Justin Madders MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate, and on the sweeping historical nature of his opening comments, which gave us a broad view of the importance of agriculture and food in the development of civilisation. Of course, we are talking about more contemporary issues, which he went on to address, and I will respond to some of his comments in my remarks. This is an appropriate time for the House to discuss the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator because, as Members will be aware, we are currently undertaking the fourth review of the GCA’s effectiveness, as required by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013. The statutory review will consider how the GCA’s powers have been exercised and how effective the GCA has been in enforcing the groceries supply code of practice. It will also consider whether the existing permitted maximum financial penalty for non-compliance following an investigation is appropriate and whether there should be any restriction on the information that the GCA may consider when deciding whether to investigate. On the question of financial penalties, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to two investigations where no fines were issued. However, it is worth stating for the record that, following the Tesco investigation, it was charged £1 million by the GCA for the cost of that investigation, and the Co-op investigation led to a charge by the GCA of £1.3 million for the cost of it, plus compensation to suppliers of £650,000. But it is noted that the GCA has not been issuing fines. I think that is part of its overall approach to try to get compliance rather than issuing fines, but that is something that Members can respond to as part of the review.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  I acknowledge the wider points that have been made. Members have raised today a number of issues that are beyond the scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and clearly are within the bailiwick of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which clearly I need to work with on developing a more holistic approach. That is one of the challenges we face, because the code regulates only designated retailers’ dealings with their direct suppliers and currently applies to the 14 largest grocery retailers in the UK, each with an annual turnover of £1 billion or more. A number of Members referred to the threshold and questioned whether that is currently appropriate. It is worth pointing out that, according to the marketing data company Kantar, the 10 largest retailers covered by the groceries code amount to 97% of the grocery retail market, although the adjudicator has said that he is happy to hear views on whether the threshold should change and about suppliers’ experiences of dealing with retailers not currently covered by the code. The adjudicator has also said that he will pass on any relevant information to the CMA to inform future decisions on retailer designations under the code. There is therefore an opportunity for Members to feed in if they feel there are particular retailers under the current threshold that should be included. A number of Members talked about the issue of price. The code does not regulate the prices agreed between retailers and suppliers. It does, however, require these negotiations to be conducted fairly and transparently, and the GCA is keen to ensure that negotiations around cost price pressures do not lead to non-compliance with the code. In 2022, the GCA published the seven golden rules to remind retailers of best practice when agreeing to prices.

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

  More

  Members on this side of the Committee always enjoy our clause 4 moments. Clause 4 is an essential part of the Bill, and it is informed by the lessons of the covid-19 pandemic. The then Government had to act quickly during that emergency to ensure the supply of critical products such as personal protective equipment. However, the regulatory easement was made under sections 45C, 45F and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 as no alternative powers were available through the product safety framework. Clause 4 therefore fills the gap by providing a mechanism to disapply or modify product regulations in a controlled manner for future emergencies, including emergencies that go beyond public health. In practice, the clause will allow the supply and fair distribution of critical goods in short supply during a national emergency, while ensuring greater co-ordination of market surveillance and enforcement activities during these periods. The Government have also produced a code of conduct on product safety to support the use of powers under the Bill. The code outlines the Government’s proposals for how the emergency powers will work. To summarise a few key points, the code outlines that a derogation will be made available only if there is a serious risk of harm to people, businesses or the environment, and if it is in compliance with the UK’s international obligations. A derogation will be granted only for products deemed critical for the emergency response where demand exceeds supply. In times of emergency, the Government may temporarily reduce or modify requirements for a product to meet essential health and safety requirements for use in certain settings, provided the market surveillance authority is satisfied with the product’s safety and traceability. For example, in the hypothetical scenario of a national power outage, demand for essential consumer products such as gas stoves, torches or batteries could surge rapidly. If compliant products are in short supply, the Government could use clause 4 to allow UK manufacturers or importers to supply these products, where they meet essential safety standards or other internationally recognised standards, while awaiting UKCA certification. In such circumstances, the market surveillance authority must also be satisfied that the product still meets acceptable safety standards and can be effectively traced through distribution. This may involve reviewing safety data, in-house test reports or batch numbers and distribution records for traceability. To be clear, and as Members will expect me to say, the Government will use clause 4 only in emergency situations. Depending on the nature of the emergency, the Government will decide how products can best be fast-tracked on to the market and, where appropriate, implement conditions through secondary legislation for pre-market assessments, consumer protections and time limits. We have also committed to developing a clear framework for how clause 4 will operate in practice, in consultation with stakeholders. This will be developed and delivered through the Office for Product Safety and Standards, and it will be published in due course. It is also important to highlight that the power is not a carte blanche for bypassing product safety regulation, but rather a targeted response to emergencies. The clause will ensure that, while we speed up the process, essential safety standards are maintained through proportionate measures. Crucially, the exercise of clause 4 will be subject to the draft affirmative legislative procedure, ensuring that any regulatory changes made under the clause are subject to scrutiny by both Houses before coming into force. In conclusion, clause 4 is a necessary response to ensure that, in future emergencies, the Government can react swiftly to guarantee the supply of critical products while maintaining safety standards. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham for making a clear argument about the importance of the circular economy. The amendments she spoke to seek to mandate that all product regulations made under the Bill require an environmental impact assessment, as well as provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy. As Members will be aware, under the duty set out in the Environment Act 2021, Ministers and policymakers must already consider the environmental impact of all new Government policies. That has been reflected on and set out in more detail in the code of conduct, to which I referred Members today and which was in response to suggestions from Members of the other place on the kinds of issues to put forward in that code. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set moving to a zero-waste economy as one of the top five priorities of the Department. To support that, he has committed to work with a wide range of stakeholders to develop a circular economy strategy and a series of sectoral reform road maps to deliver a circular economy transition. It would therefore be inappropriate to introduce a definition of the circular economy in legislation at this time. Turning to the right to repair, it is important to note that product regulations made under the Bill will cover many types of products, some of which may be inappropriate to repair, such as cosmetics. The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 introduced measures including requirements for repairability for the first time in Great Britain. Those regulations contribute to our circular economy objectives by increasing the lifespan, maintenance and waste handling of energy-related products. The Government’s aim is to introduce further right to repair measures when regulating individual products under the ecodesign for energy-related products regulations where appropriate. As those powers exist, it is unnecessary to amend the Bill in the manner being suggested. I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for her contributions, but hope that I have demonstrated why such amendments would be inappropriate and unnecessary due to existing legislation or work being done elsewhere across Government. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Metrologist. He may well be on the Bill Committee, because he has definitely talked his way on to it with his insight into this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) almost matched him in terms of technical specificity, and his historical knowledge was also very important. He has just finished sitting on a Bill Committee with me, but he is talking his way on to this one as well—perhaps I should not say that, because it might encourage colleagues not to speak in future debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), were among a number of Members who talked about the issue of e-bikes, which is a real concern. I am sure the whole House has been moved by the tragic cases of e-bike fires that we too often hear about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the tragic death of Sofia Duarte. I met her mother last year to talk about what we can do through this Bill to prevent such tragedies from happening again. In the wake of the increasing number of fires associated with e-bikes and lithium-ion batteries, there have been calls from businesses, trade associations, consumer groups and parliamentarians to tighten up the law. This legislation will allow us to ensure that the UK’s product safety framework can keep up with technological developments, including on e-bikes. The powers in the Bill will allow us to update regulations to ensure the best protections for consumers and consistency with the majority of reputable retailers. The Government are currently considering how best to use the powers in the Bill to regulate these products in an efficient and proportionate way, in particular to ensure that products that can pose a greater risk, such as lithium-ion batteries and e-bikes and e-scooters, are safe. That includes bringing forward powers in the Bill to better define online marketplaces and confer additional duties on them to help stop the sale of unsafe products, including converter kits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) pointed out, this is a fast-moving environment, and the Bill will give us the flexibility to tackle that.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Double British Summer Time · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this debate. I am grateful for her insights and remarks on this important topic, which, as she explained, impacts on everyone’s lives in one way or another. She described the clocks changing as a bit of a faff, which I think we can all appreciate. She then went on to discuss the reasons she advocates for this change in great detail. In my remarks, I will go on to explain why there are also potential negatives to what is being proposed. As my hon. Friend mentioned, seasonal clock changes were first proposed in the early 1900s to extend daylight hours for recreation, to improve health and to save on lighting costs. At the time, clocks were set to Greenwich mean time all year round, resulting in early sunrises and sunsets in the summer. The idea gained traction during the first world war because of the need to conserve coal, which led to the adoption of changes in 1916. Biannual clock changes have continued ever since, with a brief deviation from the pattern during the second world war, when double British summer time was introduced, and between 1968 and 1972, when the clocks were put forward but not back as part of an experiment. I think those were also the first four years of my parents’ marriage, an experiment that thankfully has lasted much longer. It was eventually discontinued, however, due to inconclusive results regarding its effect on road casualties. About 70 countries worldwide currently adopt some form of daylight saving. British summer time is the UK’s version of European summer time, which follows the same pattern by changing the clocks twice a year by one hour. This synchronisation allows for smooth transactions in trade, travel and communication across Europe. The Government are aware that the issue of daylight saving has, at times, attracted extensive public and political debate, with suggestions to adopt British double summer time. British double summer time was introduced for a short period during the second world war, as I have mentioned. By extending daylight hours into the evening, it reduced the need for artificial lighting, thereby conserving fuel. Introducing British double summer time would result in clocks remaining one hour ahead of Greenwich mean time in the winter and moving two hours ahead in the summer. By observing British summer time, the UK maintains a one-hour difference with European countries throughout the year. This would not be the case under British double summer time. Using Germany as an example, the time difference with it would vary between winter and summer. In winter, both the UK and Germany would be one hour ahead of GMT, resulting in no time difference. During summer, the UK would be one hour ahead of Germany. The Government believe that the current daylight saving arrangements represent the optimal use of the available daylight across the UK. Changing the current arrangements would impact all citizens in the UK and Northern Ireland and would require public consultation and assessment of the impact on businesses across all sectors of the economy. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, there would of course be benefits to moving to double British summer time. We know that darker hours exacerbate mental health conditions, particularly seasonal affective disorder. The shorter days and reduced natural daylight, as a result of clock changes, can worsen symptoms according to the charity Change Mental Health. We also know that there is evidence that enforced clock changes can disrupt sleep health, especially in a forward direction such as that which currently occurs in March—and will be happening again in three days’ time. However, we also know from the British Sleep Society that natural daylight in the morning is critical for alignment of our internal body clocks. Moving to double British summer time would cause darker mornings, especially in winter. We are also aware of some evidence that abolishing clock changes would reduce road accidents. Analysis from the RAC Foundation and Road Safety Analysis shows that between 2012 and 2017 there was a 2% increase in road accidents over the two fortnightly periods when the clock changes took place. In terms of energy use, keeping to GMT plus 1 during the winter months might be expected to reduce overall energy use, as people use less artificial light in the evenings. However, the effects are likely to be small in magnitude, and may even be uncertain—there might be no effect at all. The most significant effects are likely to be associated with lighting demand as demand switches from the evening to the morning. While there might be some benefits, there would be a risk of the UK energy system being affected by the time zone choices of neighbouring countries with which it trades gas and electricity. For example, the time difference between the UK and France means that peak demand is staggered across the two countries and allows for interconnectors to play a role in meeting peak demand throughout the year. This results in lower energy generation required in Great Britain and lower prices for consumers. If the time difference were to change, that could have impacts across the energy system, including on the benefits assumed from interconnection. There might also be road safety impacts. Advancing the clock in spring creates a short-term disruption in sleeping patterns, which can cause fatigue. This can lead to inattention, poor decision making and delayed reaction times, all of which are contributing factors to road traffic accidents. Summer time arrangements have led to concerns about the disrupted biorhythms of animals, with respect to changing milking and feeding schedules, although of course these impacts are expected to be reduced due to the deployment of new equipment, artificial lighting and automated technologies. The approach to daylight saving is a complex area, given the importance of just-in-time supply chains to many industries. Many sectors and businesses, example in the aviation industry, would need considerable notice of any such change. There have been examinations of all this in the past. Following a call for evidence, the House of Lords report “Clock changes: is it time for change?” found that the abolition of seasonal changes of time in the UK in any circumstances would require adjustments in sectors ranging from transport to energy and software development. Such adjustments would bring some transition costs, which could be burdensome for industries when scheduling, especially internationally, which would be a concern, particularly for aviation. In that report, the European Union Committee concluded that it did not receive compelling evidence to suggest that the current system of seasonal changes is problematic for the UK, while noting that there is a lack of contemporary studies on the subject. Moving to double British summer time would create a time border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, if Ireland maintained its current approach to time. That non-alignment could cause problems for transport, particularly aviation, tourism, trade and business in general, with higher impacts if there was only a part-year alignment. This view is not only held by UK industries and representing bodies; it was also reported in EU and non-EU countries’ responses to a 2018 European Commission consultation. In the UK, seasonal changes of time facilitate lighter evenings for over half the year and reduce morning darkness in winter. The latter effect is particularly pronounced in northern parts of the UK, especially Scotland. Double British summer time in the north of Scotland would mean no daylight in the winter before 10 am, while in the rest of Scotland sunrise would be at 9 am. Opponents of change point out that in Scotland children would have to travel to and from school in darkness. As pointed out by the Scottish Government in their written evidence to the Lords Committee, farm vehicles and other large vehicles would spend more time on the roads during the hours of darkness, further adding to the risks. In 2012 the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published a review of the scope, quality and robustness of available evidence regarding clock changes. The review found that there are challenges in looking at the overall picture of the impacts that might occur across a range of issues, including energy consumption and road traffic accidents. To conclude, this Government will always listen carefully to any arguments that are put forward around how to mitigate challenges and provide support, particularly in areas such as mental health. We appreciate the concerns raised about the potential impact of clock changes on mental health and road safety, and we will always welcome views on how we can enhance our existing measures and initiatives. As set out in our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, the Government are committed to expanding access to NHS talking therapies for adults with common mental health conditions such as depression, including seasonal affective disorder. This Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our roads. My ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport are developing the first road safety strategy in over a decade, and will set out more details in due course. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard again for securing the debate. She has raised some interesting points, but the evidence for the case for change is not overwhelming. However, I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that the clocks go forward on Sunday, and it is also Mother’s Day. Question put and agreed to.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Product Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his tangential question relating to GPSR. He makes an important point about energy costs, and we are working closely with the EU on how to build on that, and of course the industrial strategy will also be looking very closely at how energy costs can be brought down for businesses.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Regulatory Environment · Hansard source

