Justin Madders MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 3 reflects an ambition to streamline and modernise our approach to the enforcement of product regulations to ensure that it is proportionate and effective. We will ensure that the tools available for enforcement are effective so that we may further level the playing field for businesses and provide UK consumers with deepened confidence in their purchasing. Many of the powers contained within existing legislation overlap with one another, which has created a proliferated system that is undermined by its complexity. The clause will enable the introduction of regulations that consolidate existing enforcement powers. New regulations will implement a set of flexible, proportionate and effective enforcement tools. The new toolkit will continue to cover activities relating to the monitoring, investigation, sanctioning and remediation of non-compliance with product safety regulations. By delivering these changes through regulations, we will be able to flex and adapt to the marketplace quickly. We will be able to ensure that duties can always be enforced, and it is imperative that duties can be enforced without ambiguity. Through regulations enabled by this clause, we will simplify powers to ensure that they are applicable inland and at the border. We will also ensure that powers are available to enforce duties on all those holding responsibility in the supply chain. Powers should be applicable without unnecessary complexity wherever product regulations require enforcement. Additionally, we intend to augment existing powers carefully with precedented powers such as improvement notices and undertakings, which will provide proportionate routes for resolving non-compliance. Another power under the clause is one to widen or create criminal offences, as well as introduce civil sanctions for the first time. We have committed to following the affirmative procedure when introducing regulations that seek to use the power to widen or create criminal offences. The power will allow offences to meet the requirements imposed by product regulations. Offences and penalties are already often set out in regulations, so this approach follows precedent. Finally, the clause will allow the Secretary of State to designate relevant authorities responsible for product regulation enforcement to both ensure flexibility and provide additional clarity. We have included a non-exhaustive list of those relevant authorities in the Bill’s explanatory notes. As I have mentioned, relevant authorities will include those currently enforcing product regulation, such as local authority enforcement teams, the Office for Product Safety and Standards and the Health and Safety Executive. Relevant authorities will have access to the new, consolidated toolkit of enforcement powers that I have described. The clause is necessary for the proper enforcement of the UK’s product safety regime, and I commend it to the Committee.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 6 reflects an ambition to streamline and modernise our approach to the enforcement of metrology regulations, in the same way that clause 3 seeks to do for the enforcement of product regulations. We will ensure that the tools available for enforcement are effective and proportionate so that we may further level the playing field for businesses and provide UK consumers with deepened confidence in their purchasing. Many of the metrology enforcement powers in existing legislation overlap with one another, which has created a proliferated system that is undermined by its complexity. As for product regulations, clause 6 will enable the introduction of metrology regulations that consolidate the existing metrology enforcement powers. New regulations will implement a set of flexible, distinct and efficient enforcement tools. That toolkit will continue to cover activities relating to the monitoring, investigation, sanctioning and remediation of non-compliance with metrology regulations. By delivering these changes through regulations, we will be able to flex and adapt to the marketplace—for example, ensuring that duties can always be enforced even when changes are made by regulations. It is imperative to ensure that all duties imposed may be enforced without ambiguity. We intend to carefully augment existing enforcement powers with precedented powers, such as improvement notices and undertakings, which will provide proportionate routes for resolving non-compliance. Another power under this clause will widen or create criminal offences, as well as civil sanctions. As clause 3 does for product regulations, so the power in clause 6 will allow offences to fit the requirements imposed by metrology regulations. The clause also provides that metrology regulations may provide for the use of civil sanctions, including fines for certain offences. That power will allow offences to proportionately meet the requirements imposed by metrology regulations. Offences and penalties are already often set out in regulations, so the approach follows precedent. The clause will allow the Secretary of State to designate “relevant authorities” responsible for metrology regulation enforcement. To ensure flexibility but provide additional clarity, we have included a non-exhaustive list of those relevant authorities in the Bill’s explanatory notes. Relevant authorities will have access to the new, consolidated toolkit of enforcement powers that I have described. The clause is necessary for the modernisation and enforcement of the UK’s metrology regime.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am beginning to wonder whether Opposition Members think that “Capricorn One” was a documentary rather than a work of fiction. We are really entering some quite interesting territory about what evil plots this Government have, which of course is not the case at all. Amendment 26 seeks to remove the ability to create or widen criminal offences, or to implement civil sanctions, through regulations. The harm caused by breaches of regulations can vary considerably depending on the product sector. Consequently, offences and penalties must be tailored to the specific requirements of a given sector and the seriousness of the breach. The consequences of failing to provide the necessary instructions for a product could be entirely different for a highly sensitive component within a nuclear energy installation than for a lower-risk product. Reducing enforcement flexibility to a series of broad, rigid offences would negatively impact relevant authorities’ ability to enforce proportionately. Attempting to draft very broad offences and penalties in the Bill, to capture requirements in a less targeted way, would actually undermine legal clarity and the principles of the rule of law. There was talk from Opposition Members about how this would all be done through the