Justin Madders MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On 15 June, a vehicle crashed through the fence at Sunny Days nursery in Vale Road, Ellesmere Port, injuring a number of children. Thankfully, it does not look as if there has been any long-term damage. The parents want to praise the staff at the nursery and the local residents and businesses who came to the children’s aid, but the incident has raised questions about security and safety standards at nurseries. I understand that the Department for Education is looking at the issue, but will a Minister make a statement about it?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is raising some interesting points, though I think they probably are slightly out of scope of what we are debating. I want to ask him about the use of the GDP deflator—when I saw that, I thought it was referring to previous Conservative Chancellors, but of course, it is actually about the way that the framework is set. The Scottish Affairs Committee recommended moving to a new system to use the highest levels available to increase borrowing for the Scottish Parliament. Is that something that he would encourage, or would he be concerned about such a recommendation?

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  In the face of the local election results last week, it is undeniable that what we have done so far is not enough. The long tail of austerity means that we have so much more to do. People see a world moving at a rate of knots and are frustrated at this Government’s slow pace of change. We live in a world where we can order almost anything we want in the morning and have it delivered later that same day. For consumers, satisfaction is now almost instantaneous. That is in complete contrast to Government, where improvements are seen as slow. The expectations and the challenge that we face are there for all to see. What does the King’s Speech do to address what I consider to be the holy trinity of what good Labour Governments do: jobs, homes and health? First, there are two pieces of legislation on homes. The social housing renewal Bill will alter the right to buy by increasing the eligibility requirement by 10 years, amending percentage discounts to better align with new maximum discounts and exempting newly built social housing from the right to buy for 35 years. This area is like so many other Thatcher legacies. The sugar rush felt in the short term by those able to buy their home at a substantial discount has long been replaced by a broken social housing market in which people living in identical properties next to each other can pay massively differently rents. It is a market in which the taxpayer often subsidises inflated rents through housing benefit and millions of young people who might once have seen a council home as their natural route into adulthood have the option forever denied to them. We can see where the logic of right to buy takes us. Between April 2012 and March 2025, 133,000 social homes were sold, but only 51,000 were replaced. With 1.3 million people on council house waiting lists, the problem is obvious for all to see. Secondly on housing, the long-awaited draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will bring us closer to ending the feudal leasehold system. It will finally ban the use of leasehold for new build flats, it will place a cap on ground rents, and it will create a new legal framework for commonhold. There is huge demand for this to be done as soon as possible, and I know the Minister is going as fast as he safely can, but he also needs to tackle rip-off estate management fees—he has to stop that model in its tracks. If we are determined to tackle the cost of living crisis, that is one obvious and indefensible practice that we can end. Alongside addressing the problems that people face now, the Government must take steps to address the problems that are coming down the track. I believe that the unwritten social contract that if a person works hard and plays by the rules, they can expect a good standard of living in return, is disintegrating and under real threat. Across this country, economic growth no longer translates to better outcomes in life, something that is only set to continue with the increase in AI in the workplace and developments in automation. Graduate roles have already been hit—graduate vacancies have fallen by more than one third this year—and that trend will only continue and diffuse across other areas of the labour market. Young people are therefore growing up and entering a world of work that is detached from previous norms, and we are nowhere near ready for the resulting changes that we will see in the next decade. The state needs to be ready to respond to those shifts, to ensure that not only those entering the workforce, but those who are already in it and those who are displaced, are properly skilled for the needs of the future labour market. That future labour market has to include significantly more manufacturing roles, as the Secretary of State acknowledged in his speech. The more we can make ourselves, the more insulated we will be from the inevitable disruption that AI is going to cause to jobs, particularly in the service sector, but it will also better protect us from the global supply chain shocks that we are far too exposed to at the moment. The moves to protect UK steel are the right first step in recognising that we need to do much more to protect our manufacturing base. I am not proposing that we nationalise everything—I will leave that for other people to do—but my visit to the local Vauxhall car plant last week was a clear lesson in how we need to sharpen up across the whole of Government to protect manufacturing, and the UK automotive sector in particular. The decision on employee car ownership schemes in the last Budget was welcome, as is support for energy costs next year, but of course, the industry would like that support to be much sooner and much stronger than what is proposed. There are a number of factors challenging the automotive sector, but the biggest