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.

Future of the Post Office

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Green Paper that we are publishing today on the future of the Post Office.

Post offices have stood as a cornerstone of British national life for generations, serving constituents in every part of the UK. They are a lot more than just places to send letters or collect parcels; they are hubs of economic and social activity. They are a lifeline to small businesses, provide access to essential services, including everyday banking services, and are a critical part of our high streets. They also have a unique role in rural areas, particularly permanent branches, and act as the beating heart of communities.

In recent years, however, the need for change has become clear. Twelve months ago, we inherited a Post Office in crisis—declining financial sustainability, unstable leadership, a network struggling to maintain services, and a reputation shattered by the Horizon scandal and its appalling treatment of sub-postmasters, as Sir Wyn Williams’s first report last week underlined only too clearly. This Government are determined to strengthen the Post Office network, and today’s Green Paper begins a national dialogue on the future of the Post Office so that we can create a modern, resilient and financially sustainable organisation.

We recognise that the Post Office, just like other postal services around the world, faces significant challenges that are driven in no small part by changing consumer habits fuelled by the digital transition, changing high streets and a changing economy. We want a Post Office network that the public uses, values and, above all, trusts. We want branches to be visible on the high street, in rural and urban areas, and in all communities, offering a wide range of in-person services.

I do not believe that people are ideologically wedded to a smaller or bigger Post Office; they just want a Post Office that works for them, their businesses and their communities. Our preferred approach is for the overall size and shape of the Post Office network to remain the same so that we minimise the impact on communities. We want to strengthen branches to modernise them and expand what they do. There are, though, a range of strong views on the Post Office network, so we will carefully consider all the views put to us about its future.

We need a Post Office that not only preserves its role in providing vital services to communities, but embraces the needs of modern Britain. The challenges are significant. Many branches are not profitable for the postmasters running them. Average weekly customer sessions have declined by 34% since 2007, and the shift to online services continues. While some services, such as parcel drop-offs and banking transactions, are growing, others, such as Government services, have seen significant decline. But we are also seeing innovation across the network. Drop and collect branches are being rolled out to meet the growing demand for parcel services. Over 160 banking hubs are now operational, with a commitment to roll out 350 by the end of the Parliament. As the banks continue to close branches, we are keen to support the Post Office to improve and develop the banking services it provides. Working with our Treasury colleagues, we will host joint discussions on this issue with the Post Office and the banking sector in the coming months.

Above all else, we know the Post Office needs stability, which we are committed to providing. We are backing that commitment with over £500 million investment during this Parliament, including up to £136 million in this financial year to invest in new technology and replace Horizon. Horizon should have gone long ago. Instead, it will be many months yet before it is replaced. Fujitsu should only be part of the Post Office’s grim past, not its current and immediate future. We are determined to end the use of Horizon and draw a line under Fujitsu’s involvement with the Post Office. The task of replacing Horizon is hugely complex. It has been embedded in the Post Office network for more than two decades and remains critical to the delivery of the essential services that many of our constituents depend on from the Post Office. Never again must we allow the Post Office to put blind faith in its technology.

We will support the implementation of the Post Office’s transformation plan, which aims to make the company more efficient, enabling it to continue offering cash and banking services in the coming years. We will also fund innovative equipment for postmasters to help customers beat the queues. Indeed, this plan aims to achieve operational and financial stability by 2030 and includes a commitment to boost annual postmaster incomes by £250 million by the end of the decade. Already, a £20 million uplift has been delivered in 2024-25, with £66 million planned for this financial year.

After all the Post Office has put its people through, it is now essential that it reorientates its culture towards postmasters, involving them in central decision making. The first steps have been taken with the creation of a consultative council and the election of postmaster non-execs. I am acutely aware that there are those who say that more is needed and, indeed, that is why in this Green Paper we are exploring options for further strengthening those structures.

In the longer term, we are open to more fundamental reforms. Two ideas that have been put to us include the potential mutualisation of the Post Office—giving postmasters and communities a much greater stake in the organisation—and a charter model that separates the Government’s role in setting the purpose from the board’s role in running the business. We will assess other suggestions for the Post Office’s long-term future, including on its future commercial direction, such as closer working with Royal Mail. These are perhaps not decisions for the moment, but we want to begin the debate and conversation now, so we are ready to act when the time is right.

