Justin Madders MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I first declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and donations from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers trade union, as well as my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions? I am not sure if we are on a ping or a pong now, but there is a whiff of stubbornness about the fact that we are back here again. Last week, I called for the Government to make this place sit every day until Christmas to ensure we got the Bill through—it is a shame that the other place took that as an invitation rather than the contingency plan it was intended to be, but, if that is what it takes, that is what we should do. We are ready. It is wrong that an unelected house, where jobs are given for life, can dig in and push back on something that will give millions of workers rights that we promised long ahead of an election, and for which we have a decisive mandate. I commend the Government and the Minister for not backing down. A deal was reached with the relevant stakeholders. It is a pragmatic compromise, and a deal they are publicly saying needs to go through. That is how mature, effective industrial relations are supposed to work. I do not think that the Lords’ arguments are particularly substantial; they are certainly not reasons to delay the Bill again. Their point that we should not agree with the lifting of the cap because it fell outside the scope of manifesto commitments in this area does not really take us very far, given that the original concession made on qualifying periods was also outside the scope of the manifesto, and of course, that is all part of the same package. It feels to me that this is more about the Lords wanting to have the final word rather than having to deal with the substance.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that there are some Conservative Back Benchers here. Last week they were all somewhere else, but now we are hearing some contributions. I was not in the room when the negotiations took place, but I understand that that was the deal. I am afraid that there have been some wilful misunderstandings on the Conservative Benches about what lifting the compensation cap actually means. Compensation for unfair dismissal is calculated by defined heads of loss under the law, so lifting the cap will not change that one bit. If the claims are still necessary, they will be there. It just means that some workers—particularly older workers who might not be able to get another job and who may have substantial pension losses—will benefit, not the fat-cat bosses that have been talked about. It is important that we stress that point. Also, I do not remember the Conservatives’ manifesto in 2010 promising to double the period for qualification on unfair dismissal. Neither do I remember a pledge in either the Tory or the Liberal Democrat manifesto to put a cap on compensation. None the less, the coalition Government pushed both those policies through. Those who claim that the lifting of the cap will see an avalanche of claims ignore the fact that the rationale used for introducing the cap in the first place was to deal with perceptions about levels of compensation people might recover—in other words, legislating on perceptions rather than on facts—and I have to say, we have heard plenty of those perceptions repeated again tonight. The Opposition can complain about a two-year wait for tribunal claims, but I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for recognising his party’s culpability in that. It is important that this Government are working with the trade unions, businesses, the judiciary and ACAS to find ways of improving our system, so that we get justice more quickly, instead of just ignoring it as the previous Government did. This Government have shown flexibility and strength to negotiate a change in order to get a deal over the line. Workers in this country should not be made to wait any longer for these important rights. It is worth reminding the House that the road map we agreed earlier this year shows that the following laws should be in place by April 2026: doubling the maximum period of the protective award; day one paternity leave and unpaid parental leave; whistleblowing protections; establishing the Fair Work Agency; day one statutory sick pay and entitlements for the first time for millions of people who have been denied them to date; and simplifying the trade union recognition process. These are not minor or trivial measures. They are substantial changes that will improve the working lives of millions of people. We should be proud that it is a Labour Government who are delivering them, and we should be determined to deliver them by April 2026. Of course, that is just the beginning. Genuine flexible working, ending zero-hours contracts, banning fire and rehire—there is much more in this Bill that really matters to working people. And there is much more beyond the Bill: the reform of TUPE and parental leave and dealing with the epidemic of bogus self-employment are of huge importance. These are the sorts of things that a radical, reforming Labour Government need to tackle, because the world of work is changing. It is changing far faster than we can legislate for, but we can insulate our constituents against the worst excesses and unintended consequences of the tech revolution by putting security and fairness at the heart of every employment relationship, and we need to do that now. If we do not, we will have failed not only to deliver on the promises we made but to stand up for the very people we were elected to represent, so I call on the other place to agree with the will of the democratically elected Chamber and to deliver finally on our promise to make work pay.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. I am sure the Department will be aware of the coverage this week of some harrowing stories about the treatment of Vodafone franchisees. Without asking Ministers to comment on specific cases, they will no doubt recognise the power imbalance in that relationship. Will they consider looking at measures to redress that imbalance, perhaps through a statutory code of practice or a national arbitration system?