one and the one over which the Government have the most control is the ZEV mandate. There has been huge investment in the Ellesmere Port plant so that it can manufacture electric vehicles, and I believe that most of the UK automotive sector is supportive of an electric future. However, the reality is that the current level of sales is nowhere near where it needs to be in order to hit the ZEV mandate, and that gap is only going to get bigger each year. We need to be clear that this is not just a case of “Oh, well, we aren’t going to hit the target.” Every sale short of that target has direct financial consequences for UK manufacturers. Looking around the world, we see that most countries that have put in place sales targets for electric vehicles have had to row back from them in light of the evidence that uptake just is not where it was predicted to be. We need to bring the review forward and make the decision now that the escalation of targets under the ZEV mandate needs to be turned off. This is not something to be looked at in the abstract, on a graph in the corridors of Whitehall; it needs to be looked at in the context of the cold reality of consumer choice and the importance of protecting UK manufacturing. Let us not lose good manufacturing jobs in pursuit of the unattainable—all that will do is supercharge the Chinese automotive sector. That is not going to help the planet as much as we would like, and it certainly is not going to help this country. We have a great tradition of building vehicles in this country, and we want to be at the vanguard of taking the industry into the future, but let us do it in a sustainable way that protects and builds on what we have. We need to do more to support UK manufacturing through procurement. I was delighted recently to take a Royal Mail delivery van made in Ellesmere Port for a spin, with permission from the owner. That electric van, made down the road, is delivering mail to my constituents. We need to see much more of that, and we need to encourage UK companies to buy from the UK. Every part of the public sector should be required to buy British. Every council, every hospital and every school should seek to maximise that, because every taxpayer pound spent on UK goods goes back into our economy. We can do a lot without legislation, but we need to pursue it with great zeal. This is all about levelling the playing field, because more needs to be done. When people see barber shops and vape shops proliferate on their high streets, they know that something is not right, as there simply is not the market to sustain them all. When they see some shut down, perhaps for selling illicit goods or for illegal working, it confirms their suspicions that they are not competing with legitimate businesses. When we see them reopen a few months later, perhaps under a different name, people see a system struggling to cope with the scale of organised crime infecting our high streets. The time for which a shop can be closed for breaching the law will be doubled, but let us also go after the landlords for, at best, failing to do due diligence, and at worst for being complicit in illegal activity. We can do more to support our small businesses on the high street and get the level playing field that we desperately need. We also need a level playing field in how we treat people at work. We have to accept that bogus self-employment is a business model based on denying workers basic protections at work, and it is absolutely the wrong direction for this country. We promised in our manifesto that we would tackle this, so we should get on with it. On a related note, the proposed strengthening of the growth duty, which will apparently reduce unnecessary risk aversion, is misguided. Good businesses want their staff to work in safe environments, and they want them to be treated well. This so-called unnecessary risk aversion, referred to in documents that the Government have produced, is an illusion—a straw man—and it has been used to put up with other shortcomings. We face many challenges. I think we are on the right track, but we need to go much further and much faster. The public are telling us that they need to see results. We are now two years into this Government, and as much as the news cycle is hyper-focused on personality, the King’s Speech is all about policy. It is about how we shape a better future and show voters that they were right to put their trust in the Labour party to deliver for them. Everyone here knows the perils that lie ahead if we are not bold enough, if we are not determined enough and if we do not use the time that we have to deliver real change. We are nearing the halfway point of this Parliament and, while progress has been made, it is abundantly clear that we need to go much further if we are to show that we have the power to transform the lives of ordinary people in this country. The clock is ticking. Incrementalism will not cut it. We now need a response that rises to the urgent challenges that our country faces, so let us go out there and do it.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking the Minister for her hard work and dedication in trying to get this Bill right. She has worked tirelessly to ensure that the voices of the campaigners have been heard and are reflected in the final provisions, and I know that she will continue to do so when the Bill returns in the next parliamentary Session. It is important that we are debating this motion today. We certainly did not want to find ourselves three months down the road with no discernible signs of resolution after Report stage was pulled at very short notice. But this motion is necessary to deliver on the promise. This Bill is too important to fail—too important for the families and too important for the necessary rewiring of the state. We could not have let that happen, so I am glad that we will agree this carry-over motion today. The Bill will, after all, deliver on one of the most radical commitments in our manifesto, but, most importantly, it is a promise that we have made to the Hillsborough