Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank all colleagues for their engagement on the Bill. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Voltaire said, “A small book is a great evil”, but this small Bill will do a great deal of good. It will ensure that the Government can continue to support British industry and British exporters.

Some £14.5 billion of UK Export Finance support last year is supporting up to 70,000 jobs, including across key industrial sectors such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and automotives. Through existing provisions in the Industrial Development Act 1982, the British Business Bank’s northern powerhouse investment fund II has directly invested £115 million into over 300 small businesses. Similarly in the midlands, the midlands engine investment fund II has launched a £400 million fund to drive sustainable economic growth by supporting innovation and creating local opportunity for new and growing businesses.

The Bill ensures that the Government can continue their investment into the British businesses that are the backbone of this economy, and I would like to thank the officials in my Department, in particular James Copeland, Cal Stewart, Ellie Buck and Andrew Fernandez, and of course the whole of my private office, who have helped me take it to this point. In tandem with our new trade strategy, it will ensure that more businesses than ever before will be empowered to export, with the financial firepower of Government behind them. In combination with the modern industrial strategy, this Government have ensured that the UK remains one of the strongest, most attractive and innovative economies in the world, both now and in the future, so it is with great pleasure that I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I sense that this is an occasion when the House would appreciate it if I were quite brief, but I am grateful to set out our support for the principles of the Bill, and we will not oppose it on Third Reading. The Bill raises the statutory limits in a way that will enable the Government to provide UK industry with additional support, and as His Majesty’s official Opposition we of course want exports to grow, investment to increase and UK firms to thrive. We also believe that public money must be used responsibly, transparently and only where it is genuinely needed, which is why we regret that the Government opposed our amendments this evening.

The Government did not accept our amendments, but we will continue to press for greater transparency around these large sums and expenditure of public money. We will press for stronger safeguards and a more coherent industrial strategy, particularly in the steel sector. We want British businesses to succeed, and exporters to have the support they need. We want public money to be used wisely and in the national interest, so while we will not oppose the Bill today, we will continue to scrutinise closely the work of the Department.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I will talk about human rights in a moment, but if the hon. Gentleman can come up with a better way of finding a 0.14% increase in GDP, I would be very happy to hear it. Frankly, the idea that we would just turn our backs on one of the biggest economies and largest democracies in the world, and not say yes to a trade deal, is for the birds.

There is a whole series of human rights issues that we always want to raise with our trade partners, and we do so. When we are negotiating a free trade agreement, they are not necessarily a central part of it, but in this deal, for the first time ever, we have clauses on a whole range of human rights-related issues. The hon. Gentleman could easily point out that these are not legally enforceable, but they are an opportunity—both at the first review, which will come at entry into force, and on future occasions, which are laid out in the free trade agreement—for us to talk through these issues. Human rights issues are primarily the responsibility of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, through which we raise issues relating to Kashmir, particular individuals, labour laws and so on.

I am aware that non-tariff barriers are being removed through improved customs processes, reductions in technical barriers to trade, increased facilitation of digital trade, supportive intellectual property commitments and greater collaboration on new technologies. This will all help to make trade quicker, cheaper and easier.

On services, which are obviously very important for us as a services superpower, market access is locked in, including ensuring that UK companies are treated on an equal footing with Indian companies. The deal includes India’s first ever financial services and telecoms chapters. The free trade agreement is expected to boost services exports by £1.6 billion. On procurement, which again is very important for the UK, brand-new access to India’s federal procurement market will be locked in, guaranteeing access to approximately 40,000 tenders per year, worth at least £38 billion per annum, and exclusive treatment for UK companies. For the first time, UK companies will have access to India’s procurement portal.

I hope the colleagues will agree that CETA is a good deal for the UK, but I want to respond to a couple of points made in the Business and Trade Committee’s report. First, the deal will only be of any use if it is actually used by UK companies. We know that it will not always be plain sailing, thanks to varying rules in different states and provinces—that point was made in evidence to the Committee—the staging of tariff liberalisation will need explaining, and non-tariff barriers can be just as important as tariff barriers.

