Euan Stainbank MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Oct 2025 · Public Procurement: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps he is taking to increase employment opportunities through public procurement.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Older constituents living in the high flats at Callendar Park and Kemper Avenue in my constituency have for years raised the issue of unacceptable antisocial, and sometimes criminal, behaviour. Those flats are the last place that any drug dealer should be rehoused. Can we have a debate in Government time on housing and the operation of the Equality Act 2010 so we can better defend housing historically reserved for older people from the social consequences of Scotland’s drug crisis?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I imagine the people of Wales choose to vote in the same ways as the Scottish people do for the Scots. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) put it very well: simply picking a different nation in the UK to tackle our policy issues is getting exhausting, especially on the nationalist Benches. Not all but part of the problem with the failure to close the attainment gap, as many Members have mentioned, and a broader loss of trust in our politics, were due to disproportionate budget cuts that have landed at the door of local authorities. Having been a councillor for two and a half years, I know that they are at the coalface delivering the services in which our constituents have most acutely seen the evidence of decline. Even though council tax had been frozen for 11 out of the last 17 years of budget settlements, I was completely surprised at the stunt at the 2023 SNP conference which left councils with both arms tied behind their backs. The challenges we see in social care and infrastructure are tied in with local authorities. This is where politics is most tangibly felt by our constituents and it is currently failing them. Even with a £5.2 billion increase secured by us on these Benches for Scotland, Falkirk Council was allocated only an additional £5 million in revenue funding this year from the Scottish Government. Where has the rest of the money gone, John? Colleges in Scotland, as again my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth touched upon, are at crisis point. With years of systematic underfunding from the Scottish Government seeing a 20% real-terms cut in funding over the past five years, many colleges have now shrunk their staff numbers and offered fewer courses for working-class students at a time when the skills they provide are at their most valuable. Forth Valley college has been put in the position of being an essential provider of training and skills, while Grangemouth undergoes an industrial crisis and requires major investment for transition. It is a hugely valuable local provider of jobs, opportunities and training, yet it is now consulting on the closure of its Alloa campus. Things are going in the wrong direction. Scotland’s civic infrastructure should have been enhanced and resilient and protected by devolution, but in too many places it has not been protected. On the situation at Alexander Dennis, when it announced its consultation on 400 jobs and closing its only site in Scotland, there was, to their credit, engagement eventually from the Scottish Government, but that was 10 months after the company initially suggested it was going to depart Scotland if something was not done about the scandalous ScotZEB 2 scheme— Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund—sending less than 20% of orders to Scotland’s sole manufacturer. However, there have been improvements in how we in this place, under this Labour Government, work with the Administration in Edinburgh. As the Deputy First Minister accurately pointed out recently, the swift engagement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) in his time as Scottish Secretary was invaluable in ensuring that the conversation progressed quickly. The truth is that when that sort of crisis arrives in one of our industrial assets—something we should all intrinsically value: a bus manufacturer that has existed long before the inception of the Scottish Parliament and long before any of us were around—action should have been taken much earlier, at strategic level, designing procurement through the powers the Scottish Parliament have to retain a pipeline of orders funded by taxpayer money for buses built in Scotland, not built in China.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the debate, brought forward by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). As my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) pointed out, I am a member of the devolution generation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) said, some of us in that generation are still in our 20s. To the best of my knowledge, I am the first of Scotland’s national elected representatives to be born after the founding of the Scottish Parliament. Reflections on the successes and failures of devolution over the last 25 years are critical to the devolution generation. The constitutional settlement may still be under debate in some corners, but I hope that one thing that unites us across the House is support for a Scottish Parliament, democratically elected by the people of Scotland. The eternal words of the Scotland Act 1998— “There shall be a Scottish Parliament”— echo proudly; they are not just the long-won prize of campaigning by politicians from this place and across Scotland, but a definitive decision by the Scottish people that there will be an institution governing many of our priorities that is directly representative of the Scottish people. The Scottish Parliament’s existence has a far greater mandate than any individual politician or Government ever has or will have. In 1997, 80% of voters in Falkirk backed devolution. The first Scottish Parliament returned Cathy Peattie and Dennis Canavan as the two constituency MSPs for the Falkirk area—both people who have made an immense contribution to our public life. Devolution brought with it an electoral system that permitted a far preferable, if not perfect, representative voting system. However, I say as a proud devolutionist that we cannot get caught in the trap of nostalgia, or defence of the status quo. Scotland’s Parliaments and two Governments must always do better in the interests of the Scottish people. That is not only their core purpose, but an essential antidote to the enemies of democracy, especially now. The perception of my generation, who have only ever known devolution, and have not known a world before the Scottish Parliament, is at a critical juncture. One of the most remarkable conversations I had recently was with a group of young carers in my constituency. They were buzzing with remarkable suggestions and clear, pragmatic ideas about how their community could be improved. Those included ideas for, yes, support for carers, but also for more accessible high streets, for safety for women and girls, and for public transport—all core competencies of their local council or the Scottish Parliament. We should strongly welcome the fact that there is a burgeoning generation of young representatives and leaders in Falkirk and across Scotland, and many of them have direct life experience of the systems that the devolved legislature has governed for the last 25 years. The question for us and our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament is: how, in this next phase of devolution, will we empower that generation to lead, and to make better decisions than those who came before them? What sticks out to me when I have these refreshing conversations with bright, young Falkirk bairns is how much young people tend to agree on the priorities; on how politicians should collaborate to deliver them; and on how Governments should do things. I see how reasonable young people are when holding politicians to account, and how much of what they want to do and see is relevant to their area. One of the greatest assets that we have in the devolution generation is a generation who are engaged in their area, and who have the political language and skills to fight their community’s corner. That is progress. Votes at 16, secured in 2016 for Scottish parliamentary elections, are now to be delivered here, under this Labour Government. However, an element of trust in our politics is being eroded, uniquely in Scotland. The issue is structural and long-term. I have no qualms about stating that Tory austerity was a predominant factor in the decline that we have seen on various fronts in Scotland and across the UK, but my constituents see that the devolved settlement has not manoeuvred strategically or effectively to maintain an achievable rate of progress under those circumstances. The challenge faced under devolution is common to this place, too: it is a lack of delivery that my constituents can see and feel. Over 10 years ago, the former First Minister said that she wanted to prioritise, and be judged on, closing the attainment gap, but she barely made a dent in it. That gap between rhetoric and delivery undermines the public’s faith in Parliament as an institution, as does the lack of accountability afterwards, or the willingness to be held directly accountable for that failure.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. It also undermines the message in section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998 that there shall be a Scottish Parliament with the powers to fix policy challenges. It is the reason we are proud devolutionists in this place: we want a Scottish Parliament that can address the issues under its competency. I agree that that reaction does shut down debate; it shuts down the idea that there is something better that we can achieve in all of our constituents’ interests. As I said on Alexander Dennis, we should never have been in a position where a company warned about the loss of a critical and necessary industry in Scotland, especially as we seek to achieve our net zero goals, and it took over a year for decisive action to be taken to prevent it, albeit I welcome that. A devolved Government with a serious interest in standing up for Scotland beyond its being a slogan would not and should not have let it get to that point. Across this place, in the Scottish Government and in our councils that have been hard-pressed for far too many years under a Government who I hope get replaced next year, we must do better. Scotland demands better and Falkirk demands better.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. My contribution will focus exclusively on the asylum system and the impact that my community has seen. Falkirk has been a host community for asylum seekers over the last few years. I have met people from Ukraine, the middle east and the horn of Africa, many of whom have fled war and persecution across the globe. As many Members have said, we do not have a system that works for communities such as Falkirk, or for those who are hosted here. The community I represent is suffering from a legacy of unfit hotel accommodation. Since 2021, the Cladhan hotel in Falkirk has been used by the Home Office. Those housed there have been helped by excellent community groups and charities that have commendably hosted initiatives to help with successful integration. Those people claiming asylum whom I have met simply want to live their lives peacefully, while contributing to the community. Despite the restrictions, they do so, but for too long—sometimes for years—they have languished on waiting lists. However, I will not ignore the fact that concerns in my community have been heightened since a vile crime was committed in October 2023 by Sadeq Nikzad. Many in my community were unaware of the use of the Cladhan hotel. Mr Nikzad raped a 15-year-old girl. It was a revolting crime. He also, shamefully, defended himself in court by trying—and failing—to mitigate his crime on the basis that he did not understand cultural differences. That was wrong. Anyone who was disgusted by his crime or by his defence was not wrong. Everybody I have met in my community, of all cultures, was disgusted at his crime. The Government have since acted through clause 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which disapplies refugee protections from those who have committed serious crimes such as his. That said, Mr Nikzad is not representative of those fleeing persecution who live in my community, just as the criminals from Falkirk who are currently incarcerated for similarly serious sexual offences are not representative of people from Falkirk. The violence and intimidation that we have seen rise in the Falkirk community is wrong. The recent throwing of a brick through a window of the Cladhan, without regard or care for the human lives inside, is not an action of any of the people I have met who are positively contributing to the community, many of whom have expressed to me their legitimate concerns about the asylum system. Banners seen at protests encouraging people to “Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out” are wrong and contrary to our community’s values. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), who is no longer in his place, very aptly said, it is up to us as politicians to focus on solutions to the issues that our constituents identify, and not to use our platform to inflame, misinform or omit. Community fury was recently directed at a new hotel development that, it turned out, was not and would never be permitted as asylum accommodation. That was a fact that many in the community could have chosen to publicise, and I chose to work with the company to publicise it, but others chose instead to fuel speculation. Asylum hotels in this country will close only when processing speeds up to meet the significant demand and backlogs that built up over nearly half a decade of substantially high irregular migration. Processing had effectively stopped under the previous Government, as they opted for the unworkable Rwanda scheme and told my community that they were building a temporary asylum hotel in our community, when they were actually using it to manage their backlog and abandon people in the system and in our communities for years instead of improving processing. The dropping of the target to reach decisions within six months has preceded the saga of many people I have met being left in communities for years while they wait on an initial decision. In stark contrast to the Opposition’s programme when they were in government, this Government have intervened on processing the number of asylum seekers—and it has fallen. The Refugee Council calculated that, thanks to this Government’s interventions, there were 59,000 fewer people in the system at the start of 2025 than there would have been had the system been left as it was under the previous Government. Processing in quarter 2 of 2025 was 116% higher for initial decisions than in quarter 2 of 2024. The bill to the taxpayer, which has been discussed today, has also decreased. The cost of hotels is £5.77 million per day—still substantially too high, but down from £8.3 million per day last year. This Government will be the one who end asylum hotels, and they will do so through a sustainable system of processing. However, we must provide greater transparency on when this will lead to asylum hotels being closed in specific communities; I will ask a question for my hon. Friend the Minister to address when he sums up. Getting rid of my constituents’ human rights under the European convention on human rights would not work either; as many Members have said, it would undermine the vital international agreements that we need to rebuild a coherent asylum system, as it is not working at the moment. We need a system that works so that we can properly fulfil our legal and moral obligation to those who come to this country, fleeing war and persecution, and is fulfilled in an appropriate way, with the consent and support of host communities—something that has not happened in Falkirk. The Minister will be aware that Falkirk council and I are corresponding extensively with them regarding the concerns rising in our community. We have been raising concerns from the community that were also raised through a public engagement forum that I, Falkirk council and Police Scotland Forth Valley hosted on 19 September. I would appreciate it if, in the Minister’s response, he could address the following points: how the ongoing programme of asylum hotel closures will be timetabled equitably across each of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom; what work he is doing to resource community cohesion efforts alongside local authorities and how effectively the Home Office public protection team and the local authority asylum liaison officers are performing and what requirements they are given to liaise with local authorities. Can the Minister address whether consideration has been given to support local authorities in meeting broader housing need, which remains unmet for far too many of my constituents enduring Scotland’s housing crisis? If any break clauses in contracts with operators are not taken up by the Home Office, what obligations will the Home Office put on these providers to compel them to engage with local communities? That was not done under the previous Government, and it is the stem of many of the issues we now see in Falkirk and across the country.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last Friday, I attended a graduation for STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—students at Forth Valley College. This college is a crucial educational asset and it is vital to plans to re-industrialise our area. However, due to a 20% cut in funding for the college sector since the SNP began its fourth term in 2021, Forth Valley College recently proposed closing its Alloa campus. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that, instead of causing colleges to consider closure, the Scottish Government should be backing all routes for young people to train, learn and succeed?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to her place. She is making an excellent point, but I refer her to specific sectors in which some Opposition parties have called for carve-outs. Does she agree that it is important that we do not carve out, for any particular sector, the strong provisions in the Bill, and that it is both morally and economically wrong to say to a young worker that if they work behind a bar, they should have fewer rights than if they worked behind a desk?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to assess the economic impact and consequences, which we have seen over a number of years, of low pay and insecure hours, and how they have contributed to high turnover and sickness absence in businesses? I believe that those problems are substantially addressed by the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Barlinnie prison is operating at 30% above capacity, and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons is strongly urging Scottish Government action before the £1 billion replacement is finally built in 2028. What steps are Ministers taking to avoid the costly mistakes of the SNP Scottish Government in tackling the prison capacity crisis?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention. That dynamic is apparent in the workplace, from the smallest perceived grievance all the way up to the very serious criminal allegations she refers to. It is a power dynamic that we need to address through the Bill. Zero-hours contracts put far too much power in the hands of the employer over the employee. To address the point about notice of cancellation, I have worked as agency staff, and have been told not to come in the night before a shift. It is demoralising, quite frankly. In the workplace, it alienates people from colleagues they have had a good laugh with the day before. They may have worked closely beside them and said, “See you tomorrow”. Most good employers know that and do not cancel shifts the night before. Sadly, short-term cancellation has increased, especially post pandemic. This is something I endured, having lost my job during the pandemic picking up takeaways. Imagine young parents working payslip to payslip who have to arrange childcare on a Friday night and are then sent a text at 3 am on a Saturday by their boss that says, “Don’t bother coming in on Monday.” Are we seriously saying that that gives them enough time to arrange their life and that it is fine to arrange their life around the employer, or should we rightly acknowledge that it is insufficient to provide legitimate flexibility? It is a cover for the rare but corrosive practices of bad employers. We must keep this purpose in mind during the consultation with Ministers. That moral clarity should negate the need for a lengthy consultation.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree on the misinformation being put out about hypothetical situations, which are often talked about when we discuss hospitality. I recognise the point being put forward for small businesses, but I also recognise that those businesses have the right to a probation period, and to other employment models, such as part time working. I have seen that happen quite frequently.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree that the economic benefit of security in the workplace is evident. I have worked in some of the most insecure industries in hospitality, and people trying to rush themselves back into work was a severe issue, especially just after the pandemic, because they did not have another source of income. If they had to isolate, there was financial support, luckily, which was just about enough to cover wages for a period, administered by local authorities. However, there were still a lot more people who tried to drive themselves back into the workplace. I remember coming back after a 10-day isolation period after having covid, and I could tell that I was not prepared physically or mentally to re-enter the workplace. It did make me think that I wanted to call in sick. It is then substantially more difficult for someone to re-enter work, especially in high-intensity industries. We often forget how physically intensive hospitality and retail workplaces, where people are working on zero-hours contracts, can be.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To address the point about substantial issues facing businesses, I acknowledge that is the case at the moment. We are not talking about energy costs or business rates, but I have a local business improvement district on my high street and I am well aware that it is talking about the costs that are put on business. This Bill is a fundamental rebalancing in favour of workers, and frankly that would have to happen, irrespective of economic conditions. We need it to get people to believe that work pays again, because sadly much of my generation have not had that perception of work for too long. They may have seen other avenues—easier, passive income that does not come from hard graft, and from learning skills that are needed at a fundamental level. The problem is that the entry point to work for many young people has been casualised and is insecure, and often it does not seem as though there are any prospects. I believe the Bill will change that perception substantially. To go back to doorstep conversations, this was one of the pledges in our manifesto that got young people engaged and thinking about how politics could fundamentally change their life and their experience in the workplace. Turning to Lords amendment 1, I want to Members to put themselves in the mind of somebody experiencing a zero-hours contract for the first time. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) made some reasonable points about the right to request, rather than the right to have a contract that reflects hours, but in my experience of who zero-hours contracts are meant for in society, they are extensively given to the younger generation at the entry point of their career. There is a fundamental flaw in the concept of a right to request. Someone may be in their first job behind the till at Argos, or at a pie kiosk, or at a hotel bar or a restaurant—I do not have to imagine it; this is essentially my CV, prior to entering politics, all done in the last 10 years. At age 18, people do not necessary know their rights beyond what their mum and dad tell them, and this is a point I have heard addressed by several Members. Imagine a person who, after years of zero-hours contracts, reliance on casualised working and low pay, is in an industry that is still adapting to the Bill’s provisions. They ask for a contract that reflects their hours, rather than what they would be entitled to under the Bill if we reject the amendment. How likely would they be to press the issue with their employer in this market? How likely is it that somebody will bang their fist on the table and say, “I want the contract that I can request, rather than the one I am entitled to”? People often want to make a career in the retail and hospitality fields, but how likely are they to do so if they cannot get the hours they are entitled to, or foresee their income for the coming year? They can get a contract that reflects the shift that they are putting in. The problem with the amendment is that it shifts the power dynamic ever so slightly back to the employer, when the legislation quite rightly tips the balance in favour of the worker—the working people who have endured the acute impacts of a pandemic. I lost my job and my ability to privately rent, and I had to move back home, aged 20, in a cost of living crisis.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, especially if we look at unfair dismissal. The issue is not the cause of the dismissal; at its core, this is about denying people recourse. If a worker cannot claim unfair dismissal because of the two-year threshold, their recourse is substantially weaker. The course of the conduct is not changed simply because a worker has been in a place of employment for 23 months, as opposed to two years. This issue is real and corrosive. I have had young people in my constituency office who have experienced this issue, especially in the run-up to consideration of this Bill. There has been a course of conduct in the workplace that has resulted in them wanting to leave, or somebody wanting to force them out, and this issue makes it substantially easier for bad employers—not every employer, of course—to force an employee out. It does not change the nature of the conduct, or what we should be tackling, which is poor employment practices. I do understand the concern that has been raised, but a two-year threshold often leads to workers, early on in their careers, being taken out of the workplace without process or prior warning. Their only right of recourse, as I have said, is taking the employer to court through a far weaker form of redress that is often time-consuming, exhausting, fruitless and restrictive, and so deters them from pursuing their rights.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to start by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate, but especially the new ministerial team and senior Ministers across the Government who recommitted to this legislation in public, and especially to the previous ministerial team who advanced the Bill as it went through the Commons. In my constituency, of the six key pledges on our leaflets, this was the one that got the younger generation interested and engaged. They were worried about where they would work, how they would work and how they would get ahead in life. The vast majority of young people across this country are aware that the path to a better life comes through the workplace. What do we see when we look at these Lords amendments? It is another week, another paltry attempt by the Opposition parties in the Lords to undermine my constituents’ rights at work. A couple of weeks back, there was an Opposition day motion that told my constituents that if they worked behind a bar, they should have fewer rights than if they worked behind a desk. These amendments are just another feeble attempt at watering down a popular and generationally crucial piece of legislation.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have to disagree with the characterisation of the Bill as increasing unemployment. We have heard the same about other measures. To tackle the hon. Gentleman’s point about somebody coming into a workforce and not being cut out for it, which I have seen happen in hospitality and retail industries, I believe that is addressed by the probation provisions in the Bill.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is substantially clear. I would add the concern that long-term sickness translates into long-term unemployment, which is often seen in the most insecure workplaces. We often think of people burning out in a very high-stress, high-income job, but it happens right through our labour market. In my experience, it has led to devastating consequences, but those are personal stories that I do not have the permission or time to go into.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Bus Sector Support · Hansard source

  More

  The consultation on 400 jobs at Alexander Dennis closes tomorrow. It has been a time of deep anxiety for the local workers. The SNP’s ScotZEB2 scheme initially sent over three times as many buses to China as to Scotland’s sole manufacturer. Although £40 million has now been made available by Transport Scotland, it must be spent correcting this SNP industrial failure. What engagement have Ministers had with the Scottish Government regarding recently consulted-on procurement reforms and their potential benefit to the Scottish bus manufacturing and operation sectors in the long term?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Bus Sector Support · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps she is taking to support the bus sector.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses. Within my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) are two sites of the UK’s largest bus manufacturer, Alexander Dennis, which employs around 400 people in Falkirk, with thousands more jobs dependent on the buses created at Falkirk. Manufacturers will welcome new clause 38 and the certainty that it gives by consolidating the provisions of the Bill in Scotland. Bus manufacturing in Britain has been in difficulty in the past year, partly due to the failure of the previous Government to deliver on their pledge of 4,000 British-built, zero emission buses by 2024. In the end, they supported just over half that number, with just under half being bought from abroad. The Tories funded too few buses and got far too many of them from elsewhere in the world. Then there was a second policy failure, this time by the Scottish Government’s recent ScotZEB 2 programme, which saw less than one fifth of its buses come from Scotland’s only bus manufacturer and more than three times more come from China. Standing up for Scotland—aye right! Both the Conservatives and the Scottish National party did not take the protection of the domestic bus manufacturing sector seriously, and their failure has jeopardised hundreds of jobs in my constituency and potentially thousands in the supply chain across the country. All this is to say that the future of a domestic industry that we will need if we want to see a green, clean, safe and effective bus network is contingent on legislation that supports the effective domestic procurement of buses and enables local authorities to make decisions that are right for their area and put the passenger first. The Bill does an excellent job of delivering on those priorities, with a streamlined and more flexible franchising process, stronger powers for grant funding from local authorities, and local authorities able to order in bulk, as in the case of the Bee Network in Manchester. The Bee Network was bolstered by 254 buses ordered from and built in Falkirk. I will never miss an opportunity to remind the House that the Bee Network’s buses were reliant on the skills and craftmanship of bus manufacturing workers in Falkirk, more than they were reliant on any other place. That is thanks in no small part to the instincts and political foresight of the Mayor of Manchester to work in the national interest—instincts that will be empowered across the country by the provisions in the Bill. If only we had the same foresight from the Scottish Government, who must now deliver on their commitment to a prospective rescue deal for Alexander Dennis workers following the excellent engagement and flexibility of our Transport, Cabinet Office and Scotland Office colleagues. It is welcome that, following consultation, the ban on registering non-zero emission buses for local services will start no earlier than 2030, as moving too fast on the necessary transition to zero emission vehicles would create a degree of risk for domestic manufacturers in the current market. This year, the industry reported that 35% of ZEV buses purchased in the country by local authorities and operators will come from China, compared with 10% only two years ago. That is an alarming share to have been taken out of our domestic manufacture. We must address that before we throw ourselves head-first or too fast into building an exclusively clean, green and foreign fleet across the country. While I am sympathetic to the well-intentioned environmentalist calls in amendments 62 and 63 from the Green party to accelerate the non-zero emission buses ban, that approach would risk creating a situation in which authorities and operators would likely be compelled to buy from abroad, further undermining the competitiveness of our domestic industry, on which my community relies. I would more than welcome Green Members’ engagement with the all-party group to discuss how the House can align British industry with the laudable intention of those amendments. The UK timeline will align with the transition in Scotland, as I mentioned, as is addressed in the Secretary of State’s new clause 38 and amendments 46 to 48. Accelerating our ambition beyond what domestic capacity allows would create a risk that local authorities and operators would be compelled in the long term to buy an unsustainably high proportion of their fleet from abroad, from manufacturers who have received decades of state subsidy elsewhere. I repeat the ask of my all-party parliamentary group for Ministers to use the work of the bus manufacturing expert panel to map out a fully funded and coherent pipeline of zero emission bus orders that can be met by our world-leading domestic manufacturers, and provide the certainty that the sector—especially workers in Falkirk this week—needs before the ban comes in in 2030. As I mentioned, Falkirk has already seen the benefit of local authority-controlled bus networks, with Labour-controlled Liverpool and Manchester combined authorities making clear strategic commitments to partner with UK manufacturers and ordering significant numbers of buses from Alexander Dennis. Considered strategic and small-p political local leadership can often make more effective policy decisions than the private sector or—I acknowledge—lazy franchisers, who all too often simply look to the cheapest price rather than considering our national, industrial and economic interests. More authorities operating like that, in tandem with the upcoming changes to the local authority procurement framework, could see us not just protect jobs in Falkirk in the short term but materially enable an expansion of the industry. That is essential to delivering the socially positive outcomes clearly articulated by hon. Members in new clause 45 and amendments 7 and 16, to mention just a few. We cannot forget the social benefit of an industry that provides an additional 3.25 jobs per job hired in manufacturing. The benefits are seen in quieter and smoother journeys, but also in jobs created and protected, taxes paid and communities strengthened. The Bill seems on the whole to be about building up the powers of our local authorities, but it also gives us an opportunity to build up the bus manufacturing industry while we set our minds to the task of improving local transport. The Bill on the whole is better for passengers, better for local authorities, and hopefully better for British workers. With the Bill we can deliver a transport system that is clean, affordable and reliable and a bus manufacturing industry that thrives for decades to come. First stop, Falkirk.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Armed Forces: Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  The brave men and women who serve in the armed forces are the very best among us, and I look forward to learning more about our Royal Air Force personnel when the RAF town show comes to Falkirk this week. The cumulative 10.5% pay increase for non-officers since last July and the additional £1.5 billion to be spent on service housing demonstrate the Government’s commitment to upholding the armed forces covenant, but what further actions are Ministers considering to recognise and retain our armed forces personnel?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Blooming Bairns, a group of community volunteers committed to seeing Falkirk town centre flourish, have put in a marathon effort in service of our community. Their planting on Newmarket Street, Vicar Street and the High Street has breathed new life into our town centre. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Blooming Bairns for their 1,900-plus hours of community volunteering and congratulate them on their recent one-year anniversary?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the constituents of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) will have the opportunity to welcome those measures if Scotland votes next year for a Scottish Labour Government?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a former barman, a former waiter, a former pie seller and someone who has done essentially every front-of-house job—except chef, unfortunately. I come at today’s debate from the position of a former hospitality worker. It might be slightly over three years since I last pulled a pint, but I have to say that in debates such as this, the insight from hospitality workers is oddly missing. Hospitality is a hard job, and it can be rewarding. I made lifelong friendships through the 14 or 15-hour back-to-back wedding shifts that I pulled to get myself through university, but hospitality is often treated corrosively as a secondary, less-worthwhile occupation. That completely wrong-headed perspective is dripping off the pages of the Opposition’s motion today. It says that we must “amend the Employment Rights Bill to protect seasonal and flexible employment practices”. What that says to the 3.5 million hospitality workers in this country—it is the third largest sector in the UK—is that they should be part of a two-tier workforce and have less employment rights than every other worker. Which rights should hospitality workers be excluded from? Should they be able to be sacked in the first two years of employment for no good reason? Should they be disqualified from parity in sick pay? Should they not be entitled to a contract that reflects their hours worked? The motion states that if someone works behind a bar, they should be entitled to fewer rights than those who work behind a desk. I would like to draw attention of the House to the recent victory of the young unionised workers at the Village hotel in Govan. These hospitality workers won a pay rise, backdated to 1 April 2024, on the terms of equal pay regardless of age. Young workers brought their employer to the table and, in a cost of living crisis, it will now value the value of their labour properly. Thanks to the universality of the Employment Rights Bill and the collective action of the workforce in hospitality, the era of poverty pay and contractual insecurity, which has been rife in the sector, will come to an end. Today’s motion sets a targeted approach: to bring that era back just for the people who keep our hard-working hospitality sector ticking. Not a pint is poured, nor a meal served or a single beat of music played, without the express permission of hospitality staff—a reminder for all of us in this House that the workers are the hospitality sector. I will be proud to stand up today for my pals I worked beside in hospitality, who do essential, hard, skilled work, which this motion seeks to dimmish by suggesting that those of us who make laws, instead of making beds, should weaken their employment rights today.