In last week’s column, I mentioned a debate I recently attended on the hospitality sector. This felt like an important debate to be part of for several of reasons.

Hospitality is a major contributor to the UK’s economy and jobs, which makes the government’s decision to omit it as a growth area from its recent industrial strategy all the more baffling. In East Hampshire alone, hospitality accounts for about 200 outlets, employing approximately 2,000 people.

The sector has just withstood two very big blows. First, the cut in business rates relief has increased the fixed cost of businesses even before a pint has been poured. Second, the enormous increase in national insurance (NI) contributions has further strained operations.

While we often talk about the NI rate going from 13.8 percent to 15 percent - which doesn’t sound like a dramatic increase - the lowering of the threshold has had a huge effect. The sector employs a lot of part-time people, including those returning to the workforce, and it is with those people in particular, and of course with younger people coming into the workforce for the first time, that it is really felt.

My primary reason for attending the debate, however, was to highlight concerns about the Government’s Employment Rights Bill, particularly its proposals on zero-hours contracts.

These contracts have taken on a political significance of their own since Jeremy Corbyn made abolishing them a centrepiece of his plan when he led the then Opposition. The reality is more nuanced. When I was Employment Minister we found that less than 3 percent of workers rely on zero hours contracts for their primary job. They also – and this came as quite a shock to many people – had higher average job satisfaction than people not on zero-hours contracts.

For the hospitality sector, these contracts are a practical necessity. Demand in pubs and restaurants can be highly variable, depending on the time of year and the weather! Many students prefer zero hours contracts because they offer flexibility, allowing them to work when they’re at home from university or college but remain on the books during term time (or vice versa).

I believe that the proposals in the Employment Rights Bill related to zero hours contracts are not helpful. Two specific changes would make a real difference.

First, the requirement for businesses to repeatedly offer a guaranteed-hours contract – even to workers who don’t want one – is unnecessarily bureaucratic. By all means let workers opt in, but placing a continuous obligation on employers is burdensome and risks unintended consequences.

Secondly, the 12 week reference period (after which employers must offer a guaranteed hours contract) is far too short for a sector with clear seasonality. Many hospitality businesses operate around peaks – summer holidays, Christmas, Easter. A longer reference period would better reflect the realities on the ground.

I do hope the Government takes on board the comments of the hospitality sector, particularly SMEs already under significant pressure. These businesses play a vital role in getting young people into work and supporting those returning after a career break. They are an essential part of our economy and a key contributor to the UK’s growth. But they can only absorb so much.