families—a promise that needs to be honoured—and they have shown remarkable courage, dedication and tenacity to campaign for justice for their loved ones. It has taken decades to get to this point, and it must be beyond frustrating for the families to be so near yet so far from resolution. The final details are crucial, and it is very important that we get them right so that we can deliver a law that passes the critical test: that victims are never again wrongly blamed by the state for their deaths; that never again ordinary people have to fight tooth and nail against the seemingly endless resources of the state just to get to the truth; and that we never allow public bodies to use the power of the state to obfuscate and lie in order to protect their own reputations. Getting that balance right is absolutely critical to the Bill’s success, and it does meet most of the aims that have been set out, so it is disappointing that there are still a couple of key points of difference between campaigners and various parts of Government on matters, as we have heard, related to security services disclosures. I have been proud to support amendments tabled by my hon. Friends here today that provide what I hoped was a workable solution. I was also concerned to hear in a recent message from campaigners that officials are now attempting to reopen issues that they had thought had been resolved. So let us be clear: this House will not accept any backsliding on issues that we have already agreed and voted on. The Bill’s progression does at times feel glacial, and although we all agree it was right for the Government to go away and strengthen the Bill and ensure that they get it right, rather than pass something that did not have the families’ support, we can all see how each and every day is testing for them. I have to say that is not helped by regular briefings to the press about the reason for the delay being this person or that person, or this Department or that Department. The Bill is too important for Westminster gossip and games. I would therefore welcome any assurances that the Minister can give today on timescales. I would be grateful if she could indicate whether, as I hope, we can see the Report stage within a matter of weeks of the state opening of Parliament next month, because if we are not careful, we will drag on to the summer recess, and before we know it another six months will have passed. I know that she has never stopped trying to get this Bill over the line, and she has our support to try and find workable solutions, but we really do have to find a way forward sooner rather than later.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  We all find it staggering that someone can fail their security vetting and still be appointed to such a sensitive and critical role. It is even more staggering that the Prime Minister was not informed of that failure. I agree with what the Prime Minister said: he did not need to know the details, but he did need to know that Mandelson had failed the security vetting. My question to the Prime Minister is about the detail. If people did not know what the security concerns were of Peter Mandelson, how could any Minister, official or state deal with him on sensitive security issues? I understand that the Prime Minister is doing an inquiry into that, but it is very important that Parliament has oversight of the issue, because I am very concerned that there has been another failure there—the failure to manage our security interests.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Single Status of Worker · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of creating a single status of worker. Good afternoon, Mr Efford; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to an issue that has the potential to transform the world of work for millions of people up and down the country. The Government’s plan to make work pay was one of our central policy commitments at the last general election. I was proud to play an important part in shaping the package and begin delivering on it in government. As a result of changes that this Government have made, the lives of working people are already improving. Minimum wage rates now take account of the cost of living, which is massively important to people on low incomes in this time of rising energy and fuel costs. Fathers are now entitled to paternity leave from day one; they no longer have to wait months to accrue that important right. Statutory sick pay is also now an entitlement from day one, and the lower earnings limit and the waiting period have been removed. This transformation of the world of work will continue as measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 come into force over the coming months and years. However, noticeably absent from that list is the promise that we made to the electorate to move towards a single status of worker, on which we committed at the election to launch a consultation in the first year of government. We are approaching the end of the second year with no further indication of when there will be a consultation or, indeed, whether there will be one at all. I understand that the focus of most of our time in office has been the mammoth process of passing and implementing the Employment Rights Act. I know only too well how significant an undertaking that has been and I commend the work of officials in the Department for Business and Trade to pass that transformative Act within less than 18 months of our entering office. Although the Act has been implemented, we must not forget that a number of commitments in the plan to make work pay fall outside its scope. They include changes to the parental leave system and carer’s leave, reform of TUPE, the review of health and safety guidance, changes to allow collective grievances, and what we are debating today—the commitment to move towards a single status of worker. I know that steps have been taken to implement change in some of those areas, and I would welcome a substantive update from my hon. Friend the Minister on the progress being