As the first Minister for trade policy and for exports, I am keen to ensure that businesses have all the support they need to exploit this deal. That is why we are protecting the Department for Business and Trade team in India, and why we have already engaged with more than 5,000 UK businesses on how to exploit CETA, through guidance, events and roadshows. As I said earlier, this is not just about Scotch whisky; it is also about Fever-Tree ginger ale to go with it and its Indian tonic water. We have also provided specific support to the UK cosmetics industry to exploit the cut in cosmetics tariffs, which will benefit companies such as Charlotte Tilbury and Dr.PAWPAW. As the Committee suggests, once we get to entry into force, we will monitor the operation of CETA’s provisions, including through the regular reviews built into the agreement.

This is also not the full stop in our developing relationship with India. Vision 2035, agreed with India alongside the free trade agreement, sets out a shared framework for deeper co-operation across technology, defence, climate and strategic exports, reinforcing the long-term direction of the bilateral partnership. We will also try to resolve other market access issues not solved in the free trade agreement—for example, legal services, recognition of qualifications and other specific state-level barriers. The UK is open to continuing negotiations for a bilateral investment treaty, as long as it works for UK businesses.

As I have said, this is a trade agreement, but I want to assure Members that it also promotes British values. We have secured India’s first ever chapters on anti-corruption, consumer protections, labour rights, the environment, gender and development, and the agreement includes the strongest environmental commitments that India has ever made in an FTA. Our key commitments and red lines have been maintained throughout, including protecting the NHS; ensuring that our immigration system is not affected; carving out defence and protecting our export controls; excluding sensitive agricultural sectors, including pork, chicken, eggs and milled rice; maintaining our food standards and animal welfare levels; and keeping the carbon border adjustment mechanism out of the deal.

Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, so I am glad that the European Union has now reached political agreement on its own FTA with India, for which it seems the UK deal was used as a baseline, but the UK retains first mover advantage. I am hopeful that we will get to entry into force before the end of the summer, so that UK businesses can start exploiting the reduced tariffs this year, while the EU will still take some time to achieve ratification, and only the UK has secured access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market.

Let me make one final point. The UK is a trading nation: we rely on free and fair trade, and we believe that global trade needs a set of rules. The World Trade Organisation will meet in Cameroon in the next few weeks. We believe that it needs upholding and reforming so that it can tackle the challenges of today, including electronic commerce, unfair subsidies, dumping and secure supply chains with agility and dependability. However, we also believe that trade agreements such as these, along with our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, help to secure our prosperity and enhance our international standing. We are still pursuing new or enhanced deals with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Türkiye, Switzerland and Greenland, and we are completing the text of our economic prosperity deal with the United States of America and our deal with the European Union. I commend this deal to the House, and I congratulate the former Ministers who secured it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I was not going to make the point that the hon. Member went on to make—that his Government signed up to lots of similar arrangements—but I was going to respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). It is important that we make it clear that under the double contributions convention, a detached Indian worker and their employer in the UK would need to pay into the Indian provident fund. On top of that, they will need to pay £3,105 in NHS surcharges, and up to £769 in visa fees. On top of that, the employer would pay an immigration skills charge of £3,000, and £525 to issue a certificate of sponsorship, so I do not think that the numbers add up in the way that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley was suggesting.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State has already spoken for longer than the Minister, which must be something of a record. I appreciate that there have been a lot of interventions on the shadow Secretary of State from Government Front Benchers, but perhaps he can draw his remarks to a close. The Minister will have ample time to make his points in the wind-up.

[Andrew Griffith]

I shall take good heed of those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We support having a sovereign trade policy, and this is an excellent example of where it could have advantages. We are talking about one of the largest economies on the planet, which is growing approximately five times faster than the European Union. However, the deal could have been better. We are passionate about supporting our investors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and the wonderful services industry. We believe that they can compete anywhere in the world, provided that the field is level and the rules are fair, but we did not need to get a “good enough” deal across the line. British businesses needed something with a really good kick in it to get this country growing. Instead of a vindaloo of a deal, the Prime Minister came back with a bag of soggy poppadoms.

