employers to sack workers just before the two years are up. The Conservatives need to explain why they think it is okay that a young worker can be sacked for no reason after 23 and a half months in the job, just so they do not get their rights.

The Conservatives’ motion also objects to Labour’s plan to end exploitative zero-hours contracts. Who do they think is most likely to be on those kinds of contracts? Oh yes! It is exactly the same young and often excluded workers, but they obviously do not care about them at all. Exploitative zero-hours contracts do not just mean that workers do not know from week to week if they will be able to afford the rent; they also put power into the hands of managers who can use the threat of people losing their hours to threaten and bully—you’ve guessed it—young, black and Asian workers, who are often the most vulnerable at work.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Small businesses in my constituency often tell me that they want to be really good employers. That is something that they take great pride in, but they get undercut by some of the bad employers. Does she agree that the Bill is good not only for the worker but for the business?

[Deirdre Costigan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Labour’s Employment Rights Bill is all about levelling the playing field so that the efforts made by the great employers that we have in this country, including hospitality employers, to look after their workers can be broadened out to the whole of the industry.

The Conservatives also need to stop pretending that this change that Labour is bringing in would stop seasonal working in the hospitality sector. Stop making things up! A worker can stay on a zero-hours contract if that is what they want. Many people will choose to do that if it fits with their lives, but where there is clearly a regular job and someone has been working those hours for at least three months, they will have the right to a guarantee of those minimum hours. What is wrong with that? The Tories need to explain why they think it is okay for young and often excluded workers to remain at the beck and call of bad managers, with no control over their hours and no financial security.

Our hospitality businesses are indeed often the first step on the employment ladder, and McDonald’s in Southall is another great example of that. The Conservatives are busy trying to knock people off that ladder. With Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, we are helping workers climb up the ladder into decent, well-paid jobs that their families can thrive on.

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

I will speak about some of the hospitality businesses in my constituency, but I say to the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) that that was an interesting speech; I do not think much of it was based in reality, however, and I am more than happy to explain. The Employment Rights Bill will cost £5 billion by the Government’s own assessment. The businesses that will bear the costs of that will then have to make cost-cutting measures, and it is usually young people—I trust her that it might be ethnic minorities who are at the vanguard—who are at risk. They are the ones who will suffer and lose their jobs, because those businesses still have to make a profit.

I broaden my point out to the Government Benches. I listened to the opening speech by the Minister. It was sometimes an entertaining speech, especially when he took my intervention, but sitting here, I thought, “There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to make a profit and how important that is to businesses.” That is literally the reason people go into business: to make a profit and generate cash. The rise in national insurance contributions—the jobs tax—and the Employment Rights Bill, which will cost £5 billion, are costs imposed by the Labour Government. They made a choice to impose that on businesses. Hospitality businesses suffering at the hands of the Labour Government are having to make tough choices, and that means seasonal workers will not be employed, or not as many of them will be. We are already seeing that.

When I quoted the chair of UKHospitality to the Minister, he denied that and said it was not happening, but the stats say something different. Over half of the jobs lost since the Budget have been lost as a result of Labour’s Budget. I have been speaking to businesses since then, including Visit Knowle, Eric Lyons and the Barn at Berryfields—these are beautiful businesses that we have. We have the National Exhibition Centre, which is a great importer of tourism and which the Minister spoke about, backed by Birmingham airport. We have the Greenwood pub, Nailcote Hall, Three Trees community centre—I could go on and on. There are huge numbers of hospitality businesses, but they are all suffering the cost of the jobs tax, which disproportionally affects them. It means that those businesses are not investing because they are having to save that money to pay the Chancellor.

[Sam Rushworth]

The hon. Member mentioned costs on businesses. One of those costs is the cost of sick days, which has increased by £30 billion since 2018. I visited a business recently in my constituency, and I am not going to lie: they said, “Yes, it’s a bit of a squeeze having to pay an increase in national insurance,” but then they said, “But we’re saving money on sick days because people are getting the appointments they need in the NHS.” He will know that there have been 7 million more GP appointments. Does he welcome that investment in the NHS and the fact that there were nearly 14 million fewer sick days in the last year?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I have a rude awakening for the hon. Member, and it is a broader point about the debate. Having listened to Government Members, and I suggest that they turn on the news and start looking at what is happening to the bond market, because we are seeing record interest rates when the Government have to borrow. Last year, all these Government Members backed the Chancellor’s fictitious black hole; now she has a real black hole that she created, which she will have to deal with. I do not know what they think will happen at the Budget, but it will either be the cuts that they opposed in the welfare Bill and other cuts that they find unpalatable, or it will be further taxes raised on working people, who they purport to defend and support. When those taxes are imposed on businesses, it will hurt either consumer sentiment or the business themselves. They will then have to make further job cuts to survive. That is the reality; everything has a consequence.

What Labour Members fail to understand is that it is absolutely essential—particularly because they talk about supporting such businesses—that they lobby the Chancellor to get a grip on the situation, instead of allowing it to balloon completely out of control as a result of the measures they backed last October. The consequences of that have been tens of thousands of job losses and thousands of businesses going under. I am deeply worried for my constituents.

As much as I found the Minister’s speech interesting and sometimes entertaining, I thought that it was quite disrespectful to the hospitality sector, which is very worried. The chair of the biggest representative body of the hospitality sector is saying that there is a problem, but she is being ignored or told that there is no problem. Hospitality businesses in the constituencies of Labour MPs will be knocking on their doors and asking for answers. I ask for a degree of humility because the reckoning is coming—respected economists and think-tanks are saying it—as a consequence of the Chancellor’s decisions. I restate my request for a bit of humility and understanding of what the hospitality sector is going through.