Justin Madders MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is an interesting suggestion. I think a lot of Members are concerned about how this will relate to the security services, because we have had many examples in the past of where they have done things that we would rather had not happened. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, there will be some good dialogue about an appropriate way to deal with those difficult balances that have to be achieved. I also want to raise a couple of concerns about clause 11 and the offence of misleading the public. The requirement for there to be “harm” to a victim could significantly reduce its effectiveness, which aims to deter cover-ups and obfuscation. In addition, part 2 of the Bill goes on to define who is included within the definition of a public body, and it specifically excludes the devolved bodies and both Houses of Parliament. I know that is because of the long-standing convention that Parliaments deal with their own affairs, but I am concerned that this sends out a negative message about our responsibilities in this matter. Parliament has in the past allowed other bodies to become involved in the way it does business with, for example with the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, so there is precedent there for us to look at that again. We should all be treated equally before the law. When trust and confidence in our institutions are at an all-time low, it is hard to underestimate the impact of the changes this Bill can deliver, but it should apply to everyone equally. Repeated examples of scandal and state cover-up are corrosive to trust and only serve those who want to sow division, so we have to get this right. This moment can mark a stark change in the way we deal with these issues, but we have to deliver it. Once it becomes law, we have to be consistent and vigilant to ensure that the Bill’s good intentions are delivered. That will mean a profound cultural shift. Hopefully the Bill will restore trust in our democracy and our institutions, so that when in future we say that something should never happen again, we can be confident that it will not.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on her excellent speech and on securing the debate. I state for the record that I am a patron of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which does such good work in advising leaseholders. It was eight years ago that I stood on the Opposition side of the Chamber and described the use of leasehold in new developments as the payment protection insurance of the house building industry. I am pleased to say that the previous Government eventually started to tackle that, and the current Government will hopefully complete that work soon so that we can finally condemn leasehold to the history books. It was four years ago that I stood on the Opposition side of the Chamber and warned that estate management fees could replacement leasehold as the new PPI of the house building industry—or, as the indomitable women of the National Leasehold Campaign termed it, “fleecehold.” Now that has come to pass; it seems that just about every new development built in this country adopts the same exploitative model, and the public are rightly asking what we are going to do about it. The Minister has amassed great expertise in this area, and I know he is keen to crack on with reform. There are a number of legal cases ongoing. I am pleased to see that the bogus argument about human rights has been dispatched by the High Court. However, there are a number of others where well-resourced freeholders are trying to preserve the status quo, and not every court is as wise as the High Court was in the human rights case. The Court of Appeal recently found in the Romney House case that where a tenant goes to the first-tier tribunal to challenge a service charge, the tribunal needs only to consider whether the process was reasonable, and not whether the charges themselves were reasonable. That is absurd, and has had the effect of requiring those leaseholders to pay for the refurbishment of a gym that they do not actually own. It is freeholders with their seemingly limitless resources that can challenge and delay actions by leaseholders to preserve their rotten system at every turn, so the sooner we implement the leasehold Act in full the better. There is a clear warning here as to why we must crack on with tackling estate management fees more broadly. I look forward to the Government’s response to the consultation. When it comes to stopping any more estates being built in this way, and we must end this practice as a matter of urgency, I suggest, as the hon. Member did, that it will actually be much easier to do this than it has been for ending leasehold. I urge the Minister to send a clear instruction to local authorities that estate management arrangements will no longer be accepted in planning applications, and to legislate to ban them on any new developments if necessary. The longer we put off fixing that, the longer it will take to fix this mess. I fear the Minister will be told that such a move would have an impact on the ambitious house building plans that we rightly have and would damage the housing market more generally, but were we not faced with the same arguments when we tried to abolish leasehold? After all, these developers do not have to pay a community sum to the local authority—indeed, they have an additional lucrative income stream—but despite those new income sources, it does not seem to have had any impact on the price they charge for people to buy their homes in the first place. The reality is that an estate management company is nothing more than a calculation on a balance sheet. The developers have zero interest in keeping the verges neat and tidy after they have gone. If they can make the bottom line look more attractive by creating the management company, they will, and they keep getting away with it because we let them. Of course, we must act to protect those already caught in this trap. It is also clear, as we have heard, that many people are not aware of the implications of an estate management company or how much it will cost them when they buy their home. Often, first-time buyers are excited by the prospect of owning a new home, and they place their trust in the system—the lenders, the developers, the lawyers—and the echoes of the leasehold scandal with this are loud. Glitzy sales staff paint a very different picture. They never set out the reality that, in addition to the significant commitment people are making when they buy a home, they are also agreeing to pay an unspecified sum to often unspecified recipients for as long as they stay in that home. The mis-selling and failure to properly advise has all the hallmarks of the leasehold scandal. We should not be surprised by that because the same actors are involved in that industry as are involved in these rip-offs. An example of some of the novel ways that this financial trap can be described by sales staff came to my attention when constituents on a recently built estate all had the common explanation given to them that this service charge was for a storm drain, but that it would be paid off in a few years so they did not need to worry about it. Well, they are still paying it 15 years later. They are not even sure if there is a storm drain and, even if there is, who is actually responsible for it, and yet the invoices and threatening letters still come. We also recently met interested parties on another new development where we were trying to clarify who was responsible for maintaining what and who they were accountable to. Because the estate had been developed over several years by different developers, about 10 different organisations were represented at that meeting. It is little wonder that we struggle for transparency with so many people involved. The fundamental question from the homeowner is: why are we paying twice for the maintenance of open spaces, once through a management fee and once through council tax? We should start from the basic principle that the local council should be doing all the work and that estate management companies are an unnecessary tax on homeowners. How long will it be before we see a concerted campaign for people to get reductions on their council tax on the basis that they are being taxed twice? In the wrong hands, that sort of campaign could pit communities against one another. Let us not forget that buying a home is the biggest single purchase people will ever make. We need far greater accountability for what developers say and what they build. Housing is of course a critical part of our infrastructure and a fundamental part of a person’s life, but it has been shown time and again that we cannot rely on the market alone to deliver that in a responsible way. Let us get control over these companies, empower homeowners and legislate if necessary so that this rotten, avaricious model becomes history, just like leasehold eventually will.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  May I welcome the Minister to her place, and say what an encouraging start this is? All the funding that my community is receiving is very welcome, and it is such a contrast to the previous regime’s approach, where we had the crumbs off the table, and a politically motivated process in which communities had to bid against each other in a system that was essentially rigged. It was always about what the Government wanted to spend the money on, not what communities decided their priorities were. Since the announcement of pride in place, I have had so many constituents come forward with great ideas. What assurances can the Minister give me that their voice will really count?