Seasonal Work

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

Absolutely. Again, my hon. Friend is a great advocate for the hospitality and leisure sector. He is absolutely right that there are alternative approaches to backing businesses and enabling them to succeed and generate taxes and employment. I add my congratulations on the British kebab awards. As a big fan of kebabs, I will have to visit at some point.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Budget and the previous one have been hammer blows to our already flagging high streets? Does he also recognise that the only retail premises that can currently be exempted from business rates are those that are listed and unoccupied? That introduces perverse consequences for the tone and texture of our high streets. By abolishing business rates, we will remove that perversity, and the look and feel and the vibrancy of our high streets should be improved.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Again, my right hon. Friend is correct. Of course, it is not just the tax policies, but the wraparound—the devil in the detail of what can and cannot be included in various exemptions—that causes some perhaps unintended or indeed intended consequences. I think we all care very much about the future of our high streets, which is exactly why, at conference, we announced the retail, hospitality and leisure relief.

As I have said, the Chancellor had the brass neck to say she was helping the hospitality industry with business rates. The Government were doing no such thing; they were increasing business rates considerably. While hospitality is the UK’s largest employer of 16 to 24-year-olds, these cost pressures directly threaten in particular youth employment. New analysis from UKHospitality reveals that small hospitality venues alone will see business rates rise by £318 million over three years, and subsectors—such as pubs, which are often mentioned in this debate—will see a whopping increase. The average pub’s business rates, even with the reduced multiplier and transitional relief, will increase by 15% next year, which is an extra £1,400. In 2027-28, an average pub’s rates will be £4,500 higher, and in 2028-29, £7,000 higher. In total over three years, the average pub will pay an extra £12,900. An average hotel will be paying an extra £28,900 in rates next year. In 2027-28, it will be £65,000 higher, and in 2028-29, £111,000 higher. In total over three years, an average hotel’s rates bill will increase by over £200,000—just in time, no doubt, for it also to face the dreaded new tourism tax.

Labour’s unemployment Bill will do nothing but impose thousands of pounds in extra costs on businesses across the country—not to mention the ricochet impact on temporary and seasonal jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

Absolutely. Members on the Government Benches recognise the link between the standard of living and business sustainability. My hon. Friend mentioned that her area will benefit from Pride in Place—the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham has Smethwick, Darlaston, Bilston, Dudley and Bedworth in his part of the world, all of which are receiving funding through Pride in Place.

We are also ensuring that we protect the character and the safety of high streets, because again, what we hear from small businesses again and again is that they need footfall. We need to make high streets attractive places to go, so we are clamping down on illegal high street activity in premises such as mini-marts, barbershops, vape shops and nail bars. At the Budget, we announced an additional £15 million a year, alongside wider measures to tackle bogus retailers.

[Dr Murrison]

Has the Minister compared and contrasted Pride in Place with the future high streets fund, which was a proven mechanism for uplifting the state of many of our high streets, including Trowbridge in my constituency? He is trotting out a load of things that he thinks will benefit retail and hospitality. The whole point of retail and hospitality businesses is that they must be welcoming places that are open to all, so what does he make of the dozens of pubs and restaurants up and down the country that are now feeling forced to put up signs in their windows that say “No Labour MPs”?

[Blair McDougall]

I have yet to see any pub with any such sign. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke about how disastrous the implementation of the future high streets fund was on the ground, and we are trying to learn lessons from that.

The hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham also criticised the Employment Rights Bill. I compared him to Scrooge earlier, but I am sorry to say that on this subject he was even less charitable than Dickens’s great character. Scrooge famously wanted his workers to have regular hours over Christmas—indeed, he insisted on it—but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to want that. Even Scrooge by the end of the story gave Bob Cratchit a pay rise so that his family could enjoy Christmas, but the hon. Gentleman is arguing against that.

Employment Rights Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order; it is not a point of order, but a point of argument.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I do hope that this is a point of order.

[Dr Murrison]

It very much is, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have this week had the publication of a very important Bill—so important that the Prime Minister himself came to this House to present it on Second Reading. The sponsor of that Bill is the Justice Secretary. While I have no doubt that the Justice Secretary was being truthful today, there is a question over whether he was being candid, which is a higher test. Can you advise me on how the Justice Secretary might be requested to come to this House to clarify his position?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, I repeat that this is not a matter for the Chair. It is not a point of order.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill: Programme (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7))

That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 3 February 2025 (Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery): Programme):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 75, 30 and 31, 43, 84, 97, 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96 and 98 to 121.