The Green Paper is an important step towards rebuilding trust in the Post Office and embedding a culture of transparency, accountability and compassion. It is important to stress that no decisions on changes to governance arrangements will be made until after the inquiry’s final report to allow us all to consider Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendations on governance issues together with Green Paper responses.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine the Post Office. The Green Paper is ambitious but grounded in reality. It asks difficult questions about how we ensure long-term sustainability while protecting essential services. We want to hear from everyone with a stake in the Post Office’s future. The Post Office must be modern, resilient and trusted. The Green Paper will be, I hope, the first step in delivering that vision, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the even greater role that banks could play on our high streets by working with the Post Office. It is one area that Post Office senior management has identified as key to the Post Office’s commercial future. We have set aside significant sums of money to invest in new technology to make it easier to work with the banks and do even more. I hope that banks and the financial services community will recognise that they have a considerable opportunity to do more in providing services to all our constituents by working with the Post Office. I look forward to sitting down with the Post Office and the financial services industry, alongside Treasury colleagues, to see whether we can take advantage of that opportunity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome today’s announcement about putting local post offices on a more sustainable footing.

Post offices are an important part of our communities, providing a number of critical services on our local high streets, from community banking and foreign exchange to the provision of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services. Often their services act as a lifeline, especially for the elderly, those with limited transport options and those in areas without reliable access to online services. Currently 99.7% of the population live within three miles of a post office, and 4,000 branches are open seven days a week. In the past three years, nearly 2,000 high street bank branches have closed across the UK, resulting in local post offices being the only place where local communities can access banking services.

As the Government bring forward their necessary reforms, it is vital that essential local services and post office jobs are protected. Will the Minister assure me that under this proposal no post office will be closed until a consultation with each local community has been undertaken? Although we welcome the increased digitisation of services, which will boost accessibility for those who cannot use face-to-face services, as well as productivity across the public sector, how will the Government ensure that post offices remain financially viable?

Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

Sir Wyn Williams has today released the first volume of his report into the Horizon scandal, which caused so much harm to so many innocent people. The fearless and diligent work of his inquiry has, I believe, won the trust and admiration of postmasters. The inquiry has asked penetrating questions of a large number of witnesses and has scrutinised more than 2 million pages of evidence. I know that the whole House recognises the bravery of the postmasters who fought against enormous odds to see their cause recognised.

Sir Wyn’s report reminds us that blameless people were impoverished, bankrupted, stressed beyond belief, and lost their jobs, marriages, reputations, mental health and, in some cases, their lives. I am sure that the whole House shares my gratitude to Sir Wyn and his team for their work so far. This is only the first volume of their final report, spelling out the scandal’s human impact and looking at the redress schemes that have been put in place in response. The second volume will in due course deal with the causes of the scandal and how repetition can be avoided.

To be clear, I am very sympathetic to Sir Wyn’s 19 recommendations in the volume published today. Clearly, a number of them require careful consideration. We will respond to them promptly, as some concern the ongoing delivery of Horizon redress schemes. Sir Wyn has set us a deadline of 10 October, and we will meet it.

The House will see that Sir Wyn has accepted that

“the Post Office, the Department and Ministers continue to adhere to the aims of providing financial redress, which is full, fair and prompt.”

He also concludes that the majority of people who have accepted offers under the group litigation order scheme

“will have done so because, for them, the offer was full and fair.”

That said, Sir Wyn makes some understandable criticisms, especially of the Horizon shortfall scheme, which we will need to study closely and address.

We inherited a compensation process that was widely seen as too slow, adversarial and legalistic. Well over four years after the first High Court case exposed the scandal, only 2,500 postmasters had had final settlements. There were clearly significant gaps in the compensation process, and many victims had not come forward. Indeed, there was no compensation scheme in place for those postmasters whose convictions had been overturned by Parliament.

A year ago, the Government had paid £236 million in redress. We have now quadrupled that to nearly £1.1 billion. We have launched a compensation scheme for postmasters who have had their convictions overturned—the Horizon convictions redress scheme—and have merged the Post Office’s compensation arrangements for overturned convictions into it. Through the Post Office, we have delivered a £75,000 fixed-sum offer to over 4,200 victims who opted for it.

We have also launched an independent process to allow people to appeal their HSS settlements or offers. That should provide, as Sir Wyn says in his report,

“an opportunity to put right any failures to deliver redress which is full and fair”

for HSS victims.

We have also begun discussions with Fujitsu on their contribution to the costs of the scandal. As the House knows, and as Sir Wyn’s report underlines, there is still a lot more to do. I know that the postmasters who have yet to agree final compensation are frustrated with the delay; so am I.

We have consulted regularly with the Horizon compensation advisory board and others on what more we can do to improve redress. Sir Wyn’s recommendations are very helpful in that regard. Two of his recommendations address issues that we have already been working on across Government and with the advisory board. I can confirm that we accept Sir Wyn’s recommendation that claimants should be able to bank the best offer that they get from the GLO process and that it should not be put at risk if they choose to go to the independent panel.

Secondly, we will provide redress for family members of postmasters who suffered because of the scandal. I have met the group Lost Chances for the Children of Sub-postmasters, which has campaigned with considerable courage on this issue. Sir Wyn rightly recognises that designing a suitable compensation scheme for family members raises some very difficult issues. None the less, we want to look after those family members who suffered most—meeting Sir Wyn’s recommendation that we should give

“redress to close family members of those most adversely affected by Horizon.”