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly do. In my conversations with employers, I did not come across any who were prepared to defend the status quo of a two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal, because they recognise that is an awfully long time to be in employment without any protection at all. The Government are sensitive to concerns about hiring, however, and we have included provisions in the Bill to establish a statutory probationary period during which an employee’s performance and suitability can be established, and a lighter-touch dismissal procedure will apply during that time. This will mean that, to coin a phrase, if a new hire is not working out, an employer will be able to follow a lighter-touch procedure to dismiss them fairly. But crucially, there will still have to be a process; there cannot be an arbitrary dismissal without explanation, as happens far too often now. We know that recruiting someone is an expensive and time-consuming business, if it is done properly, so why would we not expect the same care and attention to be put into determining whether someone had a future in the business at all? This country, to our shame, has one of the least regulated approaches to dismissal protection in the OECD, leaving an estimated 9 million workers vulnerable to dismissals without protections. How can someone plan their life, make financial commitments and so forth if they can be sacked at the drop of a hat? We believe that this must change. People deserve greater security and dignity at work, and they deserve to be treated fairly, not just as disposable commodities. This Bill strikes the right balance, and although much of the detail is to be determined by consultation and regulations—I will come back to that later—it sends an important message that we will not accept the race to the bottom any more and that dignity and security at work start from day one. That is the lodestone of what a Labour Government should be about. I am delighted that the Bill is on track to become law in a matter of weeks. It is a landmark piece of legislation that will end the race to the bottom and provide the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation. We on the Labour side have long been clear that it will benefit everyone across the country. It will be good for workers and it will be good for businesses. Passing this Bill is not, of course, the end of the matter. There is so much more that needs to be done outside the Bill, particularly on finally ending the industrial-scale exploitation that is bogus self-employment. We cannot have a Bill that massively increases protections for millions of people at work but fails to address the growing scandal of a deliberate manipulation of the law to deny people the same basic protections. Over the coming years, there will be a range of secondary legislation, codes of practice and guidance issued to implement the Bill’s provisions. I wish the new Minister every success in working through and navigating the 80 or so statutory instruments that will be needed to ensure that the Bill is implemented in full and that we stick to the road map that was published earlier in the summer. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comment that the road map remains in place in full. However, given the volume and complexity of all this—the details of the consultations, the scope of the regulations, the language in the codes of practice and even the commencement dates—it goes without saying that there are plenty of opportunities for those who do not want to see workers’ rights improved in this country to chip away at the strong baseline that the Bill represents, and of course it is far easier to do that in some stuffy Committee Room away from the main Chamber. I do not think that is the Minister’s intention, but I am not sure that everyone shares our enthusiasm for improving the rights of millions of working people, so we will all be looking at this closely and encouraging the Minister to keep to our manifesto commitments that we all believe so strongly in. On that point, I know how enthusiastic Labour Members are about the Bill, and how enthusiastic many of the people we represent are about it, so let us see that enthusiasm replicated across the whole of Government. What better way to demonstrate that we are still the party of working people, and what better way to show that democratic politics can still make a difference than by championing the many ways that this Bill will improve people’s lives? From the shop worker on a zero-hours contract who for the first time will have a right to guaranteed hours, to the social care assistant whose voice will finally be heard through a national negotiating body, to the warehouse operative who will be able to have a trade union collectively bargain on their behalf, this Bill can be the antidote to the politics of division and despair. Let us not be timid in our backing of improved employment rights. Let us not apologise for at last restoring balance to the workplace. Let us be confident, and committed to all the good things the Bill can achieve, and let us shout them from the rooftops. This Bill is Labour at its best. It shows us what can be done when the broadest experiences and the voices of our movement are harnessed together to deliver change. I am proud that I played my part in that, and I will do all I can to ensure that we deliver on the promises we made to the British people to truly make sure that work pays.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to be back. The shadow Secretary of State just talked about legal fees for firms when it comes to defending tribunal cases. If the right to be accompanied is expanded to include lawyers, the response of firms will be, “We had better get a lawyer too”, and that will just put up costs, will it not?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes an election donation from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and my membership of the Unite and GMB unions. I welcome the Bill’s return to the House and the opportunity to consider the amendments made in the other place. I also welcome the new Secretary of State to his place and thank him for his kind words. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to her ministerial position—undoubtedly the best job in Government—and wish her every success in that role. I know that she will be a champion for workers and that she will be committed to introducing the “make work pay” agenda in full, as we promised in our manifesto. I am speaking a few rows back from where I had expected to be today. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned getting a short-notice cancellation payment—I am afraid that has not winged its way to me yet. However, I am delighted to be speaking in any capacity, because this Bill really is what a Labour Government should be delivering on. I was able, alongside my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), to take the new deal for working people—a policy programme carefully developed in opposition—and turn it into legislation that was laid before the House within 100 days of taking office, as we promised we would. While I started my ministerial role as I ended it—fired with enthusiasm—my hopes for the meaningful change that the Bill can deliver remain undimmed. That we are here entering the Bill’s final stages is testament to the hard work and dedication of those who developed the policy programme both in opposition and in government. I place on record my thanks to those in the Department for Business and Trade who helped shape those manifesto commitments into the Bill. I also pay tribute to Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who did a sterling job of guiding the legislation through the other place amid intense scrutiny and opposition, which of course we will talk about. I will not go through every Lords amendment; I will just pick out a few of those I consider to be most damaging and undermining of the intentions that we set out in our manifesto about how we will rebalance the workplace to make it work for ordinary people. First, Lords amendment 1 completely undermines the principle, set out in our manifesto, of banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. The amendment would water down the commitment we gave to provide workers with an offer of a guaranteed-hours contract to a right to request guaranteed hours. There has long been a misunderstanding—perhaps a wilful misunderstanding—of how the policy operates. It does not prevent those who want to remain on zero-hours contracts from continuing to do so, and neither does it prevent employers from hiring seasonal workers. It simply provides the opportunity for those who want certainty about the hours they work, week to week and month to month, to have guaranteed hours. We understand that not everyone will take advantage of that, but it might just be a lifeline for those who struggle to balance fixed costs such as bills, housing and childcare by taking out the stress of the potential variations that we see so often in zero-hours contracts at the moment. This is a very good thing for the Government to be doing, because one of the key principles in the Bill is the need to restore security and dignity at work, which would be damaged by the amendment. I understand that the noble Lords argued that the wording of the amendment would prevent employers from rejecting guaranteed-hours requests. It is presented as a reasonable compromise that achieves the same outcome, maintaining workers’ rights to guaranteed hours while removing the employer’s requirement to make