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  Our constituents will consider it absurd that we spend billions of pounds every year on training doctors who will never work in the NHS. I am pleased that we are grappling with this issue, just like the Secretary of State is grappling with many others. He has shown that by working constructively through the issues, we can, hopefully, reduce industrial action. I contrast that with the comments from the shadow Secretary of State, who talked about bringing back the minimum service level laws. Will the Secretary of State remind the House that those laws were so unworkable that no public sector service ever actually used them? In fact, we had the highest levels of industrial action in 40 years under the previous Government.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this debate. I declare for the record my membership of the GMB trade union. I was at that Westminster Hall debate, in which the Minister at the time said that a search had been undertaken. Given what my hon. Friend has said today about the highest levels of Government pushing this issue forward, it is very hard for us to believe that an exhaustive search was conducted at the time. During the debate, the then shadow Minister said that a Labour Government “would release documents held by Government relating to the Cammell Laird prosecutions and carry out a review into the jailing of the striking workers.” —[ Official Report, 7 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 298WH.] Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be able to agree that very quickly indeed?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We can always have a dig at the SNP, but the real enemies have been the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, the Tories and the Reform Members who have voted against this Bill consistently. They are the ones who have brought us to this point.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way anymore, because we have not got much time. I will pick up on what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said about compensation. I accept what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box. I hope that when the Lib Dem spokesperson checks back, she will be able to instruct her Lords that this measure was part of the deal and they should not block the Bill any longer. It is also telling that she has only spoken to businesses, not trade unions, about what was agreed. That shows which side the Liberal Democrats are on. It has to be pointed out that unfair dismissal compensation limits are not operated that often. Most people’s claims are much lower than that. Most people who have been unfairly dismissed who would benefit from the measure tend to be much older workers who sadly do have not any employability in the job market. They are the ones who will benefit from the uplift in compensation, not bad water bosses, because to qualify people have to be unfairly dismissed. I suspect many water bosses would struggle to show that they had been treated unfairly. Let us ensure that we get this legislation delivered and maintain vigilance across the whole agenda. That means proper meaningful access, not people being stuck in a shed somewhere far away from where the workers are, and serious fines linked to turnover for those who do not play by the rules. It means no loopholes and proper deterrents on fire and rehire so that companies do not think it is even worth going there. We do not want to see those P&O scenes repeated anywhere. It also means holding firm on some of the nonsense that we are still hearing today about zero-hours contracts. People seem to have a problem with fixed-term contracts and zero-hours contracts being completely different things. There has been a lot of conflation there, I am sad to say. What comes next is important, because the Make Work Pay agenda is not just about this Bill. Let us get this Bill over the line and delivered, and let us get all the important regulations implemented, but there are so many other important things that we need to tackle in our workplaces in this country, particularly, bogus self-employment. That is going well beyond the gig economy; in fact, it is an epidemic, and it is important that we tackle it. The Bill will level the playing field, allowing good employers to compete fairly, and create more security at work. Employing people with proper terms and conditions may even lead to a greater tax take. Further down the line, we must tackle unfair dismissal law, which is half a century old and desperately needs updating, but that is for another day. We have debated the Bill for over a year, and it is about time the Lords accepted the democratic mandate and accepted that we must deliver it. Let us get it over the line, and let us start delivering for working people in this country.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I first declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the donation from USDAW trade union, as well as my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions? I declare an interest as someone who represented working people before I came into this place and as someone who wants to see this Bill come into law. I also declare an interest of someone who wants to see my constituents get some decent protections at work after so long. This has to be it. This has to be the line in the sand. This Bill was introduced more than a year ago, and the delays have been so long—it was in the Lords for nine months—that even our modest statutory sick pay proposals are at risk of being delayed. The message to the Lords has to be, “This is enough.” This Bill was a clear manifesto commitment, and it pains me that we have had to jettison part of it to get it over the line. I understand why that had to happen, and I commend the Minister for finding a way through, because this legislation matters to my constituents. What she said about employment tribunals is important, too. We need to do an awful lot more work to ensure that people enjoy real justice. The Lords cannot keep coming back because they do not like what is in this Bill. It is a promise we made to the British people, and we have to deliver on it. We have to let democracy win. If the Lords block the Bill again, let them explain to the 7 million people who still have to go into work when they are ill that they cannot get the day one SSP rights because the Bill has been delayed. Let the Lords explain it to the father whom they have denied day one rights to paternity leave, if he has a child after April, by blocking the Bill again. Let the Lords explain why we cannot have a fair work agency, which is something even the Tories used to promise they needed to deliver. Let us meet every day until Christmas, if the Lords block this Bill again. Let us keep going back. Let us show some steel. Let us show that we will not let this Bill lie in the sand for too much longer. If the Lords complain about having to work extra hours, let us advise them to join a trade union.