Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Williamson Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we do not want a race to the bottom. Advanced manufacturing jobs in the west midlands are well paid for a reason: there is a very highly skilled workforce and we want to protect and grow that. He is right that there is more that we can do. Some £2 billion was set aside in the Budget for the automative sector and just shy of £1 billion for aerospace. That will help; however, we can further reduce the barriers, whether around regulation, planning or trading and export, and we are working as fast as we can to do just that.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

In Staffordshire and the west midlands, we are the only part of the country that is a net exporter of manufactured goods. The threat from Trump on tariffs could have a significant impact on manufacturers right across Staffordshire and the west midlands. What action are the Government taking to ensure that we will continue to export our world-leading products?

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the west midlands is a big exporter to many different countries, including the US and others. Of course, we will keep talking with the US, as the Secretary of State has been doing, and will ensure that we are standing up for British industry and doing the right thing.

Employment Rights Bill

Gavin Williamson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford]

My right hon. Friend makes a key point. The change since yesterday has been interesting. Yesterday, Labour Members were clear about declaring that they were members of trade unions, but only today have they suddenly realised that they should be declaring the amount of money that they are receiving directly.

We heard yesterday from the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), that the legislation will allow unions to bypass current rules, such as the rules on opting out of political donations. It must be fantastic news to the Labour party that it will now receive donations from workers by default, while businesses will face reduced notice periods for strikes, leading to even more disruption and economic damage. It is clear to me, and to the hundreds of businesses that have pulled their support for this Government, that this is not about protecting employment rights, but about consolidating union power.

Let us briefly look at some of the amendments. Amendment 292 would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in. That change would ensure that unions do not continue to fill Labour’s piggybank, and do not lock workers into automatic donations unless they actively opt out, which is as much a memory test as an admin task. Unamended, clause 52 is not about transparency, but about keeping the money flowing to the political party with the most to gain.

Likewise, there are new clauses and amendments that would have introduced transparency about the facilities provided to trade union officials, learning representatives and equality representatives. Clauses 54 and 56 are designed to reduce transparency and accountability for union spending, allowing union officials to continue to benefit from facility time without proper scrutiny.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

I will, for the last time.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an interesting contrast in the Government’s approach? They are quite happy to put extra burdens, responsibilities and work on businesses of all sizes, yet when it comes to any element of transparency or giving members of trade unions a real choice and understanding of where their money is going, they refuse to do that.

[Gregory Stafford]

The disparity—I will put it no stronger than that—that my right hon. Friend mentions is stark. Anybody watching these proceedings outside this House will absolutely agree that the Government want to put extra burdens and regulations on business, but when it comes to the trade unions, transparency goes out the window. Why is that happening? The answer is simple and clear: unions have significant influence over this Government. While the Deputy Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues are pushing for these changes, they do not even do what the measures state. Key figures including the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary are all guilty of hiring under terms that are odds with the new regulations. Why would they introduce such a Bill when they themselves do not comply with it?

Just like the more than 200 Labour MPs who have taken union donations, the Deputy Prime Minister has her own interests to consider. In her opening remarks yesterday, she proudly disclosed her union membership while conveniently admitting to the £13,000 in union donations that she has taken. It is clear that union influence is driving this legislation and most likely writing the speeches of Labour Members. The Government claim to be

“pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker”—[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 46.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this vital Bill as it passes its remaining stages. I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the GMB and Community trade unions. I am particularly pleased to speak in today’s debate, because at one of my regular coffee mornings on Saturday, a constituent of mine, Phil, told me that I needed to be doing more to promote the benefits of this legislation. I am not sure that making a speech in the House of Commons meets Phil’s expectation of promotion, but that conversation showed me how important this legislation will be for working people in the Livingston constituency.

The Government have rightly tabled amendments to the Bill to ensure that we deliver reforms that are both pro-business and pro-worker. Although Conservative Members have tried to make much of the number of Government amendments, we remember that they are still the party of “Eff business”. With their opposition to the Bill, they show that they are “Eff workers”, too.

