Seasonal Work

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

My right hon. Friend is correct: having people who have run a business is good for Government. I am sorry to hear that Labour Members do not believe that their Cabinet would be better if there were a few more pro-business people in it. I can assure him that most of his constituents agree.

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

I have some affection for the hon. Gentleman, and he has a lovely smile. Can he tell me how many members of the shadow Cabinet—or Conservative Members who serve on the Opposition Front Bench—have ever had to sustain a long-term position on low-paid, insecure work while raising a family? Those voices are equally important in this debate.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I, too, have a great deal of affection for the hon. Gentleman; we go back quite a long way from when we were elected. We need to recognise that there are Members on both sides of the House who come from poor or modest backgrounds, and it is simply not true to say that the Conservative Benches are full of posh people and the Labour Benches are not. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the House in trying to give an alternative impression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady has obviously been speaking to her constituents and businesses in her constituency, and young people are of course extremely disappointed and feel let down by this Government and their economic philosophy. That is why the Budget announcement followed by this other announcement—“Oh, we’re now going to kind of help them a little bit with some public money”—is just bizarre. It shows that they do not get basic economics, and that is hitting young people in particular.

[Gareth Snell]

Under a Conservative council and a Conservative Government, Stoke-on-Trent had one of highest levels—if not the highest level—of NEETs anywhere in the country. The number is now coming down, but what does the hon. Member think was the reason why my city had to endure that under his Government and his council? Would he accept that it was partly because economic growth was not felt equitably across this country, and that economic growth that takes place only in one part of the country is equally as damaging as much of what he is professing is damaging today?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I do agree with some the principles the hon. Gentleman articulates about the need for economic growth outside the M25 as well. London is a great dynamo—it needs to be London-plus—but we do need to make sure we grow across the country. That was, of course, exactly the point of the levelling-up agenda. However, I am afraid we cannot have this wishful thinking of forgetting that both the economic crisis in 2008 and of course the pandemic and other global crises had a major impact on the economy, and therefore economies around the world were challenged. The difference now is that our economy is doing badly uniquely because of Labour Government decisions. That is the difference.

The national insurance increases in last year’s Budget alone cost the hospitality industry more than £1 billion. The business rates increases that it now faces make matters even worse. This is not so much giving with one hand and taking with the other; it is giving with one hand, then punching them in the face and giving them a good kicking when they are down on the ground. That is an appalling attitude to take towards business, but that is this Government’s attitude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

I have yet to see any pub with any such sign. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke about how disastrous the implementation of the future high streets fund was on the ground, and we are trying to learn lessons from that.

The hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham also criticised the Employment Rights Bill. I compared him to Scrooge earlier, but I am sorry to say that on this subject he was even less charitable than Dickens’s great character. Scrooge famously wanted his workers to have regular hours over Christmas—indeed, he insisted on it—but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to want that. Even Scrooge by the end of the story gave Bob Cratchit a pay rise so that his family could enjoy Christmas, but the hon. Gentleman is arguing against that.

[Gareth Snell]

I remember sitting on the Opposition Benches when the Conservatives were in government. They were trumpeting their increase in the minimum wage and saying that the creation of the living wage was a demonstration of their commitment to helping low-paid people in this country. Does the Minister worry that, if we extrapolate the point that the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham has been making to its natural conclusion, the Conservatives are actually advocating a cut in the minimum wage as a way to help businesses, which would be detrimental to the thousands of people in Stoke-on-Trent who rely on that money to pay their bills?

[Blair McDougall]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Again, the Conservatives do not understand the link between what is in people’s pockets and what goes into the tills. I spent a fantastic day with my hon. Friend and his local businesses last week, and I was impressed by how those at the businesses were all on first-name terms with him.

Advanced Ceramics Industry: North Staffordshire

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I talked to the hon. Lady before we came into the Chamber, and it would be really good if we could advance the ceramics industry, as she has argued. It would also be good to give opportunities to young people through apprenticeships and education in science, technology, engineering and maths. Does she see that as a critical aspect as we move forward? I congratulate her and the whole Stoke team on how well they work together.

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

And Leicestershire.