Points of Order

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his point of order. As he acknowledges, external AI services are not a matter for the Chair. However, he has certainly put his accurate position—and his presence in this Chamber, and not in Westminster Hall—on the record.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning I received a notification via the Facebook page of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) that the planning for the Universal UK theme park, which is located wholly within my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, has been approved. The hon. Member for Bedford shared a letter that he had received from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Subsequent to notifying the Secretary of State about this point of order, I received a letter. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you advise whether it is appropriate for Ministers to provide notification of a planning approval in a Member’s constituency to the neighbouring Labour MP but not to the Member themselves?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order and for informing the Secretary the State that he intended to raise this matter. There is no specific rule or convention of the House that I am aware of relating to notification of planning consents, but as a general principle, if a Minister is informing hon. Members of a development of any kind, as a courtesy they should include the hon. Member in whose constituency the development is to take place.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It sounds like there was an error made by the Department, and for that I sincerely apologise. I will discuss this with Ministers and officials to make sure that it does not happen again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Minister for that apology.

Employment Rights Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords Message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before we commence consideration of the Lords message, I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 23

Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as she always does, and I thank her for it.

To conclude, we are seeking the support of the House so that we can finally secure Royal Assent and move towards implementing our long-overdue reforms to make work pay. Today’s correspondence from business representatives to the Secretary of State states that British business believes that

“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill.”

I urge Members across the House to reflect on that comment, on our election mandate from last year and on all the work and consideration that has been put into this Bill so far in both Houses. I thank all colleagues for their work, and I commend this motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

The concerns that we Conservatives have with the Bill have long been known, and I accept that we have debated them at length. I will not repeat them all today, because we are not here to debate the whole Bill, just the message sent to us from the other place.

There was a time when the Labour party would have cared about protecting jobs and those who wanted one. There was a time when Labour believed, as we do, in the dignity of work and what that meant for families and communities—a Christian socialism, if you like, rather than the state worship that seems to have replaced it. I cannot honestly think of a previous Government who would ever have passed this Bill—certainly not since the 1970s. The result, whether Labour likes it or not, is that day by day, week by week, month by month, people are losing their jobs.

This Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer people in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and who knows what it will be like next Christmas. We have the worst ever graduate jobs market. Adzuna estimates that jobs for degree holders have fallen by 33%. Labour used to care about youth unemployment, but for those aged between 16 and 24 unemployment has now reached 15%, according to the Office for National Statistics. As has been the case every month so far under this Government, tomorrow morning we are likely to hear that the rate of unemployment is higher.

This Bill could have been on the statute book today, but for one simple reason: a gross betrayal of trust. The small group of business groups that Ministers invited in for tea and sandwiches took this Government at their word.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Members will be aware that the debate has to conclude by 8.24 pm, so there will be an immediate five-minute time limit. Of course, if Members did not feel obliged to use all five minutes, that would help their colleagues.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

May I first declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and donations from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers trade union, as well as my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions? I am not sure if we are on a ping or a pong now, but there is a whiff of stubbornness about the fact that we are back here again.

Last week, I called for the Government to make this place sit every day until Christmas to ensure we got the Bill through—it is a shame that the other place took that as an invitation rather than the contingency plan it was intended to be, but, if that is what it takes, that is what we should do. We are ready. It is wrong that an unelected house, where jobs are given for life, can dig in and push back on something that will give millions of workers rights that we promised long ahead of an election, and for which we have a decisive mandate.

I commend the Government and the Minister for not backing down. A deal was reached with the relevant stakeholders. It is a pragmatic compromise, and a deal they are publicly saying needs to go through. That is how mature, effective industrial relations are supposed to work.

I do not think that the Lords’ arguments are particularly substantial; they are certainly not reasons to delay the Bill again. Their point that we should not agree with the lifting of the cap because it fell outside the scope of manifesto commitments in this area does not really take us very far, given that the original concession made on qualifying periods was also outside the scope of the manifesto, and of course, that is all part of the same package. It feels to me that this is more about the Lords wanting to have the final word rather than having to deal with the substance.