Given those challenges, we will now discuss the details of how a scheme should be run with claimants’ lawyers, the independent advisory board and the Lost Chances group. It will be open to close family members of existing Horizon claimants who themselves suffered personal injury, including psychological distress, because of their relatives’ suffering. Other than in exceptional circumstances, we will need contemporaneous written evidence of that personal injury.

There are some fundamental lessons to be learned, to which Sir Wyn points, about how compensation following wrongdoing on this scale should be delivered in future. In particular, the Post Office should never have been allowed to run it, decisions on funding should have been made much more quickly, and it should not have needed an ITV drama to stimulate action to overturn hundreds of unjust convictions. We cannot now turn back the clock to fix those fundamental mistakes. We must instead address two challenges.

The first challenge is to make sure that if there is ever another terrible scandal like this one—we all sincerely hope there is not—the victims do not need to bring a traumatic court case to expose it. The second challenge, if another such scandal happens, is that the Government must be set up to offer trusted redress from the very start. Sir Wyn argues that there should be a standing public body to deliver redress in any further scandal. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with that argument, but clearly we need to analyse the options fully before we commit to it. We will reflect on how to address those twin challenges and will bring back our conclusions to the House.

We can never properly recompense a person for being wrongly denied their freedom, for the humiliation of being wrongly accused or for seeing their loved ones in profound distress or worse, and neither can we recompense them for their good reputation being taken from them. I cannot assuage the anger of the victims, nor will the anger that I feel on their behalf ever be assuaged, but we are determined to do more on redress and beyond, and to do it quickly, to give more of the victims of this appalling scandal at least a measure of the peace that they so rightly deserve. I commend Sir Wyn’s report to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and questions. She was right to say in her opening remarks about this being the greatest miscarriage of justice in our country’s history. The responsibility is therefore on us all to do everything we can to make sure the victims receive full and fair compensation, and to ensure that there is never a repeat.

The hon. Lady specifically challenges me on the question of the 10 October deadline that Sir Wyn Williams has put in place. I can confirm that we are determined to meet that deadline. It is particularly important that we do so, as some of his recommendations concern the ongoing delivery of the Horizon compensation schemes and we do not want, inadvertently or not, to delay or hold back any of those claims.

The hon. Lady rightly gives me the opportunity to again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his work when he was the Post Office Minister. Without question, we would be even further behind without the considerable amount of work and effort that he put in. There are many others in the House who have campaigned long and hard on behalf of the sub-postmasters, including the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who I see in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Business and Trade Committee.

The hon. Lady asked who and how will those responsible be held to account. She knows that Sir Wyn Williams is due to publish the second part of his report, which focuses on those very questions. We will consider carefully what he has to say about that when we receive his report. I suspect that she already knows that the Metropolitan police is leading an investigation into whether criminal responsibility is at play. More than 100 police officers are working on that investigation and they have identified a number of individuals of interest. We will see what they do with regard to those individuals in due course. As the hon. Lady and the House will understand, Ministers are not in any way involved in such decisions.

What further steps have we taken to deliver and speed up compensation? The hon. Lady will be aware that we have issued the opportunity for sub-postmasters who apply to the Horizon shortfall scheme and who want to accept a fixed-sum payment of £75,000 to do so. We have put in place an appeals process to try to give those who feel they have not received a fair offer to date a chance to get full and fair redress.

There are particular challenges in the Horizon shortfall scheme. If I am honest, it is the scheme that I worry about the most, not least because there are 1,700 cases in which there does not appear to be any evidence of shortfalls. That does not mean that there were no shortfalls; it means that, at this stage, we do not have evidence of what those shortfalls were. As the House would expect, I have gone back to the Post Office and made it clear that we want it to reinvestigate, to see whether evidence can be found in as many of those cases as possible. We are looking very carefully at what we can do about the rest.

On Fujitsu, we will need to see Sir Wyn’s final report to understand fully the degree of Fujitsu’s culpability. I have made it clear to Fujitsu that we think it should bring forward an interim compensation payment, and I hope that it will see the report today and recognise the need to do that.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the Green Paper. We hope to publish it very shortly. One of the issues that it will consider is the future of the Post Office’s IT systems, because we certainly need to move on from the past and Horizon. We will set out in a bit more detail at that point what work we are doing in that regard.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

On behalf of our Committee, I welcome this report from Sir Wyn Williams. As Jo Hamilton has said, it unmasks the full horror of what was done to the sub-postmasters, including the truth that at least 13 suicides resulted from what the Post Office did to innocent people. Sir Wyn Williams echoes almost all the recommendations our Committee has now made three times to Ministers. There are 3,000 claims still outstanding, and there are, in Sir Wyn’s words, “egregious delays” at every stage of the claims process, so does the Minister now accept that, as we have recommended and Sir Wyn has recommended, up-front legal advice needs to be provided to victims?