offers. I disagree with that analysis. It shifts the right from one that is passively applied to one that has to be actively invoked by workers. This means that an individual would have to know their rights and have the confidence to approach their employer in order to benefit from them. As the Secretary of State said, those working on zero-hours contracts are some of the least empowered workers in this country, their contracts are inherently precarious, and those working on them are more likely to be younger, working part time and in low-paid sectors. There are plenty of examples out there of how the allocation of hours has been used by management as a tool of control and, in some cases, a tool of abuse. The Bill already sets out a number of anti-avoidance measures, because we know that that massive power imbalance has to be addressed, and this amendment would fatally undermine all that good work. I have similar concerns about Lords amendments 6 and 7, which seek to impose 48 hours as a reasonable notice period. If passed, these amendments would remove any chance for workers or employers to make representations in a consultation process, and instead force an arbitrary cut-off of 48 hours. Throughout my time as a Minister, we were committed to consulting widely on changes and incorporating the feedback we received into our approach. I remember the Conservatives complaining during the original passage of the Bill that we were not consulting enough, yet now they lend their support to amendments that would chop that consultation off entirely. That said, I must welcome the comments from Opposition Front Benchers in the other place, who indicated that they supported the principle of compensation for cancelled or curtailed shifts. I note that Lord Hunt of Wirral said: “We are fully in agreement that workers deserve reasonable notice of shifts. That is a fair and modern expectation.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1612.] Quite how that fits with the Tory pledge to scrap the entire Bill, I do not know. Of course, it is to be expected, as night follows day, that they will object to measures that improve the rights of working people, but that would mean scrapping things that I thought even they supported, including ending non-disclosure agreements for victims of sexual harassment, a new right for bereavement leave for those who have suffered a pregnancy loss, and finally an end to fire and rehire, which they did so much to condemn while in government but did nothing of substance to deal with. That is the Conservative position on this, and it is something that the British people will completely and wholeheartedly reject. Lords amendment 23 relates to unfair dismissal, which is something I know rather a lot about. It seeks to impose a six-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal rights rather than day one rights, which everyone on the Labour Benches has campaigned for. This is another brazen attempt by the other place to remove a clear manifesto commitment. I and other Labour Members were elected on a mandate to introduce basic rights, including unfair dismissal rights, from day one. How can we allow people who essentially have a job for life to prevent millions of people in this country from getting basic employment protections on day one? It is fundamentally wrong that workers can currently be treated so disposably, and that they can be dismissed arbitrarily with no legal recourse for two years. This is about fairness. A worker deserves to be treated with dignity, fairness and respect, no matter how long they have worked for an employer.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 Draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 Draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think that is now three references to “discombobulating”. That is quite a record for this early in September. Members have been pretty clear about the value of this legislation and the draft regulations that we are debating today, and it is disappointing that we have heard them wrapped up in an argument about red tape. The Companies House data is currently valued by business users—the people who actually invest in business in this country—at between £1 billion and £3 billion a year. It is a hugely important tool for investors and other businesses to understand the business environment, so the reliability of that data is paramount. These reforms will ensure that people know who they are dealing with, that those people’s identities have been verified, and that we do not have the plethora of fake companies that have been set up on the register in recent years. We all know the consequences of that. The shadow Minister mentioned enforcement, and made reference to the burdens on it. The Insolvency Service is generally responsible for any prosecutions under the legislation, but between September 2024 and August 2025, 99% of the entities that were required to record a PSC did so correctly at incorporation. It is quite often the case that those that have not responded are not doing so because the companies simply are not active any more and have been taken off the register. Part of the new landscape is that the fees that are charged by the various bodies for registering are meant to be on a cost-recovery basis, and the number of fines issued and prosecutions pursued are part of that overall landscape. It is important that there is proportionate but effective enforcement. The shadow Minister asked what we will be doing in terms of outcomes. We will certainly expect Companies House to do regular reports on the numbers of companies that have incorporated, and where there are issues with people not providing IDV or details of the PSC. I have given some further information about progress to date, but when the full system goes live in November, I fully expect Companies House to provide regular updates to Members about progress on that. On that note, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. DRAFT ECONOMIC CRIME AND CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT 2023 (CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS 2025 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025.—( Justin Madders .) DRAFT REGISTER OF PEOPLE WITH SIGNIFICANT CONTROL (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2025 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025. —( Justin Madders. )

• 2 Sept 2025 · Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 Draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the shadow Minister back after the summer recess. It is a little disturbing—discombobulating, possibly—to hear the Opposition arguing against legislation that they introduced when they were in government, although it is not the first time, I suppose. I think that there was cross-party agreement in the previous Parliament that it is important to clamp down on economic crime by ensuring the integrity of the Companies House register and that it is accurate and up to date.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 Draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. This set of regulations is part of the Government’s secondary legislation programme implementing the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to hereafter as the 2023 Act. The 2023 Act is a crucial tool in supporting the Government’s aim to combat economic crime, improve corporate transparency and increase trust in the UK’s business environment. It delivers the most significant reforms to Companies House in more than 180 years. It was brought in by the previous Government, but we are pleased to carry on implementing its provisions. Companies House has already made significant progress in implementing the reforms since the 2023 Act became law, including by removing false and misleading data. For example, from 4 March 2024 to 31 July 2025, Companies House removed 113,300 registered office addresses, 88,000 officer addresses and 71,000 PSC—persons with significant control—addresses. April this year saw Companies House launch its identity verification service. Hundreds of thousands of individuals have already successfully verified their identities. Reaching that major milestone has ensured that both customers and Companies House are ready for the introduction of mandatory identity verification in November. Identity verification is the centrepiece of the Companies House reforms. The statutory instruments before the Committee today will support the delivery of identity verification, and include other technical reforms that relate to the PSC framework. First, the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 apply several of the reforms to companies contained in the 2023 Act to limited liability partnerships, or LLPs. In particular, the instrument introduces identity verification for LLP members and PSCs, and prohibits disqualified directors from acting as an LLP member. It removes the requirement for LLPs to keep their own local registers of members and PSCs. Going forward, LLPs will report their member and PSC information directly to Companies House. Extending company reforms to LLPs ensures that the law applies equally across different corporate entities. Not only will that minimise opportunities for LLPs to be misused by criminals; it will ensure that both LLPs and their customers benefit from a more transparent and reliable business environment. The draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 are largely technical, and will ensure the smooth implementation of key elements of the 2023 Act. The instrument makes necessary consequential amendments to primary and secondary legislation following the removal of the requirement for companies and