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. As always with a Budget, there is far more to say than one can fit in a speech, but I just want to start by saying that the decision by the Chancellor to increase the headroom is not one that will garner many headlines or capture the public’s imagination, but it is probably one of the single most important things in the Budget. We simply could not have had another year where every bit of speculation on policy led to speculation on the markets, pushing up borrowing costs and leading to a constant cycle of uncertainty. I hope that this increased buffer and the move to annual forecasts will mean that we get some stability back, and that we will see the OBR—under new leadership—make far more accurate predictions and forecasts in the future than it has made to date. I support the measures in the Budget that have been introduced to put more money into people’s pockets. My constituents will welcome another above-inflation increase in the minimum wage and the freeze to prescription charges, as well as the £150 reduction to average household energy bills, rising to £300 for the poorest households. Energy and transport costs make up a significant proportion of household expenditure, particularly for those on the lowest incomes. I hope that the rail freeze will also apply to Merseyrail, which is the main rail line for my constituents. It did seem a bit odd that we could not get confirmation from the Government last week that the freeze would apply to Merseyrail, but I see that the Transport Secretary is present—hopefully she will be able to confirm by the end of the debate that she does indeed have good news for my constituents on that score. I am also proud that Labour is treating child poverty with the seriousness that it deserves. I welcome the measure announced by the Chancellor to scrap the two-child benefit cap that has forced so many families into hardship and harmed children through no fault of their own. This measure alone will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, meaning that, alongside other measures previously announced, we will see more than half a million children taken out of poverty. More than 2,000 children in my constituency alone will be lifted out of poverty as a direct result of this Budget. I have heard commentators say that scrapping the cap was a measure simply to appease Back Benchers like me, but I think that really belittles the moral case for action. Let us be clear: this cruel policy did not achieve its initial aims, often punished families for changes in circumstances that were beyond their control, and ultimately cost our economy far more than the £3 billion a year that it saved.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to point out that the policy punished children for being born, which is not something any Labour Government should be part of. We hear that this decision may encourage people not to work, but we all know from the statistics that a majority of people in receipt of benefits are in some form of employment. As for the wider cost, the Child Poverty Action Group estimates the cost of child poverty to the country to be about £40 billion a year, so not only is scrapping the cap the morally correct thing to do; it is also the best thing for our country economically. While I understand the pressures facing the Government, I hope that the fiscal circumstances will improve in such a way to see income tax thresholds readjusted to take account of the inflationary pressure recently experienced. Going forward, we must continue to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the burden to ensure that more and more working people are not dragged into paying tax by fiscal drag. I have to say, I would like an explanation of the Chancellor’s comments about how those in receipt of the state pension will not have to pay any tax at the point that the state pension reaches the tax threshold in future. Of course they should not have to pay any tax on it, but why should a pensioner who might have a small private pension of £20 a week have to pay tax on that and their state pension? Once we start to look at some of the implications of the policy, it becomes clear that there are a number of unintended consequences. I hope that when the extra headroom that has been created by this Budget goes on to inspire further ideas in future Budgets, we can look at stopping some of the anomalies that the fiscal drag has created. I will conclude with a few words on the automotive sector. I am proud to have in my constituency a Stellantis factory—or a Vauxhall Motors factory, as it is more commonly known round where we live. It is a site I have fought hard for over the years. Of course, the factory now manufactures electric vehicles. I welcome that the Budget reinforces the commitments that were made to our automotive sector in the industrial strategy for manufacturers. I am pleased that funding for DRIVE35 has been expanded by £1.5 billion, providing £4 billion over the next 10 years, which will help to build on the important investment the automotive sector needs. I am also happy that plans to change the rules for the employee car ownership schemes have been delayed from next year until 2030, as that would undoubtedly have left many of my constituents hundreds of pounds a month worse off. Having now seen the impact of that policy, I hope the Government go the whole hog and cancel it altogether.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry; I am not going to take any more interventions. I think the pay-per-mile system is the right thing to do, although I do have concerns about the timing and how it will work in practice. I have to say, I did enjoy putting the question to Conservative Treasury Ministers when they were in government and never getting any answer at all, so I am pleased that this Government are at least acknowledging that this is an issue that needs tackling. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is right to raise concerns about what the change will mean for the sector. The OBR has forecast that there could be around 120,000 fewer electric car sales over the forecast period, which of course will not be welcome news, and certainly is not helpful for our emissions targets. It is worth pointing out that the automotive sector is already at a precariously low level of production, and of course not all sales of EVs will be for UK-manufactured vehicles. In my opinion, we really ought to be giving generous discounts—the majority of those cars are built here, so we absolutely need to see more done to boost demand. Measures such as the electric car grant, which was launched earlier this year, continue to support people who want to switch to EVs, particularly with vehicles actually made in this country—that is a very important part of the scheme. However, even with that generous incentive, the pay-per-mile proposals will see us lose ground. The Budget also contained measures on boosting charging infrastructure, which is really important, as it will give people confidence to make a purchase, but we cannot pretend that everything in this Budget goes all the way. That is, of course, before we get into the practicalities, so we need further thoughts on implementation. This is a progressive Budget. It is a Budget that protects the most vulnerable, puts money into workers’ pockets and begins to rebalance the tax system and to make it fairer. There is no doubt that there is much more to be done in the longer term: we need to see faster improvements in our crumbling public services; food inflation remains stubborn, and is predicted to continue to be high over the medium term; housing costs mean that for many, renting—let alone buying—is still out of reach; and social care costs still mean that many people lose their home at the end of their lives, so we need that review of social care to deliver. Those are longer-term challenges, but for today, I believe the Chancellor has played a difficult hand pretty well.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman must have seen my speech, because I am just about to talk about that issue. He is right that there are a number of unanswered questions. First, it is important to say that we do need to change to a pay-per-mile system for electric vehicles. The revenue we raise from fuel duty is clearly going to go down over the coming years, so there has to be a change.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to see that the Employment Rights Bill is coming back to us shortly. It has been eight and a half months since we first sent it to the other place, and the Lords keep blocking it. Now the Greens have joined the Tories and Lib Dems in blocking our manifesto commitment. I am worried that we will not get Royal Assent in time for the important changes to statutory sick pay, which will benefit millions of people, to come into force in April. Will the Leader of the House look at what he can do this side of Christmas to clear the diary and make sure that we get that Bill over the line, so that we can deliver on our manifesto promises?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Critical Minerals Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement from the Minister and refer him to the Select Committee’s report issued today on economic security, which touches on some of the issues that he has talked about. It also talks about the much wider threats to the resilience of the UK’s economy. On that point, I want to ask him about stockpiling. The statement refers to the potential for some stockpiling to take place in the defence industry, but having seen the many threats to our national security identified by the Select Committee, will he consider expanding the scope of stockpiling to other critical minerals? There is real potential for industries to be completely crippled if hostile actors wanted to take us down that route.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Budget: Press Briefings · Hansard source

  More

  The problem that we have is an insatiable 24/7 media who want stories and will sometimes generate their own. All this speculation has created uncertainty that has hampered investment, which I know is not what the Treasury wants. Will the Minister be clear from the Dispatch Box that any further speculation we read about will not have been authorised by anyone in Government?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which refers to an election donation from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and to my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions. It is nearly nine months since the Bill completed its Commons stages and over a year since it was first introduced, so it is disappointing to see yet another delay. I know that many of my constituents would want these vital manifesto commitments to be enacted as soon as possible, but recent proceedings in the other place have demonstrated the intention of the Opposition parties to elongate the process and attempt to water down important protections that the Bill offers to workers. It is as simple as this: Labour Members were elected on a manifesto that committed us to making work pay, and the Employment Rights Bill is central to delivering that. It will be the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. It is long overdue, and we will all be unashamed of our commitment to improving the lives of working people. This Bill will have a transformative impact on the world of work, and particularly on people who lack job security and dignity. Make no mistake: at every single stage the Conservatives and Reform have voted to water the Bill down or weaken its protections, and now it seems that the Liberal Democrats have joined in. Our constituents will no doubt conclude that those on the Opposition Benches are siding with the bad bosses, and I urge them to reconsider and choose the side of working people. That is not an exaggeration, because the Lords amendments under consideration will gut the Bill of important protections for the millions of people currently in insecure work. We do not have much time, so I will focus on Lords amendments 1B and 62 and Lords reason 