Does the Minister also accept that we must now, once and for all, strip the Post Office of any role in the Horizon shortfall scheme? Will the Minister commit to a date for getting rid of the Post Office altogether from that redress scheme? Today’s report makes it clear that at least 160 people in the Post Office knew exactly what was going on, and some of them came to this House and misled Members of this House not once but twice, so is it now the moment for us to commence contempt of Parliament proceedings against the leaders of the Post Office who misled us so badly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I want to take this opportunity again to pay tribute to the work of the Business and Trade Committee under my right hon. Friend’s chairmanship. As he has said, there has been a series of recommendations from his Committee, and I recognise that we have not always agreed with all those recommendations. For me, the question about whether to offer legal advice to Horizon shortfall scheme claimants has always been a finely balanced judgment. I say that because it has always been clear that the victims wanted a fast route to secure compensation without the involvement of lawyers, and the fact that so many have accepted the fixed-sum payment is an indication of that appetite. Nevertheless, I recognise that Sir Wyn Williams has given us a clear steer on that particular question, and we will consider that extremely carefully and very quickly.

On the question of whether the Post Office should be stripped completely of responsibility for the Horizon shortfall scheme, there is no doubt that if we were starting afresh, the Post Office would have no responsibility for any of the compensation schemes. When I looked at the question of whether to start over again in the delivery of the compensation schemes and at who should be responsible for their delivery, I recognised that to change completely the processes as they had been set up would see further delay in getting compensation to the victims. I say gently to my right hon. Friend that Sir Wyn Williams has not said today that the Post Office should not be involved in the Horizon shortfall scheme’s delivery. We have been clear that we need to take away responsibility for the most complex cases, and we have set up the appeals scheme to do so. Given the numbers who have come forward with appeals on the Horizon shortfall scheme, I hope that we will be able to give confidence to those people that they will have a chance to get full and fair redress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. The Horizon scandal was an appalling miscarriage of justice, and today’s report highlights the extent of the human suffering that it has caused. Reading the stories of some of the victims in this report was truly heartbreaking, and it could not be clearer that far too many people’s lives have been irreparably affected. No scandal of this kind can be allowed to happen ever again. We warmly welcome the publication of the first volume of the independent inquiry’s report, which has the full support of the Liberal Democrats, and I sincerely hope that it will focus Ministers’ minds in getting victims the compensation and justice that they deserve as soon as possible. It is shocking that victims of this scandal have had to wait this long for their rightful compensation and justice. The Government need to move at speed and bring an end to this unacceptable delay.

Although we welcome the promise of full compensation, the Liberal Democrats will continue to hold the Government to account in order to ensure that victims get the payments they deserve as quickly as possible, so will the Minister confirm that the Government will implement the recommendations of today’s report in full? Will they set out a timeline for when all victims can expect to receive full and fair compensation? What conversations have the Government had with the Post Office and Fujitsu about restorative justice in the light of Sir Wyn’s recommendations? Lastly, when will the Government finally introduce legislation on a full duty of candour, for which sub-postmasters and the victims of so many other scandals and disasters have so long called?

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I suspect that my hon. Friend would be far better at doing that himself. His speech on Second Reading was a fantastic example of how we explain legislation matters and practice. It is important that we have certainty and consistency in how we measure things and that we have a clear legislative framework for the measurements that underpins all science. He gave us a historical sweep of those issues when he spoke on Second Reading.

It is important for me to pass on my gratitude to all those officials who have supported us in the passage of the Bill, as well as the parliamentary staff who have enabled it to come through swiftly and smoothly. It will return to the other place for consideration of the amendments we have made in this place, and I am confident that—in the spirit of constructive scrutiny and co-operation that has characterised its progress so far—it will continue on its way. This legislation is an important step in strengthening our domestic regulatory regime and ensuring that it is robust, future-facing and fit for purpose in a post-Brexit economy. I look forward to working with colleagues in the other place to ensure that the Bill finally reaches the statute book as swiftly as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Let me place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for their work in holding the Government to account on this Bill.

On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was the archetype of everything that is sometimes wrong with Westminster, but now, after months of debate in both Houses, I fear that it is even worse. In 2017, the now Prime Minister said that his party would respect the outcome of the referendum in which 17 million people voted to leave the European Union. Britain has now fallen victim to Labour’s EU surrender summit, giving up our fishing rights and our ability to make our own laws. I am happy to concede that this is no longer a Trojan horse of a surrender Bill, because it is now in plain sight. It is absurd that any Government would give up the power to shape our own regulations and meet the needs of our own consumers, electors and businesses. Those economies that will succeed in the future are those that are agile, that can adjust dynamically to events and that can tailor their own rulebook to their own particular needs.