other entities to retain their own local registers of directors, secretaries and PSCs. Instead of those local registers, there will be only one central register at Companies House. Searchers will therefore be able to rely on a centralised Companies House register as the definitive version. The draft regulations will also introduce provisions to support the roll-out of identity verification through the mandation of unique identifiers. These codes are generated for each verified individual, and will be used to prove an individual’s verified identity status. Not proceeding with the instrument would mean that crucial parts of the Companies House reform package would not be able to operate properly. The draft regulations will ensure that the legislative framework is consistent, and prevent references to repealed provisions from persisting in law. Finally, I move to the draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025. This instrument makes technical amendments to the PSC regime, the Companies Act 2006 and the Register of People with Significant Control Regulations 2016. It ensures that certain important information relating to PSCs, including additional matters that were previously recorded in local registers, is now reported to Companies House. These changes will maintain the completeness and accuracy of the PSC information on the register. I highlight that the explanatory memorandum to this instrument contained a small error when initially published: paragraph 5.3 referred to the Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 by the wrong title. I am sure that Members were about to intervene on me on that point. I confirm that it has now been corrected. I stress that all these regulations are needed to make the UK a safer and more transparent place to do business. Businesses, the regulated sector and other users of the company register will benefit from more accurate and reliable data to inform their transactions. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

• 22 Jul 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, I have an awful lot of responses to get into, so I will not eat into that time with interventions. The Department has been very much guided by businesses in developing the response to the review and the consultation, and in designing the changes and improvements we will make. We also believe that growth and prosperity are supported by devolution—a belief no doubt shared by hon. Members here. The outcome of the UK Internal Market Act review has been carefully crafted to ensure that unnecessary barriers to trade do not arise within the UK, while maximising the scope to realise the benefits of devolved decision making. We want to work with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that businesses and the Office for the Internal Market are more involved in discussions about the management of the UK internal market. We are confident that the changes we announced in our response to the review represent a more balanced and proportionate approach to managing the UK internal market than that pursued by the previous Government. Our approach seeks to avoid the imposition of unnecessary new costs on businesses, while respecting devolved competence. Those reforms are part of our broader plan for change, which has shaped both the UK’s trade strategy and industrial strategy to make the UK the best place to do business, while respecting devolved powers and delivering prosperity across the nations. We are keen to work with devolved Government Ministers to implement those improvements as soon as possible and put in place the necessary changes to the UK internal market in an effective way for the benefit of all our citizens. Hon. Members have spoken passionately, as we would expect, about the Windsor framework. I hope it goes without saying that this Government are wholly committed to the Windsor framework. It forms part of the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the European Union, and it supports the peace and prosperity brought about by the Good Friday agreement—one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government. It also plays a vital role in ensuring the smooth flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is why we supported the Windsor framework in opposition, and we continue to support it in government. I recognise that the framework does not operate perfectly for everyone. Concerns raised by hon. Members today show that there is more to do in this area, but more than 10,000 traders have now signed up to the UK internal market scheme, and more than 1,100 operators are registered for the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme and Northern Ireland plant health label. Indeed, Northern Ireland is now one of the UK’s fastest-growing regions. We also recognise the importance of ensuring that the right advice and guidance is available to businesses when they need it. We will continue to work on those issues. I heard what was said about the Federation of Small Businesses survey. We will speak to the federation and work with it moving forward—there were some pretty damning critiques from hon. Members today about what that survey found. Our own surveys have found that customer satisfaction with the trader support service is running at 90%, so there is a significant disconnect between what our surveys are finding and what the survey from the Federation of Small Businesses has discovered. HMRC trade statistics published on 17 July showed that 11,400 businesses were associated with Great Britain and Northern Ireland customs processes in 2024. That was actually up 200 on the number for the previous year. I therefore suggest that the picture is not quite as apocalyptic as has been suggested by Members today, but we want to understand some more detail about why that survey showed such dissatisfaction with the current arrangements. In taking forward commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper last year, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has established the new body Intertrade UK. That body is independently looking at promoting trade across the whole of the UK, and at how we can guide and encourage businesses to trade more, invest more and grow more. It is also important that we take the opportunity to look ahead at the broader benefits that businesses across the UK will yield from the common understanding that we are taking forward with the EU. This new partnership in agrifood, emissions trading, electricity and other issues, will remove barriers for businesses trading with our nearest neighbours. We hope it will also help smooth the flow of trade to the advantage of Northern Ireland, reflecting our commitment to the UK internal market. On our commitments, I take issue with the comments made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim about the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who I believe is an honourable man. He is committed to Northern Ireland, and I do not accept at all the characterisation that he is disdainful or could not are less about Northern Ireland. Nothing could be further from the truth. The right hon. Member for East Antrim also raised the issue of the duty reimbursement scheme. I understand there have been issues with that. We are seeing increased use of the scheme. HMRC processes claims quicker now than it previously did, with an average processing time of 14 days, but clearly there is more to do in that regard. The right hon. Gentleman also raised the example of custard—clearly not a trifling matter, Dr Huq, if you will pardon the pun. The Northern Ireland retail movement scheme simplifies the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, based on UK food safety standards. In return, it was agreed that the “Not for EU” labels would be applied to some retail goods eligible to be moved by the scheme, but through the SPS agreement with the EU we will ensure that there is a consistent regulatory framework for SPS, and therefore expect “Not for EU” labels and checks to diminish significantly. DEFRA is working closely with traders to ensure they are clear about where goods need to be labelled to be eligible for the scheme and has published detailed guidance to support that. Where possible, enforcement is proportionate, with only non-compliant goods removed, the rest of the consignment continuing on to its destination. The majority of NIRMS shipments pass into the Northern Ireland area without any issue or delay, but if there are specific examples of where things have gone wrong we would certainly be grateful to hear more detail and whether we can do anything more. However, we are making progress. In terms of other issues raised, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) asked about Lord Murphy’s report. I can pass on to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the eagerness of Members to see that; I am sure he will be hearing those messages already. There is a commitment to publish the report in the UK Parliament and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am sure the Secretary of State will be keen to deliver that as soon as is practical. I need to give the right hon. Member for East Antrim a moment to respond. I apologise for not having covered every issue that has been raised. To conclude, the Government are committed to protecting the UK’s internal market and delivering for all UK citizens and businesses. We need to work together to understand where the issues are so that there are no unnecessary barriers to the flows of goods and services. Like all members of this Government, I am committed to working with hon. Members from across the House to ensure that that is the case.