120B, which I consider to be the most damaging amendments. Lords amendment 1B represents a continued attempt to undermine our commitment to banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. The Government, and Labour Members, have always been clear that the only way to tackle the most pernicious elements of such contracts is to make the right to guaranteed hours a right that people can genuinely exercise. Workers on zero-hours contracts are some of the least empowered in our economy, and the least able to actively assert their rights. Their working hours are inherently precarious and often depend on the vagaries of their bosses, and they are more likely to be younger and working in the lowest-paid sectors of the economy. Shifting this commitment to a “right to request” model, as the Liberal Democrat amendment suggests, would completely fail to recognise the power imbalance in the working relationship, and the real risk that assertion of rights would have negative consequences for those who just want some basic security and dignity at work. I am therefore pleased that we are rejecting those amendments. Of course, that is not the only form of insecurity that those on the Opposition Benches want to keep on the table, as they support Lords reason 120B, which seeks to allow workers to be unfairly dismissed in the first six months of their employment. Maybe those in the other place, who have jobs for life, do not understand what it feels like to be tossed aside without any explanation. Maybe they do not appreciate how debilitating it can be for someone to go into work every day with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head, knowing that, if the chop comes, there will be absolutely nothing that they can do about it, but those bills will still need paying and their dependants will still depend on them. We need to drive out the insecurity that eats away at so many hard-working people in this country.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, that is something that the Resolution Foundation said when giving evidence to the Bill Committee. I will quote that directly: “Internationally, we can draw scatter plots of the employment level in a country and the extent of employment regulation, and basically those lines come out flat. You have some countries with very high employment and very high levels of regulation, and some countries with lower employment and high regulation” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 116, Q119.] So there is no clear relationship with the employment levels across countries. That is confirmed by the OECD, which has done lots of detailed work. That is what the Resolution Foundation said in its evidence to the Bill Committee last year.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely cannot believe that the Conservative party, which saw massive increases in unemployment in my constituency in the 1980s and 1990s when they were in power, have the cheek to start talking about the effects of unemployment on my constituents now. The Resolution Foundation has said some things in recent weeks that I do not agree with, but it has said things in the past that are much more in line with what we believe the international evidence shows. So the kindest thing I can say about the Resolution Foundation is that I prefer its earlier work. I turn to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 62, on repeal of the last remnants of the Trade Union Act 2016 and the removal of thresholds for industrial action ballots. I have always held the view that the introduction of e-balloting, if done properly, will lead to much greater participation in ballots and render arguments about turnout obsolete. The implementation timetable that the Government published indicates that e-balloting will begin next April. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, can provide some reassurance that that is still on track, and that we can therefore expect the end of thresholds to come at the same time, or very shortly thereafter. I would be disappointed if the amendment was an attempt to kick this issue into the long grass. I am not particularly keen on the conditionality in the amendment, which talks about whether to repeal the thresholds. There should be no question of “whether”; it should be about “when”. After all, that is what we promised to do in our manifesto. I urge the Minister to resist any temptation to introduce any conditionality and to deliver the Make Work Pay agenda in full, as we said we would. I will conclude, because I am conscious that a number of Members wish to speak. I am proud that the Government are continuing to commit to implementing this Bill in full. The policies in the Bill are overwhelmingly popular with the public. They formed a key part of our manifesto and remain central to the Government’s plan for change. We on the Labour Benches proudly stand against those who seek to water down this Bill and hamper its implementation. We are proud to back workers and to deliver meaningful change in their working lives. We stand against maintaining the status quo of low pay, low security and little dignity at work, and we stand for job security and for delivering on our promises.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrat spokesperson has just said that it is not right that employers should pay for a mistake they made in hiring someone. Why should the employee pay for that mistake, if it was not theirs?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I am pleased that he has learned to count now; he must have improved his skills since his time under Liz Truss in the Treasury. He talked about the consensus over 30 years, but was it not his Government who introduced the Trade Union Act 2016, which did so much to damage trade union relations?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. I refer the House to my membership of Unite. I met Unite reps in the automotive sector yesterday, including from the Vauxhall plant in Ellesmere Port, who raised with me their concerns about changes to the employee car ownership scheme in the automotive sector. This will mean an increase in taxes on working people and lead to unintended consequences for the car sector. Also, it will not raise the money that the Treasury believes it will, so will the Minister meet me and the interested parties to discuss this further?