made to deliver on all the commitments in the plan to make work pay. The need to deal with worker status has been an issue since long before we entered office. It is almost nine years since the publication of “Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices”, which made some proposals on status, and more than seven years since the then Conservative Government accepted that changes needed to be made. It is a matter of record that nothing has been done since then to implement those proposals. It has therefore long been recognised that employment status is overly complicated, outdated and no longer reflective of the complexities of the modern labour market. We will see whether we can reach consensus on the solution, but we should at least begin to try to address it. It might be helpful if I set out the current legal framework. I hope that that will demonstrate the need for reform and why this is a complicated area that requires careful consideration. First, there are those who are classed as employees, who receive almost all working protections, depending on service length. Then there are workers, or limb (b) workers—under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996—who have access to some working protections, such as the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the minimum wage, but not others. And then there are the self-employed, who have no rights to working protections. In practice, differentiating each status can be tricky, and reliance has been placed on court cases to establish the boundaries between them. It can therefore be a significant challenge for an individual to understand under which status their employment falls. If they do not readily know the answer, it can be difficult to enforce their rights without legal support. Matthew Taylor noted pithily in his report that “without an encyclopaedic knowledge of case law, understanding how this might apply to your situation is almost impossible.” People’s status and their rights under it should not be subject to their willingness to fight, sometimes for years, through an employment tribunal. It might be said that people’s status and rights ought to be obvious from day one of their employment. For many that is true, but it does not recognise the explosion in what might be described as gig economy-type work in the past 15 years or so. By the end of the previous Administration, the number of people classed as being in insecure work stood at about 4 million, according to a TUC analysis. That represented a growth of about 1 million during the Tories’ time in office. Job growth in that period was driven largely by a rise in insecure work, which increased three times faster than secure forms of employment. Of the 4 million in insecure work, the TUC found that about half were low-paid self-employed, and many of them were unlikely to be genuinely self-employed at all. During that period, the emergence of platform work saw the size of the gig economy explode. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that there were 1.6 million people working in the gig economy by 2022. Advances in technology, combined with ageing status laws, have allowed employers to avoid their responsibilities by advertising for positions that are described as for a “worker” or for the “self-employed” but, in reality, have all the hallmarks of direct employment.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Single Status of Worker · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the arguments put forward by not only those who represent workers, but those who represent businesses about the need for a level playing field. I will draw on some of the examples and evidence that the Select Committee has heard of the imbalances that are created. Those who might be classed as being in bogus self-employment may perform work under the direction of a manager, and be told where to be and when; they may wear a uniform and follow policies; and they may not, in practice, have the opportunity to substitute their work to someone else. To all intents and purposes, they are acting as employees, yet they do not have the associated rights, such as sick pay, parental leave, protection from unfair dismissal or any sort of redundancy process. While that might be sold as flexibility to the worker, it is clear that the employer retains most of the flexibility. I saw this at first hand a few years ago when I accompanied a self-employed delivery driver working for one of the large parcel companies. I saw the time pressure he faced each and every day just to make an hourly rate equivalent to the minimum wage, which, once overheads such as his van and fuel were taken into account, was not actually reached. If he was an employee, he would have the right to a minimum wage for each hour worked and the right to rest breaks, and he would not be forced to rush on a very tight delivery schedule just to scrape by. It is important to note that the abuse of employment status has a knock-on effect on the competitiveness of businesses that choose to do the right thing by their workforce, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) referred to. The Select Committee has seen the impact of the race to the bottom on standards and on responsible employers, such as Royal Mail, that meet the full costs of employment and maintain good, unionised jobs, but are not able to compete with companies that choose to treat their couriers as self-employed or limb (b) workers. They may be doing so lawfully, but it means that they can undercut the likes of Royal Mail by not having to worry about the minimum wage, sick pay or holiday pay. It also means that they can, and do, treat their workforce as ultra-disposable commodities. I do not believe that is fair competition, nor do I believe that it is the direction that we should be going in as a country. Recently, the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail gave evidence to the Select Committee, and they argued for reform in this area. When unions and management speak with one voice, they send a powerful message that