What the amendments in fact demonstrate is the commitment of the Minister and the Government to listening and consulting with a huge range of stakeholders on these issues, delivering the largest upgrade in workers’ rights in many decades, but in a way that does right by businesses and good employers, ensuring that they have the conditions and environment they need to encourage investment and create jobs.

This Bill will support the Government’s critical mission for growth by increasing productivity and putting money back in people’s pockets. It will deliver real-life improvements.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Can the hon. Gentleman set out five ways that the Bill will improve productivity for businesses?

[Gregor Poynton]

I will certainly come on to that, but one way is that the Bill will improve employment relations in workforces. In the past 14 years, we have seen strike after strike because of the Conservatives’ approach to industrial relations. This change will improve productivity.

The Bill will deliver real-life improvements that will be felt across Britain. Key amendments that strengthen protections for the lowest-paid workers will ensure that all workers are treated with the decency they deserve. I welcome the vital steps that the Bill takes to extend protection, from exploitative zero-hours contracts, to protecting the voice of working people and strengthening statutory sick pay.

As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I have been able to scrutinise large businesses that choose to have zero-hours contracts in place. In one evidence session, I heard from a company representative who revealed that employees can have their shift changed at 24 hours’ notice, but not receive a single penny in compensation. The Bill is vital in addressing the challenges of financial planning faced by families who are dependent on zero-hours contracts. More than 1 million people on such contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy. Crucially, the Bill will ensure that Governments work with businesses, and will support employers who endeavour to comply with the law. With the Government amendments, it will also expand and strengthen the powers of the fair work agency to bring civil proceedings against non-compliant employers at employment tribunals and to issue civil penalties, such as fines, to employers who breach pay-related rights and underpay their staff.

“Chapter 4A

Gavin Williamson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

If growth is the intended destination, as my friends in Dublin would say, “You can’t get there from here”. This Bill—so long on amendments and so short on detail—cannot be reconciled with this Government’s stated mantra of growth, growth, growth. By their own estimate, the Bill will cost business £5 billion—so easily dismissed by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), despite being a serious amount of money. The only growth will be in the mountain of red tape in which the Bill will snare businesses.

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 87, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the

“international competitiveness of the economy”

and its growth in the medium to long term. The Secretary of State for Business must surely recognise the importance of this—after all, I saw him just days ago in a slick video, with cuts quicker than the shower scene in Hitchcock’s “Psycho”, boasting of

“working together abroad to deliver growth at home”.

Now, I love a fantasy film as much as anyone, but the Secretary of State is in danger of jumping the shark with this level of sophistry and stretching credulity beyond snapping point. Growth at home is feeble, and this Bill is its enemy.

So lacking in detail is this Bill, which was clearly scrabbled together to beat the Government’s own deadline of the first 100 days, that it is the equivalent of a parliamentary blank cheque—sign here, and we will fill in all those pesky details later—handing sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. We are being asked to walk into a cage without a key. I have seen this before with the SNP’s woeful prospectus for Scottish independence in 2014. Scots were bright enough then to see through the smokescreen. Will Members across the House be sharp enough to discern the dangers here?

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite clear that the Government did not do the work needed to get the Bill into the right place and position to be introduced to this House in the first place? That was exemplified in Committee, with the amount of drafting that had to be done at that stage. The Bill should have been stopped by the parliamentary business and legislation committee; it should never have been allowed to get to the Floor of the House.

[John Cooper]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. He is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows full well that to arrive at this stage with, as we have heard from other Members, a telephone directory of amendments is quite an incredible situation. How could any self-respecting Secretary of State for Business and Trade stand over the anti-growth regulations contained in—but not confined to—parts 1, 2 and 4 of this Bill? Even a trainee solicitor can see that they strip out flexibility for both employees and employers, making it less likely that people—especially young people and people with sketchy backgrounds—will be hired for that all-important first job. Whither your employee rights if you have no job?

