Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I have deep concerns about this Orwellian Bill because of what it does not explicitly say and its ambiguity regarding EU dynamic realignment. The Henry VIII powers the Bill gives Ministers will have serious consequences for businesses, consumers and our ability to trade, but does so with little detail on how they intend to use such powers.

Let me first turn to regulatory alignment. As you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, I spent much time taking the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 through as a Whip, and I believe passionately that that Act was vital to take back control, for parliamentary sovereignty and in freeing businesses to compete by shedding unnecessary EU regulations, directives and red tape. So I will say plainly that this Bill will lead to regulatory alignment with the EU through the back door. I invite the Minister to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this Bill and the powers it gives Ministers will not be used by this Government for dynamic alignment with EU regulations. I doubt that any such categoric reassurance is likely to be forthcoming, but I await with bated breath and a hopeful heart that it be so.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Joy Morrissey]

Let me make some progress, and then I will give way.

The Government have always claimed that they would not return us to the single market and the customs union, and many believed them. I was always a healthy sceptic, but I am willing to be proven wrong. However, my fear is that this Bill will lead to back-door EU regulatory alignment, and whether that is deliberate or unintentional matters not. We had our democratic instructions from the British people, and we must honour them.

I now want to talk about competition—

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Lady give way on regulatory alignment?

[Joy Morrissey]

Let me make some progress.

[Gareth Snell]

It is on the point the hon. Lady is moving away from.

[Joy Morrissey]

Well, I am now on competition. Would the hon. Member like to make a comment about that?

[Gareth Snell]

No, this is on the last point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. This is turning into a debate in itself. It is very clear that the Member does not want to take an intervention right now, Mr Snell, but she may do so later.

[Joy Morrissey]

I now want to talk about competition—

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Lady give way on a point about competition?

[Joy Morrissey]

I will give way on a point about competition.

[Gareth Snell]

Persistence sometimes pays off, Madam Deputy Speaker. I genuinely want to pick up the point the hon. Lady is making about competition in relation to alignment. In the ceramics sector, the food contact materials regulations set by the European Union are essential to enabling the export of the products we create and make. They are product regulations for safety, but she seems to be suggesting that any regulatory alignment is a bad thing. Is that her party’s message about alignment for the purposes of export that I should take back to the thousands of workers in Stoke-on-Trent?

[Joy Morrissey]

With exports, we can apply any kind of regulation we want to maximise our market advantage from leaving the EU. We could apply a statutory framework for Japan, or any country we want, to ensure we can export our products. The point of leaving the EU was so that we could remain globally competitive, and so that we could choose to adopt any regulatory framework we wanted if that market enabled us to export our products, support our businesses and help to grow our economy. I would support that, but nothing of that is mentioned in the Bill. If it mentioned realignment with market values in relation to Japan, so we could export things to Japan or to other markets, I would be interested in looking at the Bill holistically, but not once is any country or trade grouping mentioned except the EU. That gives me pause, and it makes me wonder whether this is an attempt to achieve a backdoor realignment with EU regulatory frameworks without the scrutiny of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Good regulation is basically the immune system of our nation, and it is often unseen. When regulation is working well and having the desired effect, we rarely see it happening because it is keeping us safe and protecting us from those harms that we outsource to the Government to keep watch over for us. It is taking the necessary steps and measures to make sure that we are safe, the things we buy are safe, the interactions we have in our communities are safe and our children are safe. That regulation is a protection, essentially, and this Bill gives the scope and the agility for the Government—any Government—to respond quickly and in a timely manner to new and emerging potential threats that regulation is required to protect us from.

I worry when Governments of any colour—including, unfortunately, that of my own party of late—seek to suggest that regulation is inherently a bad thing, an inhibitor of growth or the heavy hand of the state stopping the illustrious bounds of enterprise, because it often is not. Often it is about a level playing field. It is about creating the circumstances where competitors in Stoke-on-Trent have as much opportunity to compete with their competitors around the country or around the world in a way that we understand to be fair, balanced and proportionate. To me, this Bill sets us on a course where we are able to do that.

There are some areas where product regulation and the safety that comes with it are lacking. If the House will indulge me, I would like once again to talk about ceramics and the ceramic industry because I believe that the product regulatory framework and the existing protections for ceramics—in terms of the quality of goods that are purchased and also the protection of the level playing field—could benefit hugely from actions that the Government could take through the powers in the Bill.

We have discussed online drop-shipping platforms many times in this House. These are websites that bulk buy things and sell them into the UK, often at a fraction of the price that people could buy them for in this country, and often faking and forging the identities and brands of British companies, without any consideration for what people are actually buying. I was shown a great example by a company in Staffordshire, Dunoon ceramics, which makes a very particular style of ceramic mug. The mugs cost about £28 to make and they retail at about £35, sometimes up to £50.

An online drop-shipping website was selling a fake version—with the same artwork and the same “Made in the United Kingdom” sticker and backstamp on the base—into the UK for about £10. We have no idea whether that product was meeting the Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (England) Regulations 2012 that it is required in this country to meet in order to be considered safe. We had no idea of the levels of lead or cadmium in the paint, no idea what the glaze was made of, no idea where the clay had come from and no idea of the conditions under which it was made, but it was sold into the UK thousands at a time, undercutting the British company. For clarity, I have no idea whether the product was defective, but it could have been, thereby putting people at risk.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but I collect ceramics, by the way, so I am extremely interested in them. He is right that we should support and, indeed, revere the British ceramic industry, but many laws already prevent the kind of counterfeiting he describes and other laws prevent illegal substances from being used and sold in the manufacture of goods. There is a lot of existing statute that protects consumers from the kind of practices he describes.

[Gareth Snell]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that there are existing protections for some of the things I have mentioned that, if enforced properly, could take those products off the market, but the enforcement of many of our regulatory frameworks in this country is quite weak. Funding for most enforcement agencies across this country was—not to make a party political point—reduced under the last Government. I hope this Government will reconsider that because a regulation is only ever as good as the enforcement regime sat behind it.

[Sammy Wilson]

Would the hon. Member accept that if Ministers got up at 9 o’clock in the morning and worked until 9 o’clock at night introducing regulations on the basis of this Bill every day, but there was no enforcement or the enforcement was as weak as he says it is on pottery, we would be no better off?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I do not think anybody would disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment that if there is no enforcement of regulation, there is no benefit, but we are not saying in the Bill that there should be less enforcement. The Bill produces a framework in which the Government can take action to respond to create the good regulation necessary. I will freely admit that what has to come with that are the enforcement arrangements to ensure those new regulations are enforced properly, penalties to deter people seeking to circumvent the regulations, and the proper resourcing of enforcement agencies so they are equipped to take action against those people and companies seeking to circumvent the laws. Without that, I fully accept that regulation for the sake of regulation is no good any more than regulation being cut or diverged for the sake of divergence and reduction is any good. It comes down to enforcement.

