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.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

That was obviously part of a very wise set of remarks that I made from the Dispatch Box. But, yes, we must recognise that. I say again, because the Bill has been through the other place, that changes have been made as a result of that feedback: we have removed a number of Henry VIII powers; we have introduced a consultation requirement; we have provided for additional affirmative resolution procedures; and we have said that we will publish a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory controls to ensure that regulation is proportionate, evidence-based and developed through consultation. Because of the process that we have been through, we have responded to the kind of concerns that I was wisely articulating in relation to primary legislation.

Perhaps it will be of use to the House if I say a little about that journey and the work of the other place in this regard. I wish to thank in particular my ministerial colleague, Lord Leong, for his great efforts in taking the Bill through the other place. I also thank the many Members and Committees of the other House for their assistance in creating what I believe is strong and effective legislation—legislation that will benefit millions of UK businesses, tens of millions of consumers, and, of course, all those who enjoy a pint or two at the pub.

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

On pints—

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I give way on that point.

[Dr Murrison]

The Minister is right to praise the House of Lords for making sure that the great British pint is in this Bill as an exclusion from the metrology regulations. However, this will not satisfy the metric martyrs. The Minister will remember that the ability to sell in imperial measures was a big issue a few years ago. Why is it that there is an elaborate schedule to the product regulations, but not to metrology, and why in particular is food generically not included in the exemptions from what the Minister proposes to do?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

We would say with confidence that there was never a danger to the pint, but because of the concerns that were raised in the other place and perhaps by some colleagues here, I am more than happy to have made the changes to assure everyone present and everyone watching that the pint will be defended and secured in the Bill. I have to say that I have received no entreaties from businesses that they wish to sell in imperial measurements. However, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that there is an absence of provisions in the Bill, he can write to me and I shall write back to him and hopefully be able to reassure him. I think he may be misplaced in thinking that that is a principal issue for UK businesses.

As all hon. Members know, the digital age in which we live has created significant growth opportunities. The consumer and technology landscapes that we have today are almost unrecognisable from those we had 20 or 30 years ago, so the products that we buy and the way in which we buy them are evolving rapidly. That means that the relevant rules and regulations must adapt, too. If we are to protect consumers and businesses, especially smaller firms, that is essential.

As we have examined in some detail, product regulation and metrology are policy areas that have largely been repatriated from the EU following our withdrawal in 2021. Since then the UK Government have simply not had the necessary powers to continue regulating these areas effectively. We have brought forward this legislation so that we can respond to anticipated changes in the global regulatory landscape. That is why, to be frank, I am somewhat bemused by the reasoned amendments tabled today.

The Bill will ensure that the UK is better placed to address modern-day safety issues. It gives us the power to better regulate items such as potentially dangerous baby sleep products and toys. It will enable us to reduce burdens on business and keep up with technological developments, for example by updating the outdoor noise regulations in Great Britain. It will align testing methods across the UK, which was overwhelmingly supported in our recent call for evidence, and it will protect the public from noise pollution from products like lawn mowers and power generators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend makes the perfect point that this is precisely what the road to serfdom looks like, whether it is serfdom to an individual Minister at a moment in time or serfdom to an unelected Brussels bureaucratic elite. Why would we give up the powers of this House, the reason why we are sent here, and the ability to hold the Government to account?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Member described the Bill as a Trojan horse—it is more like a Trojan donkey. Does he agree that clause 2(7) is a particular problem, because it appears to take European Union regulations as the baseline for determining safety? To many of us, the assumption that European Union regulations should be the starting point for any safety regulations that we might want to make seems somewhat bizarre.

[Andrew Griffith]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and we can contrast the number of references to the European Union throughout the Bill with, for example, our biggest single country trading partner—the United States.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Treasury is completely committed to having a plan for steel. We talked to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor a lot about this when we were in opposition, just as we have been doing in Government. The very generous offer put on the table to British Steel was signed off, as is quite right, by the Chancellor and by the Prime Minister. They are both committed to this. We will be coming back in the spring with the steel plan, in which we will set out how we will spend the rest of the fund that we have. In the meantime, I again urge British Steel to come back and talk about the offer that is on the table and see whether we can come to a deal.

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

Given the geopolitical uncertainty ushered in by the new American Administration and by America and China’s attitude to net zero, will the Minister assure the House that in making decisions on the future of critical national infrastructure that touch upon the defence of this country, such as the extraction of shale gas and the continuance of blast furnaces producing virgin steel, she will be very careful about doing anything that would reduce this country’s capability to stand on its own two feet?

[Sarah Jones]

I will certainly ensure that we do not do anything that reduces our ability to stand on our own two feet. I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.