As someone who bends his elbow, I am familiar with the occasionally coarse atmosphere in pubs. My daughter took a part-time job in a bar while studying at university, but I see nothing useful for her in the Bill’s bid to make employers liable for third-party harassment. It is why I also support our amendment to exclude the hospitality sector from this onerous clause. Aside from the fact that my daughter was well capable of dealing with the rare rude, sexist or obstreperous client under existing laws, clause 18 risks the Bill becoming a snooper’s charter—a busybody’s dream. If our amendment 289 falls, the public bar will no longer be the cockpit of free speech, but placed in the purview of the censorious, and the malicious gauleiters of orthodoxy.

Set as we are in a sea of troubles amid global turmoil, are Labour really so afraid of off-colour jokes, or the bar stool crank with outré political views, that it will establish the banter police? One of my criticisms of the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh is that it passes “never mind the quality, feel the width” legislation in a bid for self-justification. With this Bill, that accusation could rightly be levelled at this Government, too.

Employment Rights Bill

Gavin Williamson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Obviously, my hon. Friend hopes that the Government will support his new clause. What does he think would stop the Government supporting this very sensible measure straightaway?

[Nick Timothy]

I do not see why the Government should not support this new clause. This seems to be an obvious example of labour market abuse, but the difference with many of the provisions in the Bill is that my new clause does not directly benefit trade unions who pay for the Labour party.

Sadly, we know that there have been many sexual assaults and attacks committed by substitute workers. New clause 105 proposes the robust regulation of substitution clauses. Amazon, Uber, Deliveroo and the rest would have to do their due diligence and, just like everyone else, ensure that all their riders are who they say they are and have the right to work in this country. Introducing such a change would reduce labour abuse, protect our communities and deliver a fairer labour market.

Plant Oxford Site

Gavin Williamson Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for her support for the industry, which is so important. Through the £2 billion funding, the automotive transformation fund, the exceptional regional growth fund and the advanced propulsion centre research and development fund, we have found innovative ways of supporting the industry. In January, I was pleased to hear Jatco, a company that makes transmissions for Nissan, announce that it would put its first manufacturing plant in Europe here in the UK; it is converting an old hospital building with a £50 million investment. That plant will be at the international advanced manufacturing park in Sunderland. That is the kind of opportunity that we want to create and deliver.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Jaguar Land Rover, which has its engine manufacturing centre based in Staffordshire, is a vital employer for people not just in Staffordshire, but right across the west midlands. That plant is pioneering the development of electric vehicles for JLR. What additional support and flexibility will there be from the Government to ensure that Great British brands continue to prosper in the west midlands?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Williamson Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Member will be pleased to hear that we have re- established a working group with the Scottish First Minister and the Welsh and Northern Irish leaderships to make sure we are working collectively, because we do not want to take a party political approach to the growth of all our nations. We are collaborating well with the Scottish Government on Grangemouth, where we are working at pace and putting in investment and support. We are working to transition people from North sea oil and gas into the new energies of the future. There is the passport that we published, and we have set up Great British Energy, which will be headquartered in Aberdeen. A lot of work is going on, and we need the Scottish Government to support us in that work. We will work in partnership, because that is what will create good jobs.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

The chemical industry is an important employer in my constituency, with the HEX Group and SI Group employing many people. As mentioned, Sir Jim Ratcliffe is already highlighting the extinction of the British chemical industry. My chemical manufacturers need to ensure that they are buying energy at the same price as manufacturers in Germany, the Netherlands and France. When will they be able to do that?

[Sarah Jones]

The chemical industry has been suffering for many years because of the previous Government’s economic policies, crashing the economy under Liz Truss and failing to deal with energy prices over multiple years. I have met the chemical industry. It is an important part of our economy, and we need to do what we can to protect it. I am having conversations, and we are building our energy policies. We are building our industrial strategy.