While this Government’s track record is frankly disastrous, I still give them the benefit of the doubt when they say they wish for growth, but for the benefit of Labour Members—who I rather suspect have not read the detail of this Bill; they have been whipped into supporting it—let me spell out what it does. The dynamic alignment clauses in the Bill would mean that every time the EU tweaked its standards—shaped by the interests of 27 other states with their own different mix of businesses, often in competition with ours—Britain would have to follow suit. There would be no more bespoke trade deals around the world, as the Prime Minister and his team would be lame-duck negotiators, with the EU President holding the real strings. The Government boast of three trade deals in three weeks, but that is a hollow boast when not a single one is backed up by any detail. The Trade Secretary, who is noticeably absent today, is no doubt trying to make true what his Prime Minister has already announced. The Paymaster General confirmed to me in a written answer this afternoon that British businesses, exporters, travellers and tourists will not benefit from e-gates, as we were promised. Yet the Government, in all their naivety, are legislating to hand control of our product regulations back to Brussels.

At every stage of scrutiny, this Bill has been found wanting. The mild-mannered Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place delivered an uncharacteristically scathing rebuke, branding it a skeleton Bill that grotesquely shifts legislative power from Parliament to Ministers. It shackles British businesses, already bleeding out, to EU standards, stifling innovation. It is a solution in search of a problem, and under the Bill—under the measures being brought forward by the Government today—there is no room for the sort of robust scrutiny that we were sent here by our constituents to do, and no accountability. It is all in the hands of Ministers who keep breaking their promises.

Let us be clear: Labour’s pattern of broken promises does not just set Britain back; it erodes the trust that people have in politics. This House has a duty to restore faith in our democracy, to protect our hard-fought sovereignty and to say no to the overreach of blank-cheque ministerial powers, such as those in the Bill. This House must tonight reject the Bill, as we will seek to do, to stop the Government from forsaking Britain’s ability to carve and determine its own future.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his vital work on this trade deal—I am feeling more and more like Jim Shannon all the time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member means “the hon. Member for Strangford”.

[Chris Vince]

Apologies. I am feeling more and more like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all the time.

Can the Minister give the House some additional detail on how this trade deal and others will protect jobs in both Northern Ireland and Harlow? Does he agree that these trade deals mean that we avoid a trade war, which is good for everybody?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State spent about five minutes of his response evading the question that was asked: what will the impact of this trade deal be on Northern Ireland? The fact of the matter is—and he has already said it—that this will be difficult and complicated, and we have to remember that the EU has a single market to protect. It seems he is more interested in protecting the EU from the dribble of goods that goes into the EU than protecting the internal market of the United Kingdom. The fact of the matter is this. The Secretary of State may say, “Well, provided that businesses can prove that parts and other things do not go into the EU, they can then get the taxes back.” But the process for doing that is so complicated, so convoluted and so time-consuming that very often businesses are without the money for a long, long time, with all the cash-flow problems. Then the Treasury spends an age getting the taxes—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We do need to have a question.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

The Secretary of State says that free trade is essential for growth. What a shame that the trade across the UK is still so badly affected by us not being part of the customs union. When Labour was in opposition, he called for

“a proper role for Parliament in how trade deals are ratified”,

and argued that there needed to be

“a much higher level of scrutiny than we are seeing now”

under the previous Government. There are clearly many questions about how the deal will affect businesses in Northern Ireland. We have seen how the Australia trade deal has been allowed to undermine British farmers across the UK, animal welfare and food standards, thanks to a lack of parliamentary scrutiny under the Conservatives. Farmers in my constituency are worried that American agribusiness will undercut them with inferior meat. I hear what the Minister said about upholding SPS—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Can the hon. Lady get to the question, please?

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister provide reassurance that Members of this House will be given the opportunity to fully scrutinise and vote on the new trade deal with the United States?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Member will have heard my earlier answers. I believe that Parliament should play a role in scrutinising trade legislation, and indeed any international agreement, but it is not the case in the United Kingdom that we have formal “up or down” votes on any treaty. We vote on the implementation of those agreements, and the responsibility for negotiating and agreeing those is with the Government, rather than Parliament. I am not aware of any substantive proposal to change that system. It is certainly not something that the UK Government today are committed to doing.

