Oral Answers to Questions

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Fifteen months on from the £200 million pledged for Grangemouth, and five months on from the Minister’s confirmation that prospective projects were being examined and shortlisted, what progress is being made to deliver new industry and jobs for Grangemouth?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is right: £200 million is available for such projects. The initial £14.5 million of funding that was announced will help businesses to test the feasibility of their project ideas in order to secure long-term funding from the National Wealth Fund.

UK Steel Strategy

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

As I have mentioned, we have been supporting the Dalzell plant. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that we have a National Wealth Fund for the entire United Kingdom. Many billions of pounds will now be unleashed to renew our country, including Scotland, which would be bereft of that funding should it be taken out of the United Kingdom and denied access to it.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s steel strategy. The welcome ambition for the steel sector will be shared by industrial communities across the country, especially in Motherwell. Industrial communities such as those in Falkirk and the Forth valley must see similar ambition. Today is the one-year anniversary of the publication of Project Willow, so will the Secretary of State commit from the Dispatch Box to redoubling his Department’s engagement with prospective investors in Grangemouth, trade unions, the Grangemouth future industry board and local Members, so that the jobs and industry that the project promised our community materialise at pace over the coming years?

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend speaks to many different sectors and industries, all of which we have stepped in to support since coming into office. We are investing in their modernisation and putting them on a sustainable footing for the future. He asks me to redouble my efforts—I have redoubled my efforts every day in this job. He will see from how my Department and I acted when Jaguar Land Rover had its hour of need and when Grangemouth needed support and investment, and from today’s steel strategy, which I announced on a visit to Port Talbot just yesterday, that this is a Government who seek to modernise and to protect where necessary, but always to invest in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) mentioned a moment ago that we are working on a new high street strategy, which will seek to deal with some of the issues the hon. Member mentioned. We want investors to step up, but we also have a responsibility, through planning reform, to make it easier to regenerate the types of areas he described.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Given the global energy crisis, manufacturers reliant on gas will struggle with the recent spikes in energy costs. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether his Department is considering a transitional dual fuel discount, alongside the British industrial competitiveness scheme, for industries that will continue to use gas for the foreseeable future?

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend will know that the impact of BICS is essential, and it will be fundamental in getting growth into the economy and sustainable businesses into the future. We are looking carefully at how the learning from that can be applied in other areas.

INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). I am sure that he would have liked to be here, but he was invited by the Secretary of State for Scotland to join him on the visit. He and I have spoken over the last few weeks. I assure the right hon. Member that I very much value my hon. Friend’s contributions, his relationship and his support, and I know that he is as pleased as I am by the announcement.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

People in Falkirk, Grangemouth and across Forth valley are delighted to see the decisive action taken by this Government to preserve 500 jobs in our community. The £120 million investment and £150 million deal are Labour’s industrial strategy in action. It protects our industrial community and keeps essential national infrastructure viable. I hope that there is a consensus in this House that that is a welcome, positive step. It is worth noting that, earlier this year, the head of external affairs for INEOS told the Scottish Affairs Committee that prior to the November 2023 announcement of the refinery’s closure,

“Both Governments were given the opportunity, the data and access to the data to make an investment decision, and neither Government chose to do that.”

Both the Tories and the SNP had the opportunity in government to support workers at Grangemouth, but they did not lift a finger. Contrast that with this Government’s approach to the ethylene plant, acting decisively before it was too late.

