Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 General Committees

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I am genuinely delighted to see the hon. Member for Halifax in her place as the Minister; I congratulate her on her achievement. She has been sent here to speak to a straightforward piece of delegated legislation that raises the minimum wage levels but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs outlined, the situation is becoming more complex.

It is worth saying a few words about what we see in the real world. My constituency is Wetherby and Easingwold, and it does what it says on the tin: I represent the two market towns of Wetherby and Easingwold, as well as other towns such as Tadcaster and Boroughbridge, surrounded by lots of villages. There are lots of small businesses in those towns, and although it would be wrong to say that they are not hiring young people, they have stopped hiring as many young people as they used to.

It is all well and good to compliment the changes and say that wages are rising for the poorest paid, but that does not take into account the other tax changes that have taken place, such as the changes to rates and employers’ national insurance contributions. All these things, when added together, have resulted in businesses cutting back on the number of young people who work for them.

I remember my very first job at WHSmith, when I was still at school. I went for a Saturday job, but I ended up getting a job doing the newspapers and magazines before the shop opened every day of the week. I would get up at half-past 5, and leave WHSmith at half-past 8 to go to school. It was a real experience for me as a 17 to 18-year-old to have to have that discipline and to go to work in the real world. As I have often said, I have never had as much disposable income as I had then—the clubs and pubs of Gravesend were very welcome to it.

The experiences that a young person can gain from short-term or Saturday employment, or part-time employment during school holidays, are vital. I fear that looking just at the rises in the minimum wage, and talking about how much people can earn a year, does not take into account the other pressures on business. For all the importance of raising people’s wages, it does not achieve anything if the jobs are not there.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Having run a business on the high street for the last 21 years, I can safely say that we have not had Saturday jobs around for at least the last 10 of them. That is not to do with the national minimum wage; it is due to a lack of support from Government over the last 14 years. Hundreds of ideas came forward, and numerous consultations were never acted on, so does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a bit of a leap to say that it is the minimum wage that is creating the issue?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she illustrates the point I am making. It is not about the minimum wage; it is about the other taxes that have gone alongside the minimum wage and put huge pressure on businesses. Lots of people say that raising the minimum wage is great, because it puts more money in people’s pockets, but it is the other pressures at the same time that are the issue. I could name five businesses in just one town in my constituency that did hire young people to work on a Saturday but have reduced the number of people they hire because of the other costs.

I will move on, because I am sure we were not expecting to be here in the Committee Room for too long. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. I raised this issue on Second Reading of the Employment Rights Act. I do not know how many Members on the Government Benches stood for election before 2024, but Labour party manifestos before 2024—it was not in the 2024 one—said the party would ban unpaid internships. I have fought to ban unpaid internships in every single term I have been in this place, and I have never got anywhere. Every Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box and said, “I don’t see why we are not doing it,” and then it did not happen.

I brought forward an amendment to the Minimum Wage Act 1998 so that it would include unpaid internships. One would have thought that a Government who keep talking about paying young people, getting them on the ladder and doing things for them would have included a simple minimum wage—whether the apprenticeship wage or the minimum wage for the youngest, a minimum wage—in that Act for people who are exploited. Anybody who works for a company for four weeks is adding value to the company, no matter what anybody says. Being asked to go and work, perhaps in London, for a year—having to sort out accommodation and bear all the costs—and not getting paid is exploitation.

I am afraid that, again, I push back on the Government. They parrot that what they are doing for people is great, because they are raising the minimum wage, but that does not take into account the other tax rises that have put pressure on business, and it does not do anything to move things forward for young people who are missing out on opportunity because they do not have the ways and means to work for free. The Government should take a close look at themselves. They have talked about their Employment Rights Act and have come here today to boast about rises in the minimum wage, but they have not ensured that a whole section of young people actually get paid for a day’s work. My party has always believed that work should pay.

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, for his contribution and for his kind words at the start of his speech. However, I am not sure that I am defending the indefensible. I am defending the decision to uplift our national living and minimum wages. On 1 April, when the regulations come into effect, we will be delivering a direct uplift of around £900 for a full-time worker on the national living wage and £1,500 for someone on the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds. That is not insignificant.

