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?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I start by referring the Chamber to my chairmanship of the leasehold and commonhold reform APPG, where I work closely with organisations such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign, to which I pay tribute. As we have heard, complaints from constituents about management companies and the exorbitant fees they charge are something that we all deal with on a weekly basis. It is not a new phenomenon; it is something that I raised on the Floor of the House five years ago because I could see it becoming the next big scandal, and sadly that has come to pass. Homeowners who buy their homes in good faith understandably expect to live in a functioning estate where responsibilities are clear and, where necessary, charges are fair. All too often, the opposite is the case. Homeowners are left in the pernicious situation of paying for services once in their council tax bill, and once again in extortionate service charges. Poor services are often exacerbated by a lack of accountability. Residents are forced to persistently chase matters, while frequently being passed from one organisation to another without resolution. But as soon as residents fall behind with a payment, these companies leap into action, often using aggressive debt collection tactics. Adding insult to injury, the financial structures of these estates are all too frequently opaque: governance structures lack transparency; companies are labelled as dormant for accounting purposes; and dodgy practice—where freeholders, management companies and debt recovery companies operate in an interconnected web—allows them to rack up eye-watering fees. I will cite one very recent example from my constituency, where a constituent owed some service charges to RMG, with which I think we all are familiar. Looking at his bill, the constituent had been charged an instruction fee and a client admin fee on top of his service charges, adding another £600 to the bill, yet RMG had somehow managed to inflate the £1,100 owed in service charges to £3,300 by the time court papers were issued. There is no world where a trebling of this sum can be justified, and it just shows what a scam the system is. Time and again, I see people raising problems from a range of new build developments in my constituency, including Ledsham Garden Village, Mersey View and Jacks Wood estates, where homeowners face a range of challenges. In Ledsham Garden Village, residents are facing combined service charges and fees running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, although only a fraction of the spending can be accounted for, which just rubs salt into the wound. Residents do not have any idea how the money is being spent and if it is being spent on the estate at all; they do not know whether the company is getting best value for money, how reserves are being used or how costs are allocated over different phases of the development. There are persistent maintenance issues, inconsistent grounds maintenance and safety concerns because of poor traffic management. People who buy their homes in good faith deserve better. Then there are the Jacks Wood estate in Ellesmere Port and the Mersey View estate in Bromborough, where the adoption process has effectively stalled, leaving residents in limbo. The regulation of managing agencies is clearly something this House would like to see, but I would like to make some further suggestions. We could introduce standard costs across the country for estate management fees so that there would be a baseline from which to judge these companies. Residents could be given a far greater say over who manages their estate. We could have three-yearly ballots in law on whether they wish to carry on with the same management agents, which could end the “put up or shut up” approach that a lot of these companies adopt. As we have heard suggested today, an immediate step the Government could take would be to make it a condition of any planning permission moving forward that the developers must hand over the whole estate adoption to the local authority and pay a commuted sum for it, ending that revenue stream entirely.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because there are a whole range of factors, which I will come to, in why people are not purchasing the vehicles. The industry is still keen to have a clear signal on where we are heading, but the speed and steepness of the incline is too much for it to bear. We cannot ignore the fact that the figure of 26% relies heavily on subsidies from Government, which are pushing sales to about twice their natural level. I am afraid that there is deep concern among manufacturers about that. To fill the gap between demand and what domestic manufacturers are producing, the industry is already having to buy credits, in the order of hundreds of millions of pounds a year, which is clearly not sustainable. Meanwhile, importing manufacturers, including from China, can exceed ZEV thresholds here and sell their unused credits on to domestic manufacturers. That means that foreign manufacturers of EVs from China are not only taking ever-increasing shares of the market but profiting from exceeding ZEV thresholds. To be clear, this is not an argument about having no ZEV mandate. It is important that we tackle the climate crisis and put an end to internal combustion engines, but what bigger fillip could there be to the climate sceptics than UK factories closing down because of a rigid approach to net zero—an approach that sees millions of pounds go to overseas competitors whose manufacturing is often far more carbon intensive than ours? The ZEV mandate must be adapted to take account of the real-world market conditions, and the escalator must be changed to reflect them. It is clear that for many consumers, even with generous discounts, the cost of a new EV is out of reach. We need to be aware of limitations caused by cost, range anxiety and charging infrastructure. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) that we can do more in that area. As a number of Members have said in this debate, we need to take people with us; we are clearly not bringing them to where we need them to be in order to hit the target. I welcome the Chancellor saying that the review of the mandate will be brought forward to this year, but that needs to start now, and we need to get the right answers within a few months. On the subject of well-meaning policies that could actually be counterproductive, I raise a red flag about the proposed introduction of the deposit return scheme, scheduled for later next year. Most households already recycle their materials through kerbside collections. The participation rates for kerbside recycling are high: it works and it provides a revenue stream to councils. If we are changing that, the public will undoubtedly ask what problem we are trying to fix. The practical reality of the scheme for many people will be a minor inconvenience that they are happy to participate in, but for parents, carers, disabled people, elderly residents and those without easy access to large supermarkets, it could be a significant nuisance. People with complex lives will simply not do it at all. Once again, there is a well-meaning policy here that risks alienating people and damaging our road to net zero, which, on this side of the House at least, we all want to get to.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will attempt to be moderate and not twirl. The net zero transition is now a fundamental part of our economy, generating about £105 billion in value and, as we have heard, employing over 1 million people. Importantly, it is not focused in one part of the country, but spread all across the UK. Growth in the sector is expanding, with 400,000 jobs expected to be created by 2030. Given that productivity in the net zero sector is one and a half times the average for the UK, the potential is there for all to see. As we head towards the future, we need to have in mind the protection of existing jobs. The order sets the carbon budget for 12 years’ time, but there is an area where I think the Government are letting the perfect become the enemy of the good: the zero emission vehicle mandate. This country has a long history of building cars that should rightly be regarded as some of the best in the world. We have a strong manufacturing base for electric vehicles—including at the Vauxhall Motors plant in Ellesmere Port, which has embraced the transition to net zero by becoming an all-electric plant—but the market demand for electric vehicles has not developed as quickly as anticipated. As of May, the market share for electric vehicles was only 26%, which is a long way short of the 33% required this year in the ZEV mandate. The Climate Change Committee predicted that the market share for new electric vehicles would reach 55% by next year. Market share is going to need to double within a year for that prediction to come true, which is simply not going to happen. Its prediction that the proportion of electric cars and vans will reach around 95% of new sales by 2030 is not born out by experience to date, and needs revising down in light of the evidence.