The hon. Member talks about the impact of leaving our existing trade relationships in the customs union. That was part of that referendum. I understand how people feel intensely about that. [Interruption.] People have different interpretations of why they voted. We can relive the argument forever or we can focus on the future, on reducing barriers to trade and on the kinds of agreements delivering advantages for every part of the UK, and that is exactly what we are doing. Had we in this case still been part of the customs union, there would be no breakthrough with the US or the India trade deal. All colleagues need to balance up the two things alongside each other. In relation to the automotive sector, that lack of a breakthrough would have meant significant job losses this week in the United Kingdom, and that would have been very painful for all of us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With what I am sure will be a pithy final question, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

You have set me a challenge, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for securing this urgent question. It is so important to talk about this issue in this place. It has caused considerable problems for my Strangford constituents. In particular, I mention three distilleries—Echlinville, Rademon and the Hinch—but many other businesses are affected, too. How does the Minister plan to address the tariff differentials that may arise for Northern Ireland following the UK-US trade deal? It may see any EU retaliatory tariffs on US goods being applied to US goods entering Northern Ireland, potentially creating an Irish sea border for US goods.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

There is only one Member for Strangford, and no one could mistake him for anybody else in asking a question of that sort. He asks about the definition of whether goods are at risk of entering the single market when they come into Northern Ireland. That is based on a percentage differential in the tariff between the United Kingdom tariff rate for a good or tariff line and that for the EU. I believe that a 3% differential puts a good coming into Northern Ireland potentially at risk and therefore considered for the higher tariff up front. In this case, that would be the EU one, and it would then be reimbursed. I understand that it is a more complex position for businesses in his constituency than for many other things, but we have to make this work. We have to be committed to working with businesses in his area, in Northern Ireland and in the wider United Kingdom, and specifically with political leaders, to ensure that we are getting this right. I am hearing, and I have heard many times, about how we can make that system smoother, more reliable and more efficient. We will take that away and work with our colleagues to do that.

However, the system in place is balancing many different competing pressures, and there are no obvious or easy solutions. I was a parliamentarian when we went through all the potential outcomes when a different party was in charge. Let us make it work. Let us listen where we need to improve things, but let us recognise that this agreement fundamentally addresses some of the core problems that existed when this country chose to leave the European Union.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his very detailed answers this afternoon.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of Andrew Griffith has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

On Second Reading, we have a Bill that is even stronger than the one that started in the other House. Once again, I thank all our colleagues in the other place for their constructive feedback and contributions to the debate. I will not go through every change that has been made, but I will mention some aspects of the Bill that have been strengthened.

First, we have amended the Bill to ensure that there is more parliamentary scrutiny, and we have provided for a statutory consultation requirement to ensure that regulations are informed by those who would be impacted by them. There will also be that additional use of the affirmative procedure for regulations stemming from the Bill. Secondly, the Bill now includes a requirement for me, as the Secretary of State, to publish a statement setting out how my Department expects to identify and assess high-risk products.

Finally, contrary to previous suggestions from the Conservative party, the great British pint will clearly not be affected by this legislation, whether that is ale, cider or indeed milk. We do not believe that the Bill in its original form posed any threat to the pint, but we do not want to run the risk of colleagues thinking that my reassurances are small beer, so we accepted an amendment tabled in the other place that will give the pint statutory protection. That means, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in a few weeks’ time, when I hope you will confirm to the House that the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will all be able to raise a pint—protected under statute—to the Bill. I did inquire about whether I was allowed to bring a pint with me to the Chamber to illustrate the point, but that is apparently not in order; only the Chancellor has that ability. Given the week I am having, perhaps we will look at that at a later date.

To summarise, this legislation will finally enable the Government to properly regulate in areas where we have been unable to do so post Brexit. It will also give us the tools we need to better regulate modern-day consumer products. The Bill will help to create a fairer environment for high street shops and small businesses, support our growth mission and provide better protection for millions of consumers. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

This is a little off-topic for a Second Reading, but the hon. Gentleman could have just listened to the “Today” programme this morning. He would have heard me articulate those concerns. We are engaged with our US counterparts, more so than any other country, in those negotiations. He will know that I will not share the content or detail of those talks. The policy originates with the President of the United States and we are responding to and engaging with it. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it comes from the mandate and the agenda of the US Administration.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State that we are debating the Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, and not necessarily tariffs.

[Andrew Griffith]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am nearing a conclusion in any case. However, I do think that the issue of product safety—the rules and regulations that govern our economy, as the Secretary of State himself said—is intrinsically linked with trade, mutual recognition and growing the economy by removing trade frictions and barriers rather than erecting them and subjecting businesses to the tyranny of simply not understanding the corpus of rules and regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Wheeler]

I disagree that the issue is “purely” around enforcement. Obviously, there are elements of enforcement, but separating out one part of a package—a regulatory framework that will future-proof us from other issues—is not a coherent argument.

To conclude, it is vital that we create a product safety, regulatory and metrology framework that protects consumers, encourages fair competition and meets the changing picture internationally. This Bill delivers that framework, and I look forward to supporting it further in this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for engaging with the issues about product safety and consumer protection in the Bill, and he is making a serious speech in relation to them.

First, on the point of the customs union, which was skilfully woven into his speech, that would preclude us from reaching any arrangements with the United States, India, the Gulf states or other countries. For my money, if we wish to be part of something without a say in how it would affect our trade policy, that would be a very difficult position to take. I will come back to the references made by Conservative MPs, who often feel like they are fighting the old, last war. They cannot get past it—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. First, I gently suggest to the Secretary of State that he is meant to be making an intervention. Secondly, we are quite definitely debating the Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, not a customs union. Perhaps the Secretary of State will conclude his remarks.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. In relation to the number of references made to the EU in this Bill, the EU is explicitly referenced simply because UK product regulations are derived from a lot of EU regulations. We have to reference that when looking to the future, particularly when we recognise some of those European standards, but it is wrong to simply look at those references and try to make them out to be something they are not.

[Clive Jones]

Thank you for your intervention, Secretary of State. You are right—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

“He” is right!

[Clive Jones]

Sorry. The Secretary of State is right when he talks about us needing to keep up with EU regulations. We definitely need to do that.

Despite the potential in this Bill, unfortunately it contains very little actual policy. It relies far too heavily on secondary legislation, which limits opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny and provides little clarity on what the Government actually intend to do with the powers they are giving themselves. The Bill hurls us into a hokey-cokey trade policy in which, at Ministers’ political whims, we can stick ourselves into aligning with the EU just as easily as we can throw ourselves out of it all over again if another Government decided they wanted to do that. It will also hurt business confidence, because the underlying regulations of our country can be easily altered without the appropriate levels of scrutiny from Parliament.

Taking a step back from the issue of EU alignment, this principle can apply across any of the areas that this Bill seeks to regulate. It is developing opaque mechanisms on which the Government expect us to trust them to do better. However, Government Members must contend with the fact that they will not be there forever. All the potentially positive things they could do with this legislation could be reversed or made worse by a different Government.

It is at this point that I must recognise the excellent work of the Liberal Democrat peers. For example, a Lib Dem lord introduced an amendment that protected the use of the unique British pint measurement, ensuring that the Bill could not prevent or restrict its use for beer, cider, or milk in the iconic pint bottle. Liberal Democrat peers pressed the Government to introduce stronger protections against lithium-ion batteries, and a Liberal Democrat peer also ensured that the Government included an important amendment that requires the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out how the Government expect to identify and assess product safety risks before legislation is laid. Put simply, this will ensure greater scrutiny of regulations that are designed to make products safe.

Despite those improvements, the Bill is still ultimately a skeleton framework that shifts legislative authority from Parliament to the Executive without the necessary level of scrutiny. Many great Ministers agree with me that skeleton Bills are the wrong way to deliver legislation. In fact, in 2023—a mere two years ago—one shadow Minister stated that such Bills were not

“a model example of how Parliament would like to see legislation brought forward”,

and that we should be minimising

“the use of delegated powers where possible”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 409.]

I agree with that then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is now sitting next to the Secretary of State who has brought forward today’s Bill. I am sorry that he does not agree with himself any more.

I also note the assurances that the Government gave to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place that a process for editing statutory instruments will be brought forward. We will be pushing for details of that pre-legislative consultation as the Bill progresses through the Commons. Any Government will say that they are acting in our best interests, but all of the things that this Bill could do—such as enhance consumer safety, reduce trade barriers and build an economy fit for the future—could be undone at the stroke of a pen. That is a pen that Parliament should hold, not Ministers.

Employment Rights Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member, but he will be aware that that was not a point of order. As the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) has spoken in the debate, it is perfectly in order to refer to the comments that he made.

[Gregory Stafford]

I return to what industry leaders are saying. They have shared their fear about

“union influence slowing down decision making and hindering flexibility”,

making it harder for companies to remain competitive in global markets. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s survey found that 79% of organisations expect measures in the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs, placing further strain on companies that are having to grapple with increases to national insurance contributions and the rising national minimum wage. It is also likely that the measures will lead to

“more strikes, more disruptions, and ultimately less productivity.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree with my hon. Friend. This matter affects the entire country. Unison, for example, has a campaign about migrant care workers, so, yes, this is a national issue.

In Cornwall, those care workers are often given the early morning and late evening shifts with no flexibility. Some sit on benches, stranded in Cornish villages that buses do not pass through, waiting from their morning shift to their first evening shift.

Many health and social care workers on sponsorship visas are afraid to raise concerns about their employment and living conditions for fear of losing their employer’s sponsorship. Employers in turn can be aware of that, and some even use it as an explicit threat. That brings me to the enforcement provisions in the Bill. Enforcement of statutory pay and employment rights is poor in the social care sector. Pay enforcement relies on individual workers reporting breaches. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs investigates fewer than 1% of care providers each year. International workers and those from minority ethnic backgrounds are particularly vulnerable. For individual rights to become a reality, a collective voice in the workplace and effective enforcement are key.

The Law Society reports that the backlog in employment tribunal cases stands at 44,000, which is 18% higher than it was in 2023. This backlog needs clearing and investment needs to be made in employment tribunals.