On the national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds, we are absolutely committed and determined to raise living standards for working people and ensure a genuine living wage, and our manifesto made our direction clear. When recommending the 2026 youth rates, we asked the LPC to consider the risk of employment impacts, while balancing those risks with the ambition to remove the discriminatory age bands for adults. The LPC carries out extensive consultations, commissions new research and considers a range of economic, labour market and business data to assess the impact of the national minimum wage on young workers, and it concluded that there is no clear evidence that the recent increases to the national minimum wage

“have affected young people’s employment overall.”

It assesses that a range of factors are driving recent trends among young people, including the sectors they are more likely to work in.

On what the Government are doing about the situation and the figures that the shadow Minister alluded to, we announced at the Budget more than £1.5 billion of investment over the spending review period for employment and skills support, to deliver the youth guarantee and to reform the growth and skills levy for young people. I agree about the significance of jobs at a young age, and I thank the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold for sharing his experience; it is one that I can sympathise with from my own journey and career. The skills learned in those first jobs are invaluable.

That is why the youth guarantee is so important. It will provide 16 to 24-year-olds across Great Britain with enhanced support to move into work or training, including by improving employment support through expanded youth hubs and increased support in jobcentres. I have seen the impact of that in my constituency, where the youth hub has transformed the lives of over 70 young people in the year that it has been running. The hubs are clearly of significant benefit across the country, creating nearly 300,000 additional work experience and training opportunities.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Does the Minister agree that unpaid internships should be banned?

[Kate Dearden]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has campaigned on that for a number of years. I am going to come to unpaid internships shortly, so I will respond to him then with an update on our work in the Department.

To finish on 18 to 20-year-olds, we have committed over £500 million to youth programmes and support from 2026-27 to 2029. I want to touch on the wider package, and how we are looking at opportunities for young people and their employment prospects, because it is really important. It includes over £60 million for a new richer young lives fund to improve activities and youth work; £15 million for youth workers; £70 million to rebuild and improve local youth services; £350 million to refurbish or build up to 250 youth facilities; and £22.5 million over three years to create a tailored enrichment offer in up to 400 schools, as well as the work that we are doing on apprenticeships training, which will be completely free for small and medium-sized enterprises that hire eligible young people aged 16 to 24. I wanted to spend some time responding to that point, because this is a clear Government priority and we are working at pace on it.

I thank the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold for raising unpaid internships. I know that he has been campaigning on that for a number of years, and I pay tribute to all his work on it. He will know that we ran a call for evidence from 17 July to 9 October 2025. We had hundreds of responses, which was brilliant to see, and we published our response on Friday. We committed to three key actions to tackle non-compliance: reviewing and expanding national minimum wage guidance; strengthening enforcement through the new fair work agency; and bolstering communications so that young people are aware of and understand their rights. That is a significant bit of work, and something that we are committed to reviewing and keeping an eye on. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will hold to account on that, and I thank him for that.

The regulations represent clear, discernible progress towards our manifesto commitments of delivering a genuine living wage and expanding eligibility for the national living wage to all adult workers. It is not entirely clear whether the Opposition will vote against them today and try to prevent these 2.7 million workers from getting a pay rise—we will see.

I extend my thanks to ACAS, which offers impartial and expert assistance on employment issues, and to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which enforces the minimum wage on behalf of the Department for Business and Trade. We are confident that the creation of the fair work agency, which will be set up from April this year, will ensure a more effective, less fragmented enforcement system.

In closing, I again thank the Low Pay Commission; we are grateful for its expertise and its collaborative social partnership model, which brings together the perspectives of workers and businesses. The minimum wage is one of the most successful Government policies in recent decades and remains one of the cornerstones of our plan to make work pay. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for championing the businesses in his constituency. One such business, GS Yuasa Battery Manufacturing in Gwent, is receiving support from the supercharger, exempting it from several renewables levies and electricity network usage costs. This is all part of the Government’s clean energy superpower mission, which will cut costs, boost energy security and accelerate grid connections.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I have a fantastic Yorkshire brick company in my constituency. Unfortunately it had to go into administration, but it was rescued. As welcome as the supercharger scheme is, the problem was that the company did not qualify because it did not meet the business level test, so it did not get any Government support. Can the Government engage directly with ceramics manufacturers, which are huge users of electricity, gas and various other products, because if we export products to be made elsewhere, the carbon footprint is often much bigger than if we had made them locally?