• 22 Jul 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source

  More

  He is staying in place. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing this debate. He referred to not having a great deal of luck in applying for debates; perhaps he is right that he has not faced as much competition because this is the last day before recess. But he is also right that this is an important issue. Given the number of Members here today, there are clearly things that people wished to raise. I want to address as many of the points as I can in the time that I have. If I do not get around to all of them, I will ensure that the relevant Minister responds. I start by stating the current position. In January, we announced that we were reviewing the UK internal market, a move that would be quicker and broader than was required in statute. We published a public consultation on the operation of the UK Internal Market Act 2020, and at the outset of the consultation the Government made it clear that they would not repeal any part of the Act, as it contains important provisions relating to the Windsor framework and the unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods to Great Britain. It is important that we have that in the back of our minds when debating these issues. Upholding Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market was a key manifesto commitment, and we are determined to fulfil it. At the time, the Government stated that they were not minded to weaken the protections offered by the market access principles in the Act. Those protections facilitate the free movement of goods, provision of services and recognition of professional qualifications, resulting in real benefits for businesses and people across the whole of the UK. We recognise, however, the concerns—and hear them again today—about how the UK internal market has been operating in practice, particularly for businesses. The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), made a written ministerial statement to the House last week with the Government’s response to the review and the public consultation. The review made clear that businesses across all sectors strongly support the UK Internal Market Act’s market access principles to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.

• 22 Jul 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), for giving me ample time to respond to the many issues that have been raised. He may be keen to take a phone call as a result of the shadow Cabinet reshuffle; maybe there is a promotion or relegation in the offing. I know that he has been keenly checking his messages all afternoon.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Parental Leave · Hansard source

  More

  We are not turning our back on parents or children. We are actually having the biggest expansion in workers’ rights and family-friendly policies that we have seen in a generation. Clearly, we will not be able to satisfy every issue in this area, but that is the point of the review. We are looking at the system in the round. It needs improving and modernising and that is what we intend to do.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Parental Leave · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his efforts in this area, and indeed for highlighting the excellent work that some businesses are already doing, going further than the statutory minimum. As we know, when it comes to supporting working parents, every little helps. This review will be evidence based. It will reflect and consider the views and experiences of those who engage with the parental leave and pay system. I encourage all businesses to contribute to the call for evidence, which was launched earlier this month. I can assure my hon. Friend that I plan to engage constructively with businesses, including Tesco and business representatives, throughout the period of the review.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Parental Leave · Hansard source

  More

  Through our landmark Employment Rights Bill, we are making paternity leave and unpaid parental leave day one rights. This aligns then with maternity and adoption leave. But we are going further. We have launched the parental leave review, fulfilling our manifesto commitment. The review will explore how the system can support working families and our modern economy. It will assess the system against four key goals: supporting maternal health; boosting economic growth through increased labour market participation; enabling flexible, balanced childcare choices; and, of course, ensuring the best start in life for our children.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right to pay tribute to the tremendous work that posties do up and down the country, rain or shine, to deliver the mail. There have, of course, been issues with performance in the Royal Mail. I am happy to discuss that further with him, and to make sure, with the help of Ofcom, that we get the service that everyone deserves.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) on securing her first Adjournment debate. She has chosen a topic extremely well and, as she highlighted, it is really important that we draw attention to the incredible courage of the women who participated in the matchgirls’ strike. It is important that this House acknowledges and recognises this very important piece of British history. As my hon. Friend touched on, these young women, many of whom were teenagers, worked in absolutely appalling conditions. We have made great advancements in working conditions in recent decades, but it was a particularly horrendous set of circumstances, even for the time. Women working at the match factory suffered from what was described as phossy jaw, a painful and disfiguring disease caused by exposure to white phosphorus. They endured 14-hour working days in overcrowded and poorly ventilated conditions, and their strike was a watershed moment. It garnered widespread public support, and ultimately forced Bryant & May to concede to their demands. It is right that the names of these courageous women are included on the parliamentary record, and I thank my hon. Friend for doing that. As hon. Members will know, the matchgirls’ strike took place a year before the more famous London dockworkers’ dispute of 1889, which was so formative in the growth of trade unions, including of course today’s GMB union. For the record, I draw attention to my proud membership of the GMB. The organised female workforce showed those working on the docks just what was possible when workers stand up for their rights; they showed that insecurity and unfairness at work never have to be tolerated. The labour movement is a living, breathing one and we can take inspiration from each other, including those who have gone before us in the struggle for improved working conditions. I was pleased to be able to visit the exhibition on the Committee corridor mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I highly recommend that other Members take the time to visit it and learn more about the history of these struggles. The legacy of these women is wholly remarkable. They were part of a trade union movement that achieved so much, as we can see when we look back now: discrimination protection, paid holiday entitlement, paid maternity leave, and the right to request flexible working. So many advances have come from those beginnings. However, as has been touched on, there are still many issues of unfairness that need to be addressed today. A recent survey by the Young Women’s Trust found that 67% of women said they had faced discrimination, 37% believe they have had to endure unsafe working environments, 26% have experienced sexual harassment at work, and 50% had not received pay when off sick. I am pleased to say that we are hoping to address all those matters. My hon. Friend raised an important point about young women’s awareness of their rights at work, and it is crystal clear that we need that in order to be effective in enforcing our rights. I hope that we, as a Labour Government, will be able to trumpet that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) spoke with great passion and made the important point that the courage that these women showed was instrumental in and inspirational to the formation of the Labour party. It was not yet formed at the time of the strike, but the growth of the trade union movement and the belief that Governments at the time were not representing the interests of working people led to the formation of the Labour Representation Committee and then the Labour party itself. We are proud to be a part of that tradition. As a Labour Government, we want to continue the work done by the matchgirls and ensure that workplaces are safe for women. The Employment Rights Bill is helping us achieve exactly that by tackling non-disclosure agreements used to cover up sexual harassment, in a development that only this week has been called world leading. We are strengthening dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers, and expanding gender pay gap action plans. As has been touched on, the pivotal role that the fair work agency will have in ensuring that existing and new rights are enforced cannot be overstated. The Employment Rights Bill also addresses insecure work such as exploitative zero-hours contracts and the heinous practice of fire and rehire. We know from research that women are more likely to be in insecure work, with an estimated 650,000 women on zero-hours contracts, compared with 519,000 men. So the struggle continues: the work never ceases but the determination of this Government to address workers’ rights and improve protections in the workplace is undimmed. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow for her assistance on the Employment Rights Public Bill Committee. She has carried on her keen interest in this area, helping to push for improved rights at work, as well as rightly celebrating those who have had to fight for their rights in the past. The Government’s plan to make work pay is delivering real change for millions of people. The work this Government are doing on our transformative agenda, which is led of course by a woman—the Deputy Prime Minister—shows that we are staying true to the spirit of the matchgirls and the trade union movement, and we are renewing our country so that it once again serves the interests of working people. The Employment Rights Bill is a generational leap forward in workers’ protections, and I believe it will be one of the proudest achievements of this Labour Government. I will turn to my hon. Friend’s points on education. She will know that the Department for Education provides a statutory national curriculum that sets out the subjects and broad content to be taught in maintained schools across England. Within that framework, schools have a degree of flexibility, especially in subjects such as history. There are parts of the history curriculum that lend themselves to teaching about the matchgirls’ strike. In key stage 1, there is teaching about “the lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievements”, during which “aspects of life in different periods” can be taught. In key stage 3, there is the theme of ideas, political power, industry and empire in Britain between 1745 and 1901. It can also be taught as part of any local history content in the curriculum, which is particularly pertinent in my hon. Friend’s area. By coincidence, when I spoke to my parliamentary assistant just before I entered the Chamber, he told me that he was informed of the matchgirls’ struggles during his education, and I hope that that is repeated up and down the country. Oak National Academy offers a resource on the matchgirls’ strike for year 8 pupils, and resources are also available from the Historical Association, English Heritage and the National Archives. Turning to my hon. Friend’s points on commemoration, this country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating its national and local individuals through statues and memorials, which serve as a long-lasting reminder of individuals and their efforts for this country and help to bridge the gap between the past and the present. As she will know, it is not normal practice for central Government to fund such monuments, but there is a long history of memorials and statues being funded by public subscription, and the Government support that approach. Experience has shown that investors, including from the private sector, are often happy and willing to fund new memorials. Many organisations—public and private— are rightly able, subject to the relevant permissions, to freely propose, fund, develop and deliver memorials marking a variety of incidents and historical moments in a way that they are best placed to deem appropriate and sensitive. Many successful memorials are created by a wide range of authorities and organisations, which are able to respond sensitively to the particular circumstances that they seek to commemorate.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike · Hansard source

  More

  I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Redhills on that achievement. If it is opening in the autumn, I hope it will be ready for when I come and visit her in her constituency. Perhaps those involved would like to work to that as a target. As we know, a great many people and organisations are interested in establishing memorials, and as a general rule it is for those groups to work with the relevant local planning authority and other organisations to identify a suitable site and obtain the necessary planning permissions. That said, the Government provide indirect assistance through the memorial grant scheme, which is administered by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The scheme makes grants towards the VAT incurred by charities and faith groups in the construction, repair and maintenance of public memorial structures, including war memorials. The scheme has a fixed budget of £500,000 a year for this spending period. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow to correspond with the DCMS if she wishes to seek further advice on the commemoration process. In conclusion, I once again thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House, and for providing the opportunity for the names of those truly courageous and inspirational matchgirls to be forever immortalised in Hansard . That is a fitting tribute, which my hon. Friend has delivered for this House today. Question put and agreed to.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Financial Assistance to Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake, during the period beginning with the date of approval of this motion and ending on 31 July 2030, to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, grants to businesses as part of His Majesty’s Government’s project to support zero-emission vehicle manufacturing in the UK and the UK’s automotive supply chain, including to support the creation of jobs, private investment into the UK, the development of the automotive industry and emission reductions, up to an overall limit of £1 billion, and to pay during or after that period the grants that are undertaken to be paid. As hon. Members will be aware, I am not the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), but she has duly authorised me to move and speak to the motion. I hope hon. Members agree that the UK boasts a dynamic, diverse and fast-developing automotive sector, built on a rich industrial heritage. The sector is a significant driver of economic growth, contributing £21.4 billion in gross value added to our economy last year alone, and it proudly employs a workforce of 132,000 people. Those jobs are spread across the UK, mostly outside London and the south-east, with notable car plants and auto businesses in the west midlands, the north-east and Wales—and, I will add, because my officials have not put this in, in the north-west. Despite our many well-established strengths, the UK and indeed the global automotive sectors are facing real economic pressure while also transitioning to a zero emission vehicle future. With those challenges come a wealth of opportunities, however. Last month, the Government fulfilled a promise to publish our long-term, modern industrial strategy. That plan unites the whole of Government behind a single purpose, tackling issues across skills, regulation, energy prices and infrastructure. Crucially, the strategy will promote investment and growth in advanced manufacturing sectors, at the heart of which is UK automotive. Targeting ambitious growth requires strong Government action to support businesses and guide that progress. The advanced manufacturing sector plan sets a vision for the UK automotive sector. In addition to a range of other growth driving measures, it commits £2.5 billion via the new DRIVE35 programme to accelerate research and investment in vehicle electrification through to 2035. As part of DRIVE35, we propose today to commit £1 billion through section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to support zero emission vehicle manufacturing