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

  More

  It is a privilege to be here today debating a Bill that has been decades in the making. Before I begin, I want to join those who have already spoken in paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of the Hillsborough survivors and those who lost loved ones in the disaster. They have been through an unimaginable ordeal spanning decades, but throughout they have shown remarkable courage, dedication and tenacity to deliver justice for their loved ones. Even after the truth about the tragedy emerged, the families have not stopped campaigning. They have long called for a systemic change to prevent anything like this from happening again. We as a country owe a great debt of gratitude to their efforts, because without them we would not be debating this Bill today. As someone who grew up in a part of the world that has lived under the shadow of Hillsborough, I know how much this means to my constituents, and not least to the families of those that have lost loved ones, so I am proud that we have acted on the pledge that we made to implement this law. The Bill addresses the key problems that we have identified time and again. How will we ultimately judge whether the Bill is a success? Two words: never again. That is the standard against which the Bill must be held. Never again should victims be wrongly blamed by the state for their deaths. Never again can we allow public bodies that are meant to protect us to lie in order to protect their own reputations. Never again must ordinary people fight tooth and nail against the seemingly endless resources of the state just to get to the truth. As we have heard, Hillsborough is by far not the only example of the scandals and cover-ups that have emerged in recent years. The well-rehearsed list gets longer every year, and it includes infected blood, the Post Office, Grenfell, nuclear test veterans and many others that we have debated in this place. The test is that we do not add to that list, and that when tragedy strikes again and serious mistakes are made, truth and accountability are on display immediately. Let us be clear, legislation is only the starting point for this. As the Prime Minister said, a culture change is also required. Establishing a legal duty of candour that requires bodies to act proactively, promptly and with full disclosure to assist inquiries, inquests and other investigations is a huge step forward, but it has to be delivered in practice, and that is the real challenge that we face. All too often—we have seen it in this place, have we not?—institutions act defensively, obfuscate and focus on protecting themselves when placed under scrutiny. With the guidance provided by codes of ethics and the threat of criminal sanctions, bodies and those working inside them should be forced to refocus and to put the public and their safety as their No. 1 priority, not to lie, and to actively support investigations and inquiries. That is what the public expect institutions to be doing already. While it should never have been required, this Bill will enshrine that basic principle into law at long last. As we have seen in the NHS, however, that is easier said than done. It is nearly 10 years since the freedom to speak up guardians were introduced, but from what I can observe, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the good intentions behind that initiative are truly embraced across the board. Only in the past week I have been contacted by several people currently working in the NHS who believe that their concerns have not been listened to, or that they have been on the end of mistreatment because they have spoken out. Legislation is one thing, but culture is another, and I would suggest that changing the culture is something that needs leadership and buy-in from every single person across every single part of every single organisation. I want to say something about equality before the law. Victims must no longer be browbeaten by lawyers in their quest for the truth, but I have some concerns about how that will work in practice, because when a public body is looking at something serious under this Bill, which it inevitably will, it will want the most senior representation it can get. If a public body can afford hundreds of pounds an hour for its lawyers, it will instruct them, but such fees will clearly be well in excess of existing legal aid rates. In that scenario, who is going to tell the public body that it has to choose cheaper lawyers? How will true equality before the law be achieved, especially if authorities only have to “have regard” to these principles? We need an overarching, independent way of monitoring this and of ensuring that recommendations from inquests and inquiries are effectively publicised and their implementation is monitored and delivered, ideally with progress reports to this place.

• 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?