  More

  The regulatory environment does not work as well as it should. Unnecessary red tape is choking competitiveness, creating unnecessary burdens for business and putting up barriers to growth. That is why we are introducing a Government-wide target to reduce the administrative costs of regulation by 25% by the end of this Parliament. That will be supported by a baselining exercise to understand the administrative costs of regulation to businesses. The Prime Minister will set out more details later today. This is just the beginning; details of our ambitious action plan to reform the regulatory landscape will be set out shortly.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Regulatory Environment · Hansard source

  More

  That is an important question. The Minister with responsibility for emissions trading, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), is in charge of that matter, and it is one of the discussions we are having as part of the EU reset.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Regulatory Environment · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend is right to recognise, this issue has been around for some time, and the Government have announced their intention to publish a draft audit reform and corporate governance Bill for scrutiny in this Session. Investors and the public need access to truthful reporting from our most important businesses on their finances and related issues. My Department continues to progress that important work, and a timetable for the publication of the Bill will be confirmed in the usual way for draft legislation in due course.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is what we are attempting to deliver with our industrial strategy. Engagement with businesses is continuing on that. Publication will, I believe, be in the late spring, and we will ensure that it is a very successful launch. I will draw my comments to a conclusion, but I want to acknowledge Conservative Members’ barrage of criticism for the Employment Rights Bill. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, just to make sure that the shadow Minister is not disappointed. No doubt we will debate the Bill in more detail next week, but I do hope that Conservative Members will have actually read it by then. They kept talking about going back to the 1970s, but the legislation that the Bill repeals is from 2023 and 2016, so we are going back to 2015 at best. I hope that they get some better lines before Report. In conclusion, we are making the UK a more attractive and easier place in which to invest and do business through our expanded Office for Investment. Our sectors of the future are being emboldened through our modern industrial strategy, which will ensure that we have the right environment and skills for them to innovate, invest and create clean growth. Small and medium-sized businesses are being supported with the capital and conditions that they need to thrive, and millions of employees are being afforded greater protections at work, so that they can support their family and enjoy a higher standard of living, because we are determined to end the race to the bottom. I thank all Members for contributing to the debate, and I am grateful for the important work of the Business and Trade Committee. I look forward to continuing to work with it. I commend these estimates to the House.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), and indeed the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for securing the debate, and for the work that they do on the Business and Trade Committee. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway littered his speech with football analogies, to the extent that I wondered whether you were going to show him a red card, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you did not. He made many criticisms of the Government, but all I would say is that we are not even at half-time yet. Let us wait until we get to the end of the match. There were a number of important and interesting contributions to the debate. I will try to address as many of them as I can in the time that I have. It is clear that the Department is central to driving economic growth, ensuring that we remain competitive on the global stage, and making work pay for everyone. The Government’s growth mission has been our top priority since day one of taking office, because we understand that without economic growth we cannot invest in public services, nor can we raise living standards for hard-working families. To secure the growth that we need, we are guided by four key principles: building long-term stability; renewing our commitment to free and fair trade; easing the investor journey; and being a strategic, growth-focused state. We have wasted no time in getting to work on that, and in fixing the foundations of the economy. My Department has been at the forefront of those efforts, and I will try to explain the things that we have done as I answer the points raised during the debate. I start with the comments of the Select Committee Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North. I was pleased to hear that he found terrific unity of purpose on the Government’s ambitions for growth. I join him in paying tribute to the civil servants who are helping us to deliver on those ambitions. He raised a number of important points. He talked about getting the right workforce, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards). We will have a levy-funded growth and skills offer that will deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers. That will be aligned with our industrial strategy, creating routes into good, skilled jobs in growing industries. As a first step, we will ensure shorter duration and foundation apprenticeships in targeted sectors. That will help more people to learn high-quality skills at work, fuelling innovation in businesses across the country and providing high-quality entry pathways for young people. We will, through legislation, reduce the minimum duration of apprenticeships to eight months, so that shorter apprenticeships are possible from August 2025. Trailblazer apprenticeships in green energy, healthcare and film and TV production will be among the first to take advantage of that new offer. Also, in response to calls from employers, assessment plans will be less burdensome, focusing on the must-haves for occupational competency, rather than testing every knowledge, skill or behaviour. The Select Committee Chairman made an important point on an issue that I have been looking at carefully: how we harmonise regulation, make sure that we do not have different Departments talking to different people and saying different things, streamline, and ensure a cohesive environment in which businesses can invest and grow. He will be pleased to know that I have been meeting colleagues from other Departments, and particularly Lord Vallance, the Minister of State for science, research and innovation, who is looking at innovation in this area. We also now have Government growth boards, which are looking at this Government’s missions to ensure that that cross-departmental grip on matters. The Select Committee Chair, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) and for Tamworth, asked how we can use the British Business Bank to help businesses access finance. We are looking very closely at that. The bank is operationally independent, but we are working with it to ensure that businesses can navigate the market better and have clearer information and options available to them. There is also a package for encouraging tech adoption among SMEs, and we hope that the British Growth Partnership will get that pension fund investment into some of the UK’s fastest growing companies. The Select Committee Chair asked about the figure of £126.7 million. My understanding is that it is the result of a revaluation of the Department’s investment portfolio. That is a standard process, and I am happy to put him in touch with officials for a more detailed explanation of that, if he requires it. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) asked about the Grangemouth refinery. It is deeply regrettable that we have had to step in and put plans in place there. There is £100 million for the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, which will help boost the local economy. There is a £1.5 million project to look at credible, long-term industrial options for the site, which we expect to report in the spring. The National Wealth Fund will also provide nearly £200 million of growth opportunities for the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) highlighted the devastating impact that a lack of a strategy can have on a community in her constituency. I join Opposition Members in thanking her son for his service in the defence of our nation. She will be pleased to know that our industrial strategy Green Paper, “Invest 2035: the UK’s modern industrial strategy”, sets out the eight key growth-driving sectors into which we want to channel investment and support in the long term. We want to unleash the full potential of those priority sectors to spur growth, spread wealth and drive up employment across all four nations of the UK. Each of the industries will have its own sector plan, setting out how we intend to support businesses, build on existing successes and unlock new opportunities. Those sector plans are being designed in partnership with business, devolved Governments, regions and other key parties. The industrial strategy, alongside sector plans for the growth-driving sectors, will be published later this year, and will be aligned with the multi-year spending review.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the hon. Member has said, and no doubt that is something that can be put in as part of the review. When I spoke to the adjudicator, he said that his approach is about ensuring compliance and helping to prevent problems from escalating in the first place, avoiding the need for formal investigations and dispute resolution. He has said that he is satisfied that his current powers provide the necessary tools to enforce the code and change retailer behaviour. He has also been clear—and has said publicly—that if he needs to instigate an investigation he is more than ready to do so. That leads on to some of the points Members made about the resources of the adjudicator. My information is that there are actually nine staff rather than seven, but the overall point is that that does not seem to be a great deal, given the number of supermarkets and the purchasing power that we are talking about. But it is entirely within the adjudicator’s gift to ask for more resources through the levy. If he feels he needs more, he can also talk to the CMA about secondments—that is something that is entirely up to him. If there is a question that things are not happening because of resources, I am confident that the adjudicator would come forward and discuss that with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) rightly referenced her leadership of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group, and I am proud to associate myself with that group, having represented it on many occasions in my former legal career. I know how much it has done in this area, and how this area affects its members. My hon. Friend was right to talk about how that sector is often characterised by a race to the bottom, with insecurity and low wages. That is what we hope to tackle through the Employment Rights Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford also made a number of interesting suggestions about how we move forward, which I will not be able to respond to in detail today, but I note that the Business and Trade Committee has recently begun an investigation into pricing practices. It focuses primarily on dynamic pricing, but the evidence session I attended covered a range of areas where prices were an issue. That report is something I will look forward to reading in due course. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also referred to the use of private equity in the supermarket sector, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. He was right to reference other sectors where that has become more of an issue. The CMA has recently looked at that issue in the veterinary sector, so it may be that it has the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, should it wish to do so. My right hon. Friend mentioned a survey in which 13% of respondents had no access to sick pay. We think that that is absolutely wrong, and that is why the Employment Rights Bill will ensure that statutory sick pay becomes a day one right for everyone, regardless of their earnings. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) talked about how dairy farmers in his constituency would like the GCA to apply to their work. He may be aware that the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 came into force in July last year, and will apply to all existing contracts from 9 July this year. I will pass his comments to the relevant Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see whether those regulations will assist in dealing with his constituents’ issues. DEFRA is also looking at powers in the Agriculture Act 2020 to see whether expanded regulations could improve fairness in the pig sector, as well as looking at the egg and fresh produce sectors. There are therefore a number of tools at our disposal to tackle some of the issues that Members have raised. The dairy regulations are enforced by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, Richard Thompson, who was appointed last summer. We expect that in future he will deal with any fair dealing regulations in the other sectors that I have mentioned. It is important to note that ASCA and GCA are in regular contact to ensure that the two regimes operate effectively alongside one another. We will conduct a review to understand the effectiveness of the fair dealing regulations. As I have already mentioned, there will also be the triennial review of the GCA. Hon. Members have spoken with great knowledge and passion about a number of issues that they would wish to put forward, particularly about the GCA’s remit and powers. I encourage them to do so, and we will see what the review takes forward. The points made about the importance of this country’s food security and fairness to consumers and producers are absolutely right. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe on securing the debate.