[Justin Madders]

I am glad that there are some Conservative Back Benchers here. Last week they were all somewhere else, but now we are hearing some contributions. I was not in the room when the negotiations took place, but I understand that that was the deal. I am afraid that there have been some wilful misunderstandings on the Conservative Benches about what lifting the compensation cap actually means. Compensation for unfair dismissal is calculated by defined heads of loss under the law, so lifting the cap will not change that one bit. If the claims are still necessary, they will be there. It just means that some workers—particularly older workers who might not be able to get another job and who may have substantial pension losses—will benefit, not the fat-cat bosses that have been talked about. It is important that we stress that point.

Also, I do not remember the Conservatives’ manifesto in 2010 promising to double the period for qualification on unfair dismissal. Neither do I remember a pledge in either the Tory or the Liberal Democrat manifesto to put a cap on compensation. None the less, the coalition Government pushed both those policies through. Those who claim that the lifting of the cap will see an avalanche of claims ignore the fact that the rationale used for introducing the cap in the first place was to deal with perceptions about levels of compensation people might recover—in other words, legislating on perceptions rather than on facts—and I have to say, we have heard plenty of those perceptions repeated again tonight.

The Opposition can complain about a two-year wait for tribunal claims, but I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for recognising his party’s culpability in that. It is important that this Government are working with the trade unions, businesses, the judiciary and ACAS to find ways of improving our system, so that we get justice more quickly, instead of just ignoring it as the previous Government did. This Government have shown flexibility and strength to negotiate a change in order to get a deal over the line. Workers in this country should not be made to wait any longer for these important rights.

It is worth reminding the House that the road map we agreed earlier this year shows that the following laws should be in place by April 2026: doubling the maximum period of the protective award; day one paternity leave and unpaid parental leave; whistleblowing protections; establishing the Fair Work Agency; day one statutory sick pay and entitlements for the first time for millions of people who have been denied them to date; and simplifying the trade union recognition process. These are not minor or trivial measures. They are substantial changes that will improve the working lives of millions of people. We should be proud that it is a Labour Government who are delivering them, and we should be determined to deliver them by April 2026.

Of course, that is just the beginning. Genuine flexible working, ending zero-hours contracts, banning fire and rehire—there is much more in this Bill that really matters to working people. And there is much more beyond the Bill: the reform of TUPE and parental leave and dealing with the epidemic of bogus self-employment are of huge importance. These are the sorts of things that a radical, reforming Labour Government need to tackle, because the world of work is changing. It is changing far faster than we can legislate for, but we can insulate our constituents against the worst excesses and unintended consequences of the tech revolution by putting security and fairness at the heart of every employment relationship, and we need to do that now. If we do not, we will have failed not only to deliver on the promises we made but to stand up for the very people we were elected to represent, so I call on the other place to agree with the will of the democratically elected Chamber and to deliver finally on our promise to make work pay.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Today we are debating the fourth round of consideration of Lords amendments to this Bill, and this long and protracted process says a lot about the way the Government have approached this legislation. The Bill was initially put together at great speed, missing much of the detail; there was a long series of Government amendments late in the process; and now a major last-minute change on the compensation cap for unfair dismissal has been sprung on businesses and Parliament. Regardless of what one makes of the different measures in the legislation, I think most of us would agree that the process followed in designing it has been less than ideal. Having said that, let me reiterate what has always been the Liberal Democrat position on the Bill: we support many of the aims of this legislation.

We welcome expanding access to statutory sick pay, improving parental leave and taking steps to address the massive pay gap facing social care workers. We agree with giving those on zero-hours contracts more certainty, even though we proposed what we view as a more practical and balanced way of doing so, and we are pleased to see a unified Fair Work Agency, which we also called for as a way of empowering employees to exercise their rights without fear of any negative consequences. However, we have made it clear that we have significant worries about the specific way in which some of those measures would be implemented, and we have repeatedly raised our concern that crucial detail was being left for secondary legislation.

By far our biggest concern was the complete lack of clarity on unfair dismissal and probation periods, which is why we have worked in both Houses to secure a vital concession setting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal at six months. We are proud that when some tried to brush aside the concerns of the business community and others sought to frustrate the process, it was the Liberal Democrats who secured this vital provision. It is the role of any responsible Opposition party to engage constructively and achieve substantial improvements for the good of our country. It could not be clearer that this fair and sensible shift will equally benefit businesses and workers. So many businesses I have spoken to have said that this is the single most meaningful change that could have been made to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I will be brief. I proudly refer members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of several trade unions, and have indeed received money from trade unions to remove the Conservatives from power.