Our action today and further action support new industry, with the welcome announcement last week of MiAlgae bringing 400 jobs across Scotland. Grangemouth’s industrial future must move forward and the Labour Government are providing substantial further resources towards that. Will the Minister provide us with greater detail on what guarantees the Government have received from INEOS for the long-term viability of the ethylene site at Grangemouth and when Grangemouth can expect further funding announcements from the National Wealth Fund’s £200 million commitment, as well as the additional £14 million secured by Scottish Labour MPs in the Budget last month, to get announcements made soon?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued support for his constituents and the Grangemouth site. He welcomes the announcement and, quite rightly, he then presses me for more funding too. Further to the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to the Liaison Committee earlier this week, on the £200 million committed earlier this year for projects through the National Wealth Fund, those projects are being examined and shortlisted. I hope that they will come forward soon. I also take this opportunity to commend Siobhan Paterson, councillor for Upper Braes on Falkirk council, who has supported my hon. Friend in this work. I hope that when voters go to the polls for the Scottish parliamentary elections in Falkirk East and Linlithgow, they will recognise that and vote Labour too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point: advanced manufacturing and the creative industries come together in this area, because it is also about broadcasting. Those are two of the sectors in our industrial strategy that we are very keen to motor on with, and one or other of us in the ministerial team will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I welcome the 340 jobs at Grangemouth announced this morning as a direct consequence of the investment made by this Labour Government and MiAlgae. In less good news, the National Timber Group went into administration last month, making 500 workers across the country redundant. After five years at NTG, my constituent had her system access cut off, while working, with no warning, no process and no verbal communication. What dialogue have Ministers had with the administrators to ensure that a fair process is followed for NTG employees?

[Chris Bryant]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point, which is extremely well made. I am very happy to have a conversation with him afterwards about the precise nature of the discussions that are ongoing.

Finally, I too visited one of my small businesses on small business Saturday, a great cake shop called Only Crumbs. Sadly, under the Tories, that was all we ever got: only crumbs.

Seasonal Work

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I am going to confine my remarks to the criticisms of the Employment Rights Bill, because it is where my experience sits and because I tried—in no small part thanks to the efforts of yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker—to get into Monday’s debate on the Bill, but sadly I was not able to speak.

Having said that, I do also want to make the point that it is imperative that all hon. Members listen to small businesses, as I did this Saturday as I helped out Falkirk Delivers and the Falkirk business improvement district team, disentangling the Christmas lights and carrying ladders about Falkirk High Street as they set up the inaugural Falkirk festival of trees. I encourage any hon. Member to visit the vastly brilliant hospitality venues in Falkirk. With that out of the way, I will now focus my contribution on the impact of the Employment Rights Bill.

We have heard from the Opposition that small businesses are looking for more solutions, although I would point out that very few of them say that we should either cut welfare substantially in a way that would push children into poverty or rejoin the European Union as the immediate solution. It is imperative, though, that we talk about seasonal workers and not just the businesses that hire them; that is, of course, an important perspective, but it can often be a parochial view that involves talking to one side of the labour market—the employer—and failing to grasp the incentive system that we need to change in order to get people into work, as I believe the Employment Rights Bill will do. After years of hearing the Conservative Government using the stick—tough language about benefit sanctions, often kicking down at a workless generation that they directly caused and also directly failed to address when in government—the Conservatives now repeatedly slam the carrot: the Employment Rights Bill and this Government’s broader agenda to make work pay again.

So in lieu, I will provide my own relatively recent experience to the House. With the exception of the pandemic—when I lost my insecure hospitality job as one of the workers who was not provided with furlough assistance because of the nature of my contract, and I had to move back in with my parents for the first time since I was 17—I have not gone one week unemployed since I was a teenager. After long days at school and, later, long days of studying law, I spent my weekends working behind the bar at weddings and various functions in the hospitality industry and the retail industry. I did this because of the ethos my family instilled in me as a 16-year-old, when I got my first seasonal job at Argos, that nothing is better for your self-esteem, your progression, your social skills, your life, your independence and, ultimately, your wallet than to get yourself in, and keep yourself in, work.

I still remember hitting 1,000 orders on Christmas eve 2016 in that first job, only to be told on Boxing day, alongside many of my generation who worked hard in that seasonal job and made sure that the business was running, that I was not going to be kept on. We have to remind ourselves that the workers who work over Christmas in hospitality, in retail and in gift shops are the economy that we are talking about here. They are the ones who consistently keep the lights on in our high streets. In my experience, working on the minimum wage, insecure and low pay, high turnover and insecure hours are major characteristics of the sectors I have worked in. Until I moved out of the hospitality sector in June 2022, my income was sometimes enough to pay the rent on my digs and for my bills, food and the occasional trip to the pub or a Falkirk match—but, sadly, sometimes it was not.