Subsequent stages

Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I appreciate that this is the Minister’s first time responding to a debate in Westminster Hall. My point of order is simply that she may wish to consider putting her entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on the record.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Minister?

[Kate Dearden]

I was just about to get to that point. I thank the shadow Minister for the reminder.

I pay tribute to my predecessor for all his work and to the officials and colleagues who worked with him. Many Members of this House and the other place engaged constructively with the team, and their insight has materially shaped the Bill. I thank them for their valuable insights. Likewise, the Bill has been shaped by extensive engagement from external stakeholders, businesses, trade unions and civil society alike. I thank them all for their engagement to date, and I reassure them that this Government remain committed to full and proper consultation on the Bill’s implementation.

I declare my interest as a proud trade union member. I look forward to working with trade unions, businesses and all stakeholders, and to continuing the positive engagement that many stakeholders have had with the Department and with this Government so far.

The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to implementing “Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay” in full and to putting more money in working people’s pockets. The Employment Rights Bill is the legislative backbone of that promise. We will deliver the single biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. That is good for workers and good for business, because we believe that a strong package of workers’ rights and protections go hand in hand with a strong economy. Many good employers already know that. When staff feel secure, they stay longer, are more productive and help the business to succeed. The Bill will help to make that the norm across the economy.

Our first mission as a Government is to deliver economic growth in every single part of the country. The Employment Rights Bill is a vital step. It represents a cornerstone of our mission to grow the economy, and it is designed to modernise the UK labour market, raise living standards and support long-term growth.

Securing that growth is worth doing only if working people actually feel the benefits of it in their pay, in their security and in their daily lives. Too many people face practices that undermine both their security and our economy, from fire and rehire to zero-hours contracts and last-minute shift cancellations. Those practices breed insecurity, and insecurity stifles productivity.

That is why the Bill is at the centre of the Government’s plans and is so significant. It will benefit at least 15 million workers, or half of all UK workers, protecting them from those practices and providing economic safety for the lowest paid in our labour market.

Let us consider a few of the changes that the Bill will bring. Some 9 million employees will gain protection from unfair dismissal, not after two years, but from day one. Workers in some of the most deprived parts of the country will keep hundreds of pounds a year in their pockets instead of losing them to the hidden costs of insecure work, and nearly 1 million more people each year will benefit from bereavement leave when they lose a loved one.

I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her comments in support of the Bill and of the Government’s work in this area, and for her work on the impact of bullying in the workplace over a number of years. I would be happy to meet her to discuss those matters further.

Economic impacts were a key part of the contribution of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Some still argue that stronger rights are a cost, but I reject that. Stronger rights are an investment in people, in stability and in long-term growth. As set out in the Government’s published impact assessments for the Bill—I will respond in detail to his points on that—there are clear, evidence-based benefits to tackling issues holding back the UK labour market, which will have a positive impact on economic growth and will help to raise living standards across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I will come back to the hon. Member’s point in a moment. A number of the measures already have strong support from businesses. An Institute for Public Policy Research survey of businesses found that the majority—at least 75%—supported the measures in our Bill, including nearly seven in 10 small businesses.

The hon. Member also mentioned the Regulatory Policy Committee’s opinion. I want to make it clear that that refers to the evidence and analysis presented in the impact assessment, not the policy itself. Our impact assessments provide initial analysis of the impacts that could follow, and we will be updating and refining them as we further develop the policy and continue our consultation and engagement. I reiterate just how important that is in our next steps with the Bill. I am keen that we continue to work with businesses as part of that consultation and engagement.

All in all, with this legislative framework, we need to ensure that we can make work pay, by addressing the challenges that Britain faces today and by including up-to-date employment protections in areas that have cost Britain’s workers and businesses so dearly over a number of years and that are desperate need of updating. For that reason, the package is pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker. It supports our Government’s objective to boost growth and improve living standards for all.

The scale of the impacts will, of course, depend on further policies, which are ready for secondary legislation. I have already said that we will continue to engage and consult—[Interruption.]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Kate Dearden]

Thank you, Dr Murrison. The hon. Member for Spelthorne also mentioned particular groups of workers who will benefit. I am glad he did so, because younger workers, women, people with disabilities and people from ethnic minority groups make up a higher than average share of those workers who will benefit from the package. Flexibility and the rebalancing of security are very important for that section of the workforce, so I am proud that the Bill will help those people to stay in work and that it will make their work more family-friendly, improve their living standards and put more money in their pockets.

Employment Rights Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Both in times of crisis, such as during covid, and in good times, there are good employers and those who sometimes fall beneath standards. Covid shone a light on the challenges that can be faced in the workforce. In those times, we needed to see the best from everyone. The majority of businesses supported their employees through that time of challenge. We want to ensure that the floor is high enough, and that the standards for every workforce are those that were set by the best, not by those who fell short of what we expect in Britain in the 2020s.

Today, I ask the House to renew its commitment to this legislation. I will ask hon. Members to endorse Government amendments that seek to clarify and strengthen a number of measures, and to reject the amendments of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers who joined forces to undermine the progress that we are attempting to make. I make an exception of those in the other place who had the sincere aim of scrutinising, and who ensured that the Bill was steered through the legislative process there with a steady hand.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In opposition, those now in government probably rightly criticised the Conservative Government for introducing Henry VIII powers, yet the Bill is absolutely riddled with them. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Attorney General that such powers strike at the heart of the rule of law?

[Peter Kyle]

I agree that such powers need to be used wisely. The House will notice that many clauses provide for guidance in primary legislation during the implementation phase, and consultation with the businesses affected. Members will have their voice heard, as will businesses and workers affected by the Bill. During the passage of the Bill through both Houses, there have been improvements to the legislation, and I am grateful to Members of both Houses for their tireless work.

Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

We talked before Parliament returned about how we can support Llanwern and the work done there. My hon. Friend is right that this is a difficult time for the steel industry. There are headwinds that we need to address: we need to conclude the negotiations with our US counterparts and bring in energy price reductions, which will make a big difference, and we need the steel strategy. We are putting all these things in place. We believe that there is a great future for steel in south Wales, and we will continue to support it.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

British warships are made with a mixture of UK and non-UK steel. What impact will this announcement have on that mix, particularly for the Type 26 frigate programme, about which we had some good news earlier this week?

[Sarah Jones]

Navantia, which is building three ships, has recently entered into a contract to use Liberty’s steel; that relates to the Dalzell plant in Scotland, so it is unaffected by the announcements we have made today. Of course, I work very closely with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that we use British Steel where we can, and that we have the right infrastructure across the country, producing the right types of steel. We produce some types of steel for defence and not others, and some types of steel for shipping and not others. We need to do everything we can to protect British jobs and produce what we can here in the UK.

Parental Leave Review

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

One of the real achievements of the last Labour Government was to recognise that giving children the best start in life is fundamental to rebuilding our society, and that is at the heart of what we have proposed today. My hon. Friend raises an important point that these entitlements have an element of income inequality to them, which we will bear in mind. One message we heard very clearly is that many fathers would like to take more paternity leave but simply cannot afford to do so, and we will be looking at that as part of the review.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Having a child is a personal choice, and it is a blessing that I have enjoyed five times. Becoming old, sick or disabled are not personal choices, yet we have had cuts to the winter fuel allowance and we are about to discuss a controversial Bill that would remove a large element of the support that we currently give to sick and disabled people. What does that say about the Government’s priorities?

[Justin Madders]

The right hon. Member will know that the winter fuel allowance has been restored for many people in this country, and the Chancellor has given a clear commitment that any existing PIP claimants will not be affected by the measures in the Bill. As part of the review by Sir Charlie Mayfield, we are looking in the round at how we ensure that people are able to be supported to stay in work, and I hope that the Conservatives would support that.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

I agree, absolutely. The House of Lords has done some very informative and useful work on the Bill. I only hope that it is not wasted on this Government, but that is my fear.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Has the hon. and learned Member had time to look at amendment 13, under which, if there was any backsliding by the Government, the matter would be brought back to this House for determination? I suspect that he, like me, would not accuse Ministers of being capable of abusing Henry VIII powers at the moment, but those in some future Government might. That is why we need amendment 13, particularly to ensure that retained EU legislation, a third of which the previous Government binned, canned, and got rid of, does not start creeping back over months and years, taking us back to where we began prior to 2016, and effectively taking the public for fools.

[Jim Allister]

I agree, absolutely. No Member of this House should glibly pass over clause 2(7), because it expressly and emphatically sets out that regulations, which can be made without recourse to this House, can provide that

“a product requirement is to be treated as met”

if it meets the relevant EU regulation. That is indisputably a bold platform for dynamically realigning this United Kingdom, in all its regulations, with the EU, so that we become rule takers. That is what I fundamentally object to in the Bill.

This House’s lack of scrutiny powers on these matters is made worse by the fact that we no longer have the European Scrutiny Committee. If we had that Committee, we would at least have that opportunity for scrutiny. That is why I welcome new clause 15, which would require the authorities of this House to explore and hopefully ultimately establish a Committee to scrutinise the regulations being made. Surely the minimum expectation of anyone democratically elected to this House is that we should have the capacity for oversight, challenge and scrutiny of laws being made in the name of those we represent, although made exclusively by the Executive, without the consent or processes of this House. That seems so fundamental to me that it would be a very sad commentary indeed on the intent behind the Bill if new clause 15 was not acceptable to the Government. If it is not, they are saying that they want unbridled, unchallenged, unchallengeable power to make whatever regulations they like, despite and in the face of this House.

US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this, but I say again to him that any difficulty or complexity is not caused by this trade agreement per se. There is an arrangement in place—one that the Government support and one that, I believe, those on all sides of the House adhere to—that manages the particular situation that Northern Ireland was put in as a result of Brexit. That is the reality.

Where we have a lot of tension in the global trading system and differentials between ourselves and the EU—there are going to be differentials at times—it is incumbent on us all to manage them and ensure that Northern Irish businesses and consumers are getting the benefits of the trade agreements we are seeking, and that where there is that relationship to the wider European Union, we operate all those schemes in a way that is to their maximum utilisation and efficiency. I recognise that there are complaints about the duty reimbursement scheme, and we have worked with colleagues on that, but it is not these trade deals that caused that complexity; it was the particular situation that the previous Government needed to find a solution to—and, to be fair to them, they did find a solution. We, on all sides, are committed to honouring and making sure it is working.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

As skilfully drafted as the Windsor framework certainly was, it could not possibly have fully anticipated President Trump and his tariffs, or the prospect of an EU-US trade and tariff war. Does the Secretary of State understand how concerned small and medium-sized businesses in Northern Ireland are? Suddenly, they are placed, potentially, at the epicentre of that trade war. It is all very well to say that they can claim back the differential in tariffs, but the bureaucracy involved in such an exercise, as the Secretary of State will understand, is substantial and significant. What will he now do to mitigate it?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I understand the reasonable point the right hon. Gentleman is making—that perhaps large parts of the global trading system did not anticipate the position we find ourselves in today—but I believe it was drafted recognising that there would likely be divergence in trade policy between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and that is what we are seeking to manage. He mentions—I understand this, because it is the feedback we receive in the Department as well—things like the complexity and the functioning of the duty reimbursement scheme, and how it needs to work better. I hear that from businesses in Northern Ireland and I am hearing it very clearly in the Chamber today. Obviously, that relates to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and a Treasury responsibility, but I give him an absolute assurance that we are listening and we are committed to doing this. But it is incumbent on all of us to make it work.

British Steel

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Further to the answer that the Minister gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), will she at least concede that it would be opportune to conduct an audit of our critical national industries, to ensure that if there are issues around foreign ownership, or ownership by malign state entities, we know where they are and have a plan to deal with them?

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. We need an audit of our critical national industries, and we are doing that through our industrial strategy, so that, particularly in the eight growth-driving sectors that we have identified, we have policies to ensure that companies in the UK can continue to thrive. We believe in free and open trade, and we are not moving away from that; the Chancellor is making that case this week with our American colleagues. Security is incredibly important. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are ensuring that where security is an issue, we take appropriate action, but that does not mean that we will stop trading with the second largest economy in the world.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

It is good to hear that the workers in British Steel do not want visits from politicians; I assume the hon. Member, and his party, will take his own advice. I hope that he will understand that we cannot talk about the conversations that we are having with British Steel. It would be very disruptive to the process, the workforce there, the supply chain and commercial confidentiality. I can only repeat that our preference is that we come to an agreement with British Steel based on commercial terms, with Government support, but we are looking at all options and nothing is off the table.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that we appear to have hammered out a cross-party consensus on the need to ensure that this country is able to continue to produce virgin steel, just like every other G7 country, for a whole raft of reasons? Does she agree that the case is underscored and reinforced by the Trump slump, by her party’s welcome, albeit belated, pragmatism on net zero and, one hopes, an attendant fall in energy costs, and by the Prime Minister’s intriguing announcement of the end of globalisation? Does she agree that those three things have underscored and reinforced the case for continuing to produce virgin steel in this country?

[Sarah Jones]

I agree with the right hon. Member that the world has changed. We know that we are in a different position than that which we found ourselves in a few years ago. We need to ensure that we are secure as a country, and I believe steel is part of that answer.

We also need to ensure that we are stopping the decline of the steel industry, which was always the Labour party’s wish in opposition. We are committed to the plan for steel—the £2.5 billion on top of the £500 billion that we are giving to Tata Steel in Port Talbot. This is a real commitment to changing how we operate the steel industry in this country, so that we stop this constant decline and start to grow the industry and ensure that we are producing the things we need.