Speaking of removing the Conservatives from power, on 4 September I proudly voted, along with the vast majority of people in this House, to remove hereditary peers from the other place. I did so because I do not believe that individuals should be able to shape our laws purely because of the families they were born into. Whatever the arguments put forward on the Bill’s amendments, we are here today because hereditary peers stopped the progress of the Bill through the other place. The simple fact is that if we were to remove the hereditary peers who voted—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We are not debating hereditary peers; we are debating the amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

[Mark Sewards]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The votes in the other place serve only to strengthen my resolve that we must get the Bill through Parliament and strengthen the rights of workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that his Government are yet to abolish the hereditary peers—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We are not having a debate on hereditary Members of the House of Lords. We are debating the Lords message on amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

[Laurence Turner]

If the Lords amendment were not rejected, it would have two immediate effects. First, it would collapse the agreement between employers and union representatives. It is not some reasonable call for a review; it strikes out the changes to the compensation cap, which was a key component of that agreement. The Conservatives know that it is a nonsense to call for a review if the legislation that would give it effect is not carried—[Interruption.] Secondly, the amendment would so delay the Bill that April’s extension of statutory sick pay and parental leave for millions of people—some on the very lowest incomes—falls into doubt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that is disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman is literally implying corruption. I made it very clear in my speech what the basis of our change in support in the Lords was for, and I think it is intolerable that we are being accused.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for her advice. As it happens, she makes a good point. The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) should not be suggesting any particular motive attributed to that issue, and could he perhaps confine his remaining comments for the next 90 seconds?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that direction, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let us move to Lords amendment 120N. This is a major new policy. We do not have to argue about whether a £118,000 cap is a good or bad idea. I think the cap is a good idea, but the amendment seeks to clarify the process by which the Government have decided to impose this measure in the Bill. It was not part of the manifesto. It was not part of the Bill or discussed in the Bill Committee. It has just been inserted at the last moment in ping-pong. There has been no risk assessment, no impact assessment, and no consultation. The amendment does not put the Government off course. All it asks the Government to do is, within three months of Royal Assent,

“conduct a review of the limit imposed by this section on the amount of the compensation awarded”.

That consultation only has to consult employers’ organisations, trade unions—one would think Labour Members would be in favour of that—and

“organisations representing employment law practitioners, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

If the Government choose to implement policy on the hoof, the least they can do is undertake a consultation that they should have carried out—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Kate Dearden]

I am grateful to hon. Members across the House for their contributions today and throughout the passage of the Bill. When there is a finding of unfair dismissal at tribunal, it is important that the claimant is fairly compensated for the loss they have suffered. We also believe that the cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal incentivises claimants to construct complex cases that allege both unfair dismissal and discrimination so as to access uncapped compensation, as I stated in my introductory remarks—perhaps Conservative Members did not hear that. By removing the compensatory award cap for unfair dismissal claims, that incentive will be lessened.

By removing the cap, the Government will also deter employs from treating the cost of dismissing employees unfairly as part of business as usual, instead ensuring that employees who face significant losses as a result of being unfairly dismissed are fairly compensated. Compensation for unfair dismissal is awarded only where a tribunal finds in favour of the claimant. Claims that do not have merit will not secure any compensatory award with or without a cap.

Lifting the cap will not mean that compensatory awards start from a blank sheet of paper and become impossible to anticipate. Tribunals have well established ways to calculate the compensation that might be awarded for particular types of losses resulting from unfair dismissal. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for her support. As she referenced, and as Members will have heard in my introductory remarks, we will publish an economic assessment in due course, and I am always available for further discussion.

Conservative Members have opposed this Bill at every stage, and no matter what the issue was today, they would oppose it again. Businesses and unions have shown leadership, and Conservative Members and Parliament should respect their voice. The tripartite agreement was forged through dialogue with those who live the realities of our workplaces every day. That agreement included a package conducted in good faith and with good will, and I thank them for it.