should be heard. The sad reality is that large multinationals have been able to exploit the UK’s ageing status laws to completely undercut and undermine one of our oldest institutions. That is bad for workers in the sector, bad for competition and bad for the Exchequer, which loses out on their national insurance contributions and may incur additional costs of supporting low-paid workers in the welfare system. These practices are on the march. Over the past 15 to 20 years, they have expanded from their traditional home in the construction sector into food and parcel delivery, services and, most recently, hospitality and retail. When I was a Minister, I was concerned to learn that digital platforms, which laughingly called themselves “talent platforms”, were moving into these sectors to match companies with individuals to work shifts, not as agency workers but as self-employed contractors. It is reported that big high street names such as Uniqlo, Gymshark and Lush have used those platforms to advertise work, but, to their credit, they stopped when concerns were raised. However, the TUC found that as late as last year, Urban Outfitters, Claridge’s hotel and Colicci cafés all continued to advertise on the platforms. These digital platforms mean that, increasingly, the shop assistant helping us bag our clothes or the barista serving us coffee no longer receives the working protections that we all believe they should have. What happens when the coffee shop across the road finds that it can no longer compete with the prices of its competitor because the competitor has everyone bogusly self-employed? It puts those who want to do the right thing in an invidious position. This has already happened in other sectors, including delivery driving and the hair and beauty sector. The massive drop-off in apprenticeships in the hair and beauty sector is blamed, at least in part, on the rise in the chair model, which of course is another form of bogus self-employment, forcing other salons to make difficult and unpalatable decisions. It is clear that bogus self-employment is driving the race to the bottom. Bogus self-employment is also facilitating illegal working by those who do not have the right to work in this country. There have been repeated reports that platforms in the gig economy were failing to check people’s right-to-work status. Measures have now been introduced to legally require gig-economy companies to carry out checks to confirm that anyone working in their name is eligible to work in the UK. This is the first time that such checks have been extended to these casualised sectors, making employers liable to fines of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. However, that is only one approach to tackle illegal working, which requires stronger labour market enforcement across the board. The introduction of a single worker status would mean that the stringent checks that employers are already required to carry out on those who want to work for them directly are also applied to those who work through an app. There is no time to waste on tackling bogus self-employment. It is already unlawful, but the law must be enforced properly. It is happening at scale in this country, and the Government should take stronger action now. There is no need to wait until single worker status policies have been finalised. Steps that could be taken now, ahead of a consultation, include introducing a presumption of worker status, which would require an operator to prove that individuals it engages are not workers or employees, rather than putting the onus on an individual to test their rights and try to enforce them via the legal lottery. That presumption is already standard practice in relation to the minimum wage. We could also empower the Fair Work Agency to conduct investigations when status is in question. We must move away from the piecemeal approach whereby workers fight tooth and nail in a clogged-up employment tribunal system, possibly waiting years to establish their working status. Too often, even when a worker succeeds, the business tweaks its terms of business so that it can avoid the consequences of the tribunal judgment and move people back into bogus self-employment. How is that gaming of the system in the interests of working people in this country? We can also quickly reform the law on substitution clauses, which are used widely to provide a façade of self-employment, no matter how someone typically works. They allow companies to disavow employee and worker status, on the basis that someone no longer owes any contractual obligations to perform a service personally. Downgrading the importance of that when determining worker status could help to reduce the number of times that it is used to avoid obligations. These things could all be introduced as interim measures to help improve the situation while the consultation and subsequent legislation are pursued. Governing is all about making choices and intervening to solve problems, no matter their complexity. Doing so might not be popular with everyone, and it might not be easy, but effective Governments are guided by their principles on what is right and what is wrong. I think that most Members would agree that the current employment status system does not treat working people fairly. It is unnecessarily complex, it is no longer appropriate for our modern labour market, and it facilitates rampant bogus self-employment and exploitation. The Labour party decided that it was no longer fit for purpose, and we fought the last election pledging to “move towards” a single status of worker to simplify the system. I will be the first to admit that that commitment was not as strong as I or others on the Labour Benches would have liked, but moving towards a single status of worker would at least be a step in the right direction. However, it is a step that we have yet to take, and that needs fixing. The Government must not forget about this important strand of the Make Work Pay agenda. I understand the challenges of doing this alongside implementing the provisions