in the UK. This will be an inclusive and wide-ranging support offer for our automotive sector, and it will be available for businesses of all stages, sizes and maturity, supporting growth in every corner of the UK. DRIVE35 will serve a broad spectrum of technologies, from established high-volume vehicle manufacturing and multibillion-pound gigafactories all the way to start-ups, prototypes and cutting-edge automotive innovation. It will build on the successes of the automotive transformation fund and Advanced Propulsion Centre research and development competitions, which have unlocked more than £6 billion in private investment. This intervention will ensure that the UK automotive industry can grow and thrive. It will provide the resources for it to move from strength to strength and remain the high-innovation, high-productivity sector that it is today. By cementing strategic technologies and bolstering regional manufacturing clusters, we will seek to leverage a minimum of £6.6 billion of private investment. This really matters, because without new investment, the sector risks losing out to fierce competition from abroad. That in turn means fewer car sales, a loss of economic activity and a risk to jobs in parts of the country. That is why we are taking a strategic approach to UK automotive investment. The Government and our delivery partner, the Advanced Propulsion Centre, will engage proactively with potential investors. This comprehensive support will help businesses with all aspects, ranging from expertise on technologies and scale-up to site selection, planning and energy infrastructure, and facilitating introductions with trade bodies and other businesses. Of course, we will also consult vehicle manufacturers directly to identify their supply chain needs and preferences for local sourcing. These insights will guide our approach and remain aligned with the evolving automotive landscape. To summarise, the Government seek authority to make this intervention, because it will secure the UK automotive sector’s position as a leader in the clean energy transition. It will help us to protect jobs and create new ones in our car plants across our manufacturing heartlands. The intervention also directly supports our plan for change and our mission to kickstart economic growth by backing the industries of the future. It will help us to deliver a new decade of national renewal for both our automotive sector and our wider economy. I am grateful for the support of hon. Members from across the House in this endeavour.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Financial Assistance to Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I acknowledge the shadow Minister’s consistency: he opposed his own Government’s policies in this area and now he is opposing ours. Clearly he disagrees vehemently with the direction of travel of the drive—pardon the pun—for electric vehicles. He rightly referred to some of the challenges, such as range, but I disagree with his analysis that this is a failing market. EV sales in the UK last year were the highest in Europe and the third highest in the world, a 20% increase on the previous year. There is a capacity and an appetite for moving to cleaner and greener modes of transportation. We have responded to some of the concerns raised by industry about the rigidity of the previous target and there have been flexibilities added in as a result of discussions with the automotive sector. This is about levering in private investment; it is about £1 billion of public money supporting the automotive sector. Although the shadow Minister might disagree with the overall policy intent, voting against this motion does not change that—all it will do is to prevent £1 billion of support to the automotive sector, with the effect that that will have on jobs, on investment in R&D and on the confidence that we need to send to the industry about our support for the sector. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is very supportive of our policies and wants us to get on with DRIVE35, which underpins this motion. I understand why the shadow Minister is not happy with this motion, but his vote against it, if carried, would have a direct impact on jobs and investment in manufacturing in this country, and that is something the Government cannot support. Question put.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Company Directors (Duties) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on introducing the Bill and on squeezing in his remarks under the wire. He made some important observations. Clearly, we do not have the time we would like to explore the provisions in more detail, but I understand that I will be engaging with him—

• 4 Jul 2025 · Company Directors (Duties) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I may have anticipated the hon. Member’s intervention; I will be engaging with him shortly on the Bill’s provisions. It is not a Bill that the Government will be able to support, but I do want to have further conversations with him about it. It is important that we recognise directors’ duties for what they are: a cornerstone of UK company law. They help to ensure that companies are run responsibly and, importantly, that directors act with integrity at all times. We are really talking about section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, which the Bill seeks to amend. That is a key part of the directors’ duties framework, which was developed in the light of the major company law review commissioned by the previous Labour Government. I want to be clear that section 172 as it stands already places a legal duty on directors to have regard in their decision making to the interests of employees and the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment. It also requires directors to consider a range of other factors, including the impact of any decision on the long-term success of the company.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Whistleblowers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate on the contribution of whistleblowers. I thank all the Members who have contributed to it. I join my hon. Friend’s tribute to those who blow the whistle, and I acknowledge the comments from various Members that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it could be. I welcome the many views expressed on potential reforms. Whistleblowers play a valuable role in shining a light on wrongdoing. Workers who blow the whistle deserve to be taken seriously and not treated poorly by their employers for doing the right thing. The Public Interest Disclosure Act was considered world leading in 1998, when it amended the Employment Rights Act 1996 to introduce protections for whistleblowers. Those protections ensure that workers who blow the whistle on certain types of wrongdoing are protected from dismissal or detriment if certain conditions are met. That is known as a protected disclosure. For a worker to receive protection, they must reasonably believe that a disclosure is in the public interest; the disclosure must concern one or more of the types of wrongdoing listed in the Act, such as a criminal offence or a danger to health and safety, and the worker must make the disclosure to their employer, another responsible person or one of the organisations prescribed in legislation. There are more than 90 prescribed persons that a worker may make a protective disclosure to, including many regulators that we are familiar with, such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. The list of prescribed persons is regularly updated and has been updated in the past 12 months. I hope that allays the concern of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who said that we are rolling back on these issues. Our protections are strong, but it is fair to say that, after a quarter of a century, there is work to be done to modernise the framework. A whole range of issues have been raised about how we may improve things. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset asked whether there should be a duty on employers to investigate when a disclosure is made. Currently, there is no legal requirement for employers to investigate protected disclosures, which sadly enables some employers to ignore a disclosure or to fail to take the necessary corrective actions to address whistleblowing reports, although, as I have mentioned, there are a great number of external bodies that whistleblowers can report matters to, should their employer not take action. We should acknowledge that many employers have policies and procedures in place that they follow in good faith to ensure that action is taken. That is particularly the case in some of the sectors that are heavily regulated. A general duty to investigate does raise questions about what that would actually entail: what would a good duty look like? Disclosures can be made on a wide range of issues, so we need to think carefully about how such a duty would work in practice. One of the structural issues with the legislation is that a disclosure can be made and investigated, but that does not prevent detrimental treatment or dismissal for the individual. The protections are effectively retrospective in their application, but that is an important point that we will consider further. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset proposed adopting the US model of financial incentives, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) raised a similar issue. We will certainly consider those matters. Hon. Members may be aware from the autumn Budget, as reaffirmed at the spring statement by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), that the Government will strengthen HMRC’s scheme for rewarding informants to encourage reporting of high-value tax fraud and tax avoidance. A new scheme will launch later this year, which will look to target serious non-compliance by large companies, wealthy individuals, and offshore avoidance schemes. It will take some inspiration from successful US and Canadian models, which were referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West. He mentioned that $50.4 billion had been recovered thanks to whistleblowers in the US. I am sure that the Chancellor would be very receptive to that kind of figure finding its way into her coffers. I will look at the recommendations made by the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West mentioned. Importantly, he pointed out that companies facing a disclosure often look at it as a reputational threat rather than a wrong to be corrected. That is a very wise observation about the current deficiencies in the scheme. Actually, that issue is often about the culture in organisations rather than the legal framework. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) referred to the profound and effective cultural shift in the airline safety sector, which has helped people to feel empowered to speak up. As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a strong contribution. He mentioned his friend Brian, as he has done previously. He said that for Brian, doing the right thing was the natural thing to do, but that does not mean it was any less courageous. I pay tribute to Brian and the hon. Member for Strangford for raising his issues. He astutely observed that the clue is in the name—these are protected disclosures, and at the moment, protection does not always follow disclosure. The contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), as we would expect, drew heavily on her legal experience, for which I am always grateful. She mentioned a recent EU directive about expanding the definition of those covered by whistleblowing. A number of arguments are being put forward to expand the current legal definition beyond workers, including calls to include the self-employed—as we know, there are a whole range of employment protections for which the self-employed do not have parity with workers or directly employed individuals—but also non-executive directors and charity trustees. I recognise that Protect has been working and campaigning on this issue for a good period of time. I met representatives of Protect earlier this year, and my officials will continue to engage with them on these important issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton also mentioned the question of legal tests. There is awareness in government that employers sometimes rely on reasons that are not, on the face of it, directly related to protected disclosure but are, as my hon. Friend articulately set out, very much related to that when we get underneath into the detail. That particularly relates to the idea that providing unwelcome advice is being classed as a performance issue. I recognise the characterisation of irretrievable breakdowns in the workplace, which can happen for a number of reasons, including when a whistleblower does not feel that their voice is being heard. I recognise those concerns. Another point we need to reflect on is that there is not enough public awareness and knowledge of how whistleblowing legislation works. Many workers are unsure of their rights or how to make disclosures within the current framework. Indeed, when I was in practice, I recall telling individuals who had talked to me about their situation at work that they had probably made a protected disclosure. They had never thought about what they did in those terms, but the law was there to protect them. The framework entitles people to bring employment tribunal cases to seek a remedy following dismissal or detrimental treatment, but that is often a slow, costly and complex method of redress. I was concerned to hear the statistics my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset gave about the success rates for those claims. If an individual is in an employment tribunal having made a protected disclosure, it is almost certain that that employment relationship has come to an end anyway. I also recognise that the framework does not actually require confidentiality or anonymity for whistleblowers, which can sometimes deter people for fear of retribution. A number of Members asked whether we should have an office of the whistleblower. As the shadow Minister says, proposals have been made in the other place. My understanding is that such an office would not only protect whistleblowers, oversee whistleblowing processes and enforce compliance and reporting standards, but establish new criminal sanctions for non-compliance. It would be a significant change to the existing framework. There are a number of different suggestions about how it would operate in practice, but it is something we are taking an interest in. The shadow Minister asked about the Grant Thornton review, which began under the Conservative Government. I can commit to that report being realised very shortly. It does not make recommendations for reform, but it provides some observations and insights into how the current framework operates. As one would expect, it has obtained stakeholder feedback and there has been a literature review. We will be able to build on it moving forward. The shadow Minister also characterised—I think unfairly—our approach as regressive. He will know that the Employment Rights Bill includes additional protections for whistleblowers and those who speak up about sexual harassment. I do not expect he will support the Bill, even though it includes those measures. He mentioned the changes in the NHS framework. The freedom to speak up process still applies in the NHS. On the armed forces suggestions, the whole purpose of the Bill is to give a framework for people to be able to speak up about their treatment, including families of those in the armed forces. The protections in the Bill, which is now in the other place, will signal to employers that workers who make protected disclosures about sexual harassment in particular must be treated fairly. Workers will have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to detriment for speaking up about sexual harassment. We have also committed to implementing professional standards for NHS managers to hold them accountable for silencing whistleblowers or endangering patients through misconduct. As we heard from the Prime Minister earlier today, we remain fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and sanctions for those who refuse to comply. The recent Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) (Amendment) Order 2025 allows workers to make protected disclosures to relevant Government Departments or on suspected breaches of sanctions. These changes will help workers to qualify for employment protections when disclosing to Government information relating to financial, transport and certain trade sanctions, and seek redress should they suffer detriment or dismissal at work due to making a protected disclosure. I appreciate that we need to consider many issues. A range of ideas has been put forward, and it is important that we take the opportunity to explore them further, so that we find the right solutions that work for everyone in the economy, and give whistleblowers the protection that everyone agrees they need.