• 17 Jun 2026 · High Street Shops: Illicit Activity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on introducing the debate. There are a lot of ideas and much intent to tackle this problem, because high streets are so evocative. They are a visual symbol of economic challenges and act as an ever-present reminder of what has been lost. That is one reason why people feel so strongly about the brazen illegality we see on high streets the length and breadth of the country. It is no longer a question of isolated bad actors but of a regulatory system that has been repeatedly outpaced by evolving criminal business models. My constituents are angry that where once there was an active high street with household names, there now stand illegal vape shops, mini-marts and a suspicious number of barbers. They know that something is not right, particularly when legitimate businesses have already vacated the area due to reduced footfall. But the law is fighting back. I have joined local enforcement activity in Ellesmere Port, where all the agencies came together and carried out co-ordinated raids, resulting in the seizure of illicit tobacco and vape products, with shops shut down under court orders. That was most welcome, but what was seized was sadly just the tip of the iceberg, and we see a repeated cycle of enforcement and re-emergence with connected parties. It is the recurring nature of these rackets that shakes people’s confidence in the system, especially when they are so brazen, so I absolutely welcome the Government’s intent to tackle the problem. There is much to commend in the blitz on dodgy shops programme, which contains measures that finally go beyond rhetoric. The creation of the high street organised crime unit has long been called for, and the commitment to double the time for which a shop can be closed after breaching the law will also help, but as a number of people have said, we can go further. A Business and Trade Committee inquiry found that “enforcement agencies do not have the necessary powers to permanently close” rogue businesses. The director of National Trading Standards said, “you seize, go back, seize and go back”. It is clear that the tools we have are not fit for purpose. Councils should have the power to close premises permanently without having to go to court, and landlords should not get off the hook if their property is used for illegal purposes. Landlords need help to make wise choices, and they could be encouraged to flag any suspicious or illegal behaviour. Those landlords who are indifferent about who is renting their property should have nowhere to hide if illegal activity is happening on their premises. If landlords are indifferent, they should face criminal sanctions, too. We also need a tougher approach on the collection of fines. Too often, they go uncollected. According to the Home Office, £18 million of fines were issued against illegal car washes in 2025, but the Department could not say how many had actually been paid. After a freedom of information request, we know that the figure is around 5%. We need a proper deterrent; these fines must mean something, and there should be tough enforcement action against individuals. I know that a number of Members wish to speak, so I will end my remarks, but I want finally to say that I welcome the action taken so far. There is no shortage of ideas about how we can go further. It is good to see that the problem is finally receiving the attention it deserves. Regenerating our high streets is critical to national renewal, but to regenerate them, we first of all have to reclaim them. Illicit activity on our high streets is an evocative issue that frustrates law-abiding people and erodes confidence in the state’s ability to tackle crime, so I absolutely welcome the blitz on dodgy shops and the action to back up the rhetoric, but we need to go further by addressing the problems at source, to prevent illegal shops from opening in the first place and then leaving no hiding place for those who are found to have broken the law.