• 30 Jan 2025 · North-east: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I am at one with my hon. Friend in wanting all parts of the country, especially the north-west and the north-east, to have high-paid, well-skilled, good jobs, in tech sectors in particular, but also in other areas where we can see great advantage for the economy. The local skills improvement plan for the north-east will help, and the excellent facilities at Blyth’s Energy Central Learning Hub are supported by over £6 million of Government funding. That is already developing sector skills in a real-world port setting. With the reopening of the Northumberland line, we have reconnected towns in south-east Northumberland with Tyneside, improving links and opportunities across the area.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 183, in schedule 6, page 135, line 6, leave out “‘Secretary of State’.” and insert “‘Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority or the Secretary of State’.” This amendment would ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a “relevant document” that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under that Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration of interests and to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The amendment is essential to upholding legal continuity and to preventing any ambiguity or loopholes in enforcement. It will ensure that provisions under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 remain enforceable. Without the amendment, there is a risk that any improper conduct in relation to documents issued before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority could fall outside the scope of enforcement. Fraudulent licences have been used to exploit vulnerable workers and to mislead employers, particularly in industries such as agriculture and food processing. The amendment will strengthen deterrence against document fraud and ensure that enforcement agencies retain the tools that they need to protect workers effectively.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, the Bill has not been published yet, so we cannot stray into that. We may be able to get on to it this afternoon, but we are trying to help some of the most poorly paid people in our society, who do such an important job. My hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow all talked about how important teaching assistants are, particularly in supporting those with special educational needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield was right that it is shameful that the Low Pay Commission has now deemed teaching assistants to be part of the low pay environment. We are determined to address that, which is why the reinstatement of the SSSNB is an important step. Let us reflect on some of the evidence that we have had—for example, the GMB evidence. Andy Prendergast said: “we see increasingly more pupils with special educational needs go into mainstream education, and they need that additional support.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 132, Q136.] Some of those staff do detailed things such as phonics, supporting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and help to deliver classes. I take the point that has been made about the NJC being an inappropriate way of evaluating and assessing job value. It is clear—indeed a number of other pieces of written evidence have supported our assertion—that the NJC is not the right vehicle for assessing teaching assistants’ pay. We believe that the SSSNB is the way ahead. The hon. Member for Bridgwater talked about this being a centralising move. Of course, the SSSNB will comprise mainly employers and employee representatives. It will not be a Whitehall-dominated machine.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Royal Mail Takeover · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure the hon. and learned Member that there is nothing in the deal that affects the universal service obligation, and it is our understanding and commitment to continue to ensure that there is a universal service obligation moving forward. There are commitments in the agreement to deliver more investment. On the van network, I know that Royal Mail has purchased a number of vans in recent times, conveniently from the Stellantis plant in my constituency. Hopefully, that will be replicated throughout the country, because it is an ageing fleet. As the company has ambitious targets to meet net zero, I think it wants to improve the make-up of the stock.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease. I point out that not just is there an overall impact assessment for the Bill, but there are 24 separate impact assessments for different measures. That shows the amount of work that has been put in. The RPC has approved two thirds of those assessments, and it was looking only at the evidence base, not the policies themselves. The impact assessment for day one rights covers everything we would expect an impact assessment to look at: the business environment, the wider economic impact, trade implications, wages, labour mobility, productivity, and sectoral and regional impacts. As the evidence base is firmed up, we will continue to refine and develop it. It deals comprehensively with many of the shadow Minister’s concerns, and I invite him not to press his amendments to a vote. Question put and agreed to. Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to . Clause 20 Dismissal during pregnancy Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 8 provides for the removal of the waiting period from the statutory sick pay system, meaning that all eligible employees are able to access statutory sick pay from the first day of sickness absence. The current system of waiting until the fourth day of sickness before SSP is paid means that many people are forced to make the difficult choice between going into work when they are unwell or receiving no income. That is bad for individuals but also bad for business. Removing the waiting period will support employees in taking the time off they need to recover from illness and reduce the spread of infection. Under the current rules, the system encourages workers to drag themselves into work when they are unwell. The TUC gave an example of workers in a mental health hospital in Blackpool who had to go on strike because they did not have access to day one sick pay and could not afford to take the day off. Those NHS workers felt that they were being forced to go into work. Obviously, they work in a clinical environment, so they were also putting patients at risk.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you both feel that the Bill and the fair work agency in particular will help to protect people with protected characteristics at work? John Kirkpatrick: It is clear, Minister, that a number of people with protected characteristics are particularly vulnerable to the sorts of practice or exploitation that the fair work agency would devote itself to being concerned about. I would defer to Margaret on whether the unification of the existing authorities will make for improved enforcement. If it does, it will clearly be of benefit to those people. I suppose the one thing I would add is that it is really important in this kind of area and these parts of the labour market that there is clarity on both employers’ obligations and employee’s rights, and what their sources of redress might be if those rights are breached. Real clarity and distinction of who enforces what seems to me very important. There is no difference between us on this, nor anything in the Bill that would confuse that. The maintenance of that clarity, so that people can understand what their rights are and how to exercise them, seems to us an important precondition to the Bill being successful in that aim. Margaret Beels: The research I referred to, which is being published tomorrow, demonstrates that the workers more at risk of precarious work are female workers and younger workers, as well as workers from a lower-working-class background. The industries in which they work that are most at risk of being precarious are hospitality, retail, agriculture and construction. I think, to the extent that the Bill will address some of the issues affecting more precarious workers, that will be of benefit.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Draft Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 22 May and are part of a programme of statutory instruments that implement reforms under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will hereafter refer to as the 2023 Act. The new Government are committed to holding accountable those who abuse our open economy, and to enhancing the UK’s reputation as a hub for legitimate businesses. Our vision is to create a more transparent and accountable corporate environment that not only fights economic crime but fosters trust and integrity within our financial systems. The 2023 Act reforms the role of Companies House and increases the transparency of UK companies. The reforms will create a more reliable companies register and instil confidence in our business environment, safeguarding rights and the safety of individuals. The reforms, which, it is only fair to acknowledge, begun under the previous Government, will not only strengthen our business environment but support our national security, enhance our international standing and contribute to the UK’s economic growth. As we know, the reforms are already under way; stronger rules and checks introduced since March have already helped to cleanse the register and disrupt organised crime. Companies House is also undergoing a full organisational transformation to implement those changes. As we embark on this journey, we recognise that although significant progress has been made, more remains to be done. The Government are committed to ensuring that the 2023 Act not only meets but exceeds expectations, establishing a transparent and secure economic system that protects citizens and businesses from the harms of economic crime. A key priority for Companies House is increasing its intelligence capabilities and embedding that further into the law enforcement ecosystem. There has been significant progress in this area already; Companies House has introduced extensive legal gateways for data sharing with law enforcement, other Government bodies and the private sector. That has led to a more efficient sharing of suspicious activity with law enforcement agencies. Additionally, feedback mechanisms have been established with other Government bodies and businesses in the anti-money laundering regulated sector, to enhance the quality of the information being shared. We are here today to move further on that progress and discuss the draft regulations, which will amend the Companies Act 2006 to give the registrar of companies greater powers to share non-public information with enforcement agencies and other bodies, for the performance of their functions. The 2023 Act amended the 2006 Act to give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that allow the registrar to expand the information sharing to specified persons for specific purposes. For instance, there may be circumstances where it is beneficial for the registrar to share information with certain office holders involved in administering insolvency proceedings. Such office holders will most often be insolvency practitioners, but may also be the official receiver, or in Scotland the accountant in bankruptcy. Although the registrar has the power to share information with public authorities, under the 2006 Act, the functions undertaken by office holders relate to private matters, due to the nature of insolvency proceedings. As such, they also involve the identification and realisation of assets in insolvency proceedings. Therefore, the registrar is not currently able to share information with such office holders for those purposes. The functions can often go beyond the sale of property or personal belongings, into applications to the court to reverse transactions that were made prior to the insolvency proceedings and were not in the best interests of all the creditors. The functions might even extend to asking the court to make directors of the company personally liable where they have allowed the company to continue to trade beyond the point at which insolvency was inevitable, causing further losses to creditors. For those kinds of actions, the office holder could benefit from information that the registrar’s current powers do not allow her to share. The draft regulations will allow the registrar to share relevant information that the office holder needs to perform their functions and provide the best returns for creditors in insolvency proceedings. The regulations are fairly straightforward. I would like to emphasise that they are important for strengthening the information-sharing network within the economic crime space. They will enable Companies House to support the Government’s efforts in fighting economic crime and in ensuring that creditors in insolvency proceedings are able to get the best use of the tools available to them to secure the best return. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does anyone else want to come back on that one? Maggi Ferncombe: Can I just make a point? It is almost like unions are the enemy, when you hear certain businesses talk. Unions have a common goal with every employer where we organise, and that is for the organisation to do well, because that means that the staff and the workers will do well as well. Especially in the sectors that I represent, we have an absolute common goal with all the public sector bodies. We want good-quality public services. Working with trade unions is the best way to achieve that, and good employers know that. Good employers know that working with us will save them time, money and energy. They will have a workforce that are much happier in what they are doing, and they will be more productive, with less sick days. The statistics are all around. Putting additional barriers in place where workers cannot undertake the fundamental right of joining a trade union—I think it is a false barrier, to be perfectly honest with you, because if workers really want to join, they will. Dave Moxham: Very briefly on the access issue, individual workers should have the right to say yes or no, but in order to exercise their right, they need to know the possibility. The possibility comes from very simple, but hopefully very straightforward and not bureaucratic, arrangements that expect an employer once in a while to provide access for a union to speak to those workers. It should be really simple. You do not get to exercise the right to say yes or no if you do not know in the first place. Hannah Reed: I have one quick comment. I totally agree with the points on access. Trying to think about it from an employer’s perspective, if a substantial number of workers within your workplace are saying, “We want trade union recognition,” ignoring that—saying no to those requests—must have an impact on staff morale. Another point we would add is that our concern is that the statutory recognition provisions are not balanced. All the provisions at present tend to be weighted too much towards the employer, because the employer can delay the process, providing them with more and more time during statutory recognition to invest resources and put pressure on workers not to vote for recognition. We welcome the consultation from the Government, and we want to work with them to strengthen the provisions to provide much earlier access, so that it becomes the norm in the workplace that the trade union is present and that workers can ask questions, but also that there are stronger unfair practice provisions. I know that we look at international practices, and I noticed in the States just last week that the National Labour Relations Board actually made it unlawful for employers to hold meetings with staff for the purpose of trying to convince them not to support recognition. Could you imagine a law within the UK—we hope we could get to this point—where there is actually a level playing field, and where employers cannot create a hostile environment and say to workers, “You cannot have a democratic right. You cannot have your choice to have a say”? That is what collective bargaining is: giving workers a say over their own pay and their own terms and conditions. That is not something that is foreign; it is just about empowering workers to have their voices heard by their employers.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Whistleblowing Protections · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Mark. I start by offering my triple congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell): first, congratulations on returning to this place—it is good to see him back—secondly, congratulations on securing the debate; and thirdly, congratulations on being appointed chair of the all-party group for whistleblowing, which I am sure he will lead with distinction. We have heard a number of very important and passionate contributions today. I will do my best to sum them up, but it is fair to say that we are looking forward to working with all Members across the board on this very important topic. Before addressing some of those points, I will start by discussing the current whistleblowing framework. As Members have said, it is essentially about employment protection, and that is the reason why I am here, as the Minister for Employment Rights, to respond on the Government’s behalf. The protections were introduced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which amended the Employment Rights Act 1996. The legislation was intended to provide a route for workers to make disclosures of information that they reasonably believed were in the public interest and tended to show a relevant failure or someone covering up a relevant failure. Those relevant failures could include criminal offences, the endangerment of health and safety, causing damage to the environment, a miscarriage of justice or a breach of any legal obligation. Disclosures need to be made in line with the requirements of the legislation, usually to a worker’s employer or lawyer, or a prescribed person. As Members may know, there are more than 90 different prescribed persons under the legislation to whom relevant failures can be reported. They are usually regulators, such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority. I will not go through every single prescribed person today, but most have a statutory obligation to report on the disclosures that they receive and to publish the reports annually. Since the reporting requirements came into effect, there has been an increase in the number of disclosures that are made to prescribed persons. The volume of disclosures is around 50,000 a year and, as we can probably tell from the contributions today, they are highly concentrated in the health, public administration and financial and insurance sectors. The reports summarise the actions that a prescribed person has taken, but there is variation in how that information is protected. As we have discussed, workers have, under the law, a right not to be dismissed or subjected to a detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure, and there is recourse to an employment tribunal. The number of employment tribunal complaints under the jurisdiction for protected disclosure in each year since 2017-18 has increased, reaching 3,128 in 2020-21. That is the latest year for which a full dataset is available. But enough of the overview. We need to talk about some of the important contributions that we have heard from Members. This debate is really about how whistleblowing affects individuals. We know that it can fundamentally and irrevocably damage, indeed end, that relationship with the employer. We know there are reasons why people will not speak up: some are in senior positions and fear for their career or their reputation, some may be at the other end of the spectrum and fear insecurity and power imbalances that may make it difficult to speak up, and some may have a link to the organisation but may not be covered under the legislation. I would like to make a few comments about the contributions in this debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for contributing. I am sure if he had come in earlier, his speech would have covered many of the points that had already been made, but that is the lottery of Westminster Hall, and I am sure there will be many opportunities for him to speak earlier in other debates. He referenced a number of Members’ speeches. It was particularly pleasing to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Sarah Russell), who brought her professional experience to bear today. She made an interesting suggestion about the use of “some other substantial reason” as a potentially fair reason for dismissing someone in whistleblowing cases. We probably need to look at the use of “some other substantial reason”, as it is likely that it gets overused. However, as she will be aware, the current Employment Rights Bill has enough in it for us to be getting on with. She made an interesting suggestion in respect of the potential use of the Fair Work Agency here, and that is something we will bear in mind. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), highlighted some of the legal issues under the current legislation, including the question whether someone is within scope, the hurdles that they have to overcome to qualify for protection and the public interest test. Those are all things that we want to look at in a broader sense, if we get around to a review of the legislation. I take his point about officials in the Department for Work and Pensions, but I hope that this Administration would want to be an exemplar of best practice, and we would want people to feel confident that they can speak out if they see a wrong or an injustice. It was a pleasure, as always, to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in his customary place—I may have swapped positions, but he remains a permanent fixture over there. He spoke very movingly about his friend Brian and the great personal cost of his efforts to expose wrongdoing. Brian’s resilience came through in the hon. Member’s description of his fight. As he said, it was about doing the right thing, and his message was that, “you are not alone when you do the right thing.” We should be sending that message to anyone who thinks about blowing the whistle. Of course, the matter is devolved to Northern Ireland, but that message should ring out across the whole of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised some specific issues about the Department of Health and Social Care and her constituent Sarah McMahon. I am sorry to hear of the three years of personal difficulties Sarah McMahon has suffered as a result of doing the right thing. Unfortunately, too many organisations make it very difficult for individuals who blow the whistle. I understand that the Department for Health and Social Care has concluded a review of the statutory duty of candour, and it has issued a call for evidence, which I think is ongoing. I take her message of frustration about the length of time that these things take, and I will pass that message back to the Department. However, my hon. Friend made the important point that some organisations have got it right and encourage people to speak up when they see a wrong. There are some very good examples, including the aviation industry, which is a particular exemplar of that. It is the standard that we should be aiming for. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who opened the debate, said that the law looks at how things happen after the disclosure, and always through the prism of an employment relationship. That was a good analysis of where we are and perhaps why there are shortcomings in some of the legislation. I agree that this is about the law giving people the confidence to speak up. I am sure we will return to some of the things we hope to do on that.