[Jim Shannon]

Sorry—and Leicestershire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

The Minister mentioned electricity prices. I have repeatedly asked the Government to consider the expansion of the supercharger scheme for current industrial use by the ceramics sector. That would be a massive help before the British industrial competitiveness scheme comes online. I know the Minister is going to outline a series of significant things that he believes the Government could do to support the ceramics sector. I encourage him to consider working with the APPG on a bespoke ceramics strategy that would be cross-departmental and cross-Government, so that the support that I know he desperately wants to offer us can be replicated across Government, so that when we have these debates in the future, we can talk about how we implement the help that we need rather than talk about the help we hope we can get.

[Chris McDonald]

Although the compensation scheme I outlined is delivering £1.7 million to eight ceramics firms, I am acutely aware that it does not cover the vast majority of the sector. I met today with the chief executive of Ceramics UK. We discussed this issue and the fact that eligibility for the scheme is up for review in 2026. I have committed to working closely with him to see what opportunity there will be to extend the scheme to other ceramics firms and to ensure that the review takes every opportunity to see whether there is the potential for greater eligibility for ceramics firms. I am always happy to work with the APPG. Perhaps we can take my hon. Friend’s suggestion further and have further discussions about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

By elucidating the trade deal with India and the deal that we hope to strike with the Gulf Co-operation Council, I am hoping to outline the fact that there is not only a commitment to trade that will enable UK producers to access markets, but a commitment to fair trade. That is far easier done within the bounds of a free trade agreement where there are existing mechanisms in place. That is why our Department is working so hard to ensure that we get additional coverage of free trade agreements through various jurisdictions around the world.

Turning back to the Gulf Co-operation Council agreement, the UK is currently a net importer of ceramics from the Gulf states. Reducing UK tariffs has been identified as one of the GCC’s priorities. Our objective is to secure provisions that support competitiveness and growth across the UK while safeguarding UK manufacturing interests.

I understand that there is more work to be done to support our local ceramics firms that may be at risk from cheap imports from abroad. The standard response to this—I will give it and then qualify it, if that is acceptable—is to encourage ceramics companies to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority. However, I am aware of the significant burden that imposes in terms of cost and time, so I would encourage hon. Members who are in touch with ceramics companies in their areas—I will continue my engagement with Ceramics UK—to carefully monitor the ability of those companies to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority and to ensure that it is possible for their issues to be raised. If there are concerns about time and cost, I would appreciate it if they were raised with me directly.

[Gareth Snell]

If the Minister is looking at the Trade Remedies Authority, perhaps he could also look at the lesser duty rule, under which a product imported from China or the EU would face a higher tariff under their remedies than it does in the UK, because we have deliberately set our system to apply the lesser duty rather than the injury duty. It is technical, but it would make a big difference if he could consider that.

[Chris McDonald]

It is a very technical issue, and I have thought of little else since my hon. Friend explained it to me in great detail a few days ago. I will certainly commit to continuing to think about it, and I thank him for bringing it to my attention and placing it on the record.

Critical Minerals Strategy

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of copper; I raised it nearly 10 years ago. Copper was not included in previous strategies because it was not regarded as a critical mineral. I am pleased to say that the new strategy creates a new category of growth minerals: minerals that do not fit the definition of critical minerals but are important for the future, and which we need in order to grow. The recycling and secondary refining aspect is also a priority for me; all of our copper is currently extracted and taken overseas for smelting and refining, but there is a good opportunity for us to do that in the UK.

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

The Minister talks about things that are smelted, melted, forged and formed, and he will know that ceramics are crucial to those processes. He will also know that to deliver his ambitions for growth and recovery, and for virgin production, there will need to be an expansion of those processes. Is he having conversations with British Ceramics about how we can get refractory level ceramics in a better position to compete? Today’s announcement of the British industrial competitiveness scheme mentions foundational industries with a “certain threshold” of electrical usage. He will know that the processes he needs to get the strategy that he wants require gas, so are conversations happening about how the gas prices will underpin this strategy as well?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend correctly points out the essential role of ceramic refractories in the production of any high temperature processes, including critical minerals. I would be very happy to meet him later this evening to discuss both issues further.

Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing the debate. We do not talk nearly enough about manufacturing in this place—I am sure the Minister would agree with that, given his personal commitment and understanding of the sector from his previous role.

I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). I am sure that parts made in my constituency, at Meighs & Westleys, Goodwin or Mantec, make their way down to her local businesses, but I say gently to her that scaremongering about the Employment Rights Bill is a disincentive to industry and a restriction on our economy. The Bill is not yet anywhere near implementation.

[Rebecca Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Snell]

Very briefly, as long as the hon. Lady is going to admit that she is wrong.

[Rebecca Smith]

I am not going to do that. Many businesspeople across my constituency have contacted me to stress how damaging the Bill will be. It seems to be more of an ideological issue on which Opposition Members differ. The red tape, particularly around things like zero-hours contracts, will have a massive impact, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding.

[Gareth Snell]

I am many things, but I have never been called an ideologue. We can have a debate about the Employment Rights Bill on a different occasion, but I suggest that securing the right for people to know what hours they are working does not seem to me like a minimum ask for anybody.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley raised the importance of manufacturing to pride in place. He rightly talked about the valves made in Calder Valley, and he will know that I and my colleagues from north Staffordshire talk quite a lot in this place about ceramics and pottery—I cannot imagine your disbelief, Mrs Harris, but it is true. We talk about that because we are proud of the things that we make. We are proud to know that the tableware in our dining rooms was made by Duchess in Stoke-on-Trent, and the gifts in the Lords gift shop were made by Halcyon Days in Stoke-on-Trent. There are Wedgwood plates, Spode mugs and Burleigh prints all around this building that were made in Stoke-on-Trent.

It is not just Stoke-on-Trent that has a unique commitment and an integral identity connection to manufacturing. Think about the cutlery manufacturers of Sheffield, the jewellery quarter in Birmingham, the shoe manufacturers of Northampton, the knitwear and textiles in Scotland and, of course, the shipyards of Barrow and Belfast—clear commitments to industry that have helped to shape people’s identity. That is why we have to think about what regional investment means. We are proud of the things we make: they contribute to our local economy, which therefore contributes to the national economy. The supply chains need to stretch right across the whole United Kingdom because, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says, this is about the nations and regions of this country coming together to do what we all do best in our localities for the greater good of the nation.

In Stoke-on-Trent we do not just make tableware, giftware and ceramics; it is also proudly home to a factory that makes all the cherry bakewells in this country. I did not know she was here this morning, but one of our guests in the Public Gallery works in that factory. The workers there are proud of what they do and their creation of pastry, frangipane, icing and hand-placed cherries.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Did the hon. Gentleman bring any with him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

No—but those workers know how they contribute to our national economy.

When manufacturing, pride in place and identity overlap, that is something to be celebrated, because it drives innovation. Hannah Ault of Valentine Clays in Stoke-on-Trent is incredibly proud of the work she does. She is formulating a new clay that can be baked at a lower temperature for a shorter period of time, because she has an intense connection to the ceramic sector and the use of such skills. That research and development would not ordinarily happen; it happens because of her connection to a place and the support she can give to a sector that still has things to make.

I want to press the Minister on two points. First, on procurement, it is a travesty that only a third of the cars in the Government Car Service are made by British manufacturers. The proportion is even less for police cars purchased in this country. We have bus manufacturers, train manufacturers and brick manufacturers in this country, all of which make wonderful products, yet we import products from other parts of the world. Local and regional manufacturers can make them at better quality and lower cost if we give them the opportunity, but to do that the Minister—he knows what I am about to say—has to get a grip on industrial energy costs, which I know he is doing.

Small manufacturers in this country face some of the highest industrial electricity prices anywhere in the world, and although our gas prices are relatively competitive with Europe, they are much higher than they were two or three years ago. Small manufacturers need help with export finance to ensure that they can go to trade shows and exhibitions. We also have to get a grip on skills; it is brilliant that T-levels are coming online, but they have to come online quicker.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Carolyn. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing this debate, and for his opening remarks.

Hon. Members may have thought, when they heard that Stoke-on-Trent had been “moulded by ceramics”, that it was the worst joke they would hear in the Chamber today, but I will try my best. When I heard my hon. Friend refer to valve valley, I wondered, as a cornet player, whether it was a reference to the famous West Riding brass bands: the Brighouse and Rastrick brass band, the Elland Silver band and my personal favourite, the Friendly band of Sowerby Bridge. I am sure that they use their cornet valves to lower or raise the tone just as effectively as we did in this debate. Cornet valves, of course, respond well under pressure—I shall see how I do with that.

Maybe, after this debate, the particular expertise of the valve industry in Calder Valley will be better known to the country. It is not difficult to see the impact that manufacturing, and the valve industry in particular, has on Calder Valley. I have seen, as I am sure those watching will have, the pride and importance that hon. Members across this House recognise in the manufacturing industries in their particular areas. These companies are the heart of British manufacturing.

In the valve industry, we have companies such as Hopkinsons, established in Huddersfield in 1843, which continues, as part of Trillium Flow Technologies, to export valves globally. Its valves are used in applications ranging from boilers to power plants, in oil and gas, and in petrochemicals. In Fort Vale, founded in Calder Valley, we have a global manufacturing presence making valves for transportable tanks. Last year, Fort Vale received its fifth King’s award—formerly the Queen’s award—for international trade. Blackhall Engineering is another astonishing story of a link between our Victorian heritage and modern engineering. It supplies valves for the New York City water board, replacing originals installed by its predecessor company a century earlier.

We need to recognise the local pride in Calder Valley, and in all parts of the country with a strong manufacturing heritage, and recognise the economic opportunity of wages and real value that manufacturing brings to these communities. But there are, of course, significant challenges, including those that hon. Members raised in this debate. I wish to address the challenges in procurement, skills and energy costs, as well as the challenges that have been mentioned for small businesses.

The framework through which the Government are working with industry and manufacturing is, of course, our industrial strategy, which attempts to respond to those challenges and to deliver productivity and growth, and is unashamedly place-based in the regions that matter to manufacturing. Some 84% of manufacturing jobs are located outside London and the south-east. I want to mildly disagree here with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), because she mentioned deindustrialisation—a word that I do not particularly like to use in this sense. The UK is very much an industrial country; we have just chosen to locate our industry elsewhere, and part of my mission is to ensure that we regrow and restore that manufacturing here in the UK. I know that she would agree with that.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) spoke of regional growth, which is also vital. Our industrial strategy is about securing competitiveness not only for sectors, but for regional prosperity, and we recognise that manufacturing is key to the resilience of our national economy.

[Gareth Snell]

A lot of Members have talked about the importance of defence manufacturing; the Minister has talked about our economic resilience, but a big part of this is our sovereign capability and our national security resilience. I know that he has done work on that, so can he say more about how his work aligns with the work of the Ministry of Defence team to ensure that the manufacturing capability in the UK is about not just economic growth, but our national security and safety?

[Chris McDonald]

That point is well made. Of course, alongside our industrial strategy, we have our defence industrial strategy. When I come to talk about procurement, I may say more about that, and many hon. Members have talked about defence.

When we talk about our manufacturing sector, it is important to highlight some of the headline statistics. Manufacturing pays higher wages and has generally higher productivity in the areas where it is located and, when it comes to the balance of trade, although around 10% of our employment is in manufacturing, it accounts for around 50% of our exports. Those outputs, jobs and exports consist of thousands of specialist manufacturers, large and small, up and down the whole United Kingdom. Those exports are global and, as we have heard, we also export into space.

On procurement—I know that this area has been a major concern for many hon. Members, and particularly Government procurement—I have great sympathy for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I am happy to pursue the specific issues that he raised. I see it as vital to our manufacturing and industrial sectors that we ensure that the money that we as a Government, or our regulated sectors, spend is significant and is concentrated as effectively as possible in the UK, for both its economic and its social value. We need to raise awareness of the opportunities. We must ensure that those opportunities are open to UK manufacturers and that our UK companies are competitive enough to win those contracts. The industrial strategy plays a part in ensuring that those companies can do that.

To increase business investment, we must also ensure that we have a real market opportunity, both at home and overseas. Our clean energy strategy is introducing measures aimed at directly increasing UK beneficiaries in Government procurement. The clean industry bonus for offshore wind, for instance, is designed to encourage investment in Britain’s coastal industrial areas and supply chains. We also want to see robust local content targets. We are examining market demand guarantees to encourage UK scale-ups and introducing a clean energy supply chain fund to support UK-based clean energy manufacturing.

The defence industrial strategy, which I mentioned earlier—the defence industry is, of course, another user of valves—sets out a major reform agenda for procurement to grow our UK industrial base. We will be speeding up procurement processes and reducing bureaucracy, while ensuring greater visibility of defence procurement and taking steps to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises will have greater access to our supply chains. Our procurement and capital programmes are key to anchoring manufacturing here in the UK and then encouraging businesses to secure investment and export overseas.

UK manufacturing, however, ranks just 24th globally for robotics and automation. Here I move to the topic of productivity, which is of course a key element in profitability and competitiveness. That is an area where, as a nation, we need to work more. If we are not working digitally, we cannot adopt automation and move as fast as our competitors. Our Made Smarter adoption programme, with up to £99 million of additional funding, will help with this. It will support more manufacturing SMEs to take up new technologies and improve their digital capabilities. We have had reference today to the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, which I know from personal experience is a great supporter of improving competitiveness, robotics, automation and productivity in our supply chains.

Skills was also an important feature of today’s debate. They were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, with his inspiring story of Stuart Billingham —maybe we all need to see more Stuart Billinghams in our lives. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) also mentioned regional skills development. I know that persistent skills shortages and the availability of good applicants are a concern felt across our manufacturing sectors. That is certainly an area for Government and industry to work closely together on, to encourage talented people from across the UK to seek jobs in our manufacturing sector. Fort Vale in Calderdale has a strong tradition in apprenticeships, and I understand that it receives over 140 applications each year for the opportunities it provides. That experience of high numbers of applications for apprenticeships is something I see across the country. I applaud the work of the West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services charity and its partnership with Calderdale college on the Industry 4.0 hub, which addresses exactly those digital issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

Small business owners might be concerned, but I know from personal experience that with the right level of support, it is perfectly possible to manage a business with these employment rights. I suggest support, rather than scaremongering, is the way to go. We heard from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) about the support a previous local industrialist gave to their community. Although I commend that, Labour Members think that good pay and conditions are a right rather than a gift.

Energy costs are clearly the major competitiveness issue for industry. I agree with the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), about the lack of competitiveness of UK energy costs—she cited a figure from the International Energy Agency showing they were 46% above European averages, and that is a figure I recognise. However, our clean power mission will ensure that we are weaned off the international gas markets, to which we were enslaved by the previous Government for such a long time. The shadow Minister mentioned Mossmorran, which is a good example of a business that sustained losses for years and was unable to justify investment as a result of the previous Government’s neglect of manufacturing and industry.

We recognise that, beyond our clean power mission, we must do more and act quickly to support sectors with high growth potential and significant exposure to high electricity costs. We are increasing the support available for energy-intensive companies through the British industry supercharger, and from 2027 we will introduce the new British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce electricity costs.

[Gareth Snell]

I make my regular plea to the Minister to consider extending the supercharger scheme to energy-intensive industries that are not currently covered, ahead of the introduction of the British industrial competitiveness scheme.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

As I pointed out earlier, the business has suffered from a lack of competitiveness for the last five years, in part due to the relative lack of competitiveness of UK energy prices, and it is important to point out the things that we have done and are doing to address that. We have the energy-intensive industries support scheme and the supercharger scheme, which is providing up to 90% relief. We also have the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce prices for over 7,000 businesses by £40 per unit of power over a period of time. Of course, with this business, the energy input was gas. We are competitive on gas with Europe, but the issue has been the much cheaper gas prices in the US; the ethylene imports coming into Europe are primarily coming from the United States of America. On that basis, as an exporting business in the UK, the competitiveness issues are fundamentally why the business does not see a future in the plant.

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

I think any of us who represent an industrial constituency cannot help but feel a tinge of sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) this evening. We have all seen factories and manufacturing businesses in our constituencies close. While I accept what the Minister says about the fact that we are competitive on gas price with Europe today, the reality is that the gas price today is significantly higher than it was three, four or five years ago. Often the products that are being made in these places cannot absorb those overheads, which makes us uncompetitive on the world market. We have to look at how we can subsidise those costs here.

On industrial electricity, we are out of step with the rest of the world and we need those prices to come down. The Minister mentioned the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but that will not come online until 2027. He mentioned the energy supercharger scheme, but that does not include whole swathes of industry, including ceramics. Is there anything that the Minister can do in the short term to ensure that we end up with help today for those sectors that need it, so we can prevent future closures of big manufacturing sites?

[Chris McDonald]

I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the ceramics sector, but his comments could read across to other energy-intensive sectors. I said that once quality costs have been taken into account, UK gas prices are competitive with the rest of Europe, but in the sector that he mentions, many of those imports come from Turkey. In some other sectors in the chemicals industry, the issue is about over-capacity, over-supply and the dumping of products in the UK that have been produced in the far east—there are quite a number of issues, and I continue to work on all of them across the heavy industry sector to ensure that we can improve the business environment as a whole.

Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 General Committees

[Kate Dearden]

Regarding this instrument, it is an essential requirement that as products are developed, we ensure that they do not harm networks and that we protect personal data and guard against fraud. As devices become smarter and more connected and embedded in daily life, we have to keep pace with the regulatory framework. That is why this instrument is so important to protect consumers and networks.

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

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim as he makes the case for his constituents. Is the Minister able to set out whether there is practical regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a result of this SI? What is the practical implication for the principal concern the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of his constituents? Quite often the regulatory alignment remains the same, even if the base legislation for that regulation may derive from different places.

[Kate Dearden]

There is divergence but little impact in practice, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks. The draft regulations are crucial to ensuring our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I thank the shadow Minister for his support and would be happy to write further to him about competitive states. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and am pleased to commend this SI to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

You would have thought, Mr Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman might say a good word about our British automotive sector. The trade deal that we struck with America—the first and the best such trade deal—protected 44,000 jobs from the tariff challenges being felt around the world. We are creating new opportunities and investing. As the House saw, the Government acted at speed to protect Jaguar Land Rover and its entire supply chain in its hour of need. This Government act when we need to and create opportunities wherever we can, and we will continue to do so.

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

To make steel in this country, we need ceramics. To build houses in this country, we need ceramics. Five of the eight industrial strategy growth sectors require ceramics. Ahead of the launch of the British industrial competitiveness scheme, might there be any interim relief from energy prices for energy-intensive industries?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for ceramics. This is only my second time at the Dispatch Box, but it is also the second time that he has asked me about this. He and I have already met to discuss it, and I am happy to have further conversations with him and industry about everything we can do, as soon as possible, to support the sector with its energy costs.

Employment Rights Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend, with his experience, is exactly right. Just think about the impact on a small business of a fee of that magnitude and the length of time it takes to get justice.

What is going to happen? This is a really important point. Those on the Government Benches will be living this reality over the remainder of their term, and they will have to account for it. Businesses will be discouraged from hiring anybody without a perfect CV and a proven track record of work. Who are we talking about? We are talking about young people, people with dyslexia and related conditions, and people with a period of inactivity on their CVs—such as former prisoners seeking a second chance to go straight. Those will be the victims of that particular measure.

Labour Ministers should realise that they will be the first victims of disagreeing with Lords amendment 62. The long-standing principle here is a simple one: we should not be allowing strikes to be called when a majority of union members have not even voted, let alone voted in favour. A strike could still proceed with just over a quarter of those eligible. Opposing this amendment will guarantee that unions are held hostage by a militant minority who force strikes even when the union’s own members do not support one. We can ill afford more strikes that crush growth, prevent workers from getting to work and endanger lives, and the public will not forget the change that this Government seek to make.

Amendment 61 is a Cross-Bench Lords amendment that would maintain a consensus arrived at by the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee—that only those who actively choose to contribute to a political fund opt in to do so. This is a basic principle that the Government have applied to services everywhere else in the economy, from beauty boxes, gyms and meditation apps to Netflix and newspaper subscriptions. Why should Britain’s workers not enjoy the same right? The only conceivable reason—it brings shame on anyone who votes against the amendment—is to swell the coffers of one political party.

Lords amendment 47, on the right to be accompanied, tries to finally level the playing field for the 80% of workers who are not in a union, but should have the same rights as trade union members to be supported in a disciplinary or grievance hearing. By voting against this modest but important reform, Labour is preserving what is essentially a closed shop that unions use to push people who do not want to join into doing so. We scrapped the closed shop decades ago, and no one should be bringing it back as a means of pressuring vulnerable workers into paying into union coffers.

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will happily give way if the hon. Gentleman will talk about the other organisations that will do a brilliant job of representing employees.

[Gareth Snell]

Well, that wouldn’t be the Tory party, would it, Madam Deputy Speaker?

What the shadow Secretary of State seems not to understand is that workers cannot turn up to a trade union and go, “I’ve got a problem. Can I join and get representation, please?”. Almost every union in this country requires a qualifying period to get the representation he talks about—the idea that this is a closed shop is just nonsense.

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member has probably wilfully misinterpreted what I said. I am talking about the right for individuals to be represented by a trade union or by a qualified professional from another domain, such as a qualified lawyer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but a fellow qualified accountant would be better able to advise somebody facing a disciplinary than an official from a general trade union, who would not necessarily understand the points in dispute.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Lady makes good points in some parts of her speech, but not in others. The point of a trade union representative—or any representative who goes with an individual to a disciplinary process—is not to advise on the particulars of the worker’s skillset, but to ensure that processes are followed and the worker’s rights are protected. I fully understand what she says about accountancy, but are there people in her professional organisation who can give her employment rights advice? Disciplinaries relate to employees’ rights, not their professional skillsets.

[Sarah Olney]

As the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) have said, that has not been a requirement for professional bodies, but if we create the right for suitably qualified professionals to accompany employees, I fully expect that those bodies would go on to develop that capability. It is surely up to an employee to decide whether they want a fellow professional or a trade union official to protect and defend their interests. They should have the opportunity to make that choice for themselves.

The Liberal Democrats also support the retention of the opt-in system for contributions to trade union political funds. We believe in maximising choice and transparency for individuals in relation to the political funds to which they contribute. We therefore oppose measures that would make it an opt-out system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Unison and the GMB, and during the election I received financial support from trade unions. One thing I found when I was a trade union official was that it was not necessarily people who were not confident in asserting their own rights. A number of workers simply did not know what their rights were. Oddly enough, employers were not running around handing out little laminated cards saying, “Here are all the rights you can ask me for.” If employers are not made to tell them their rights, how else are employees meant to find out?

[Sam Rushworth]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what the Bill speaks to. There is a power gap between the ordinary working person who does not necessarily know their rights and is unable to assert them, and the sort of person who, for example, might buy a house in their girlfriend’s name. I will progress.

I also oppose the attempt, in Lords amendment 106, to water down the Bill by requiring six months for protection from unfair dismissal. There is of course a difference between unfair dismissal and fair dismissal. No employer is prevented from using fair grounds to dismiss an employee. The previous Government extended the time before you could even claim unfair dismissal to two years. That left far too many people vulnerable to being dismissed at a whim, or dismissed because they had demanded their rights at work.

I had an experience of that myself. I have never talked about it before, because I signed a non-disclosure agreement. Shortly after becoming the branch rep for the University and College Union when I was a college lecturer, I pointed out that the college I was teaching at was not paying the minimum wage to some of its staff. The college then attempted to dismiss me for bringing it into disrepute. Thankfully, I was able to take on one of the top employment lawyers in the area at the time—only because they had forced me to teach an HR course—and give myself a crash course in human rights law. I left that place with a payout.

I remember the shame I felt at the time for signing the non-disclosure agreement. I wanted to fight for other people, but at the end of the day I was terrified that I was going to miss my next mortgage payment and I was thinking of my children. That is the position that far too many people find themselves in. So what we are doing on non-disclosure is right. I have to ask all Members, as they vote on whether to water this down, whose side they are on. Will they be on the side of those seeking to cover up sexual harassment, rather than on the side of the whistleblowers?

In my mind’s eye, as I vote this evening, will be real people in my Bishop Auckland constituency. I want to tell the House about two or three of them. A few months ago, I received correspondence from a parish councillor who is also a local farmer and a member of the Labour party. He told me of his concern that every day he saw two women sitting in the bus shelter in a cold hilltop village. He approached them to ask them what they were doing there, because they were there for several hours. It turned out that they were care workers. They were dropped off in the morning and did a visit. At another point in the day they would do another visit, and another visit later. But they were only paid for the specific time that they were in people’s houses; they were not paid for the entirety of the day. That is a workaround to avoid paying them the minimum wage. The Bill makes provision for a fair pay agreement in adult social care to address such practices. By the way, he then opened the village hall for them and made sure they had a warm space to wait in each day between shifts.

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendments that seek to remove clause 23 are, to my mind, clear attempts to water down one of the signature pledges of the Bill and of this Government’s mission to make work pay: a guarantee of day one rights. Even if I do not agree with those amendments, I understand many in the other place who have talked about the potential disincentive for many small businesses to hire in a difficult economy and a cost of living crisis. However, the rights of employees, and especially of our young workforce, should not be traded off in every instance in order to maximise spreadsheet efficiency in the labour market.

[Gareth Snell]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that when Conservative Members oppose day one rights, they are not really worried about the day on which the rights start; they are actually opposed to the rights. That is why many of them cannot muster an argument that is about more than, as he says, spreadsheet efficiency.

[Euan Stainbank]

I agree, especially if we look at unfair dismissal. The issue is not the cause of the dismissal; at its core, this is about denying people recourse. If a worker cannot claim unfair dismissal because of the two-year threshold, their recourse is substantially weaker. The course of the conduct is not changed simply because a worker has been in a place of employment for 23 months, as opposed to two years.

This issue is real and corrosive. I have had young people in my constituency office who have experienced this issue, especially in the run-up to consideration of this Bill. There has been a course of conduct in the workplace that has resulted in them wanting to leave, or somebody wanting to force them out, and this issue makes it substantially easier for bad employers—not every employer, of course—to force an employee out. It does not change the nature of the conduct, or what we should be tackling, which is poor employment practices.

I do understand the concern that has been raised, but a two-year threshold often leads to workers, early on in their careers, being taken out of the workplace without process or prior warning. Their only right of recourse, as I have said, is taking the employer to court through a far weaker form of redress that is often time-consuming, exhausting, fruitless and restrictive, and so deters them from pursuing their rights.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support and the contribution his local area can make. In some areas, we have a lot of good things going on, but it needs to happen faster and we have to make sure that we execute the plans we have in place. That sounds like exactly the sort of challenge in this area that we should commit to.

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

Ceramics UK has described today’s modern industrial strategy as disappointing and, candidly, I share the sector’s disappointment. The one reference to ceramics in the strategy is historical and geographic, with nothing about industry. For months, I and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) have been pointing out the immediate needs of a sector that employs thousands of people in our city, yet today there is nothing on gas pricing, nothing on electricity pricing and no access to the supercharger scheme. Instead, we are given an IOU for 2027. What message can I take home to those in Stoke-on-Trent this week about what in this industrial strategy will give them the help and the support that they need today, rather than having to wait for an IOU post-dated to the year after next?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I say to my hon. Friend that I think Ceramics UK is misplaced in that criticism. Ceramics is recognised as a foundational sector: it is part of the materials foundational sector in the strategy. Its principal request is about energy prices. There are some ceramics businesses—I accept not that many—that get the supercharger and that will get the more generous rate. But fundamentally, the costs of a lot of those businesses do not match the intensity test, which the supercharger is based on—a sectoral and then an individual business test. That is exactly why the British industrial competitiveness scheme has been designed in such a way that they will benefit from it, and that will be a game-changer for them. There are not the same policy tools around gas prices, but of course we can see that gas prices are projected to fall from the very significant level that they have been at for future financial years.

British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I certainly have oomph, yes, and I am working as fast as I can on this. I will not talk now about the wider support that we are offering people in our former coalfield communities, but a whole raft of Government interventions are there to support people.

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

My constituent Robert Ferguson echoes many of the points made by the constituent of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) about the difference between families who worked side by side, whereby one benefits and one does not. I know that the Minister has a rather full portfolio—there are many other things that I constantly nag her about—but will we wait for the Treasury, which is not known for its speed in making decisions, or could interim arrangements be put in place to give some of the surplus back to the BCSSS, or something that allows a demonstration of progress while we wait for the Chief Secretary to come to a decision?

[Sarah Jones]

I would not want to give the impression that this decision is waiting on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to say yes. That is not the case. We have to go through the correct processes to get it over the line, because it was not in the manifesto; it is a different scheme and we must go through the proper processes. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that.

It would probably cause more trouble than not to give part but not all of the surplus back, because people would wonder why we were doing that. We want to resolve this properly and quickly. The two outcomes that the hon. Member for Ashfield referred to, and which the trustees want, are goals that we all share, but we have to do this properly by going through the right processes and ensuring that we are not putting words into the mouths of our Treasury officials and colleagues before it is right to do so. My commitment is to work at pace on this. As I said, my officials are meeting the Treasury tomorrow, and we are meeting the trustees before the summer.