of the 2025 Act, but we entered government to deliver transformative change for workers, and that takes hard work and determination. We should not take our eye off the ball. I have sympathy for the Minister; she is wholeheartedly committed to the Make Work Pay agenda and, indeed, was closely involved in its development while we were in opposition. I know that she will advocate for the package in internal discussions among Departments and push tirelessly for its implementation in full. Sadly, as I know from my own experience, she will also be facing scepticism and belligerence from other parts of the Government that are against bringing forward a consultation on worker status. The Minister has my support, and no doubt the support of a large number of the Back Benchers here today, to continue pushing in internal discussions. She should remind those she has discussions with of not just what was in the plan to make work pay but the commitment at the Dispatch Box in the other place by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who I pay tribute to for all her work on the Act. On 23 July 2025, she said: “I am pleased to be able to confirm to your Lordships’ House that we will publish our consultation on employment status by the end of this year.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 July 2025; Vol. 848, c. 358.] The Minister will not need it pointing out that we are already well into the next year. I am concerned that some may have the view that the Make Work Pay agenda was completed as soon as the Employment Rights Bill received Royal Assent, but the job is not done. We cannot let this opportunity to transform the world of work slip through our fingers. We owe it to working people in this country to deliver on the change that we promised. The Government need to demonstrate their commitment to moving towards a single status of worker by opening the consultation this spring and setting out a timeline for delivering change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The truth is that we have analogue laws for a digital age, and they are simply not fit for purpose. That is exacerbated by the fact that social media companies and their entire business models rely on outrageous comments to incentivise clicks. That amplifies the distortion of our political process and encourages the controversial, so we absolutely need to go further to tackle this issue. The Bill already has provisions to tighten up rules on digital imprints on campaign material, but we need greater transparency for online political adverts. Some straightforward changes, some of which have already been supported by the Government, could improve transparency and fairness, and increase trust in our political system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) has already said, the first of these is an advert library. We need an accessible database to act as a repository for all election advertising across all advertising platforms on the internet. This should include the content of the advert, the money put behind it to promote the content, the paying entity and who the content is targeted at. At present, those are all opaque, with the only libraries available being controlled by the media companies, which can choose to stop sharing access. As we have already heard, they are not really interested in ensuring that things are accurate or truthful when they are published. Similar models have been implemented in Canada and New Zealand already, and the EU will introduce its own later this month. Secondly, the Government should introduce an amendment requiring candidates to follow a statutory code of conduct at elections, as well as including provisions to stop the intimidation and harassment of candidates, as was suggested in the Government’s White Paper last year. That should extend to commitments to telling the truth and not knowingly including misinformation in campaign material. Putting all that on a statutory footing and including steps on tackling misinformation will give it the teeth that it needs, because we cannot defend democracy if our financial frameworks remain as they are and our online spaces are unregulated. I welcome the proposals for “know your donor” checks. I recognise and encourage the enforcement mechanisms that will be introduced by the Electoral Commission, but we absolutely need to go further. This Bill is a positive step. Votes at 16, greater enfranchisement and registration, checking cracks in our democracy and better protecting candidates are all really welcome things, but I fear that the experiences of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk are where we will be in 2029 if we do not crack down on this now. I look forward to working with the Minister to explore ways in which we can make this Bill even better to protect our democracy and allow it to flourish not just now, but in the future. Our democracy is fragile and cannot be taken for granted, and it has to retain the public’s trust if it is to endure. Many around the world are working very hard to try to erode that trust, so we must be equal to the challenge and ensure that we have the best legislation possible to meet that challenge.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  While new technologies can often be a force for good and, when used correctly, can enhance political debate, accountability and trust, in practice they are too often having the opposite effect. Social media, in particular, has helped to fuel further division and facilitated levels of distrust, threats and intimidation towards elected representatives that have never been seen before. It has also opened our political system and discourse to the wider world, with other countries able to use platforms to influence and interfere in our domestic political debate in ways that were previously not possible. Political discourse has become murky, and legitimate political debate has become distorted by misinformation, with people no longer even able to agree on basic facts. This represents an existential threat to liberal democracy. When misinformation spreads unchecked, abuse is normalised and accountability is lacking, confidence in our democratic institutions is significantly weakened. That is what our foes want.