back door. The affirmative procedure will apply where new offences are created or widened, so there will be no rubber-stamping after the event. There will be parliamentary scrutiny, as one would expect. We have considered the views of the DPRRC, but we have taken this approach in the Bill because it is not, in fact, unique to it. The shadow Minister said that she was shocked when she saw these subsections. I wonder whether she was equally shocked when criminal offences were created in regulations by the Building Safety Act 2022, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 or the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Those all included similar powers to the ones that we are talking about now, but I do not recall Opposition Members expressing shock and dismay at what was happening. Existing product regulations, such as the Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013, also contained offences and penalties, further demonstrating that this is not a departure from existing practice. The Bill has also placed limits on the maximum criminal penalties that may be implemented for contraventions of product regulations. Product regulations made under the Bill will not be able to exceed maximum criminal penalties that reflect the existing maxima. I believe that Opposition Members are making this a far more dramatic issue that it needs to be, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  Certainly, Mr Twigg. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this important debate. Before I talk about hon. Members’ contributions, it is worth reminding the House of the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Hon. Members obviously have a great deal of understanding of what it does, but it is important to put on the record its limits, which a number of Members referred to. In primary colours, its role is to enforce the groceries supply code of practice by providing advice and guidance to suppliers and large retailers on matters relating to the code; arbitrating in disputes between large retailers and their direct suppliers; investigating issues to ascertain whether there has been non-compliance with the code; and imposing sanctions and other remedies for breach of the code. The code applies to the 14 largest grocery retailers in the UK, which have an annual turnover of £1 billion or more. Some Members spoke about changing that threshold—I would be interested to see what the effect would be—but it has been in place for some time. The competition measure is owned by the Competition and Markets Authority, and was put in place following a very detailed market investigation in 2008, which found that direct suppliers of groceries to large supermarkets faced unfair risks that adversely affected competition and, ultimately, consumers. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and others mentioned, it was in no small part due to a great deal of campaigning from a number of groups and hon. Members that the code saw the light of day. The code regulates designated retailers’ dealings with their direct suppliers, which, as we have heard, do not include all the farmers and primary producers. Although it prevents the unilateral variation of supply agreements without notice, puts limits on seeking payments for wastage and requires retailers to pay for goods on time, it does not regulate the prices agreed between retailers and suppliers, which is a commercial negotiation between the two parties. However, it requires that such negotiations be conducted fairly and transparently, and the GCA has been keen to ensure that negotiations around cost price pressures do not lead to non-compliance with the code. In 2022, the GCA published the seven golden rules to remind retailers of best practice when agreeing prices with suppliers, and all the regulated retailers have signed up to them. As we have heard, the GCA was established in June 2013, and since then there has been strong evidence to show that it has been effective in promoting compliance with the code and in changing retailers’ behaviour to improve fairness for direct suppliers. Improvements in retailer compliance with the code are evident from the annual survey. Average compliance with the code has increased from 75% in 2014, when the code was introduced, to 91% in 2024. It is also positive to see that among suppliers there is a high level of awareness of the GCA and the code itself, although I noted that the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said that there is a question about awareness among some farmers, and I am happy to explore that further with him. Moreover, all three statutory reviews of the effectiveness of the GCA concluded that it has been a highly effective regulator. The next review will commence after 31 March, and will look at the performance over the past three years, from 2022 to 2025. Given what we have heard today, I encourage hon. Members and their constituents to contribute to it. The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the adjudicator’s remit and resources, and there will be an opportunity for him to feed those comments into the review. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned what he described as bullying by supermarkets. A number of hon. Members talked about a fear of reprisals for raising concerns, and we obviously take that very seriously. It is important to note that the GCA has a statutory requirement to maintain supplier confidentiality. It has relaunched the Code Confident campaign and a confidential reporting platform called “Tell the GCA”, and published a code compliance officer commitment to confidentiality. The 2024 annual survey reported that 82% of suppliers were aware of its commitment to confidentiality. That is a good report, but obviously 18% were unaware of it, and clearly there is a perception out there that matters can find their way back to the supermarkets, which is something we can look further into. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe and a number of others questioned why the GCA cannot instigate its own investigations. I am told that it can carry out investigations of its own accord if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a large retailer has broken the code or failed to follow a recommendation following a previous investigation by the adjudicator. It is for the adjudicator to determine how he uses his powers, and he has issued statutory guidance setting out his criteria for launching an investigation. The adjudicator’s four prioritisation principles ensure that he targets resources effectively and proportionately. Impact, strategic importance, risk and benefits, and resources are all part of those principles.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Desmond. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 6 December 2024. The Government are committed to increasing transparency of beneficial ownership and combating economic crime. Hon. Members will be aware that since 2022 the UK has had a public register of beneficial ownership of overseas entities that own property in the UK, known as the register of overseas entities. The draft regulations will strengthen the transparency of trust information on the ROE to further improve transparency around the ownership and control of land. The ROE, which was created by the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, requires overseas entities that own or buy property in the UK to give information to Companies House about their beneficial owners and/or managing officers. The ROE is a key tool in cracking down on dirty money in the UK and is crucial in the fight against bad actors who use UK property as a money-laundering vehicle. The information available on the ROE has been used by many journalists examining corruption, money laundering and assets held by individuals who are subject to sanctions. Currently, the ROE collects trust information, but there is no public access to that data, other than the name of the trustee. This approach protects the right to privacy for those who operate such structures for a variety of legitimate reasons. However, the Government understand that there are concerns around the use of trusts to facilitate economic crime, particularly because their anonymity makes assets easier to hide. The draft regulations have been designed to provide further transparency and prevent potential abuse of trusts, while supporting legitimate trust arrangements. They have been laid before the House under powers contained in the 2022 Act, as amended by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. The draft regulations consist of two measures. First, they will enable anyone to apply to Companies House to access trust information held on the ROE. This marks a significant step forward in transparency, empowering the public and civil society to scrutinise trust beneficiaries on the ROE more effectively. Anyone can apply to the registrar of companies for information about a specific trust. Applicants must provide their personal information, the name of the trust related to the relevant protected trust information, and the overseas entity’s name and ID. Applicants seeking trust information related to minors, or to more than one overseas entity in a single application, must meet a legitimate interest for the requested disclosures. This will ensure that the vulnerable are protected but that critical information is available to those with a valid need, such as investigative journalists. By requiring this safeguard, the Government are striking a fair balance between protecting personal information and delivering on our commitment to greater transparency. Applicants will need to show a legitimate interest; they cannot just go on a fishing expedition. They must show that they are investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or breach of sanctions and must provide a statement that they are requesting the disclosure in order to further that investigation and a statement on how they plan to use the information disclosed to them. If no such interest can be demonstrated, the registrar may withhold some or all of the information. The registrar will notify the applicant of the decision and will provide reasons. If a legitimate interest can be demonstrated, the registrar will release any unprotected information. The registrar will have the discretion to impose conditions under which the trust information is disclosed, such as restricting its use or further disclosure; failure to comply with those conditions will be an offence. The registrar may also refuse an application where disclosure may prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation or adversely affect national security, or where the trust is a pension scheme. The second measure in the draft regulations involves provisions for the protection of sensitive information, which will come into force before the disclosure provisions go live. Through the draft regulations, we are expanding the category of individuals who can apply to the registrar of companies at Companies House to have their information protected. This will ensure that those connected to a trust, such as settlors, trustees and beneficiaries, whose information could be published or disclosed by the registrar under the ROE, can apply to have their details protected from disclosure, for instance where there is a risk of violence or harm. The draft regulations will also expand the grounds on which an application for protection may be made, to include the ground that the individual is under 18 or lacks capacity. The protection provisions will come into force on 28 February; the provisions on disclosure of trust information will come into force on 31 August. This will allow sufficient time for those who are eligible to do so to apply to Companies House for protection. The draft regulations will not change the fact that an application for protection does not exempt an overseas entity from the requirements of the 2022 Act in general. The required information about the trust must still be supplied to Companies House, and the registrar will still be able to use their general information-sharing power, which was introduced by the 2022 Act, to share protected information with law enforcement agencies and public authorities for purposes connected to the exercise of their functions. The draft regulations will further the Government’s mission to improve transparency of the beneficial ownership of overseas entities investing in the UK, driving confidence in our economy and exposing bad actors who seek to take advantage illegitimately. I hope that hon. Members will support the draft regulations.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The first thing to say is that the new clause came at the request of the security services, so it is not a whim on the Department’s part, and it applies specifically to the offence under clause 103 of providing false information. It would be rather rash of me to start talking about situations in which that might apply. I understand the hon. Member’s point about the wider economic test being quite broad, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, that is the established test in legislation. Given that we are talking about a defence to a specific offence under clause 103, I would suggest that the chance of this being frequently used, or indeed misused, is extremely remote, although as I say, it would be improper for me to speculate on the circumstances in which it might be used, given the sensitivities around the proposals. Question put and agreed to. Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 103 and 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 105 Offences by bodies corporate Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.