The new Fair Work Agency will have a crucial role to play in reducing the burden on the employment tribunal system by providing a focal point for advice on enforcement under Government amendment 208, in enabling the disclosure of information under Government amendment 212 and in taking on some of those enforcement powers under Government new clauses 57 and 58 on behalf of those workers. Those powers could really help low-paid or migrant workers who do not have access to funds or to union representation to enforce their rights, or who fear dismissal if they take steps in that direction.

Government amendment 249 will allow the Fair Work Agency to investigate and combat fraud and exploitative employers, thereby tackling the kind of modern slavery of international workers in the care industry that we have seen recently.

Government new clause 60 will also give the Fair Work Agency the power to recover the cost of enforcement, which would help with the funding of the system. However, real investment will need to be made into enforcement for the new powers to have teeth, with a timeline, resourcing and fast-track procedure for the new Fair Work Agency. I welcome confirmation of the Government’s commitment in this area.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

May I give Members a brief reminder that we are today talking to the new clauses and amendments on trade unions, industrial action, enforcement of labour market legislation, and miscellaneous and general provisions?

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish to deal with new clauses 8 and 9, which relate to recognition of the POA’s right to strike. I therefore also declare that I am an honorary life member of the POA. The word “honorary” means that there is no financial relationship, and I am assured that I would not even get a south-facing cell or an extra pillow.

New clauses 8 and 9 try to restore the fundamental right of prison officers to take industrial action in its various forms. The union has existed for 90 years and, although organised as a trade union, it has never taken any form of industrial action that has endangered the prisoners the officers care for, other staff or the wider community. Through all of its long history, there was an industrial relations climate in which negotiations took place and disputes were resolved.

Then in 1994, the Conservative Government, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, made it a crime to induce any prison officer to take strike action, or even to work to rule. The trade union was told very clearly that that would be a criminal act and any trade union officer organising action, even a work to rule, could be prosecuted. What the Government then did—this was why people became extremely cynical at the time—was to plan increases in the pension age, make extensive salary cuts and cut staff numbers. There was no way the union could fight back in any form to protect its members.

Some hon. Members who were about at the time may recall that, in 2019, the POA faced high six-figure fines in the High Court. When it took action on health and safety grounds by convening meetings of members, it was threatened with legal action and the union leaders were threatened with imprisonment. Ironically, it would have been interesting to ask who would lock them up—but that is another question altogether.

When the police had their right to strike taken away, it was almost like a covenant and they were given very specific commitments around how they would be protected on pay, pensions and conditions of work. That was never offered to the POA and there was never any negotiation like that, where it would at least be given some security in return for the loss of that right. That was never given.

The POA took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights in 2024 and the case was accepted. The Court urged the Government to engage with the union in good faith over what remedies would be available. The then Government refused to engage and the current Government are still not engaging, so one of the reasons for tabling the new clauses is to urge the Government to start engaging with the union around that particular issue.

All the union is asking for is that its members be treated like any other workers and for the Government to engage. The right to strike in Scotland was restored 10 years ago and there has been no strike action since. That has created an industrial relations climate that is conducive to working together—not to entering into conflict but to negotiating problems out. I think that that is a result of both sides knowing that there is the alternative, if necessary, of taking part in industrial action.

As most people know, industrial action in public services is often not a strike; it is usually a work to rule to start off negotiations. I have been a member of a trade union for 50 years; I have been a trade union officer, a lay official and so on. Every union that I have known, where there is any form of industrial action that in any way involves a public service, always puts in place negotiated arrangements to protect the people that they are serving—that is not just life and limb protection, but often ensures a standard of service that is still acceptable to people. I therefore urge the Minister to get back round the table with the POA.

There was a debate in Committee on this matter, which angered people and angered me. I have gone over the debate. It showed a shameful disrespect for prison officers and an ignorance of the role that they play and the working environment that they work in. There are references to screws and guards and things like that, and about how, somehow, if the right were restored, the union would allow prisoners to run amok and put the whole community at risk. That is never the case—it never has been and never would be. There is a lack of understanding about what those workers put up with. As many hon. Members know, there is overcrowding. Prison officers deal with prisoners with huge mental health issues, drug problems and health problems overall. There are record levels of violence in prisons and prison officers are injured almost daily as a result of assaults.

I have to say that the disrespect demonstrated in the Committee was part and parcel of the demoralisation of even more of our workers in those key roles. I therefore ask the Minister to re-engage, to get back round the negotiating table and to recognise that the issue will not go away. These members want their basic trade union rights back and, if necessary, they will go back before the European Court. I believe they will win and that we will, unnecessarily, go through another period in which the demoralisation of workers continues because of people’s lack of respect for their basic trade union rights. We are suffering real problems in recruitment and retention, so I urge the Government just to take that one step back to the negotiating table with the POA.