• 21 May 2026 · Costs for Motorists · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the efforts to support drivers at the petrol pumps, but this situation has not led to an increase in demand for electric vehicles. As the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) has said, the automotive sector is facing a real crisis because of the ZEV mandate. I was at the Vauxhall plant in my constituency last week; there is not, and there will not be, the consumer demand to meet the escalating demands of the ZEV mandate. Will the Treasury please use its convening power across Government to bring forward the review of the mandate?

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to say that I have not been able to feel the same enthusiasm as the Prime Minister in recent days, and we are at odds over a big issue—Arsenal’s premier league victory. However, I join the majority of people in this country in wanting the champions league final, which Arsenal are participating in, to be a success for English football, so it is very upsetting to see that the game will not be free to air on TV. It is a moment for the nation to come together, get behind a great English football team and have a victory in Europe. Will the Leader of the House do what he can to ensure that the game is free to air for the nation to enjoy?

• 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.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  When the Central England Co-operative announced that it was purchasing the Marquis pub in Great Sutton and the Saffron restaurant in Ellesmere Port, we were delighted that those old buildings were going to be brought back into use as convenience stores. However, five years on since those announcements, I am afraid that both buildings have been left to rot. That is not a good look for our community. We want the Co-op to get on and build the new stores that it has promised. It is vital for our community that we see that investment, to build on our £20 million of Pride in Place funding, but we are at a roadblock, and we cannot get an answer on where things need to go. Could we please have a debate on what other levers we can use to encourage this investment, which we absolutely want to see?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Public Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the Royal Mail depot in Ellesmere Port, where I went in one of its newly purchased vans from the Stellantis factory just down the road—a perfect example of how we should be supporting British industry. I urge the Minister to look further at this issue, because what he has announced is a start, but it does not go far enough. We need to make sure that every school, hospital, council, utility and big provider of services in this country is looking at how it can buy British and support our great manufacturing sector.

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

  More

  I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—it was my oversight to not mention that earlier. Technically, the problem for a lot of the people who we are discussing is that they are not employees, so they have no recognition process. The debate has been interesting. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who made some very important points, particularly on the tax take. That is something that we absolutely need to address, but this issue is fundamentally about fairness. Our Make Work Pay agenda has to be bolstered by action to address this problem. I hope the Minister gets the message that we need to do that soon.

• 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.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, President Trump was making the most outrageous and dire threats in order to try to reopen the strait of Hormuz; this week, he wants to keep it shut. Can the Prime Minister shed any light on the United States’s strategic objective behind this latest move, what can be done to reopen the strait of Hormuz, and what more this Government can do to protect our people from the economic consequences of this mess?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  The consumer-focused, pragmatic approach being taken by this Government is in such contrast with the rhetoric of some on the Opposition Benches, who would only see military action escalate—and be in no doubt that our constituents would be paying the price for that. I welcome the CMA’s report this morning about action to tackle rip-off vet fees, but that report took several years. The Chancellor spoke of new powers for the CMA to tackle price gouging, but can she confirm that it will be able to act swiftly, nimbly and in real time to tackle companies seeking to exploit this particular crisis?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Ellesmere Port is benefiting from investment in its new market and £20 million from the Pride in Place fund, but the shopping centre is basically being left to rot by its owners, Adhan. The problem we have is that Adhan is a private company. It has made many promises of investment in the past, but has not delivered; shops are left empty, units are not filled, and the heating in the centre does not even work. Adhan is milking the centre dry and leaving a big hole in the town centre. It is a real shame that this is happening when we have so much other investment, so could we please have a debate about what more powers local authorities could have to compel investment in the whole of our town centres?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  If one of my constituents told me they had lost their job or been sacked because they had lied during the application process and they wanted compensation, I would tell them they had absolutely no chance of getting it, so I really struggle to understand why we paid a penny. I understand what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said about not wanting to make a payment, but the risk of an employment tribunal claim in such circumstances is minuscule. He is right that the money should have been paid to a victims charity. Will he now press Mandelson to do the right thing and give that money to the victims of abuse?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I have enjoyed an interesting few months on the Committee so far. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perplexing that we do not have any understanding as to why there is not more pressure being put on Fujitsu to come up with a figure? Fujitsu keeps saying that it is waiting for the outcome of the inquiry, but it has made a commitment and we would expect some kind of provision to be made to reflect that.