This Government’s aim is clear: to conclude the passage of the Bill so that millions of British workers gain new rights while businesses can prepare for change with certainty. Labour Members send a clear message to the other place to now let the Bill—a Bill that delivers on multiple manifesto commitments and has a clear electoral mandate—pass. Any further delay risks leaving workers without protections and businesses without clarity. We now strive to conclude this process and deliver the change that Britian needs to make work pay. We cannot build a strong economy with people in insecure work. We are strengthening the foundations of our economy and improving living standards. The Bill, and all our work across Government, is the foundation for building an economy that works for everyone.

Question put.

Seasonal Work

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member knows better than to refer to Members by name.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If the current Prime Minister and the current Chancellor were to disappear, all confidence in the Government would collapse. It seems that the Prime Minister has as much faith in his Cabinet as the rest of us have in him. It is unfortunate that the Government are comprised almost entirely of people of public sector, academic or union backgrounds. Precious few have ever operated a business. They do not understand how running a business works, and it shows.

There is another path that the Government could take, and it is not too late. I call on them to withdraw their Employment Rights Bill, to get rid of their “Benefits Street” Budget, and to lower taxes for hard-working people and businesses.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I bring to the House an issue of grave concern. At Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister how many more teachers there were since the Education Secretary came into office in 2024. The Prime Minister replied that there were

“More than when the Conservatives left office”.

The Department for Education’s website makes it clear that the Prime Minister was wrong: there are 400 fewer teachers under Labour. This is more than an inaccuracy, and it is exactly why the public lose faith in our parliamentary democracy. Can you advise on how the Prime Minister can come to the House and correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. While the Chair is not responsible for the content of contributions made by Ministers, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard his comments this afternoon and, if an error has been made, I am sure it will be corrected as soon as possible.

Employment Rights Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I intervened on the Minister earlier, I should have declared an interest with regards to my support from the trade union movement, of which I am extremely proud. For that, I humbly apologise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for having corrected the record and for putting his interests on the record.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to focus on the workforce. Earlier today, I sought and was given reassurances by the company on the support that it will give to the workforce. Its expectation is that, of the 179 permanent employees, 50 of those will remain in employment until at least 2027-28 to support the safe decommissioning of the plant, and a further 50 will be offered relocation to its Fawley plant. I have also made inquiries about apprentices.

On her specific request for a taskforce, that would be usual in this situation. I absolutely support it, and I think a new and distinctive taskforce is required for this plant to address the very specific areas, not only for the plant but for the Fife community.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I agree that this announcement is devastating for Mossmorran and for the communities around Fife. Hundreds of highly skilled workers now face an uncertain future and it is clear that the closure of this cornerstone facility reflects a deeper failure to provide the stable, long-term industrial environment that businesses need if they are to invest and grow in Scotland. For many years, the Liberal Democrats have warned that the absence of a coherent industrial strategy, first abandoned by the previous Conservative Government and then left to drift further by this Labour Government, has created damaging uncertainty for our manufacturing and energy sectors. Will the Minister assure this House that the energy sector is at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy?

Exxon’s statement made clear that the current economic and policy environment has made continued operations uncompetitive. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the UK remains a viable place for energy production and to prevent further closures of major industrial sites?

We also cannot ignore the human impact. Many of the workers are among the most experienced and specialised in the sector, yet only 50 roles are being offered elsewhere and that is nearly 500 miles away. Can the Minister tell the House how many have been offered and accepted relocation, and what support has been put in place locally for those who simply cannot uproot their lives, families and communities?