Future of the Post Office

Gavin Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It would help if the Minister occasionally looked at the Chair and kept his answers short so that we can get everybody in.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

In my constituency, there is real concern about the loss of more rural and village branches. Can the Minister give us some assurance that he will do everything that he can to preserve this vital link and that he will look at how the Post Office can operate more like a commercial franchise operator, which would support and help postmasters to really maximise their business?

[Gareth Thomas]

Absolutely. I recognise that the Post Office has a particularly responsibility to work with sub-postmasters who provide a post office service in rural communities. It is one reason why we remain committed to the requirement to provide 11,500 branches across the UK. One key change that we need to see in the Post Office, and one reason why I welcome the commitments in Sir Nigel Railton’s plans today, is the commitment to a consultative council. That will, I hope, help to ensure that the voices of rural sub-postmasters and sub-postmasters more generally are heard much more directly by senior management. I also welcome the idea of a postmaster panel to provide support to sub-postmasters in general, but, in the context of this question, to rural sub-postmasters in particular.

UK Steel Manufacturing

Gavin Williamson Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head, as I would expect him to. We face many challenges, but the grid is at the heart and soul of so many of them. When we met industry representatives in opposition, it was top of the list for everybody, and my hon. Friend knows that many companies are saying to us, “We’ve been told we can’t get a grid connection until the late 2030s.” This issue is a priority for us, and we are tackling it and working at pace. We have a whole range of policies to speed up the grid connections, to prioritise what we deal with first, and to work with the companies involved to make sure that we are going at pace. Steel is incredibly crucial, particularly in Scunthorpe, and we have to get it right.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

In order for most plants in the United Kingdom to make virgin steel, they need to be able to bring in coking coal. The Labour Government’s policy is to ban bringing in coking coal, which means that thousands of jobs will be lost. What is the Minister going to do to reverse that decision so that jobs can be saved?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. As I said, we are looking at DRI and other ways of making virgin steel that mean we can both—[Interruption.] I am happy to have further conversations with the shadow Minister, rather than shout across the House at each other. I am happy to have conversations about how we can make sure that we both retain virgin steel production and adhere to our climate commitments.

Post Office Horizon

Gavin Williamson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend refers to some specific circumstances that I would welcome further information on. If he can contact the Department, the relevant Minister will look through those circumstances to see whether there is anything we can do, because we do not want anyone to be out of pocket as a result of this scandal.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Communities across the country were impacted by the Horizon scandal, and one of those was Wheaton Aston. Not only did Wheaton Aston lose a much-loved postmaster, but it lost its post office. Will the Minister look at the specific case of Wheaton Aston not just in terms of that postmaster getting compensation, but to take up the issue with the Post Office to ensure that a post office is returned to the village?

[Justin Madders]

I will certainly relay that back to the Department, and we will look in some detail at that. It is important that communities have a post office that they can access. They are a vital part of our infrastructure in this country and a vital lifeline for many individuals, and we want to make sure that every community is served as much as possible.

Brain Injuries in Football

Gavin Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Damian Collins]

I am sure that the Minister has heard the point my hon. Friend makes. I think the Minister’s convening power could be extremely helpful in this case. There needs to be a properly resourced fund that football pays into. There is enough money in football to provide compensation for players who clearly need it.

The cap on the fund means that it will not cover some care costs; it would not have done so in the case of Nobby Stiles, had it existed at that time. However, there have been other deaths of former players recently, such as Chris Nicholl, a former player for Aston Villa and Southampton, who died without his family receiving a penny of funding. Similarly, John McNamee, a former Newcastle player, died as a consequence of CTE and his family had to sell the family home to cover care costs. Real concerns are being raised by the families that, limited though these funds are, they are not universally accessible, and there is no guarantee they will exist in the future.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The points that have been made about the brain health fund are incredibly important. Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to the Premier League and the Professional Footballers Association, the Football Association and the English Football League also have a part to play, and that it is by all partners and Government coming together that we can deliver much more for players today and into the future?

[Damian Collins]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. There has been criticism from the families about the fund. It was created voluntarily by them, but the EFL and the FA are not part of it, and they need to be. All the groups that represent professional football need to come together and provide that support fund.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) that we should look at classifying these as industrial injuries, but football does not need to wait for that classification; more could be done now to put those support elements in place. This is where I look to the Minister. I know that the issue has been raised with him before, and he has taken a keen interest in it. I believe the Government can play a role in bringing the parties together. There should be a recognition of the link. I know that the Department is supporting more research and convening a forum to decide where the areas of priority research should be. That will help us to understand how we can safeguard young sports players today and safeguard against brain injuries in the future.

More must be done now to recognise the existing link and accept a responsibility. There is a danger sometimes that people are concerned about legal liabilities; but we have known about this link for a while. In March 2024, Dan Roan of the BBC published a report showing that FA board minutes from 1983 recognised the concern about head and brain injuries and the causal link between those injuries and playing football, so let’s not pretend that this link was not known. Something needs to be done now.

Does the Minister think he can play a role bringing the FA and the English Football League together with the Premier League and the PFA to agree a package of financial support to make the available fund sustainable, to look at lifting the cap above £60,000 a year and to guarantee that no family will ever have to sell their home to pay for the care costs of a former footballer? Will football accept its responsibility to care for these heroes of the past, who incurred their injuries while providing entertainment and joy for millions of people and who have enriched other people who have made money out of the game?

Yesterday, on Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill, I raised the case for player welfare to be part of the remit of the regulator. I do not think the regulator’s job should be to write rules for football; it should be there to ensure that competition organisers and clubs adhere to the standards that have been set by the competitions with regard to athlete and player welfare. That would be consistent with the corporate governance responsibilities that the regulator sets. In terms of funding support for players’ care costs in later life, that could be another opportunity where the fines collected by the regulator could support both grassroots sport and legacy injuries related to football, particularly brain injuries. The fund could be used helpfully in that way. I do think there is enough money in football that primarily the professional football organisations themselves should set that standard.

Finally, as has been mentioned, the question of the rules that govern concussion and brain and head injuries in sport today is really important. I do not want to see things like heading the ball removed from football. It is a physical game and is enjoyed as such, but players should be aware of the risks they are running. There should be safety standards, such as concussion substitutions during matches or training, and ensuring that people sit out when they have had a head injury and are given a proper amount of time to recover. There should also be consideration as to whether unnecessary repetitive exercises in training that include heading the ball are really necessary if they cause damage. These things need to be properly understood. In some cases, more research may be needed. We should look at this on an ongoing basis.

As a starting point, let us recognise the link that exists and the genuine need of support that some former players and their families have now. Football already respects the fact that the connection does exist, but we need a proper agreement to resource this and make sure that the support is there and the fund continues. I ask the Minister, as the Football Governance Bill passes through the House, to consider the role that the regulator can play in ensuring that the welfare and safety standards we should expect from clubs and competition organisers are actually followed through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Will my right hon. Friend also make representations to the FA and the EFL about the work being done on the brain health fund? On temporary concussion substitutions, the decision will be made not by the FA or the Scottish Football Association, but by the International Football Association Board, of which the largest component is FIFA. Will the Minister use his office and his position to make representations to FIFA and the International Football Association Board so that the voice of home associations is properly heard and action is taken to introduce temporary concussion substitutions?

[Stuart Andrew]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I have had letters from former footballers expressing concern about the fund, and I wrote just yesterday to the PFA to seek assurances that the fund is working. I recognise that there is wider work to be done, and I will be more than happy to convene a meeting or roundtable with all the interested bodies and reflect the comments that right hon. and hon. Members have made today. I will, of course, include FIFA.