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In my experience, Meta does not care about the truth. We heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) about what he experienced, and I have had the same experiences: stuff goes up, it does not meet the threshold, it carries on and the lies continue to be propagated. Meta’s indifference is a danger to our democracy and that absolutely needs tackling. There are long-standing rules on how political parties can use paid-for advertising in the offline world, but we have effectively gone from a situation where we have banal party political broadcasts on terrestrial channels to a virtual free-for-all online. That leads to deliberate distortions, misleading claims and half-truths being pushed into social media feeds with absolutely no checks on their accuracy and little recourse, as we have heard, to challenge their spread.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on his breakneck introduction, in which he took so many interventions on this massive issue. He was right, as many other Members have been, to observe that we have had these debates year on year. I remember being sat across the Chamber while we were in opposition, I remember being sat in the Minister’s seat a year ago, and now I am here again. Every year, we get more and more Members attending, and more and more members of the public demanding change. I think the case has been made that it is now time to act. It is interesting to note that despite an increased awareness campaign in the last year, there were 550 child admissions to A&E on bonfire night for burns alone. That shows us that education and information can only get us so far. As we have heard, there are adverse impacts from using fireworks responsibly as well. People are impacted by the noise. For some, fireworks are a nuisance and can interrupt sleep or leisure; for others, particularly those with sensory challenges or conditions such as PTSD, bangs can be harmful. With that in mind, I understand why some want greater restrictions on who can put on displays and on the days on which they can do so. In my time as the Minister responsible for product regulation, I engaged with businesses, consumer groups and charities to gather evidence on the issues with and impacts of fireworks. I also met with a number of MPs, some of whom are here today, to hear about the impact that fireworks were having in their communities. Of course, there was a wide range of views about what could be done, but my view, when I embarked on those discussions, was that, as a minimum, a relatively straightforward change that we could make would be to reduce the decibel level from 120 dB. Nothing I heard during those discussions, and nothing I have heard during the debate today, changed my view that we should take that straightforward step. The precise level should be determined by consultation, but we have heard strong cases this evening for what that level should be. That would reduce the noise, and the impact on people and animals, without harming manufacturers or impacting the quality of displays. There have been plenty of other suggestions. One of the petitions calls for a limit on sales to local authority-approved events only. Other suggestions include limiting locations, days and times at which fireworks can be released. However, it is clear to me that those kinds of measures do not work unless we get enforcement properly resourced. The experience in Scotland was instructive: we can tighten the rules, but it does not necessarily deliver change. The reality is that trading standards is overstretched and underfunded, meaning that any form of close monitoring of fireworks sales will be very difficult. I do not think that there is a consensus on how best to move forward on that. There is also a concern that that would simply move sales into the black market. Reducing decibel levels, as New Zealand has done, is a straightforward, simple step that we can take. I will be candid: I think that some in the Government hold the view that taking action on this is seen as nanny-statism. I think that view is wrong. When I hear today that we are looking to consult on banning social media for under-16s, I do not think that the nanny-statism argument can be consistently held any longer, so I will continue to advocate for a reduction in decibel levels. Sadly, I was not able to do that when I was in office, but I am convinced that taking this step would affect those most impacted by noise—those with certain mental health conditions, those who are neurodiverse and those who care about the welfare of animals—and could be done without taking anything away from the people who enjoy fireworks. I wish the Minister well in trying to navigate the competing views and administrative blockages that she will face, but I hope that she will come to the same conclusion that I did: that the easiest and best way to address this issue is through a reduction in decibel levels. As we have seen from the consensus across Westminster Hall today, and the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), this will happen through Parliament, whether via Government or Back-Bench action, so I urge the Minister to act now.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this review and the fact that it is independent. It is really important that this is seen to be above party politics, because we must protect our democracy; it is very clear that it is fragile and under attack from foreign forces. I want to ask the Secretary of State about the terms of reference. Will the review look at the role of social media companies? There is no doubt that foreign state actors are using that as a vehicle to spread disinformation and undermine our democracy.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 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.

• 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.