[Chris McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I share his concerns about the ceramics industry. He is quite right that many ceramics companies failed to qualify for the supercharger. There will be a review of the supercharger this year, and I have asked officials to look very carefully at the potential to include ceramics companies in it. I discussed that with the ceramics industry at an event in Parliament this week, which the right hon. Member attended—as, I think, did the Yorkshire brick company that he mentioned. I can also inform him that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will meet ceramics industries in the near future.

“Chapter 4A

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

The Government are moving amendments that will add two new provisions into part 2 of the Bill. Analysis conducted by the Resolution Foundation found that 900,000 workers reported that they had no paid holiday despite that being a day one entitlement. New clause 35 will create a new duty in the Working Time Regulations 1998 for employers to retain records relating to holiday pay and annual leave for six years.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I apologise if the Minister has moved on a bit; I was just waiting to hear what he said. The Minister may correct me, but I do not believe the provisions around menstrual health—the menopause strategy and so on—include endometriosis, which can be crippling for people in the workplace. I may not have seen it in the Bill, but does the Minister have any plans to ensure that this becomes a protected area of sick leave? Endometriosis is devastating for many women, but at the moment, they are struggling to get this terrible disease recognised in the workplace.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this important point. It was touched on in Committee, but there are not any amendments dealing with that specific issue today.

Returning to holiday pay, where an employer does not keep adequate records, a Fair Work Agency enforcement officer may seek a labour market enforcement undertaking from the employer to ensure future compliance. Where the employer refuses to give a labour market enforcement undertaking, or fails to comply with one, the FWA enforcement officer may apply to the appropriate court for a labour market enforcement order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that I have read the Bill, and I have read a considerable number of documents from the House of Commons Library and many other organisations. I have spoken to a lot of businesses in my constituency, as well as further afield, who I can assure her are horrified at the Bill. The Minister was asked earlier to name a single small business that supported the Bill, and his answer was the Co-op and Centrica. The last time I looked, neither of those would be considered small businesses.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Does it worry my hon. Friend that, once again, the Government have revealed they are desperately hoping that companies such Centrica do become small businesses?

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point in his stylish, witty manner.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given a red rating to the identification of options and choice of policy on zero-hours contracts and guaranteed hours in the Bill. That means the Government have not justified the necessity of clauses 1 to 6. What is the problem the Government are trying to solve with those clauses? Why are those clauses needed? We just do not know. The Bill, despite literally hundreds of Government amendments, remains silent about how these provisions will work in practice, which means the Government’s assessment that the administrative cost of the Bill to business in shift and workforce planning will be £320 million could well be an underestimate.

The deputy CEO of UKHospitality raised their concerns in Committee, saying:

“the Government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what ‘reasonable notice’ means.” ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 43, Q39.]

That is an unacceptable way to legislate. Businesses crave certainty and a stable regulatory environment. This Bill provides anything but, and the result, as the chair of the CBI has said, is that it risks becoming

“an adventure playground for employment rights lawyers.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Barron]

No.

Zero-hours contracts are banned in Spain and in the Republic of Ireland—employers cannot use them. Do not tell me that those countries do not have flexibility; they have. We will survive in the future, as we survived in the past, without exploiting working people, because countries do not grow their economy by exploiting working people. This Bill goes some way towards stopping that.

The Bill bans exploitative zero-hours contracts, increases protection from sexual harassment, introduces equality menopause action plans, strengthens rights for pregnant workers, makes flexible working the default, strengthens bereavement leave, improves pay and conditions through fair pay agreements, provides day one protections against unfair dismissal, and establishes the Fair Work Agency to make sure all employers are playing by the same rules. The Bill will deliver the jobs for the future that will benefit working people in Corby and East Northamptonshire, and I am proud to support it.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I will focus first on new clause 83, tabled by the Opposition.