This is still the reality for far too many who work in hospitality, retail, social care and many other sectors, and it is ultimately the reason I got into politics: to improve the lot of those who, despite grafting and seeing little result for themselves or their families and sometimes working in quite deep poverty, still went in each day and got on with it. That same spirit lives on today in the young hospitality workers who are currently in dispute with their employer at the Village Hotel and at Vue in Glasgow. The hard-working generation that I am a part of are down there once again, organising and demanding better, because they are contributing and keeping our economy going, and they deserve fair pay and conditions over Christmas.

More than anything, this was the reason I ran for election: I saw in my generation the corrosive social sickness that the previous Government neglectfully allowed this country, and especially my generation, to be infected with. After 14 long years, many in my generation looked at the workplace with no prospect of being able to build a better life than the one their parents had. I believe that the last Parliament was the first in history in which living standards went down. Off the back of that, too many in my generation saw that they could either work hard and see little reward or sit about and see little reward as well.

Something had to radically change. This country had to make work pay again. That was the message in the manifesto that Labour stood on and promised the country that we would deliver if we had the privilege of winning office. This is what the Employment Rights Bill is designed to do, with day one rights to statutory sick pay, allowing workers who fall ill to bounce back into the workplace quicker and healthier, and day one rights to paternity leave—those were secured this week; I am grateful to the Minister—meaning that fathers can spend those precious first few days at home with their newly-born bairns, which I imagine will be crucial for many families this Christmas.

Having said that, as Ministers are aware, I was desperately disappointed earlier this week when the concession was made to the Tories and Lib Dems in the other place on day one rights against unfair dismissal. Those same peers have, throughout the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, fought to bargain on behalf of the bad bosses to weaken the sick pay and paternity leave of millions of ordinary people. The obstructions of the other place to delivering that core manifesto commitment, which will benefit so many in my generation—those who are seasonal workers, to boot—must be addressed by the Government at another time and, from my perspective, with far more radical intent in regard to the other place. I cannot and I will not forget the workers I have pulled pints alongside.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. An 18 to 20-year-old this Christmas who is serving a pint will be earning £1.40 an hour more. Does he agree that this demonstrates Labour’s commitment to young people?

[Euan Stainbank]

Yes, absolutely. I also find it disgraceful that the Leader of the Opposition suggested this week that we should freeze the minimum wage. That would mean that, in later years, the workers who are going to keep the lights on this Christmas in the gift shops, the pubs and the restaurants would be entitled to less as inflation went up—[Interruption.] Well, they are part of the economy. If we did not have the workforce keeping the lights on in the first place, there would be no restaurants, no pubs and, sadly, no Christmas custom. That is the experience of far too many people in hospitality.

This is the fourth Christmas in my working life that I am going to be able to spend with my family instead of working in the hospitality industry. If any of those on the Opposition Benches can share their experiences, I would be very interested to hear them, considering how much experience in business they utilised earlier in the debate. Throughout the progress of my career in this place and the votes that we make, I am not going to forget the workers I pulled pints beside and served tables with. I have heard too many stories about kids being bullied, belittled and booted out of the workplace by bad bosses during the first two years of their working lives. I do worry—and I have shared my concern with Ministers—that, especially in the seasonal work sector, this will now simply happen before the six-month mark. We should return to and address that later in the Parliament.

I expect nothing from Opposition Members but an apology to the 1.5 million people who were put into in-work poverty during the shambolic 14-year tenure of the Conservatives. They built a low-wage, insecure, low-productivity economy, all while practising austerity, and now they have come back to this House with essentially the same ideas but with 200 less MPs.

[Bradley Thomas]

What would the hon. Gentleman say to the 89,000 people who have lost their hospitality jobs over the last 12 months?

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

An extensive amount of hospitality jobs were lost over the previous five years as well. I speak to small businesses in my constituency every week, and I do not deny that they have been hard pressed for a number of years. I know, because I was there—I was working in the industry.

[Bradley Thomas]

Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Euan Stainbank]

It is important that we back our hospitality sector, and I said earlier that I think there should be more to come. Small businesses in the hospitality sector have talked to me about their energy prices.

[Bradley Thomas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way a second time?

[Euan Stainbank]

I will give way, given the hon. Gentleman’s insistence. Maybe he will mention some experience of hospitality workers as well.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way to me a second time. Some 89,000 hospitality jobs have been lost during the past 12 months. Youth unemployment is up, with 12% of 16 to 24-year-olds currently unemployed. There are an estimated 40% fewer seasonal jobs this year—the biggest decline in 15 years. Energy costs are up. Business rates are up. Confidence is down. Regulation is up. Does he acknowledge that it is not a coincidence that all that is happening at the same time, and that it must, at least in part, be related to the really poor choices made by this Government?

[Euan Stainbank]

Although I do not accept the premise, I think it is important to recognise that hospitality has struggled over a number of years. I am not in any way denying that. However, I do not know why the Employment Rights Bill is mentioned in the Opposition Day motion, given that its provisions have not yet come into place.

It is important that we listen to hospitality and give feedback, but it is also important not to discourage young people from seeking job opportunities in the first place. That has happened for far too long—for the past 14 years under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

[Alison Griffiths]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Euan Stainbank]

As I am going to draw to a close, I will not take any more interventions.

Moaning about the rates of maternity pay or proposing to freeze the minimum wage is not likely to incentivise more young people to grasp their first opportunity. It is not likely to encourage the people we are talking about here—the NEETs of my generation—into the workplace. This Government are delivering a fair wage and fair working conditions, but we do need to go further and faster, both on employment rights—instead of stepping back at the first sign of opposition from the Tories and the Lib Dems—and on support for the hospitality industry in my constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) pointed out something quite important: because of what this Government have done, the younger workers in our constituencies are going to be £1.40 an hour better off in their workplace. I only wish that, back when I got my first seasonal job, we had a Government who saw the value of my labour over the Christmas period.

Oral Answers to Questions

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I have always appreciated my engagement with the hon. Lady on these questions. The cumulative impact of applications is covered by the planning system, which considers all those impacts, but the hon. Lady is right to suggest that the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan are about taking a more strategic approach to the way in which we look at where such projects are sited. As for the question of community benefits, we have consulted on that and will say more shortly, but our general view as a Government is that communities should benefit from hosting infrastructure, particularly solar, which has often not produced the same community benefits as other infrastructure.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Last month the Energy Minister stated that the £200 million investment in Grangemouth from the national wealth fund that was secured by Scottish Labour Members has brought private investment to the table. Does he agree that we need an anchor industry in Grangemouth with a scale and skills profile similar to those of the former oil refinery, and that we also need the Government to take a partial stake and to make an announcement, this side of Christmas, on the direction of Grangemouth’s industrial future?

[Michael Shanks]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has worked extremely hard with the Government and with the national wealth fund to ensure that we are bringing projects forward. More than 100 projects came forward for that £200 million investment by this Labour Government through the wealth fund; we are considering all of them, and hope to make announcements soon. However, as my hon. Friend will understand, given the substantial amounts of public money involved, we must ensure that due diligence in respect of all those businesses and projects is complete before we can make any announcements.

Employment Rights Bill

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

There is a balance between the employer and the employee. If the fit is not right, it is better for both sides that the employment is brought to an end, and that the employee is free to seek more appropriate employment.

There are very significant concerns. The lack of clarity about probation periods, which the Minister mentioned, and exactly what they mean, risks piling undue worry on to business managers who are struggling to find the right skills. We can compare that with the provisions in the amendment tabled on unfair dismissal.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I, both here and in the other place, have been clear in our support for an amendment that would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request guaranteed hours. Amendment 1B would allow an employee to notify their employer if they no longer wished to receive guaranteed hours offers, but they would be able to opt back into receiving guaranteed hours offers at any time. That reasonable and balanced approach would relieve employers from having to issue guaranteed hours offers each reference period to workers who may simply not be interested in them, while ensuring that those who wished to receive such offers could continue to do so.

The Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many workers are struggling with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many people value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Adaptability in shift patterns is often hugely valuable for those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have both security and flexibility.

Specifically, small and medium-sized businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant costs and administrative burdens on their limited resources, compounding other challenges, such as the recent increase in employer national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. The Liberal Democrat amendment that was debated in the Lords is in line with our long-standing policy that zero-hours and agency workers should have the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a request that employers could not unreasonably refuse. We believe that measure would maintain valuable flexibility and benefit both parties when the obligation to keep offering guaranteed hours, even to workers who clearly are not interested in them, imposes a significant burden that does not benefit either side.

As with all workplace rights, employees should be supported to exercise a right to request guaranteed hours without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace. The unified fair work agency being set up by the Government, which we welcome, could help ensure that employees received that protection and support. This approach would still give workers the vital security that they deserve, while avoiding unnecessary burdens for employers.

Last time the Bill was debated in the Commons, I spoke in favour of measures that would improve the clarity of the legislation on seasonal work, so I will once again speak in favour of Lords amendment 48B. The sustainability of so many companies, such as farming businesses, depends on getting the right people into the right place at the right time. Any obstacles to actioning that can have a huge impact on company operations, potentially throwing the entire business into jeopardy. Hospitality firms such as pubs, cafés and restaurants also rely on seasonal workers and are particularly vulnerable.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Lady define what rights somebody working behind a desk in this place should have under amendment 48B that somebody working behind a bar in this place should not?

[Sarah Olney]

They are different kinds of work with different work patterns, requiring different skills and experience. I am not entirely certain what point the hon. Member wants me to respond to.

If a different regulatory framework is to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of seasonal work must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming employees as seasonal workers in inappropriate circumstances. We continue to call for businesses that are especially reliant on seasonal workers to be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support amendment 48B.

On trade unions, I again speak in favour of Lords amendment 62B to maintain the status quo, in which a 50% ballot threshold is required for industrial action. The Government’s proposal to remove the threshold entirely means that a trade union could take strike action with only a small minority of eligible members taking part in the vote. That is bound to raise questions among the public about whether the will of workers has been accurately represented, and it risks unnecessarily creating tensions between workers, employees and the general public. That would not be a good outcome for any of the parties involved. We should maintain a robust process for launching industrial action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. It would leave workers unable to reject overtime, even if they were knackered, having already done 60 or 70 hours that week.

That brings me to Dave, a plasterer working on one of my local building sites. He is technically self-employed, but in reality he is also on a rolling zero-hours contract. Some weeks he earns enough to keep his mortgage, and some weeks he earns enough to put aside a little bit of money for Christmas; other weeks, he earns nothing at all. He is told to stand down when winter hits and work slows, with no pay, no notice and no safety net. That insecurity is corrosive and affects not just finances, but families, health and morale on jobs.

Let us be clear, the public are firmly with us. According to the TUC’s 2025 mega-poll, support for guaranteed-hours contracts sits at over 70% across the regions and nations of the UK. This is not about denigrating businesses and business owners—many are fantastic and provide great opportunities—but without the bill, unscrupulous employers will continue to sidestep responsibility and run a race to the bottom.

Arguments are made that these measures would impose burdens on business, discourage hiring and risk flooding employment tribunals. Those concerns should not be a pretext for hollowing out protections and should instead ensure that workers know how much they will earn each month so that they can plan and live their lives. Sara and Dave, who I referred to earlier, are just two names; behind them are thousands of lives blighted by unfair employment practices. Sara and Dave will not mind me saying that they are not young. Despite what the Opposition want us to believe, zero-hours contracts are not just exploitative for the young; they are exploitative for many other people in our society.

People deserve the right to security. I urge colleagues to reject these Lords amendments, which would weaken the Bill, because fixed-hours entitlement is not a radical idea but a basic standard of decency in the modern world of work. If we really mean it when we say in this House that we respect working people, we must deliver laws that protect them.

[Euan Stainbank]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud, experienced hospitality worker of six years. I have proportionate respect for the work of the other place on the Bill, and am once again bemused and frustrated on behalf of my constituents that this generational, fundamental and basic common sense bit of legislation is once again before us, along with the hill that many in other place seem to want to make a stand on.

It is apparent that after years of stagnating living standards, job No. 1 for the Government was to make work pay again, tipping the scales in favour of working people and, especially for the younger generation who have been discussed today, recapture a work ethic and value of work that I worry had been lost during the years of Tory Government. Why, then, does the other place insist on Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120, which would remove the day one right on unfair dismissal? That is once again telling young, predominantly lower paid and insecure British workers in hospitality, in factories and on work sites across our constituencies that their continued employment and income is precariously balanced on the benevolence of their employer, not on the value of their labour.

That feeling is real every day that this measure is not on the statute book. Young men and women are being bullied, prodded and pushed out of their jobs by the small minority of bad employers that do exist across our constituencies. I have had kids in their first jobs straight out of school, further education or higher education—this was their first chance—tell me that they were sacked in the weeks prior to two years of service. Looking at Lords amendment 106 from my perspective, I see no reason why that same circumstance would not then occur a few weeks before six months of service.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that good employers have nothing to fear from anything in the Bill and that many good employers will embrace these measures, as indeed many do?

[Euan Stainbank]

When I listen to businesses in my constituency I find, as I am sure every Member of this House does, that they are worried across the piece for a number of reasons and have been for a number of years. Yet many good employers do not rank this in their top five concerns coming forward, and especially not the employers that I worked for in the hospitality and retail sector. Actually, they see the benefits in keeping workers for longer and having more security in knowing who their workforce is. That was a major concern for the hospitality and retail sectors that I worked in, especially on coming out of the pandemic, and not being able to keep staff was also a major cost.

On unfair dismissal, if we accept the amendment, we will leave people without a legal right of action when they are unfairly dismissed. We must reject it; it is an unfair proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, who I like very much, for giving way on that point. He is clearly a massive fan of the Employment Rights Bill. The people of Falkirk are watching him, so would he like to commit to them that if, having passed the Employment Rights Bill, unemployment goes up and therefore we have fewer workers with fewer rights, he will resign from his seat?

[Euan Stainbank]

I make the commitment to the people of Falkirk that the quality of their work, especially for younger people, will go massively through the roof. Younger people in my constituency who have been subject to insecure work, low pay and zero hours contracts have seen the quality of their work diminished, so my guarantee to the people of Falkirk is that the quality of work will go up. I think other Members referred to this, but it is a cheek for Tory Members to talk to post-industrial communities such as Falkirk, which were savaged by the Thatcherite Government. They will get absolutely no credence in my constituency.

I say to those on the Opposition Benches that they have time to change their mind. They can back the Government today, get the Bill passed without it being watered down and stop the attempts that are perceived, at least in my constituency, as an attempt to betray young British workers who are doing the right thing, going out and earning their way. For too long under the Tories, those workers have lost the belief in the quality and opportunity that work provided. They will see massive benefits from the Bill. Make work pay and get this done.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Anneliese Midgley.

Oral Answers to Questions

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

9. What recent progress he has made on implementing the industrial strategy.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

14. What recent progress he has made on implementing the industrial strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

The whole of Government are focused on delivering the industrial strategy, and significant progress has already been made. This month, we published our new quarterly update, which reports on the key economic indicators for growth-driving sectors, delivery milestones and major investments. With over £250 billion of investment committed and over 45,000 jobs supported since July, we are delivering on that vision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