• 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.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I declare an interest: I have three sons who have huge debts from their time in education. I would be surprised if more than one of them pays off their debt in full, but that would be in line with the roughly one third of all students who fully repay their loans. Does that not tell us on its own that the system is not working? Would any bank be in business if only one third of its customers repaid their loans? We have a system of loans that most people will not be able to repay. Should that not tell us something about the balance not being right? I want to make a broader point about how we can also improve the system for the benefit of the whole country. We should consider whether those who serve our public services should have their loans repaid by the state while they continue in the service of it. After all, if the justification for repayment of loans is that the individual has benefited financially from their university education, should there not also be an argument that if the state is benefiting from that individual’s education by the service they provide, the state should also bear some responsibility for the repayment? I appreciate that that would be a significant rewiring of the system, but I have no doubt that it would help with recruitment and retention, particularly in the NHS. It may even stem the tide of doctors and nurses leaving these shores to work elsewhere, and it would be a way for us to say, “As a thank you for your public service, we will help repay the loans.” Of course, as we have heard, the immediate challenge is to end the retrospective moving of the goalposts and the punitive interest rates for people who, do not forget, are trying to save for a home, start a family or even save for retirement. Under this system, that is impossible.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The £20 million that the Government are investing in Ellesmere Port is so welcome, but it is undermined by news such as that yesterday, that Halifax is closing its branch in our town centre. One of the justifications Halifax uses is that its customers are now using the app; well, I am a customer of Halifax and I use the app, but the reason I am a customer of Halifax is that it has a presence in our town centre. This is just another example of the smoke and mirrors banks are using to justify wholesale branch closures, regardless of the care and attention they should be paying to those who are not able to bank electronically, so can we have a debate about what more we can do to make sure banks serve the communities they are supposed to serve?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan, but it is not a pleasure to be here marking two years since the publication of the Hughes report. Sadly, in that time, those recommendations seem to have been in a holding pattern somewhere in the Department for Health and Social Care. Other Members have rightly spoken about the victims. Today, I think mostly about one of my constituents, who contacted me more than five years ago, raising concerns about the tragic loss of her son when he was 30. She believes that the sodium valproate medication that she took during his pregnancy was responsible for his learning difficulties and, ultimately, his early passing. Quite understandably, she feels let down by the state. She is also concerned about the profound effect that it may have had on her other children, and the fact that she was not alerted to the risks of this by the authorities. What I find particularly disappointing, having contacted numerous Secretaries of State during that time, is that we have had no more than vague commitments and assurances that this issue will be addressed in due course. That does not cut it for my constituent; nor, sadly, does it do anything to assuage the guilt that she—wrongly, in my opinion—feels. With other national scandals, such as infected blood and the Post Office Horizon system, the Government have eventually provided funding for mechanisms to compensate those affected, but they too had to wait decades. It is disappointing that the recognition that we all had at the time, that those systems were introduced that those delays had compounded the injustice, has not translated into any visible progress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. I agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that, in those schemes, the interim payment system has been seen as a way to get at least some measure of redress. I am disappointed that we have not been able to learn from that experience and use a similar system for the people we are talking about today. I have sympathy for the view set out by the Secretary of State that redress must be considered alongside that for other patient groups, but that does not justify inaction. Those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh are frustrated by the delays and the obfuscation. The state has acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It has commissioned and published two reports on the matter, both of which have recommended that redress is provided to patients, but we have reached the point where reports and recommendations are not enough. It is time for the Government to act, and to provide the support that the many victims of this scandal deserve and need to manage their ongoing conditions. The can has been kicked down the road for too long; campaigners and those affected are understandably frustrated and anxious for change. I would like to ask the Minister two things, echoing the questions raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green). First, can the Minister confirm whether there has been an estimate of the total cost of providing redress? If so, can she share that today? That might, at least, give campaigners some hope that things are actually moving forward. Secondly, can she confirm whether she has discussed funding redress with the Treasury for inclusion in future fiscal events? I look forward to the Minister’s response—or, if she is unable to provide specific answers today, to a commitment that she or a colleague will do so in future, and a clear sense those who have suffered are now being listened to.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a slightly unusual point of order, but one that it is important to deal with now as it may become more of an issue going forward. Last week, it was claimed I had participated in a Westminster Hall debate on digital ID, where I allegedly not only spoke but voted in favour of digital ID. Of course, as we know, we do not usually hold votes in Westminster Hall; I was also actually in the Chamber at the time, speaking on the Employment Rights Bill. On further inquiry, it transpired that Google AI had claimed that I was in Westminster Hall at the time, speaking in favour of digital ID. As I know many more constituents will seek to use these devices to understand our positions on various matters, I wonder whether there is any way that I could correct the record, and in fact whether the House could give some advice to these tech companies on using Hansard as the authoritative source for positions on various subjects.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

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