The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker)—who I think I am just catching before she leaves the Chamber—said that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) also said that we all agree that an honest day’s work deserves an honest day’s pay. A lot of today’s speeches have been focused on banning zero-hours contracts, and the argument has been made that people deserve to know what their contracts are, what they are going to be paid, and that they are going to be treated properly. One of the reasons I think this Bill is rushed and is falling down goes back to a question I put to the Secretary of State when this Bill began its passage through the House: why does it not cover unpaid internships?

Looking at this Bill, and with today’s debate having focused so much on zero-hours contracts, I find it difficult to understand why we would leave a whole section of society out of the Bill—people who can work for up to 12 months without any pay. Banning unpaid internships has been in Labour manifesto after Labour manifesto. In every Parliament I have been a Member of, I have tabled a Bill to ban those internships. My Government did not want to do it, despite Prime Ministers making promises at the Dispatch Box when I first raised the issue, but there are Members on the Government Benches who stood on manifestos that said they would ban unpaid internships. Now we have this great Bill, which was trailed in the general election and is being promoted by the Labour party, yet there is nothing in it about unpaid internships. When the Bill goes to the other place, that has to be looked at, because such internships are wrong.

We have heard a great deal today about opportunities for people, but what opportunities are there for people such as my sister and me, who had to work and earn a living to be able to do what we have gone on to do? We could not have spent 12 months working in London unpaid. The fact that a whole section of society can go unpaid is still not being addressed, and that fundamentally undermines what I am hearing from Labour Members about what the Bill will do to create equality. I think that is wrong. The review of the impact on employment tribunals that is proposed in new clause 83 needs to be wider, and it needs to be understood that if the aim is to create equality, it is not in fact being created.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

Does my right hon. Friend think that some of the problems that he is identifying are a result of the Bill’s being rushed through this Chamber?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I do, and I am trying to make a serious point here. This is a big Bill, and it is one of the Government’s flagship pieces of policy. I heard someone say earlier, from a sedentary position, that we have 12 hours of debate, but that does not come up to the 21 days that we spent in Committee examining the Bill bit by bit. I agree with other Members that it has been rushed through for political purposes.

The purpose of debates such as this is to explore the issues, and try to make a Bill into a better piece of legislation. I am trying to be constructive in explaining where I see the flaws and in highlighting the unforeseen consequences. It worries me when we see the no-platforming of people at universities, and hear about trigger warnings and people saying that they feel emotionally put upon. That, I think, is an abuse of some of the protections that we are trying to introduce, and I think there are people who will try to abuse this particular clause. What I am saying to the Minister, and the Government, is, “Can that wording be tightened up?”

[Richard Burgon]

It is always a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour from the other side of the House, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke).

I really welcome the Bill, which needs to be put in its historical context. With the exception of those passed under the last Labour Government, virtually every time we have seen an employment rights Bill or a trade union Bill in recent decades, it has been an attack on trade union rights or workers’ rights, whereas this Bill makes a real difference in advancing the rights of working people in this country. They have been kicked around for too long, and it is right that we do not accept that it is fine for workers in this country to be some of the easiest to sack and mistreat in the continent. Workers in our country deserve better employment rights, and this Bill sets about putting them in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not accept that, although out- of-town shopping can put pressure on the high street. Local authorities have to be very careful when they give planning consent for out-of-town shopping centres that could put pressure on the high street. That is clearly an important part of the planning process, but it is not the responsibility of central Government, of course. I would be interested to see that five-point plan, but if it includes the scrapping of business rates, which raise £25 billion, I ask the Labour Front Bench team once again—I have yet to receive an answer—where is that money coming from?

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Labour-run Leeds City Council has decided that it wants to bring parking charges to my market town of Wetherby—it currently has no parking charges. Does my hon. Friend agree that the investments we are making are all very well, but if local authorities make it harder for shoppers by increasing their costs, that will choke off the high street rather than help it?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and he is absolutely right to say that some local authorities see parking charges as potential revenue raisers, but this is in effect a tax on business. Local authorities can, of course, make charges where appropriate, but they should only cover the cost of maintaining those car parks; they should not be a punitive tax on businesses.