To be clear in a weekly post on X.com Ms Khan voted for the harmful Renters Rights Bill and The Workers Rights Bill both of which are expected to do significant harm to the Groups that the legislation is allegedly supposed to help.
The government’s recent legislative agenda, exemplified by the Renters Rights Act 2025 and the Employment Rights Bill, attempts to solve structural problems through regulation. While superficially appealing, these interventions fundamentally misunderstand how free markets operate and will ultimately harm the very people they claim to protect: private renters and young people seeking employment.
The Renters Rights Act 2025—Harming Renters by Killing Supply
The Renters Rights Act, primarily through the abolition of Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions and the shift to mandatory periodic tenancies, is framed as a measure to provide security. From a conservative viewpoint, however, this legislative overreach poses a grave threat to the private rented sector (PRS) by undermining the confidence of property owners and destroying vital supply.
The central conservative principle here is property rights. Removing a landlord’s ability to efficiently regain possession of their asset—even with the promise of new Section 8 grounds—fundamentally shifts the risk profile of investing in the PRS. The new system makes it harder, slower, and more expensive for owners to manage their properties, especially when dealing with anti-social behaviour or persistent non-payment of rent, given the existing, often overwhelmed, court and tribunal systems.
Harm to Private Sector Renters:
By increasing the risk and reducing flexibility for landlords, this Act encourages a mass exodus of smaller, private landlords from the market. Research has repeatedly shown that when regulations increase costs and complexity, supply contracts. Landlords will inevitably choose to sell their properties rather than navigate a hostile regulatory landscape.
This reduction in available rental stock has two disastrous consequences for renters:
- Higher Rents: With fewer properties chasing increasing demand, rents will inevitably rise, punishing responsible, law-abiding renters with soaring costs.
- Fewer Choices: The available properties will disproportionately be managed by larger, institutional funds that can absorb the regulatory costs, thereby eroding the diversity and flexibility of the market that small, private landlords provide.
Furthermore, making it illegal for landlords to refuse tenants receiving benefits or who have children, while admirable in principle, further restricts an owner’s ability to manage their risk, pushing more capital out of the sector. The Act is a classic example of central planning attempting to force a social outcome, but instead delivering the opposite: a more expensive, less responsive, and ultimately less available housing market for those who rely on it most. The best route to lower rents is increased supply, not strangling those who provide it.
The Hidden Cost of Bureaucracy:
The abolition of Section 21 effectively turns every eviction into a complex court process. This legislative change is not simply a burden on property owners; it is a direct attack on judicial efficiency, ensuring that the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) will face insurmountable backlogs. This means law-abiding landlords will be forced to wait a year or more to regain their property, while the taxpayer shoulders the cost of subsidising a broken, politicised legal system—a classic example of the state solving one problem by creating two expensive, bureaucratic new ones.
The Employment Rights Bill—Crippling Opportunity for Young Workers
The housing disaster, however, is not the only example of this government’s regulatory overreach. Their employment reforms present an equally worrying case for job seekers.
The Employment Rights Bill (ERB) introduces measures such as ‘day-one’ unfair dismissal protection (replacing the previous two-year qualifying period), strengthening family rights from day one, and proposing an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts. While these sound like genuine worker protections, the conservative concern is that they introduce unwarranted rigidity that directly harms job creation, particularly for young people looking for work.
The two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal was a crucial mechanism that allowed employers—especially Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)—to take a chance on unproven talent. It was, effectively, an extended, low-risk probation period. By granting full unfair dismissal rights from the first day, the ERB significantly increases the cost and risk of hiring.
Harm to Young People and Entry-Level Jobs:
Young people, who often lack significant professional experience, are the primary beneficiaries of low-risk hiring. If an employer knows that moving an employee from the probationary period to permanent employment carries substantial legal complexity and cost, they will inevitably become highly selective and risk-averse.
The consequences are clear:
- Hiring Freeze at Entry Level: Employers will rely on existing, proven staff or invest in automation rather than take on the risk of an unproven young worker, leading to a freeze on entry-level and junior roles.
- Mandatory Probation is a False Comfort: While the Bill proposes a statutory probationary period (potentially nine months) with a modified, “lighter touch” dismissal test, this is still a cumbersome bureaucratic process compared to the simplicity of the previous two-year rule. It forces employers to hire a lawyer and document performance from day one, adding administrative burden that SMEs cannot afford.
- Loss of Flexibility: Efforts to abolish zero-hours contracts, while targeting exploitation, also eliminate the flexible entry points to the labour market that many students, young parents, and those balancing education rely on. Flexibility is not always exploitation; for many young people, it is a vital step onto the career ladder.
The Institutionalisation of Anti-Business Sentiment:
Beyond the direct costs of hiring, the Bill introduces a massive new bureaucratic overhead with the creation of the Fair Work Agency (FWA). This body will consolidate enforcement powers with the authority to audit, investigate, and impose penalties of up to 200% on employers for non-compliance. This is not simply about ‘rogue’ employers; it’s about a new, intrusive layer of state enforcement that will require every local Gillingham & Rainham small business to spend more time on paperwork, and more money on HR lawyers, all while diverting capital that could have been used for investment or hiring local staff. This new agency represents the institutionalisation of anti-business sentiment.
The ERB sacrifices labour market dynamism for regulatory security. For young people, the biggest threat is not the lack of rights, but the lack of a job in the first place. This Bill raises the drawbridge on opportunity, making it more difficult for the next generation to gain the experience they need to build their careers.
Conclusion
As a Government PPS Ms Khan has to vote for the Government’s legislation but as someone who has worked in the private sector and in housing you would have hoped that Ms Khan would know terrible legislation when she sees it.