Further, the Exxon closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. What immediate and long-term measures are the Government putting in place to ensure that those individuals can transition to appropriate, well-paid employment? Communities in Fife deserve clarity, certainty and a real plan for the future. I urge the Minister to act quickly, decisively and collaboratively to protect the workers and to ensure that Scotland’s industrial base has a sustainable future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Lady points out that the plant is not in her constituency, but clearly the effects run far wider than the individual constituency concerned, particularly for a plant of this size, and we need to think carefully about the impact on the supply chain. I apologise for the fact that the Scottish Government are mentioned towards the end of the statement. That is in no way intended to imply that the Scottish Government have not been or are not involved. There have been meetings at the highest level in the Scottish Government. In fact, the Secretary of State for Scotland has also been involved in discussions with ExxonMobil, as we have tried to find any possible measure to avoid this decision. Ultimately, it was a decision for the business, and our focus now is on how we can move forward for the workforce and for the future of Fife. As I said, the industrial story of Fife is not over. There is excellent opportunity to bring new investment to that site in the future, and that sort of industrial regeneration is exactly what I want to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement this evening. I share the concern of colleagues, particularly those based in Fife, about the effect the closure will have. The news that contract workers were locked out of the plant this morning is a major concern, as is the news that staff—many of whom have worked in the company for many decades—have not yet been given information about what redundancy packages may be available. That is very worrying. What engagement is the Minister having with trade unions on this troubling development, and does he believe the trade unions have been properly consulted, as they should be in a situation such as this?

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I cannot help but notice that none of the SNP MPs is in the Chamber for this statement, so they are not defending the ideological objection that they seem to have. My hon. Friend, not surprisingly, is absolutely right to highlight the Scottish Government’s playground politics; this is holding back investment right across the country, as well as the necessary energy security.

We know that nuclear power stations across Scotland have delivered generations of well-paid, skilled and sustainable jobs. I recently met people in Torness who had started out as apprentices and who are still there, 20 or 30 years later, working in the nuclear industry. There will be jobs in Scotland in the supply chain for the SMR programme and Sizewell C, but it is a great shame that the Scottish National party is holding back the full potential of Scotland to be part of this nuclear story. I hope that the people of Scotland will vote for a different Government in May, so that we can get on with delivering the jobs and investment in communities right across Scotland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

New small modular reactors have real potential to help reduce our reliance on foreign gas and bring down energy bills, as well as bringing a welcome boost to jobs and investment in Anglesey. SMRs should be where the focus is when it comes to nuclear, not big, expensive nuclear power stations that cost multiples more and take far longer to build.

The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see SMRs coming forward as part of a mix of cost-effective and safe decarbonised power generation, but will the Government please confirm that they will also maintain focus on boosting wind and solar power generation in order to bring down everyone’s energy bills? My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) has been working closely with constituents who will now be disappointed that the alternative site of Oldbury has not gone forward, so can the Minister clarify what the future is for that site?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

It will not surprise the House that I completely agree with my hon. Friend, but he is right on two fronts. First, it is all fine and good to promise to do things and to talk big and to consult and consult, but at some point money has to be put on the table to deliver it. The previous Government failed to do that. Almost £20 billion of investment has now been brought forward by this Government to make these projects a reality. That is how we deliver a new golden age of nuclear in the United Kingdom, rather than just publishing lots of documents and thinking that is the end of it.

My hon. Friend’s second point is also right. Investment in the UK in the clean power transition is hugely important. We have had more than £50 billion of private investment since we came to power last year. That is because of the certainty and the policy confidence that investors have in the UK. That would be put at risk by the policies of the Conservatives, Reform and others who talk about the future energy mix, but miss out the detail and put that investment at risk. That puts at risk jobs and investment in supply chains across the country, too. We are delivering the energy policy of the future for energy security, for climate leadership and for good jobs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his responses this afternoon.

Employment Rights Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 66, 88, 90, 91 and 101 engage Commons financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

After Clause 22

Contractual duties of confidentiality relating to harassment and discrimination

4.43 pm

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 22.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 22 and Government amendment (b).

Lords amendment 1, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 21, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 106, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 107 to 120, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 46 to 49, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 60 to 62, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendment 72, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 121, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 2 to 6, 9 to 20, 24 to 45, 50 to 59, 63 to 71, 73 to 105 and 122 to 169.

[Peter Kyle]

It is a pleasure to make my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Business and Trade to deliver the biggest improvements in workers’ rights for a generation, as part of the Labour Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which formed a key plank of my party’s manifesto commitments.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his work on the Bill and, more widely, in supporting our country to get to growth. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her tireless fight for the rights of working people. Without her, this Bill would simply not exist. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who worked so hard to get the legislation to this point, and to my dear friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, whose indefatigable work in the other place has ensured that this Bill was steered through the legislative process with a very steady hand. To many who have worked on this Bill, it has been a life’s work, and the culmination of an enormous amount of effort on their part, for which I am extremely grateful.