To go back to the comments of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), there is one area in this Bill where Government action could bring in a new product protection regulation that would have a huge impact on the ceramic industry. That is around the backstamp on the bottom of a piece of ceramic or pottery. As an avid collector, he will be aware of the importance of those backstamps. In this country, if we turn over any plate, cup or anything made from good-quality British ceramics, we will normally find the words “Made in England” and the pottery name underneath it. Consumers then know they are buying a premium piece of British-manufactured ceramics that has been made to a suitable product standard that we accept in Stoke-on-Trent is one of the best in the world. It is perfectly plausible, as has been done with some of the fakery, to replicate that phrase when it is not true.

The other challenge we have is companies that import things into the United Kingdom augmenting the wording of that particular backstamp to suggest it has been made in the UK when it has not. It may have been bisque-fired overseas, imported and then decorated and glazed in the UK, but it will normally have a company name, the word “England” and the date upon which that historic brand was established. It gives consumers the idea that they are buying a piece of British-made ceramics that would therefore be protected by the normal product regulations when in fact it is not.

There is the potential for the Minister to use the new powers in the Bill to produce new regulation that says anything produced in the UK that is considered to be ceramic has to have a proper mark on the base that demonstrates where it was made and where it has come from and to demonstrate that it was made in the UK. If a company is not making it in the UK, they become prohibited from putting the words “England” or “Made in the UK” on it.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time—it is very generous of him. I think that we should jointly sponsor a Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman and I, not you and I, although we would love for you to be involved. He and I could jointly sponsor a “Made in Britain” Bill that would do exactly what he describes. I am not sure that this piece of legislation is necessary to do that, for we have that power in this House as it stands. Let us get little crowns printed on eggs again, let us have “Made in Britain” printed on everything, and let us go back to “Foreign made”, which was formerly widely used. I would love to see “Foreign made” stamped on imported goods—then people would not buy them!

[Gareth Snell]

I am very sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I and a number of my colleagues have already presented the Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill. He is more than welcome to support it should it ever be given its Second Reading. However, because of the nature of this place and the way private Members’ Bills work, I am realistic about the fact that if we are to see that regulatory protection for British ceramics, it will have to come through a different mechanism. The mechanism in this Bill, which allows the Government to make those protective arrangements through secondary legislation, could increase the protection of British ceramics.

My final point is about a level playing field for exports. I take the point that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made, after I had intervened on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), about our regulatory regime and where we want to export. The bulk of the ceramics made in my constituency are exported to the EU. We could diverge from the EU food contact materials regulations and have a secondary system in this country, but all that would do is create a separate set of regulatory regimes for small companies with small margins, requiring them to make products twice. We simply could not stand that burden. Before I get attacked for being one of those horrible remainers, I urge Members to check my voting record during the 2017 to 2019 Parliament. There are times when sticking with what we know—the European regulations—absolutely makes sense. We should control that, but it makes sense to align ourselves where we should.

I support the Bill. I hope that the Minister will, as one of his first actions with his new powers, consider my points about ceramics. If he does not, perhaps he would like to support my Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yuan Yang]

I absolutely agree. As the Women’s Budget Group has shown, the measures on the minimum wage in the Employment Rights Bill will disproportionately benefit female workers, who are likely to be paid less than men.

These studies on the minimum wage use econometric methods to confirm what many of us can see in our communities at first hand: that too many people have too long been due a pay rise, and when we make the lowest paid better off, that spending goes back into our high streets and local economies. I would like to see even more studies done, producing better data. That must start with improvements to the labour force survey, which the hon. Member for West Worcestershire and I have discussed on the Treasury Committee, as many organisations have flagged that data as an area of concern.

Today I want to focus on one particular group of low-paid workers who are very significant for me and my constituency of Earley and Woodley: young people. There are around 13,000 undergraduates at the University of Reading, which sits in my constituency, who will be better off because of this new law that raises the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds to £10 an hour. It will mean a record wage boost for that age group, who will see their gross annual earnings rise by £2,500, and for apprentices, too, who are the skilled workers of tomorrow.

I support the Government’s youth guarantee, to ensure that all young people are in education, employment or training. The King’s Trust has found that one in 10 young people outside of education, employment or training have turned down a job because they could not afford the costs associated with it—for example, travel, clothing or childcare. For many young people, a barrier to employment is that it does not pay well enough for them.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I was concerned by what I think I heard the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) say about the rate at which the living wage is paid to young people, almost advocating for a reduction in that rate because of the impact it would have on business. Does my hon. Friend agree that is a rather regressive view, given that what young people need is the ability to pay their bills, live a life they enjoy and build a home for themselves in the future?

[Yuan Yang]

I very much agree with that sentiment. Young people are the future, and to ensure they get off to the best possible start in life, they need work that pays and enables them to live in stability, not concerned about paying the bills from day to day or month to month.

Most young people nowadays have to do a mixture of work and education or training to make ends meet. More than half of full-time students were working long hours in paid jobs in 2024, which is a significant rise from 2021, during the pandemic, when two thirds had no term-time employment. That has been driven by the escalating cost of living for young people, and especially rises in rent.

I want to quote a constituent of mine called Poppy, who is 20 years old and studies at the University of Reading. She says:

“Working part-time was never optional but rather a necessity... With my wages being so low…I found myself working 20-25 hours a week—leading me to miss some lectures and seminars throughout the month”.

I want to ensure that young people such as Poppy are able to study without worrying about how they are going to pay their bills. We also know that young people are less unionised, which means they have less bargaining power and less ability to fight against unfair terms or ask for pay rises, so it is even more important that we support them by raising the minimum wage.

In conclusion, it is essential that we make work pay, for the sake of our high streets, our living standards and our future—our young people. Poppy said:

“I personally cannot wait for the new minimum wage increase in April as it means I should be able to reduce my hours at work, giving me more time to focus on my studies”.

For people like Poppy, in my constituency and across the UK, the new deal for working people is transformational, and I am very glad to support today’s motion.

St Patrick’s Day: UK Bank Holiday

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I am not technically minded, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I will be clear that St Patrick was not born in Stoke-on-Trent—of that, I think we can all be certain. In genuine sincerity, the fact that we are all here this evening in joyful spirits discussing the potential for St Patrick’s day to be a UK bank holiday demonstrates the importance of the nation’s saints in bringing people together.

The hon. Gentleman talked about teaching our children to help them to understand their identity. Too often, the St George’s cross is misappropriated by people for nefarious means. It is our flag and we own it, just as the St Patrick’s cross is the flag of the hon. Gentleman, and it is important that we use and celebrate them. I think he will agree that by doing so, we can teach our children about their history and their future.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman always brings wise words to any debate. I talked to him on Monday in Westminster Hall, when he got up and said that he had a few comments. I was greatly impressed by his contribution—I went over to him afterwards and said that his words were very wise—and his words now were also wise.

The point I will make about the Milwaukee Irish Fest that I attended for some six years, as an Ulster Scot, is that I did not have any difficulty going there, and they had no difficulty with me going there. What I see in St Patrick is the gospel that he brought for everybody, wherever they are within these Celtic nations, be it Wales, Scotland or England. Those are the things that we very much enjoy.

I will end with these words; I am very conscious that the Minister wants to give me a fulsome response and to reinforce our request. The words of St Patrick are what I leave with everyone now. I want to make the most of the advantages of our heritage of St Patrick, but, more than that, I want the truth of his words to make changes in us all today, and that comes from the love of Christ, which is his message the whole way through. I believe we as Christians should impress and deliver that message to those who we meet in this House. I have a very simple philosophy: be nice to everybody. It is not hard to be kind and to do that in the best way that we can.

St Patrick’s words are these:

“Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ on my right, Christ on my left, Christ where I lie down, Christ where I sit down, Christ where I arise, Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me, Christ in the mouth of every one who speaks of me, Christ in every eye that sees me, Christ in every ear that hears me.”

If we had those thoughts in our minds every day, I believe that we would be better as a nation, better to ourselves as individuals and show the love that St Patrick showed through the gospel that he brought from Wales, to Ireland, back to England and back to us again. He is our patron saint; he always will be. Others may claim him, but they are not getting him—I say that in all kindness and love to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). Tonight we are asking for something, and I hope that the Minister can give us a good, positive response. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for making the time to come to the Adjournment debate that I did not intervene in—my goodness.

Employment Rights Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend served assiduously on the Committee, raising many good points, including the one that he just made, which I absolutely agree with. The public will be asking serious questions about this.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to try to defend that, I will give him the opportunity.

[Gareth Snell]

I am happy to declare my interest as a member of three trade unions, but I got less from them than the shadow Minister got from a small business—I think his declaration is £12,500. Does he feel the need to declare that, given that he is now making a case against legislation that would impact that company?

[Greg Smith]

I am making a point about the trade union movement, which I have never been a part of, and certainly never received any money from. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to look at all my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

[Gareth Snell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Is it really a point of order?

[Gareth Snell]

We can find out, Madam Deputy Speaker; I believe it is. Can you advise whether Conservative Members who received money from businesses affected by this legislation should make a declaration in the same way that we trade unionists do?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

This is going to end up in a back and forth on things that are not a matter for the Chair. Declarations are the responsibility of individual Members to make appropriately through the right processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Becky Gittins]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

As we have seen already—this is what I was talking about—the fairytale says that if we improve industrial relations and give trade unions all the money they want, suddenly there will not be any strikes. But what has happened in practice since the Labour Government came in? Trade unions have been given all the money, and they are still threatening to go on strike.

This Bill really does read like a militant trade union wish list. Strike mandates have doubled from six to 12 months, allowing trade unions to impose rolling strikes for a whole year without balloting their members. Turnout requirements have been abolished so that a minority can call strikes, and the Government have removed the requirement for 50% of members to vote and 40% to support industrial action. The Bill reduces the notice for strikes by four days and gives employers less information, making strikes even more damaging to businesses and disruptive to people’s lives. It also allows unreasonable paid facility time for trade unions, making the taxpayer and companies pay out even more for trade union representatives at the same time that the Labour Government are raising everyone’s taxes and cutting public services.

[Gareth Snell]

I guess that the hon. Gentleman has never been a member of a trade union or participated in an industrial ballot. Members choose to go on strike once the ballot has finished; no one forces them to go on strike. When members give up a day’s pay to go on strike, they do so because they are fighting for improvements to their terms and conditions. He is making out as though they are somehow compelled to strike. When members turn out for a strike, they do so because of their strength of feeling about the conditions they face—nothing more.

[Mr French]

I would have some sympathy for that argument if the threshold for the percentage of workers voting for a strike was being maintained, but we are now clearly leaving the door open for a minority of militant trade union members to go on strike and cause mass disruption. I will be honest and say that I have never been a member of a trade union, but my experience of trade union bosses is that they live a life that I could never dream of as a working-class man, to be quite frank. As a working-class person from a working-class background, I learnt at a very young age that trade unions and the Labour party stopped representing working-class people many years ago, and this Government are proving it yet again.

North Sea Energy

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am on planet Earth and that we are well aware of what we are doing. We look at the world around us and see the enormous hike in energy prices, which is linked to our being attached to the global market for oil and gas. The previous Government spent tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers� money in order to protect people against the price hike, and we cannot allow that to happen again. It is absolutely right that we push for cheaper renewable energy, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that I sit in two Departments: the Business Secretary is my boss, and the Energy Secretary is my boss. They both agree with this policy, as does the Chancellor, because it is the right thing to do.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Through support for jobs, support for skills, the prominence of the industrial strategy and support for a clean transition, the Minister has demonstrated what is possible when there is political will. To quote her words back to her, when will we be able to give the sector the support and clarity it needs to continue operating for some decades? The ceramics sector would love a package like this�or is the ceramics sector not sufficiently important enough?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I ask the Minister to keep her responses short.

Department for Business and Trade

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is 100% right. We heard businesses say to us loud and clear that they wanted radical and bold changes in the way that the skills levy was organised. The Government have moved to introduce flexibilities, and business want them to go further, faster.

We also heard business say that there is a good environment when it comes to start-up finance, but a terrible environment in this country for scale-up finance—I will return to that in a moment. People want much stronger relationships between universities and businesses, and we in this country still do not have something like the Fraunhofer institutes in Germany, which have as their slogan that they are the research and development departments for the Mittelstand. Where those knowledge transfer partnerships work, they are good, but they need to be far more prevalent. Finally, we heard businesses say loud and clear that the planning system needs a complete overhaul. The infrastructure in this country is terrible, and we must drive down energy prices; right now, many businesses are being priced out of doing business because our energy prices are sky high.

For all our differences, there are important points on which we can agree. We on the Business and Trade Committee will continue to judge Ministers against many of the things that we heard from the business community as we travelled up and down the country, and I will flag up two or three points that we want to zero in on.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend’s point about energy costs and opening markets chimes with everything that the ceramics industry is telling me about what it is facing. He is right about the need for growth, and as well as being a wonderful Chair of the Committee, he is a doughty campaigner against inequality and inequity. I am sure that he will agree that we need to ensure that the benefits of growth are felt in every community, be it in Birmingham or Stoke-on-Trent, and particularly in those communities that sadly, under the last Government, did not get the benefits they deserved.

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is an extraordinary champion for the city he represents, and for the industry that has made that city great over the centuries. He is absolutely right: when the industrial strategy is published, we must understand whether it is driving growth and better wages, and whether it is transforming people’s ability to earn a good life in every corner of the country. We cannot again have the situation that we had over the past 10 to 15 years, where 70% of the growth and wealth in our country has been concentrated in London and the south-east. We must genuinely level-up this country and pull together a cross-party consensus, to the extent that we can, on the changes that are needed. Why? Because if we can get that cross-party consensus, we can redesign the economic institutions in our country in a way that is sustainable for the long term.

I wish to flag three issues that pose questions to the Minister who is asking us to agree the estimates today. First, there is a real worry in the small business community about whether it will be adequately supported by some of the changes that the Minister is helping to drive through. We all know that what has bedevilled our economy for a long time is a long tail of underproductive, often smaller, firms. If we are to raise wages, raise the rate of economic growth, and become the fastest growing economy in the G7, we must transform the productivity rate of a lot of our small firms. How will new technology be diffused through supply chains? How can we ensure that small and medium-sized businesses have support in deploying new technology that could change their business?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), and indeed the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for securing the debate, and for the work that they do on the Business and Trade Committee. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway littered his speech with football analogies, to the extent that I wondered whether you were going to show him a red card, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you did not. He made many criticisms of the Government, but all I would say is that we are not even at half-time yet. Let us wait until we get to the end of the match. There were a number of important and interesting contributions to the debate. I will try to address as many of them as I can in the time that I have.

It is clear that the Department is central to driving economic growth, ensuring that we remain competitive on the global stage, and making work pay for everyone. The Government’s growth mission has been our top priority since day one of taking office, because we understand that without economic growth we cannot invest in public services, nor can we raise living standards for hard-working families. To secure the growth that we need, we are guided by four key principles: building long-term stability; renewing our commitment to free and fair trade; easing the investor journey; and being a strategic, growth-focused state. We have wasted no time in getting to work on that, and in fixing the foundations of the economy. My Department has been at the forefront of those efforts, and I will try to explain the things that we have done as I answer the points raised during the debate.

I start with the comments of the Select Committee Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North. I was pleased to hear that he found terrific unity of purpose on the Government’s ambitions for growth. I join him in paying tribute to the civil servants who are helping us to deliver on those ambitions. He raised a number of important points. He talked about getting the right workforce, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards). We will have a levy-funded growth and skills offer that will deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers. That will be aligned with our industrial strategy, creating routes into good, skilled jobs in growing industries.

As a first step, we will ensure shorter duration and foundation apprenticeships in targeted sectors. That will help more people to learn high-quality skills at work, fuelling innovation in businesses across the country and providing high-quality entry pathways for young people. We will, through legislation, reduce the minimum duration of apprenticeships to eight months, so that shorter apprenticeships are possible from August 2025. Trailblazer apprenticeships in green energy, healthcare and film and TV production will be among the first to take advantage of that new offer. Also, in response to calls from employers, assessment plans will be less burdensome, focusing on the must-haves for occupational competency, rather than testing every knowledge, skill or behaviour.

The Select Committee Chairman made an important point on an issue that I have been looking at carefully: how we harmonise regulation, make sure that we do not have different Departments talking to different people and saying different things, streamline, and ensure a cohesive environment in which businesses can invest and grow. He will be pleased to know that I have been meeting colleagues from other Departments, and particularly Lord Vallance, the Minister of State for science, research and innovation, who is looking at innovation in this area. We also now have Government growth boards, which are looking at this Government’s missions to ensure that that cross-departmental grip on matters.

The Select Committee Chair, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) and for Tamworth, asked how we can use the British Business Bank to help businesses access finance. We are looking very closely at that. The bank is operationally independent, but we are working with it to ensure that businesses can navigate the market better and have clearer information and options available to them. There is also a package for encouraging tech adoption among SMEs, and we hope that the British Growth Partnership will get that pension fund investment into some of the UK’s fastest growing companies.

The Select Committee Chair asked about the figure of £126.7 million. My understanding is that it is the result of a revaluation of the Department’s investment portfolio. That is a standard process, and I am happy to put him in touch with officials for a more detailed explanation of that, if he requires it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) asked about the Grangemouth refinery. It is deeply regrettable that we have had to step in and put plans in place there. There is £100 million for the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, which will help boost the local economy. There is a £1.5 million project to look at credible, long-term industrial options for the site, which we expect to report in the spring. The National Wealth Fund will also provide nearly £200 million of growth opportunities for the area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) highlighted the devastating impact that a lack of a strategy can have on a community in her constituency. I join Opposition Members in thanking her son for his service in the defence of our nation. She will be pleased to know that our industrial strategy Green Paper, “Invest 2035: the UK’s modern industrial strategy”, sets out the eight key growth-driving sectors into which we want to channel investment and support in the long term. We want to unleash the full potential of those priority sectors to spur growth, spread wealth and drive up employment across all four nations of the UK. Each of the industries will have its own sector plan, setting out how we intend to support businesses, build on existing successes and unlock new opportunities. Those sector plans are being designed in partnership with business, devolved Governments, regions and other key parties. The industrial strategy, alongside sector plans for the growth-driving sectors, will be published later this year, and will be aligned with the multi-year spending review.

[Gareth Snell]

The Minister is making an excellent speech setting out this Government’s ambitious plans. While he is looking at the industrial strategy and those eight high-growth areas, can I make a pitch for him to remember those foundational industries that sit below them, including ceramics? Without ceramics, refractories and those foundational industries, delivering the growth that the Department wants in those eight high-growth areas will simply be impossible.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I knew as soon as he rose that he would raise the subject of the ceramics industry, such is his record of championing it. I will certainly pass his comments back to the relevant Minister.

North Staffordshire Ceramics Industry: Energy Costs

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Williams]

I thank the right hon. Member for those comments. I know that she has spoken passionately about this matter in the past, and I will come on to the point about the need to support companies with their energy bills.

I was talking about how ceramics have an impact on our everyday life. Without refractories, we would not have the ability to make steel, glass and other high-temperature products. Without ceramics, we would have no cars, no buses and no mobile phones—what a scary idea. Without advanced ceramics, we would have no aircraft, defence or medical equipment.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Like me, he will have heard that advanced ceramics carbon filters are going into submarines being built not just for the UK, but for the Australian navy. With the commitment that this Government have rightly made to huge increases in defence spending, perhaps he will allow me to join him in suggesting to the Minister that one way we could help the entire ceramics sector is by redirecting some of that commitment to defence spending to ensure that those ceramic component producers get the help and support they need right now.

[David Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention. I could not agree more; I am certain that the Minister will have heard those comments and I wholeheartedly support them.

Of course, we would be eating and drinking from wooden bowls and cups without the beautiful tableware that we enjoy—including, as I have said, many of the plates, cups and saucers we see here across the Westminster estate. The world as we know it simply would not exist without ceramics. I urge the Government to recognise that the UK ceramics industry is a critical enabler of the UK economy—used, as we have said, from building homes to high technology to steel making.

However, I repeatedly hear concerns from companies regarding their sustainability following dramatic increases in their energy bills. For energy-intensive industries such as ceramics, energy cost pressures are significant. In fact, I have heard from companies in my Stoke-on-Trent North constituency that their energy bills have trebled. One company told me that it has seen energy bills increase by 300% in 10 years. The sector was hit hard by the energy crisis, and inaction left us too dependent on tyrants such as Vladimir Putin. That has had a huge impact on both production and raw material costs, and support is urgently needed to protect these businesses. Sadly, some employers across our city are already making redundancies due to escalating costs, and that disturbing trend will only be exacerbated by inaction.

It takes a vast amount of heat to produce the kind of ceramics products we make. According to Ceramics UK, the UK ceramics industry uses about 650,000 MWh of electricity and about 4.5 million MWh of gas every single year. With gas currently costing about £47 per megawatt-hour and electricity in the region of £297 per megawatt-hour, the costs quickly add up. When we consider that gas used to cost about £11 per megawatt-hour, the impact on those businesses is clear to see.

Of course, a significant portion of those costs comes from non-commodity taxes and levies. Many ceramics companies pay high carbon taxes under the UK emissions trading scheme and ever-tighter restrictions on free allowances are pushing up costs even more. Because the industry is gas intensive, while still using a lot of electricity, very few manufacturers receive the energy-intensive industries exemption.

I am really proud that this Government take the climate crisis so seriously. A move towards green energy is desirable; if we can get to that point, wonderful. However, the reality at the moment is that companies face significant bills. That is a fixed cost that the companies cannot do anything about, and moving towards low carbon is not always straightforward. It is absolutely right, as I said, to push towards a clean energy transition, but energy-intensive industries need a higher level of support in switching to low-carbon methods. The technology to switch from gas to electricity firing is not readily available for many ceramics manufacturers, and connections to the grid are poor.

Some European countries are already taking action and have been for some years to support their ceramics sector. The European Commission recently unveiled its affordable energy action plan, which includes investing in liquefied natural gas projects to help companies to lower their costs. A number of other countries are also helping their energy-intensive industries. It is vital that the UK follows suit.

The history of our city is one of hard-working people. The ceramics industry is in our DNA. If we fail to act now, we risk losing not only the unique skills that, as we talked about before, have been honed in the Potteries for hundreds of years, but the communities formed around them. I have questions for the Minister, but I start by thanking her for agreeing to meet me, my parliamentary colleagues, Ceramics UK and the GMB union to discuss the technical details around the support the sector needs.

As a starter, however, following my discussions with Ceramics UK, the sector would like the Minister to consider the merits of offering subsidies for smaller manufacturers’ energy costs. Indeed, Ceramics UK has told me that the cost pressures can be up to six times greater than they were in 2021. For the manufacturers that can use electricity, eligibility for the Government’s energy-intensive industries exemption scheme could be opened up for all UK ceramics manufacturers, including by removing the UK business level test. The Government could also mandate priority grid connections.

For ceramics manufacturers unable to switch from gas, could the Minister consider exempting the sector from new taxes and levies on gas, in recognition of the limited alternatives currently available? Ceramics really is the hardest of all energy-intensive industries to decarbonise. Although Great British Energy will reduce energy bills in the long term, failing to reduce energy costs for the sector now could put our ceramics industry at further risk, and that is simply not acceptable.

With carbon taxes hammering the sector, I also ask the Minister to consider the merits of introducing a temporary exemption from the UK emissions trading scheme for UK ceramic manufacturers until an effective carbon border adjustment mechanism is up and running and ceramics manufacturers can apply for CBAM phase 2.

Something that might also be of great help to our wonderful small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector would be the provision of ultra-low interest loans to help to finance more energy-efficient kilns, dryers and related equipment. Hydrogen presents an opportunity for the sector to decarbonise: Ceramics UK recently unveiled a custom-built pilot kiln that runs on hydrogen. Will the Minister evaluate the hydrogen supply chain and market currently available to the ceramics industry, and how that can be better distributed? I also ask the Minister that, as we discuss the support the sector needs, the Department for Business and Trade work collaboratively with colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, among others, to find a solution on a cross-departmental footing.

Without a desire to move away from the topic of energy costs, it would be remiss of me not to point out one further concern that the sector often raises with me and my colleagues. Counterfeit back-stamping of tableware products from the likes of China is affecting our UK businesses. Although I appreciate the Government’s efforts to regulate against those products through anti-dumping regulations and anti-dumping duty, I am concerned that many of those products slip through the net. The fake products get listed on internet sites, so I ask for a cross-departmental approach to review tabling offences and the classifications for importing counterfeit tableware products.

I thank the Minister for coming to answer my questions, and I invite her to visit my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North so that she can see just how brilliant our potbanks are and how important they are to our local economy and people. We must keep those pots open and those kilns fired. The time to act is now.

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) for securing this important debate. I begin by echoing his thanks to the trade unions, the industry and Ceramics UK for all they do. I have engaged with Ceramics UK quite a bit since taking up this role, and previously in opposition, and I work closely with the unions and the industry.

My hon. Friend clearly laid out the challenges we face, as well as the challenges facing his community’s disposable household incomes, and the importance of getting this right. He is right to look to the future of ceramics, not to the past. There are several industries that we want to grow in the UK, but we have historically focused on the past—steel is a case in point—not the future.

My hon. Friend talks about new advanced technologies, and the important uses of ceramics in our mobile phones, our aircraft, our defence and our medical equipment are clear to see, though little understood by those outside this sector. We can all do more to make sure people understand the ceramics industry and what it is for. The industrial strategy is one way to do that.

As my hon. Friend knows, the industrial strategy is coming out in the spring. We promised it for years in opposition, and the previous Government but one tried, but they did not persevere. We have identified eight growth sectors within the strategy—advanced manufacturing is one of them—but foundational industries have to power those growth sectors, which is where ceramics is important.

I nod to my hon. Friend’s well-made point about defence, which is one of the growth sectors in the industrial strategy. Over the last few days, we have seen this Government’s commitment to increasing our defence spending. The Chancellor spoke at the Make UK conference today about how we can change defence procurement to include more of this country’s SMEs. We have also been creative in using UK Export Finance to create jobs with Thales in Belfast. There is more we can do, and I will take away my hon. Friend’s point about advanced ceramic carbon filters. I suspect there are other potential applications in this space.

I acknowledge and appreciate the very real challenges that my hon. Friend raises. The cost of energy bills is very difficult for the ceramics industry and other energy-intensive industries. Every one of us has suffered from the huge price hike after Russia invaded Ukraine, although our energy costs are not comparable with those of our neighbours.

My hon. Friend also highlighted how electricity costs so much more than gas and the challenges that will bring as we decarbonise. He mentioned the emissions trading scheme and the ongoing consultation on free allowances. I also heard his well-made points about the low carbon transition and the challenges for sectors such as ceramics, where its up-front cost is potentially prohibitive.

[Gareth Snell]

The Minister probably knows as much about ceramics as those of us from Stoke-on-Trent, as she is constantly on her brief.

On the transition, one of the challenges facing ceramics companies in Stoke-on-Trent and around the country is that the margins on their products are not sufficient to allow big up-front capital investments, which means that going from a gas kiln to an electric kiln is often beyond their reach as they simply do not have the cash flow.

One solution that the Minister could potentially take back to the Department is some sort of VAT exemption for energy-intensive industries and companies that are looking to move towards more low-energy, low-carbon equipment. Perhaps the public sector decarbonisation scheme, which is currently undersubscribed, could be used in some way to help energy-intensive private companies to access new technology that would reduce not only their carbon output but their long-term energy costs through efficiencies.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for those points, which he has previously raised with me. I can certainly take away the point about the public sector decarbonisation scheme. Bizarrely, as he knows, it is not part of my brief, but that does not matter. This Government work across Departments and across barriers, and I will endeavour to look into it. The point is well made that it can be challenging when a company has small margins and big up-front costs, especially in these industries where there has not been infrastructure investment for a long time. A lot of places need general infrastructure investment, and we are looking actively at this issue through the spending review process.

Happily, I can say that we are looking to answer all the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. I cannot promise what the answers will be at this point, and I cannot promise that we will do everything we seek to do, but we are well aware of all his points and are looking at them in depth.

We are looking at subsidies on energy costs. My hon. Friend said that the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero should work together. I sit in both Departments, so I have conversations with myself about these issues. There are competing vantage points that we need to grapple with, but the advantage of my sitting in both Departments is that officials from the two Departments meet to find solutions before speaking to me, which is helpful. They are working well together.

We are also looking at the energy-intensive industries exemption scheme. As my hon. Friend knows, grid connections are an issue across the board. We are working on how to remove undeveloped, speculative programmes from the grid connection queue and prioritise others. One of my roles as the Minister for Industry is to point to the need not to forget our existing industrial base and the need for it to connect to the grid, as well as the need for the important data centres, artificial intelligence and new technologies and new investment that we want to come to the UK. If we cannot get our own industry connected in the way we want, we are getting something wrong, so my hon. Friend is right to make that point.

I met representatives of the energy-intensive industries last week, including Rob from Ceramics UK, and I am following up on all these things with the Treasury and with officials. We agreed on a couple of things at that meeting, and one is to have a session with the industrial strategy team and the energy-intensive industries to make sure we are all working towards the same outcome. Another is to talk to the Treasury about the challenge we face in how the ETS and the CBAM align and fit together, or not, depending on policy. These things are enormously complicated, as my hon. Friend knows, and CBAM is a Treasury lead. However, I am very aware of the need to get that relationship right; otherwise, the system does not work at all.

My hon. Friend talked about hydrogen, which is very important and is part of my brief in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We are developing a kind of hydrogen network. We have had what we call HAR1, or hydrogen allocation round 1, which was the initial agreement to fund 11 hydrogen projects—electrolyser projects—around the country. There is hydrogen in the carbon capture and storage clusters that we are developing, and we are currently looking at what the next phase of the hydrogen roll-out will be.

My hon. Friend knows that hydrogen is currently very expensive. We need to work out a path to reduce costs, which is what we are grappling with at the moment, in a climate where it is difficult to bid for money in the spending review. How can we unleash the hydrogen industry and give certainty to businesses that want to invest but need the right signals? How can we do that and use money wisely? And who pays for it? People are very interested in hydrogen, whether in steel, in transport or in the green energy space—it has a lot of uses. We need to make sure we are making the right decisions. I will speak to the hydrogen team about ceramics, and I will ask what we are looking at in that space.

[Gareth Snell]

Again, I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity in giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) is right that hydrogen could be the thing that helps our industry, but electrolysis requires electricity. Electricity generation is capped to the gas price, and therefore the gas price drives the hydrogen price. Unless there is a way of decoupling that rather difficult circuit, we will find ourselves replenishing fuel without a particular discount.

Our other unique challenge, as my hon. Friend expertly laid out, is that these factories are in communities, because that is how ceramics worked—a potbank was built and then houses were built around it. Connecting to hydrogen would not be suitable if the hydrogen has to be contained in large towers, which are better suited to large out-of- town factories.

Although I welcome the Minister’s commitment to hydrogen, I hope she can bear those two points in mind, because ceramics are a unique challenge. However, we are willing to work with her to find a solution.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend articulates his concerns very well. Connecting the gas sounds like a song: “The hip bone’s connected to the thigh bone.” It is very challenging, and he is right to say so. The challenge with hydrogen is getting it to a point where we can deliver it at the scale we want. Or will it always be used in certain areas for certain things, as we will never get the cost down? That is what we are grappling with. On the potential jobs, potential growth and potential exports, these are huge opportunities for the UK, but we need to work out how we take it forward.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned the huge challenge of counterfeiting. He nodded to the actions taken by the Trade Remedies Authority. I know that Ceramics UK and ceramics manufacturers have responded to that review and a final recommendation is due in July. Of course, I will make representations where needed. I recognise the challenge that my hon. Friend highlights.

Trade officials regularly meet representatives of Ceramics UK. I do not wish to add to the burden of my colleagues, but it might also be good for my hon. Friend to speak to the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), if he has not already done so, about some of the challenges we face.

Hopefully, I have answered my hon. Friend’s questions. I congratulate him again on securing a debate on such an important issue, on behalf of his constituents who work in such a fantastic industry for our country, and hopefully we can work together to fix some of these challenges.

Question put and agreed to.

Employment Rights: Terminal Illness

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the employment rights of people with a terminal illness.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

For some time, the fundamental ask of this campaign has been the right of working people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness not to face the sack. We have spoken a lot about terminal illness over the last few weeks in this place, and I do not want us to lose momentum. We now know the legal definition of a terminal diagnosis; it is life expectancy not foreseen beyond a six-month period. Our campaign aims to protect that period of employment. We protect the period of employment at the start of life—an employer cannot sack a pregnant worker. What we are saying is that they should not be able to sack a worker who has received a terminal diagnosis.

I want to declare an interest: before I got elected, I was the midlands regional secretary for the Trades Union Congress, and one of the campaigns I worked on was called the Dying to Work campaign. The campaign was about people with a terminal illness in the world of work. We found that some employers would dismiss a worker with a terminal illness based on the grounds of capability—the bulk of employers would not dream of doing so—and we wanted to protect workers during that period, so we developed a voluntary charter that employers could sign up to that would protect workers from being dismissed because of their condition and protect their freedom to choose whether to keep working, reduce their hours or step away all together.

We put the choice into the hands of the individual. The only time that that choice is taken away from the individual is if an employer wants to take that choice for them by dismissing them from work due to their diagnosis. The charter protects employees’ benefits, such as death in service payments, protects workers’ access to a supportive and understanding workplace, and gives terminally ill workers the freedom to make the choices that are right for them without the extra stress and worry. We launched that charter in 2016, and it now protects over 1.5 million working people in this country, because employers have signed up.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on the campaign across the midlands and across the country. I was very proud to support it when I was last in this place. The sheer volume of workers who are now protected is testament to my hon. Friend’s hard work and his ability to tell such a compelling story. Could he enlighten me on whether the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the various Government Departments, which are huge employers, have signed up to the campaign? If they have not, could I extend a hand of friendship to him to help him ensure that they sign up as soon as possible?

[Lee Barron]

We managed to get the campaign promoted as best practice by the Department for Work and Pensions—meaning that if employers, through their disability awareness scheme, ever go to the Government in relation to how to treat workers with a terminal illness, they are always signposted to the campaign—but no Government Departments have signed up. However, I am aware that with the new Government coming in, those discussions are now taking place.

Although the progress made so far is commendable, it is not universal. That is why we have called this debate—so that we can the extend this right to all those who are ill. I want to recognise Richard Oliver, who is in the Public Gallery and who has been part of the campaign right from the outset; it is great that he has been able to join us today.

As I said, it is still legal in this country to sack a terminally ill worker on the grounds of capability. At a time when someone is dealing with a devastating diagnosis, they could also face the loss of their livelihood and their financial security. That is not acceptable. There has been significant discussion about dying with dignity recently, particularly relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Although that Bill has rightly captured our attention, I do not want us to lose momentum now that it has gone to Committee. These people are on a path—a journey, if we can call it that—and they should not have to worry about whether they will lose their job while they face that.

Most people will never have to think about the implications of working with a terminal diagnosis, and most employers would not dream of firing their terminally ill workers.

Pubs Code: Guest Beers

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I absolutely do thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has obviously heard that I am quite easily tempted into Strangers. It is a very important part of the facilities that the Strangers Bar offers Members the opportunity to serve guest beers. It is a great opportunity to plug great local businesses.

Small independent brewers often reflect their local area in their products, from locally sourced ingredients to their marketing, branding and style. The resurgence in brewing in the UK over the last decade has strengthened awareness among the general public of local beers, whether it is the new-style craft beers or independent breweries resurrecting well-loved local beers that had been lost in the consolidation of larger breweries.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is quite right about the importance of local brewers. Stoke-on-Trent’s own Titanic Brewery serves a wonderful pint of plum porter in Strangers now and again. It is not just about the products they sell, although if they were able to access guest beer lines they could grow their business and create more jobs; it is also about the story they tell about the history of who we are. Titanic is so-called because Captain John Smith was from Stoke-on-Trent. That is often missed in our cultural storytelling: breweries are doing a great job of exporting who we are and what we are around the country and around the world.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is a really important point. It is an essential part of our culture and a real selling point for us around the world. When people come here, they want to visit a traditional English or British pub, and we have a different style in every part of the country. The point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle about some of the larger breweries now mimicking the local brands is an interesting development, which shows that imitation is the best form of flattery.

More generally, we know there are challenges for the hospitality sector, which is still struggling to recover from the pandemic. The subsequent cost of living crisis has compounded the challenge for pubs, increasing costs and the ability of businesses to repay debts. This is an ongoing struggle. Our system of business rates is particularly unfair on high street businesses. It disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets. That is why the Government are undertaking a review of the business rates system, to ensure that all businesses are paying their fair share, recognising and addressing the fact that high street businesses, including pubs, have shouldered the majority of the burden for far too long.

In her Budget, the Chancellor announced that the Government are freezing the small businesses multiplier for 2025-26 to protect small properties from inflationary bill increases, and that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will receive 40% relief worth up to £110,000 per business. This support package alone is worth over £2.2 billion over five years. It was also announced in the Budget that the Government would reduce the alcohol duty on draft products. This will reduce businesses’ total duty bill by up to £100 million a year and increase the duty differential between draft and non-draft products from 9.2% to 13.9%, so that a pint in the pub attracts less duty than the beer in the supermarket.

The Government will also increase the cash discount provided to small brewers and producers for non-draught products and maintain the current cash discount provided to small producers for draught products. This in effect increases the relative value of small producer relief for both draught and non-draught products. Jobs, too, lie at the heart of our plans, backed by the Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading earlier this month, and local growth plans will be a cornerstone of the place-based approach. We have heard already about the importance of pubs in the local economy.

Turning more specifically to the guest beers consultation announced in the Budget, the Chancellor said that the Government will consult on ways to ensure that small brewers can retain and expand their access to UK pubs and maximise drinkers’ choices, including through provisions to enable more guest beers.

At this point, let me echo the support for the work done by the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates and the Campaign for Real Ale in championing beer drinkers’ choice and pursuing the case for more independently produced beer in pubs. We will work closely with both those organisations, but also with the wider hospitality sector, to identify barriers to market access for small brewers and how they might be addressed. I want to ensure that we have a clear understanding of the current position, and of what interventions may be necessary and the impact of those interventions.

We want to find the right solutions to help small brewers gain access to the market, but to do that we will need to understand all the issues and ensure that any interventions are proportionate, that they address the problems, and that they do not result in unintended consequences. For instance, we will want to develop a good understanding of the extent to which tied tenants use existing flexibilities, by, for example, buying beer from small brewers through their pub companies on payment of a tied release fee. We will want to understand whether managed and retail pub chains could or do offer local beers, to understand the scope for increasing the provision of local beers in other licensed premises such as restaurants and hotels; and to understand the barriers preventing local brewers from gaining access to more pubs, and the reasons for those barriers. There are a range of issues that we will want to consider as part of the consultation. I can respond to my hon. Friend’s questions about what we would consider by saying that we are ruling nothing out at this stage, and that we intend to take a holistic view of the sector.

The next statutory review of the pubs code is due to take place next year, but it is only one part of the picture, as it applies to only about a fifth of all pubs in England and Wales. As has been mentioned, there is to be an interesting development in Scotland, whose pubs code will include a guest beer provision. That does not necessarily mean that the provision will automatically be transported to England and Wales, but it also does not mean that we would not be interested to see how it pans out—although, as it will not be introduced until March 2025 at the earliest, we will need a bit of time to understand how it works. We will be able to consider that as part of the consultation, and we will, of course, consult formally on all the options available to us to increase small brewers’ access to the market. It is important for us to get a handle on the complexities of the market before we undertake the consultation. We will work with SIBA and CAMRA and will engage with a range of stakeholders in the pubs and wider hospitality sectors before consulting on options.

In response to the questions about when this will happen, I can say that we will try to get on with it as soon as we can, but we do want to undertake that work before launching the formal consultation. We understand the points that have been made and the good intentions behind the suggestions that we have heard, but we want to ensure that this works for the industry as a whole.

Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend for initiating her first Adjournment debate. I look forward to working with her on these issues in the coming months, and I will certainly be taking up her offer of a drink—although, owing to diary constraints, I will probably do so on premises closer to the Chamber than to her constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

Paternity Leave and Pay

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered paternity leave and pay.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. My first Westminster Hall debate is being chaired by a neighbouring Member of Parliament. It is a delight to be here.

I know that families come in all shapes and sizes and that paternity leave is not just about fathers. I will refer primarily to dads in my speech, but the points that I will be making relate and apply to all families, of all shapes and sizes. I stand here as a dad, a parent, and an MP who believes that parenthood matters to children, families, employers, the economy and our country.

The UK currently has the worst paternity pay and leave in Europe and among the worst in the OECD. Fathers, if they are eligible—about 20% of them are not—can take a maximum of two weeks’ paid leave, at a maximum rate of £184 a week, which is less than half the national living wage. In 2023, 605,000 babies were born in the UK, yet only 195,000 dads received statutory paternity pay. That is less than one father for every three children. If we contrast that with the 52 weeks of maternity leave and 39 weeks of maternity pay, it is clear that our system needs to be updated for the 21st century.

As a father myself, I do have a vested interest in this issue, but better paternity rights are not just good for fathers; they are good for mums and, more importantly, for children. Last week I was able to speak to a number of parents at an event in Parliament with the Dad Shift campaign, and I heard from several dads about the difference that paternity leave—or the lack of it—had made to their relationships with their young children. I want to live in a society in which children can see both parents as caregivers, but for that to happen, it needs to be possible for both parents to be present during the vital early years. Evidence shows that the physical and social bonds that are set so early are critical for babies as they grow up and for the fathers’ connection to the children in later life. One dad I heard from at the event in Parliament, Simon, suffered from undiagnosed depression after the birth of his child. That was made worse by not having the time with his child to establish and develop that bond.

This is not the 1950s. We can all agree that most men do want to have relationships with their children, especially during the early years, but the law does not reflect that. Another dad I spoke to, George, had a generous employer who gave him more than the statutory pay and leave, and he spoke glowingly about the difference that that had made to his mental health and wellbeing, but also, of course, the balance in the household and his relationship with his child. It was great to hear that a number of employers were going above and beyond the statutory minimum, but as of 2022, 49% of employers provided the minimum statutory paternity leave.

This matter is simply too important to leave to the whim of individual employers. Change needs to start within Government and the public sector. I recently tabled a number of written questions to Departments, asking how much paternity leave their staff took on average. The only Department whose staff took more than the 14 days was the Department for Education. If we look at other Departments, the figure was 9.6 days in the Department for Transport and 7.25 days in the Department for Work and Pensions. The Cabinet Office ranked worst, with 5.7 days. The Government and the public sector should be exemplary employers, but instead they are lagging behind some private sector employers. We need as the first step a signal from the Government and from the public sector as a whole that this is something that needs to be improved.

At the Dad Shift event, I heard from mums and dads about the toll that the segregated system had taken on their careers. Making it easier for dads to look after the kids also makes it easier for mums to continue in their workplace—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has made so passionately in the Chamber only this week.

It is morally wrong to pressure women into sacrificing their career for their family, and it is also a massive productivity drain. This Government want to restore growth, create jobs and create wealth. The Centre for Progressive Policy estimates that closing the gender employment gap in all UK local authorities could increase economic output by a staggering £23 billion, and the OECD estimates that three quarters of the gender wage gap in northern and western Europe is down to the motherhood penalty.

How many talented women are we losing from the workforce because they cannot get back into work after lengthy maternity leave? How much better off could we be if both parents could take leave that was short enough not to harm their careers but long enough to support their children? Technically, that is already an option after the changes that took place in 2015 with shared parental rights. However, the Government’s own analysis found that only 1% of eligible mothers and only 5% of eligible fathers took shared parental leave. I heard from one father, Alex, who told me that the system and process of shared parental leave were so complicated to navigate that he paid a third party £50 to complete the forms for him.

Things are about to get better. I am delighted that the Employment Rights Bill had its Second Reading earlier this week; it will mark a massive step forward on paternity leave and pay, expanding eligibility by introducing day one rights to paternity and parental leave, allowing fathers to take paternity leave after they have taken shared parental leave, and facilitating a full review of all parental leave rights. The Government clearly recognise the importance of the issue and that further steps need to be taken to address it.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an issue that is clearly important to so many of us. Does he agree that even if the birth of a child has been straightforward and simple, two weeks, and the paternity pay that goes with it, passes very quickly? If there is a complication in the birth—if the mother becomes ill, for example, or if there are other complications for the child—the two weeks disappear in the blink of an eye. Then parents, especially fathers, go back to work, and fathers feel guilty about not being able to be at home to support that type of need.