I know from holidaying in my hon. Friend’s constituency that it is a place of incredible beauty, but I know from his constant advocacy that it is also a place of huge industrial potential. Cornwall will benefit from access to the £200 million investment fund, which provides debt and equity finance of up to £5 million for businesses in the south-west. That has already delivered £51.8 million of direct investment, leveraging an additional £48.1 million. I know he has big plans for industry in Cornwall, and we will work with him, especially on access to finance, to ensure that we can unlock that potential. We will of course work with our colleagues in MHCLG.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses. Our bus manufacturing industry supports thousands of jobs across the country, but faces an existential challenge from China. Market share has increased rapidly, and the Scottish National party’s disastrous ScotZEB 2 scheme sent less than 20% of orders to Scotland’s sole manufacturer, which directly jeopardised 400 jobs earlier this year. What urgent interventions are Ministers considering to contend with the rise in Chinese market share? Has the Minister discussed this issue with colleagues in the Department for Transport prior to the publication of the 10-year bus pipeline next month? Record bus funding should not be a shopping list for China.

[Blair McDougall]

I share my hon. Friend’s frustration at the lack of an industrial strategy from the SNP Government in Edinburgh. It has meant that workers at Alexander Dennis in his constituency are on furlough rather than doing what they do best: making world-class buses for public transport. For our part, we are supporting combined mayoral authorities to co-ordinate the procurement of buses through a Crown Commercial Service commercial agreement, and we are publishing a 10-year pipeline of future bus orders to provide the much-needed certainty that the sector requires. That includes providing advice on using social value criteria that suppliers such as Alexander Dennis are well placed to meet when procuring new buses, such as creating and retaining jobs in a way that respects our legal obligations. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for keeping this issue on the agenda.

Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning that. When I was the shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights, we really fought for that right, not least during covid. What a difference it would have made to workers then, and it would have kept our country safer. Of course, we need to look after people when they are sick, so I dispute what the hon. Member for Spelthorne said about a menopause plan costing business—women generally would also certainly dispute that, because having a plan would be better for business and better for women at work.

We must reset the relationship with trade unions, which is why establishing a Fair Work Agency and championing engagement around equality are important. I look forward to the future for businesses with a traditional Labour agenda that benefits businesses and workers by bringing better security and better productivity, and providing the green shoots of rebuilding the economy.

I recognise that businesses are in a fragile environment. Over the summer, I held business summits for the daytime and night-time economy. The attendees are looking forward to engaging with me as we set out our plans for our city together: resetting the climate, realigning workers’ rights and giving businesses a boost. The voices of businesses are really important. The Living Wage Foundation notes that 87% of employers say that paying the living wage improved the reputation of their business, and two thirds said that it improved recruitment. A letter about the Employment Rights Bill from leading economists and employment lawyers, published by the Institute of Employment Rights, says:

“The emerging consensus is that labour laws do not, on the whole, have negative economic consequences, and may well have positive ones.”

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to assess the economic impact and consequences, which we have seen over a number of years, of low pay and insecure hours, and how they have contributed to high turnover and sickness absence in businesses? I believe that those problems are substantially addressed by the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend has spoken powerfully and brought that observation to the attention of the House. Low productivity was also a major feature of the last Administration.

The letter goes on to highlight how worker protection positively impacts productivity, how investment in skills improves the competency of workers, and how collective bargaining raises wages and stabilises employment. Over time, that positive investment will spill out to the wider economy and Government, so that there can be investment in the public services that have been so broken. If workers have more in their pockets, they are more likely to spend in the local economy, and wage disparities will be addressed so that wealth is more evenly spread, boosting local business. We also still have parts of the Taylor review and its 53 recommendations to implement to help small employers and those in irregular work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

I welcome the Minister to her place. She is making an excellent point, but I refer her to specific sectors in which some Opposition parties have called for carve-outs. Does she agree that it is important that we do not carve out, for any particular sector, the strong provisions in the Bill, and that it is both morally and economically wrong to say to a young worker that if they work behind a bar, they should have fewer rights than if they worked behind a desk?

[Kate Dearden]

I want every single worker, no matter where they work, to have a good standard of rights in their workplace and to know their rights. The Bill will ensure that we can provide that opportunity for so many people, including young workers, and that they benefit from the legislation.