This is a landmark Bill. It is pro-worker and pro-business, and it supports the Government’s objectives of boosting growth and improving living standards across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

This matter has been the source of a lot of consternation and examination in my Department. I assure the right hon. Member that we have looked very closely at it and believe that the existing law is fit for purpose in this case. We will proceed on that basis, but as she will have found during the time we have both been in this place, I am always happy to sit down with her, and especially, being so new in the job, so to learn about that specific case. However, we will proceed in that way because the advice is very clear on this matter.

Lords amendments 61 and 72 seek to remove clause 59 relating to trade union political funds from the Bill. Clause 59 reverses the changes introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016, reinstating arrangements whereby union members are automatically opted in to contribute to political funds, unless they choose to opt out. This is a key step in lifting the burden of the 2016 Act and returning to a long-standing precedent that worked for 70 years. Removing clause 59 would break a clear Government commitment, which is why the Government consider that Lords amendment 61 should be rejected.

Lords amendment 62 seeks to remove clause 65(2) from the Bill, the effect of which would be to retain the 50% turnout threshold requirement for industrial action ballots. The Government do not support this amendment. The Bill brings union democracy into line with other democratic mandates, including votes in this Parliament and elections for each and every one of us. Clause 65 is a step towards fairness and consistency in how we respect collective voices, which is why this Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.

Lords amendment 121 is another duplicate amendment. We agree that the school support staff negotiating body should not block employers that wish to go further than the minimum terms and conditions, but that is already stipulated in the Bill. The amendment duplicates the effect of proposed new section 148M(6)(b), which is why the Government will be rejecting the amendment.

I urge Members to support the Government amendments before the House, including the amendments in lieu in relation to the extension of rights to time off for special constables. We have listened throughout the Bill’s passage, and we have made meaningful changes where needed, including on bereavement leave and non-disclosure arrangements. We will continue to listen in relation to the further work to be undertaken when implementing the Bill.

The Employment Rights Bill is a major step forward in modernising protections and delivering on our commitment to make work pay. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Bill, and I will now allow others to speak.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and congratulate him as well as the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) on their appointments. His is a vital role in Government, and it will surely be a delight and a privilege for him to champion our hard-working, innovative businesses in Cabinet and on the world stage as President of the Board of Trade. I particularly welcome his comments that the Government’s priority must be to “double down” on growth and position themselves as

“an active partner that delivers success, supports new business and backs wealth creation.”

Where he does that, he can be assured of our support, but if that is really his view, we should not be debating this Bill today and the Government should never have brought it forward.

In fact, I well understand why Ministers may well be concerned about job insecurity and last-minute shift cancellations. After all, their predecessors, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), had their own Front Bench shifts today cancelled by the Prime Minister with barely a week’s notice. Apparently, that boss did not even have the decency to fire them in person, but at least they can take comfort in knowing that with the current rate of departures from No. 10, there will soon not be anyone left to do the sacking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and to hear his passion for the Bill; I wish him every success. I also welcome the new Secretary of State for Business and Trade to his place. I look forward to opposing him.

The Liberal Democrats support many of the Bill’s aims. We have long called for employment rights to be strengthened in several ways, including by boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle, and that moves the country in the right direction. However, we remain concerned about how many of the measures will be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and business. Some of our worries arose from the extent to which crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, or will be subject to consultations. That does not facilitate stability and certainty for business or workers, and it precludes long-term planning. That will particularly impact small businesses, start-up businesses and those businesses looking to grow. That is why we are supportive of, for example, the amendment that sets the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months; that would create certainty for business. Any new measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses, which provide employment. Those reforms include reform of the broken business rates system, a removal of trade barriers, and proper reform of the apprenticeship levy.

I am in favour of Lords amendment 1, which would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. The Liberal Democrats have long stood for giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many zero-hours workers struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Many young people and those balancing caring responsibilities alongside work value adaptability in their shift patterns. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have security and flexibility.

Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It might just help Members if I explain that because the debate started early, we have time for them to make speeches without having asked the Member in charge or the Minister for permission to do so. The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) is right to say that there is an excellent exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall.